Cicero's Speech Pro Rabirio Postumo [online ed.] 0199240965, 9780199240968

Citation preview

Oxford Scholarly Editions Online DEDICATION

Mary Siani-Davies (ed.), Clarendon Ancient History Series: Marcus Tullius Cicero: Pro Rabirio Postumo Published in print:

2001

Published online:

January 2017

........................................................................................................................... pg v For Peter ........................................................................................................................... pg vi

Page 1 of 1

Oxford Scholarly Editions Online PREFACE

Mary Siani-Davies (ed.), Clarendon Ancient History Series: Marcus Tullius Cicero: Pro Rabirio Postumo Published in print:

2001

Published online:

January 2017

........................................................................................................................... PG VII

PREFACE

When I first met Professor Alan Douglas at the University of Birmingham, little did I know that I would come out of his office with a task the fulfilment of which was to occupy several years of my life. After discussing and then discarding a number of ideas, Alan suggested that a commentary on Pro Rabirio Postumo would make a worthwhile project, especially as this Ciceronian speech had previously been somewhat neglected by scholars and had never been the subject of an English-language commentary. It was not long before I realized some of the reasons for this neglect. Not only was the text highly corrupt but also the legal and political background of the case was particularly complex. Cicero is deliberately evasive in Pro Rabirio Postumo, as his decision to argue Postumus' case on legal technicalities hides more than it reveals about the delicate 'Egyptian Question' which lies at its heart. To help explain the complexities behind the speech this book includes a substantial Introduction. This explores in detail relations between Ptolemy Auletes and the Romans, the legal procedure—Pro Rabirio Postumo is the only extant trial involving the use of the clause of the Julian law of extortion 'What has become of the money'—and the life of Gaius Rabirius Postumus, who is revealed to have been not a peripheral figure but an important actor in his own right on the stage of Late Republican politics. The Commentary that follows is mostly concerned with history but, when it is thought appropriate, some discussion of a linguistic, literary, and textual nature is also included. The translated passages in the Commentary are from the Loeb editions, unless otherwise stated, and all Ciceronian references are given in italics. Throughout, I have followed the Harvard (author-date) system of references, with a full Bibliography provided at the end of the book. To make the speech readily accessible to both students and scholars a new translation in English is also included, the first since that published by Loeb in 1931. The translation was produced in the sweltering heat of a small and cramped apartment in Bucharest, but I have tried throughout to pitch the English at the level of Cicero's rhetoric, whilst avoiding overindulgence in linguistic niceties. The translation is based on Clark's text M. Tulli Ciceronis

Page 1 of 3

........................................................................................................................... pg viii Orationes (Oxford, 1909), mainly because it offers the least emended text, closest to the original manuscript. In the few instances where my translation is semantically different from the text established by Clark I append a discussion in the Commentary. There are several people whom I would like to thank for their continuous encouragement, expert advice, and genuine interest in the subject of this book. Professor Alan Douglas was not only the inspiration behind this work but also found the time to read my translation critically and offer his expertise generously on the stylistic particularities of Ciceronian oratory. The late John M. Carter, who supervised the commentary as a Ph.D. thesis, played an enormous part in guiding me through the historical complexities of the speech. His friendship and scholarship have left an indelible mark on this work. Although I tried not to persecute Professor Herwig Maehler with too many queries about the Egyptian side of the speech, he spent time patiently explaining to me the idiosyncratic nature of the Ptolemies and their political system. Professor Barrie Hall was more than happy to discuss the textual complexities of the speech and made some pertinent suggestions, which contributed to the understanding of several key points. Professor Susanna Morton Braund also found the time to read the translation of the speech and made several valuable suggestions that improved the general tenor of the translation. Her enthusiasm and lively approach to scholarship are truly infectious. Professor Silvia Rizzo took the time to decipher and elucidate illegible ligatures and readings of the text in the margins of photostats of the original manuscript. Corresponding with Professor John Crook made me realize that there are few concrete answers when it comes to the intricacies of the Roman legal system. Professor Andrew Lintott kindly read sections of the Commentary and offered constructive criticism of my analysis of the penalties under the Julian law for extortion and, more specifically, on its clause 'What has become of the money'. Dr Duncan Cloud made jargon-free suggestions on the legal technicalities of the speech and took time to meet me and discuss them in person. I am also grateful to Professor Heikki Solin and Professor Olli Salomies for their advice on issues of nomenclature and particularly Professor Salomies, who provided me with a copy of an important inscription which otherwise would have escaped my attention. Professor Gian Luca Gregori also notified me of the existence of an, as yet, unpublished inscription, equally ........................................................................................................................... pg ix important for unravelling the onomastic complexities of Postumus' family name. Professor Carla Balconi was kind enough to send me a copy of her article on a recently discovered papyrus relating to Postumus' activities as the royal treasurer in Egypt, well in advance of its actual publication. Dr Andrew Drummond took the time and care to answer queries regarding Roman political offices. Gunter Kowa was frequently pestered to translate passages written in antiquated German, a process that tested not only his English but, at times, even our friendship. The staff of the library of the Institute of Classical Studies in London, and in particular Paul Jackson and Sue Willetts, have tirelessly answered my queries Page 2 of 3

and facilitated my endless search for lost references. This book has greatly benefited from Paul's encyclopaedic knowledge of old and new publications and Sue's expertise in computer packages. Professor Chris Carey displayed enough faith in my work to recommend it for publication to the Oxford University Press. For this, I wholeheartedly thank him. The editors of the series, above all Dr Miriam Griffin, have been lavish in their time and expert advice, and I owe a deep debt to them for their guidance and constant vigilance—although I am, of course, fully responsible for any errors which remain. I am also grateful to Ms Hilary O'Shea, who has successfully co-ordinated the whole project from beginning to end. The research for this book would not have been possible without the financial support of two institutions: the Athens Academy, which offered me a grant for four years, and the British Council, which financed my travel abroad. Finally, I would like to thank my mother for her unconditional love and constant support, and, most of all, my husband Peter, who watched over me so that I came out unscathed at the end of the tunnel. To him I dedicate this book. August 1999 M.S.-D. ........................................................................................................................... pg x

Page 3 of 3

Oxford Scholarly Editions Online ABBREVIATIONS

Mary Siani-Davies (ed.), Clarendon Ancient History Series: Marcus Tullius Cicero: Pro Rabirio Postumo Published in print:

2001

Published online:

January 2017

........................................................................................................................... PG XIII

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations of ancient authors and modern journals generally follow those used by The 3

Oxford Classical Dictionary (1996), L'Année philologique (Paris, 1924–), and E. W. Gray (ed.), Sources for Roman History, 133–70 B.C.: Collected and Arranged by A. H. J. Greenidge and A. M. Clay, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1986).

AE

L'Année épigraphique (Paris, 1889–).

BGU

Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Museen zu Berlin. Griechische Urkunden (Berlin, 1895–).

Broughton. Supplement

T. R. S. Broughton, Supplement to the Magistrates of the Roman Republic (Atlanta, Ga., 1986).

CAH

The Cambridge Ancient History IX (1994).

CIL

T. Mommsen et al. (eds.), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (Berlin, 1863–).

FIRA

S. Riccobono et al. (eds.), Fontes Iuris Romani Anteiustiniani, 3 vols. (Florence, 1940–3).

FGrH

F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin and Leiden. 1923–).

ILLRP

A. Degrassi (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, 2 vols. (Florence, 1957–63).

Page 1 of 2

ILS

H. Dessau (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1892–16).

K-St

R. Kühner and C. Stegmann, Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, 3rd edn. (Leverkusen, 1955).

lex rep.

Lex de rebus repetundis.

MRR

T. R. S. Broughton and M. L. Patterson, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 2 vols. New York. 1951–2).

OGIS

W. Dittenberger (ed.), Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, 2 vols. (Leipzig. 1903–5).

OLD

P. G. W. Glare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary (1968–82).

PP

W. Peremans and E. Van't Dack (comps.), Prosopographia Ptolemaica, 7 vols. (Louvain, 1950–81).

......................................................................................................................... pg xiv

RE

A. Pauly, G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll (ed.), Real-Encyclopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1893– 1980).

SB

F. Preisigke, F. Bilabel, and E. Kiessling, Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten (Strassburg, 1915–).

SEG

Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (Leiden, 1923–).

ThLL

Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig, 1900–).

Page 2 of 2

Oxford Scholarly Editions Online INTRODUCTION

Mary Siani-Davies (ed.), Clarendon Ancient History Series: Marcus Tullius Cicero: Pro Rabirio Postumo Published in print:

2001

Published online:

January 2017

........................................................................................................................... PG 1

INTRODUCTION

1. PTOLEMY XII AULETES AND THE ROMANS The Ciceronian speech Pro Rabirio Postumo is primarily concerned with the 'Egyptian question' which reverberated throughout Roman politics in the mid-fifties. Engaging all the key figures in contemporary Roman political life, this was to occasion furious debate in the Senate and lead to a Roman army marching into Alexandria, before it ended in a 1

series of high-profile court cases, the last of which was the trial of Gaius Rabirius Postumus. The King of Egypt at the time was Ptolemy XII Auletes. Within the speech, Cicero paints a highly negative picture of a 'capricious and untrustworthy' monarch, who appeared as 2

an importunate beggar before the Roman people. Cicero's caustic words have frequently found reflection in the works of historians. In the past they have tended to present the King as a weak ruler devoid of the talents and insight of a true statesman, who, in the latter years of his reign, was little more than a hapless marionette pulled by the strings of Roman 3

masters. Yet, Cicero's rhetoric in Pro Rabirio Postumo was never intended to be a historical record. It was primarily determined by the requirements of the occasion and, in particular, the need to win the case in question. Knowing full well the hostility the jury felt towards the Egyptian monarch, Cicero panders to their prejudices at the beginning of the speech so that he can virtually ignore the King during the remainder of the proceedings. The assumption apparently was that by rapidly dispensing with the King at the outset he could distance his client from the ill-starred monarch. The negative image of Ptolemy Auletes formed by previous historians is largely derived from the ancient sources, which generally ........................................................................................................................... pg 2 present the King as an incidental character in their broader chronicle of the rise of Rome as a political and military power. From their Romanocentric vantage point most pay little attention Page 1 of 91

to the decisive influence internal social conditions in Egypt, particularly in Alexandria, had on shaping the King's policies towards the Romans. However, recently a number of historians have begun to re-evaluate the existing evidence and, by taking into account papyrological findings, they have succeeded in offering a revised and more sympathetic 4

image of the King. This Introduction seeks to advance further this revisionist line by suggesting that Ptolemy Auletes was not so much a pawn of the Romans as a determined ruler struggling against considerable odds to maintain his hold on the Egyptian throne both for himself and his heirs. In the face of internal weakness and the growth of a self-confident and expansionist Rome, the tying of his fortunes to his powerful northern Mediterranean neighbours was a conscious decision made in the hope of rendering himself immune from both internal and external challenge. Relations between the kingdom of Egypt and the Roman Republic before the reign of Ptolemy Auletes can best be characterized as sporadic but generally good. The geographical distance between Egypt and Italy and the lack of any contiguous territory meant there were no obvious points of conflict. The initiative for the establishment of amicitia had been taken by the Egyptians in 273 when, under Ptolemy II Philadelphus, an embassy had been 5

dispatched to Rome bearing gifts and pledges of friendship. As Rome lacked diplomatic links with any of the countries of the East at that time, the opportunity to establish friendly relations was welcomed and drew a comparable gesture of high diplomacy, with envoys 6

being sent to Alexandria. Subsequently, although relations between the two countries remained generally amicable, the Egyptians seem to have been wary of becoming too deeply entangled in Roman ventures. For instance, in 87/86 they failed to ........................................................................................................................... pg 3 respond to L. Licinius Lucullus' appeal for ships to fight Mithridates and, instead, dispatched presents to try and appease their northern Mediterranean friends.

7

However, whilst officially the Egyptians may have adopted a policy of studied neutrality towards the Romans, the arrival on Italian shores of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II in 164, after he had been exiled by his brother Ptolemy VI Philometor, set a precedent for the aggrieved party in dynastic conflicts within the Ptolemaic court to turn to the Romans for support in 8

pressing their claims. The presence of these important Ptolemaic exiles in Italy was to provide the opportunity for recurrent Roman meddling in Egyptian affairs. Indeed, when Ptolemy Auletes' immediate predecessor Ptolemy XI Alexander II fled to Rome before the advancing Mithridates in 83, Sulla became directly involved in his affairs and allegedly sponsored his return. Alexander II eventually returned to Alexandria in 80 and, on arrival, he promptly put to death his queen Cleopatra Berenice III, who had usurped his position during his absence. In response, after the new monarch had ruled for a mere nineteen days, the Alexandrian mob extracted its revenge by murdering him in the gymnasium,

Page 2 of 91

incensed not only by the death of their queen but also, perhaps, by Sulla's involvement 9

in the whole affair. During his stay in Italy, Alexander II was said to have drawn up a testament bequeathing Egypt to Rome, although from Cicero's account it seems that nobody 10

ever saw the document. If the will did exist it seems most likely that it was the product of a private transaction between Sulla and Alexander II. Indeed, the fact that the will was never published might strengthen the supposition that it was not only an 'insurance policy' for the Egyptian King, as was usually the ........................................................................................................................... pg 4 case in such bequests, but also a reward, perhaps extorted under some pressure, for the young King's 'benefactor' Sulla. Earlier, in 96, Alexander II's predecessor Ptolemy Apion, at a time of dispute with his half-brother Soter II over the possession of Cyrene, had also bequeathed that province to the Romans, primarily, it seems, as a device to stave off any threat of assassination, and now the two wills were to remain Damoclean swords suspended 11

over the Egyptian lands which the Romans could wield as they saw fit.

When Ptolemy XII Theos Philopator Philadelphos Neos Dionysos, graced by his contemporaries with the epithet Auletes (the flute player), ascended the throne in Alexandria on 12 September 80, his right of succession was far from assured. According to eastern practices no greater precondition for legitimacy of rule existed than proper descent ('iure gentis et cognationis'), but by the time of Ptolemy Auletes the blood lines of the Ptolemaic dynasty were becoming increasingly diluted and some sources even suggest 12

that his mother was not of royal stock but a concubine. The new King's right to rule was quickly contested by Cleopatra V Selene, who other sources suggest may have been his actual mother. At any rate, she sought to advance the claims of her other children, and in 75 even journeyed to Rome in order to plead before the Senate the case of two of her sons, who were said to be of 'undoubted' Ptolemaic provenance and, hence, prospective claimants to the throne of Egypt. According to Cicero, Cleopatra Selene's claims drew little response from the Senate, other than a judgement that, as her sons were fathered by Antiochus Eusebes of 13

Syria, they did have full rights to that kingdom. Although this decision can be seen as an indication of the general reluctance of Rome to become actively involved in Egyptian affairs, the Romans ........................................................................................................................... pg 5 by and large do seem to have considered Ptolemy Auletes to have been the legitimate King ο‎f Egypt. In fact most of the ancient sources accept that Ptolemy Auletes was not the son of a concubine but the legitimate offspring of Ptolemy IX Lathyros and Cleopatra Selene, the brother of Cleopatra Berenice III, who was the daughter of Lathyros and Cleopatra IV, and the father of Cleopatra VII, who was the last of the race of the Lagides.

Page 3 of 91

14

The new King weathered these imputations of bastard birth and other initial challenges to his rule, but his hold on the throne appears to have remained precarious enough for him to continue to make strenuous efforts further to reinforce his legitimacy, beginning with a 15

marriage to his sister Cleopatra V Tryphaena, who was of undisputed royal provenance. Obviously, being granted the title of Pharaoh was no longer sufficient to guarantee the loyalty of his subjects and so considerable efforts were made to win over both the Greek and Egyptian populations. Careful attention was paid to the religious rites expected from an Egyptian monarch and the granting of special rights and asylum privileges to various

16

temples can be seen as an attempt to conciliate further the powerful native priesthood. The King also adopted the title 'Neos Dionysos'—Dionysos had always been considered one of the ancestors of the Ptolemaic dynasty—to emphasize the symbolic continuity between 17

himself and his Greek ancestry from the time of Alexander the Great. It was this same quest for additional legitimacy, perhaps coupled with a desire to demoralize his rivals, that was to lead the King to embark on the risky strategy of seeking approbation of his rule from the Romans through official recognition as a 'friend and ally' of Rome and the personal endorsement of powerful individuals. When Ptolemy Auletes ascended the throne, the old balance of power which had ensured two centuries of peaceful coexistence ........................................................................................................................... pg 6 between Egypt and Rome was already breaking down. For some time Egypt had been in seemingly terminal decline, losing land in Phoenicia, Coele Syria, Thrace, Asia Minor, and the Cyclades, and in 75 the new King was to be faced with a further loss of historic Ptolemaic 18

territory, as the Romans annexed Cyrene on the basis of Ptolemy Apion's will. The ancient sources provide no explanations as to why the Romans delayed for so long in executing the will, but modern historians have put forward a multiplicity of reasons ranging from a general policy of non-annexation at the time, or the size of Cyrene being insufficient to form a province, to the unattractiveness of having to mount a defence against marauding 19

desert tribes. Whatever the exact reason, before it would sanction the annexation of any of the Ptolemaic lands, including Egypt, it seems that the Senate had to be certain of clear practical gains and limited political consequences. In the case of Cyrene the practical gain seems to have been determined by the urgent need to secure the food supply of Rome. The new province was a corn-growing region and its annexation coincided with concerted attempts by the Romans to improve their grain-distribution system and reduce the risk of food shortages in the capital. Indeed, in the face of continuing instability in the area, pressure for annexation might well have also been exerted by the publicani who lived in 20

Cyrene managing the ager publicus.

Page 4 of 91

The limited political consequences were assured by

entrusting the annexation of the relatively small but rich province to a magistrate of the lowest rank, the Pompeian legate and quaestor P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, ........................................................................................................................... pg 7 who could be considered a threat to no man in Rome. Although Cyrene was officially part of the Egyptian lands, from before the reign of Ptolemy Auletes foreigners, at least, had viewed 21

it almost as a separate kingdom. Its loss to the Romans seems to have elicited no direct response from the Alexandrian King but, in his apparent blind indifference to the fate of Cyrene, he was only following in the footsteps of his two predecessors Ptolemy X Alexander I and Ptolemy IX Lathyros, neither of whom appears to have been greatly perturbed by the existence of the will—both, instead, being content to direct their attention towards Syria. However, perhaps not all Egyptians were so unconcerned about the loss of such a rich province, and when the King was to exhibit the same apparent indifference to the loss of Cyprus in 59, this seems to have been one of the causes of his overthrow in the following year. On the part of the Romans, at least as far as official policy was concerned, Egypt seems initially to have been viewed with some indifference; this being best exemplified by the failure to execute rapidly the royal wills. Indeed, although Rome seldom missed a chance of displaying the power which the Republic now exercised over the kings of the East, in the case of Egypt it showed no propensity to intervene, even though ample occasions for 22

doing so existed. Instead, Roman preoccupations with Mithridates and Tigranes led to an erratic eastern policy in which Egypt appears to have been low on the list of priorities. However, although it had lost some of the lustre of former years, by the time of Ptolemy Auletes Egypt remained a rich and potentially glittering prize, with Alexandria still one of the 23

foremost commercial centres of the Mediterranean. The increasing frequency of business transactions between Italy and Egypt and the official accounts of various embassies seem to have excited the imagination of the Romans and served to cultivate the image of Egypt as an exotic country full of riches and, for those seeking it, a possible source of political 24

power.

........................................................................................................................... pg 8 However, it was not just the dynastic strife between the Ptolemies, the annexation of Cyrene and other lands, and the myths of fabled wealth that were to draw the Romans increasingly into Egyptian affairs. The real change in the relations between the two states came in the sixties and fifties with the breakdown of the traditional political order in Rome, as the Senate's authority no longer sufficed to control some of the more powerful individuals. In the process, Rome's relations with the eastern monarchs became more and more personalized and based on mutual profit, as the kings were drawn into the Roman political arena both as pawns and players. Especially after the formation of the first triumvirate, grants of Page 5 of 91

Rome's friendship became increasingly dependent upon the changing domestic fortunes 25

of a few powerful individuals. However, throughout this period the triumvirs did not have an entirely free hand, because their plans were constantly disrupted by groups within the Senate. During the seventies and sixties L. Licinius Lucullus, Catulus, and Q. Hortensius made common cause against Pompey, and later M. Porcius Cato was to rally the opposition against all the triumvirs. Indeed, it was Cato in Rhodes who in 58 vainly warned Ptolemy Auletes, on his way to Italy, that by going to Rome he would place himself in the hands of men with an insatiable desire for wealth and power.

26

The first of the triumvirs to show a serious interest in Egypt was M. Licinius Crassus. Following the successful acquisition of Cyrene he made the first of his several attempts to annex Egypt itself in 65, as part of a set of schemes designed to win for himself a position of power independent of the aristocratic oligarchy and to reinforce his political stance vis-àvis Pompey. His attempt to annex Egypt was made on the basis of the purported testament 27

of Ptolemy XI Alexander II by which the kingdom had been bequeathed to the Romans. In his de rege Alexandrino Cicero paints a colourful picture of the alarmist rhetoric employed by Crassus in his efforts ........................................................................................................................... pg 9 to justify his scheme as, aside from arguing that the stipulations of the royal will were being transgressed, he drew allusions to a parallel case involving the will of Micipsa, the King of Numadia. This undoubtedly would have provoked bitter memories among the Romans, as the will had led to them becoming embroiled in a lengthy and futile war against 28

Jugurtha. The bill met vigorous opposition from, among others, Crassus' fellow censor Q. Lutatius Catulus, who dismissed it as being too daring and risky, and subsequently it was resoundingly quashed. Cicero, who was among those who opposed the scheme, in his de rege Alexandrino describes Crassus' proposal as mere profiteering and charges that behind his ostensible concern for the State lies nothing more than greed for wealth and power. Moreover, in Cicero's eyes, any war embarked upon to annex Egypt would have been 29

an unjust war and one far from conforming to the Roman principles of fides and pietas. Crassus was embarking on nothing short of a piece of naked political blackmail, as he attempted to browbeat the Senate into backing his mission, by suggesting that otherwise they would be merely furthering the bribery and corruption which had become associated with the 'policy' of 'accepting as friends those who were prepared to pay and casting as 30

enemies those who were not'. It also seems likely that Crassus saw the annexation of Egypt as an opportunity to secure enough money for land settlement before the return of Pompey, as he was to try once again with the Rullan law. Whatever his intentions, a move towards the annexation of Egypt fits perfectly with the politics of opportunistic imperialism prevalent at the time.

Page 6 of 91

Crassus may also have been one of the prime instigators behind a more indirect attempt to acquire the putative inheritance of Egypt through an agrarian bill introduced by the tribune Rullus in 63. Information on this comes primarily from the three speeches, delivered first before the Senate and later before the general public, with which Cicero inaugurated his consulship in 63. The bill proposed that a commission of decemviri should be appointed with the power to distribute all public land both within and without Italy in order to alleviate poverty. However, unlike other land, such as the estates of ........................................................................................................................... pg 10 Mithridates recently conquered by Pompey, there was no explicit reference to Egypt in the bill. It apparently would have been left to the commissioners to decide whether, on the strength of the late King's will, Egypt belonged to Rome and, hence, its land could be considered as ager publicus to be distributed to the poor—just like Bithynia (also before its 31

annexation), whose land was listed among those to be sold nominatim.

It is unclear whether either of Crassus' proposals received the backing of Caesar. In 65 he was aedile and it may be that, with his eyes fixed on the possibility of obtaining an extraordinary command to execute the testament, Caesar enlisted some tribunes to introduce the bill. Suetonius states that Caesar was involved, but the events he describes appear to appertain to 58, when Ptolemy Auletes was already socius et amicus, rather than 65. In his accounts Cicero furnishes no other names but suggests that Crassus was backed by others and that the same men who were behind the attempt to annex Egypt in 65 were 32

also behind Rullus' bill proposed two years later. The similarities between a number of features of the Rullan bill and Caesar's own agrarian legislation of 59 also betray, if not collaboration, similar political concerns. The mode of election to the commission, through popular approbation, also resembles that employed to choose the Pontifex Maximus, an 33

office held by Caesar himself in 63. Rullus' proposal was rejected, but, rather than being an isolated event, it should be seen as part of the great power struggle then raging in Rome prior to Pompey's return. Had the proposal been accepted, then Crassus and Caesar would have been able to bypass the Senate's opposition to direct Roman intervention in Egypt and, in the process, put themselves in a position to counterbalance Pompey's political power. ........................................................................................................................... pg 11 Although of all the triumvirs it was Pompey whose power primarily rested on his many triumphs in the East, he initially appears to have had only cursory contact with Egypt, and it is not even certain whether he met Ptolemy Auletes before the King arrived in Rome as an exile in 58. A much earlier date for their first encounter has been advanced by Piganiol, who suggests they met in the autumn of 67. His main evidence for this encounter comes from an undated descriptive passage in Lucan's Civil War, where it is stated that Pompey had travelled as far as Syene in Egypt: 'No region of the world is without me, but the entire

Page 7 of 91

earth, / whatever sun it lies beneath, is filled by my trophies: / on one side the north has seen my victories on the icy waters / of Phasis, the southern clime is known to me in torrid / Egypt and Syene, which does not slant its shadows to either side / the west fears my control, 34

Hesperian Baetis too'. However, the evidence for the dating remains inconclusive, largely because little time would, at first sight, have been available in a crowded year which saw Pompey defeat and settle the pirates in many places, including Cilicia, Achaea, Calabria, and Cyrene. Indeed, Plutarch, narrating the events after the successful war against the pirates, states that Pompey visited 'τὰς πόλεις‎', which may imply that during this time he 35

was occupied by journeying to some of the various colonies founded. The imminence of the threat posed by Mithridates would also hardly have been conducive to a diverting jaunt to Egypt, whether for pleasure and from a professed desire to observe at first hand the rich culture, or for business and from an interest in striking private deals with Ptolemy 36

Auletes.

Furthermore, a visit to Egypt by Pompey at this time would have been of such 37

importance that some trace might be expected in the historical record. However, even if the two men did not have a face-to-face encounter, this does not mean they did not enjoy good relations. The dispatch of 8,000 armed men and gifts by Ptolemy Auletes to Pompey during the Mithridatic war of the next year would seem to suggest some previous contact. Indeed, it has been suggested that Crassus' complaint about ........................................................................................................................... pg 12 Ptolemy Auletes' arrival in Rome, which is related in Cicero's speech Pro Caelio, confirms this assumption. Crassus' displeasure is voiced through a passage taken from Ennius' Medea Exul and Seager has argued that the metaphors within this text can be interpreted to suggest that Ptolemy Auletes only ventured to Rome after a prior meeting in Egypt with Pompey: 'if Jason [Pompey] had not sailed from Greece [Italy] to Colchis [Egypt], Medea [Ptolemy Auletes] would not have sailed from Colchis [Egypt] to Greece [Italy] smitten with love for 38

Jason'. Therefore, it is just possible that Pompey might have visited Egypt prior to the encounter between the two men at Pompey's Alban villa in Rome in 58, but the historicity of this event is contested and the received wisdom is that it took place in 67. Pompey was an important ally for Ptolemy Auletes to win over, if he intended to proceed with his plan to gain recognition from Rome, and he may also have harboured hopes that Pompey could be persuaded to intervene in his kingdom on his behalf at times of need. In this he was to be disappointed, for in 63 the Roman general failed to respond to the King's cry for help, when his throne was threatened by domestic unrest. In general, the dynamic within their relationship at this time seems to have been set more by the Egyptian King, for, despite his abiding interest in obtaining an Egyptian command, Pompey appears to have 39

remained cautious, recognizing that 'the risks were great' His perfunctory response must have driven home to Ptolemy Auletes that the reluctant Romans would strike a hard bargain,

Page 8 of 91

and a substantial reward would have to be presented to them, well above 8,000 men and some precious gifts, in order to spur them into action—as did happen later in his reign. ........................................................................................................................... pg 13 At first sight the least interested of the triumvirs in Egypt was Caesar. Apart from his involvement in Crassus' earlier plans, Caesar only really became directly involved in Egyptian affairs during his consulship of 59, when Ptolemy Auletes made another attempt to be officially recognized as a friend and ally of the Roman people. The Egyptian King had made persistent efforts to gain such a status—which signified co-operation between sovereign states—since the eighties, but, despite the support of the consul Hortensius in 69, 40

his plans had so far come to naught. In 59 Caesar's star was in the ascendant—Cicero just a year before had remarked that, 'The wind is in his sails just now'—and, taking advantage of a period of general stasis on the part of the opposition, he seems to have encountered few difficulties in having the King recognized as a socius et amicus of Rome, with the title being 41

duly confirmed 'both by law and by decree of the Senate'. Although the service Ptolemy Auletes had rendered to the Roman army in Syria would probably have been sufficient to justify such an award, Caesar's prime motivation for securing his recognition seems to have 42

been pecuniary. Egypt was a potentially fecund source of money and this was especially needed at the time of his land-distribution measures. It was alleged that both Caesar and Pompey benefited from the largesse of 6,000 talents distributed by the King, and Crassus 43

also seems to have received some reward. Part of the money was apparently fetched from the King in Alexandria by a prestigious Roman embassy, whilst the remainder was borrowed 44

from financiers, the most significant of whom was Postumus. in the affair, when in 59 he was

Even Cicero became involved

........................................................................................................................... pg 14 offered an ambassadorship (libera legatio) to the triumvirs' new Egyptian ally. Although he confessed that he had long wanted to see Alexandria and the rest of Egypt, he dismissed this opportunity, as it was against his principles and he considered it deleterious to his 45

reputation.

In Alexandria the uncertainty surrounding Ptolemy Auletes' attempts to gain recognition from the Romans seems to have bred an atmosphere of apprehension. Diodorus, who was present in Egypt at the time, indicated that the people (ὄχλος‎) in Alexandria made considerable efforts to treat an Italian embassy which was then visiting the city with the 46

utmost respect, offering no cause for complaint or pretext for war. Such deference would seem to indicate that the long-disputed recognition of the King was an open subject of political concern and his subsequent success in acquiring the status of socius et amicus seems to have been considered, at least by him, to be a cause for public celebration, as

Page 9 of 91

47

can be seen from the decrees issued at the time. However, any euphoria was short-lived as, within a year, by autumn 58, Ptolemy Auletes was apparently forced out of his kingdom and was seeking aid for his cause in Rome—following the aforementioned well-established pattern frequently adopted after dynastic strife in Alexandria.

48

In their descriptions of the departure of Ptolemy Auletes from Egypt the ancient sources can broadly be divided between those which claim he went into voluntary exile and those which suggest he was violently expelled from the kingdom. The chief source for the former point of view is Dio, who suggests that Ptolemy Auletes left Alexandria of his own volition, with the population ignorant of his departure or supposing him to be dead. Dio adds that it was only when the King arrived in Rome that he accused his countrymen of having expelled him from his kingdom.

49

The

........................................................................................................................... pg 15 overwhelming majority of the sources, however, including the contemporary Cicero, incline to a view of forcible expulsion, although the exact mechanics of the overthrow and the degree of coercion exerted on the King are rarely specified. It is only the much later Justin 50

who explicitly refers to expulsion by revolt. Instead, the sources merely state that it was popular discontent among the Alexandrians which lay at the root of the King's misfortunes, although this leaves open the possibility that, like so many of his predecessors, he fell foul of the notorious Alexandrian mob. By the time of Ptolemy Auletes, the population of the Egyptian capital was approaching one million and within this teeming metropolis urban violence seems to have been endemic. It appears to have constituted an inherent part of the lives of the Alexandrians who 'in seditions … always become involved in slaughter, setting no value upon life as compared with the rivalry of the moment, but pursuing 51

destruction in such quarrels as if it were one of the best and dearest prizes'. It seems that the Alexandrians were well aware of the power of protest and were accustomed to getting their way by such means. In a powerful speech delivered to the Alexandrian populace (δῆμος‎) during his stay in the city between 71 and 75 AD, Dio Chrysostom, as he attempts to dissuade them from their habit of rioting at public spectacles, holds them strictly responsible for the King's flight into exile. Within the confines of the speech he does not present a complete picture of the reasons for their revolt, but the inference is that it was a combination of their general hostility to the King and factional strife (στασιαστικῶς διέκεισθε‎) within the city which caused Ptolemy Auletes to flee, 'so he lost the city by piping 52

and you [Alexandrians] by dancing'. Indeed, at the time within the city there does seem to have arisen something akin to an organized opposition to the King, with several political pluralities ........................................................................................................................... pg 16

Page 10 of 91

(ἑταιρεῖαι‎) emerging, including a group known as 'Σιμαρίστειοι‎' led by the eponymous 53

Σιμάριστος‎.

Other sources, including Plutarch, Strabo, and Appian, also imply that the cause of the expulsion was disagreement and conflict between the King and the recalcitrant populace of Alexandria and when, during the debates of 56 in Rome, it was proposed that Pompey should travel to Alexandria, it was specifically stated that he was to act as a mediator between the 54

ruler and his subjects. A suggestion of popular disenchantment even prevails among those sources favourable to the King, with Livy narrating a pro–royal melodrama which portrays a tortured King fleeing his kingdom because of the wrongs he had suffered at the hands of his 55

subjects. However, although virtually all the accounts agree on 'the Alexandrians' being the driving force behind the ill-starred King's fate, this is an all-encompassing term which could hide a multitude of people ranging from the frenzied city mob to the high-ranking 56

citizens. Indeed, instead of any specific group the use of this generic term may indicate rather the general feeling of discontent which appears to have loomed over the capital at 57

that time.

Perhaps the greatest potential source of unhappiness was the loss of Cyprus, the last Ptolemaic possession outside Egypt, to the Romans, which occurred less than a month before the expulsion of the King. From Dio's account that '[the Egyptians] had bidden him ........................................................................................................................... pg 17 [Ptolemy Auletes] demand back Cyprus from the Romans or else renounce his friendship for them' it appears that the Alexandrians had aptly associated Ptolemy Auletes' newly won amicitia with the loss of further territory. Perhaps, the reduction of Cyprus to a Roman province was a hidden part of the payment Ptolemy Auletes had to make to the Romans for his recognition. Or it may have been that Ptolemy of Cyprus, allegedly an avaricious monarch, refused to follow the example of his brother and pay the huge sums of money necessary for him to retain his independence. After the annexation Ptolemy of Cyprus committed suicide, and it is more likely that he was just unable to raise sufficient money to satiate the appetite of the Romans. At any rate, the apathy of Ptolemy Auletes, who ironically bore the title of 'Philadelphus', in the face of the annexation might be construed 58

as amounting, if nothing else, to a tacit approval. In the face of this apparent loss, the limits of the Alexandrians' patience with their 'feeble King' seem to have been exceeded and it may well have served as the trigger for his expulsion. The law by which Cyprus was annexed to Rome was promulgated by P. Clodius Pulcher, the tribune of that year and friend of Caesar, and the expected opposition from the Senate and the Catonian faction was 59

conveniently silenced by appointing Cato himself to execute the operation. The financial gains from the annexation were considerable, as the property of the King fetched 7,000

Page 11 of 91

talents at a public auction and, in subsequent years, the island yielded 168 million sesterces per annum to the Roman treasury—a sum which may well have whetted the appetite for 60

further Ptolemaic plunder.

........................................................................................................................... pg 18 From Dio's comments about the popular anger at the loss of Cyprus it would seem that there was considerable hostility in Alexandria to the close ties that had grown between Ptolemy Auletes and the Romans. Indicative of this public feeling is the unfortunate incident which occurred in 60, in which a Roman who killed a cat, a sacred animal for the 61

Egyptians, was lynched by an angry crowd. Indeed, the Romans were in such trepidation about the Alexandrian mob that when, in 56, during the debates over the nomination of a suitable person to restore Ptolemy Auletes to his throne in Egypt, Canidius, as tribune of the People, proposed that Pompey should travel to Alexandria for the task but without his army and accompanied only by two lictors, the general refused to contemplate such 62

a proposition, because he considered his life would be in severe danger. In Alexandria, popular discontent with the Romans may also have been fuelled at the time by a further increase in the already heavy tax demands, as the King was compelled to resort to the forceful extraction of money from his subjects ('βιαíως ἠργυρολόγει‎') to pay back the large loans taken out to secure his recognition by Rome. It was upon the lower classes that the, already onerous, burden of taxation fell most heavily, and, when this was combined with poverty and the frustrations engendered by restricted upward mobility, a volatile mix was 63

brewed which could readily have boiled over into widespread unrest.

........................................................................................................................... pg 19 Factional infighting within the court may also have played a role in Ptolemy Auletes' downfall. Indeed, conflict between the monarch and powerful courtiers, soldiers, and priests was a constant in Egyptian political life at this time. A study of the available evidence on changes in the composition of the court over the period in question reveals two broad 64

groupings of courtiers aligned according to their attitude towards the King. The first of these comprises those who appear to have remained loyal to the monarch throughout this period. Some of these stayed in Egypt during the King's exile, when they were either dispossessed of their posts or voluntarily retired from public life, whilst others staunchly followed him to Rome where, according to Cicero, money borrowed from Postumus was spent on the upkeep of a sizeable retinue. Once the King was returned to his throne many members of this faction returned to power, including figures such as Heliodoros, who had been strategos of the Heracleopolite nome, and Monkores and Pelais, who had been 65

respectively strategos and general of the Ombite nome. The second grouping consists of those who continued to hold office under the two queens, Cleopatra V Tryphaena and Berenice IV, after the removal of the King. From among the ranks of this group it may be

Page 12 of 91

presumed came some of those who masterminded the overthrow of Ptolemy Auletes— perhaps courtiers such as Hephaistion, who, among other important offices, held the post of chief royal treasurer, and Paniskos, general of the nome of Heracleopolis. However, if through their actions the members of this faction hoped to break the growing links between Rome and Egypt, they were to be sorely disappointed, since in exile the King was only driven further into the arms of their enemies, regardless of what his real sentiments might have 66

been towards the Romans.

........................................................................................................................... pg 20 Since the sources speak of no military intervention by the King's regular army on his behalf, it might be presumed that the armed forces either adopted a neutral posture or that they were even hostile enough to join the crowds in their protests against Ptolemy Auletes. A parallel example would be the case of Ptolemy X Alexander I, who was expelled from Egypt in 89 because his army failed to support him when he was faced by popular unrest among 67

the Alexandrians. Perhaps, in his efforts to pay back his hefty loans from the Romans the King may have unwisely neglected some areas of the administration, including the army. Later in the year, during the reign of the two queens, the army was called upon to suppress disturbances in Heracleopolis, but this does not provide any clear indications about its overall loyalty at this time, since the deployment then was only on a limited local scale. It may also have been that the army commanders were more willing to intervene because the request was apparently made in the name of 'the people' by the strategos. Their action was, therefore, sanctioned by some form of popular approval, although the exact identity of 'the 68

people' in this case remains unknown. Although the exact causes of the king's overthrow remain unknown, it seems possible to conclude that it was the result of some combination of court intrigue, loss of military backing, and popular agitation by the Alexandrian mob. After his departure from Egypt, probably in August 58, Ptolemy Auletes, who may have been accompanied by his eleven-year-old daughter, the future Queen Cleopatra VII, journeyed 69

first to Cyprus and then, perhaps via Greece, to Rome. Arriving in the city in the autumn of 58, he established his headquarters in the Alban villa of Pompey, where he was to remain for 70

almost a year.

........................................................................................................................... pg 21 Rome, for the King, was a haven of safety and a potential springboard for the reclamation of his throne. He busily set about trying to win over Senators and powerful politicians to his cause by enticing them with huge bribes—a tactic historically used by princes and kings 71

to influence the decisions of the Senate. However, Ptolemy Auletes' intrigues became particularly notorious, and presumably Pompey, his host—who was also huddled in the confines of his house owing to the continuous attacks of P. Clodius Pulcher—was not ignorant

Page 13 of 91

72

of his activities or the object at which they aimed. The King borrowed considerably, augmenting his earlier loans from Postumus and other financiers with the contracts being 73

signed at Pompey's villa. Such was the extent of Ptolemy Auletes' borrowing that it must soon have become clear to the businessmen and moneylenders, who provided him with funds, that only if the King's wealth, temporarily out of reach, was restored to his grasp would they secure a return on their investments. Indeed, they must have been well aware that this could only happen through a military expedition to Egypt, which would itself require extra finance, but they seem to have been ready to provide this, no doubt allured by the 74

expectation of reaping even greater rewards once the King was restored to his throne.

After Ptolemy Auletes had left Alexandria, Egypt came under the joint reign of his wife and sister Cleopatra V Tryphaena and daughter Berenice IV—the former reappearing after a long absence from the sources to give legitimacy to a new regime once again. Their period of joint rule seems to have lasted for less than a year before, according to Porphyry, it came to an end on account of Cleopatra V Tryphaena's death. However, the veracity of this ........................................................................................................................... pg 22 account is cast into doubt by a demotic graffito dated 4 January 55 which was discovered in a crypt of the great temple at Dendera. This refers to the year as being 'year 26' of Ptolemy Auletes and 'year 3' of a Cleopatra—presumably Cleopatra V Tryphaena. This graffito was probably based on sound intelligence, since it belongs to the strategos Kalasiris, a son of Monkores and a member of the high court in Thebes. Not only does it suggest that Cleopatra V Tryphaena was still alive at the beginning of 55 but the pairing of her name with her husband would also seem to indicate that she was no longer associated with Berenice IV. So, could it be that she did not die but withdrew from the political scene, perhaps because 75

of dynastic strife with Berenice? Whatever the circumstances of Cleopatra Tryphaena's disappearance, Berenice IV continued to rule alone for at least another year, between summer 57 and summer 56. However, her hold on the throne seems to have remained shaky and, in the face of the impending threat from Rome, strenuous efforts were made to find her a husband of royal rank so as to bolster her rule.

76

A home-grown 'incestuous candidate' appears to have been ruled out either because none was available or because it would have been too likely to upset the balance of power within the court. Instead, the search appears to have concentrated on securing a foreign candidate of suitable royal provenance. However, the Romans appear to have been fully privy to these plans. Gabinius, in particular, sought to thwart the prospect of undesirable candidates and influence the Egyptians towards a more acceptable choice. Thus, Antiochus XIII Asiaticus conveniently died of an 'illness', the candidacy of Philip II Barypous was obstructed by Gabinius, and the royal lineage of Seleucus, the successful suitor, was so besmirched through rumour that Berenice is said to have had him strangled

Page 14 of 91

........................................................................................................................... pg 23 77

within a few days of their marriage.

Finally, the Alexandrians settled on Archelaus, who 78

claimed royal descent as son of Mithridates Eupator. However, whether he actually took the crown is a matter of debate because, although his marriage to Berenice IV is not disputed, the conspicuous absence of his name in papyri from this period has led some scholars to believe that he did not, as such, ascend the throne but remained merely a 79

consort. Whatever his exact status, Archelaus' selection would have been of keen interest to the Romans and, indeed, his connections might suggest that he could be considered 'their' candidate. He was familiar not only to Pompey, who appointed him as the high priest at the great temple of Ma at Comana during his reorganization of the East, but also to Gabinius since, before his arrival in Alexandria, he was a member of his staff in Syria, 80

preparing for the proposed invasion of Parthia. However, if it were true that Archelaus was the candidate of Pompey and Gabinius, it would be necessary to explain how he came to lead an army against his erstwhile 'mentors' at the battle of Pelusium. It could be either that he developed a liking for power and became too independent of his former patrons or that Pompey, realizing that the prevalent atmosphere in Rome called for the return of the King, was forced to abandon his putative protégé and make the best of a bad job by sponsoring the restoration under his henchman Gabinius. And, although Strabo suggests that Archelaus left for Egypt suddenly after secret negotiations with the Alexandrians without telling Gabinius of his plans, given the degree of Roman complicity in procuring an acceptable candidate for the Egyptian marriage, his departure must have been at least expected. Archelaus must have left Syria, at the latest, sometime ........................................................................................................................... pg 24 in winter 57/56, for the first possible indication of his presence in Egypt dates from March/ 81

April 56.

At about the same time as Archelaus probably left Syria in 57/56, the Alexandrians, aware of the machinations of their King in Rome, sent an embassy to the city to state their opposition to his securing his restoration through Roman military intervention. Drastic steps were taken to stymie this mission. The leader, the Academic philosopher Dio, was poisoned just before his meeting with the Senators, and most of the rest were brutally slain by hired assassins. Although Ptolemy Auletes was not personally accused of the murders, since he could rely on powerful friends, such as Pompey, for protection, he still felt it more diplomatic to withdraw from Rome, leaving his agents behind to act on his behalf, and, at the beginning of 56, he sought refuge at the temple of Artemis in Ephesus.

82

During this period the question of how the King was to be restored remained at the top of the political agenda in Rome, occasioning furious debate in the Senate as the search

Page 15 of 91

continued for a competent and trustworthy individual suitable for the leadership of a military expedition. In the contest to decide on a candidate every devious ploy seems to have been exploited, with, at one point, a group around the young tribune Gains Porcius Cato even using the Sibylline books as evidence that the restoration of the King by military force was 83

forbidden by the gods. The divisions mirrored the factional politics of the time, as money flowed freely in lavish bribes and all personal debts and affiliations were called upon. The King's agents and creditors openly expressed their desire that Pompey should lead the campaign and did their utmost ........................................................................................................................... pg 25 84

to prevent an alternative being chosen. However, by 57 their efforts seem to have failed and the matter was ostensibly settled in favour of Lentulus Spinther, a consul of that year, 85

his appointment being duly confirmed by the Senate. However, by January 56, following the consultation of the Sibylline books, the decision to restore the King through a military undertaking had been overturned and the debate resumed over which alternative strategies might be adopted. Although Lentulus' candidature for a military expedition continued to be pressed by Cicero, Hortensius, and Lucullus, among others, in effect this indecision by the 86

Senate left the field open for a restoration of the King by the triumvirs or their allies.

Among the triumvirs, Crassus seems to have also retained an interest in obtaining the commission for himself, principally, it seems, on the grounds that he did not wish to see Pompey secure a sole command once again. However, Cicero was of the opinion that by this time Pompey had lost interest in the 'Egyptian question' and dropped the matter of the restoration, although it should be noted that even to Cicero himself Pompey's ambitions with regard to the Egyptian command had always seemed slightly obscure. In fact, the prevarication of the Senate over the appointment of a commander for the operation allowed Pompey, more secure in his political position following the renewal of triumviral co-operation at the conference of Luca in April 56, to sponsor the restoration through his protégé Aulus Gabinius, the proconsul of Syria. Gabinius' was a candidature which the Senate would have been most unlikely to contemplate for the command, as he seems to have been totally out of favour, having been refused a supplicatio in May 56 for his Jewish campaign—something 87

completely without precedent, according to Cicero.

........................................................................................................................... pg 26 Since 57 Gabinius had been the proconsul of Syria and it was there that news of the plans for the restoration of the King must have reached him. At this time he was preparing for an invasion of Parthia in support of Mithridates and Orsanes against their usurping brother 88

King Orodes. Within the Pro Rabirio Postumo the motives that Cicero ascribes to Gabinius for accepting such a mission would seem to be largely determined by the rhetorical needs

Page 16 of 91

of the occasion. Apart from suggesting that he had, in fact, legal authorization for such an operation and stating that money was not used for non-military purposes, Cicero also argues that Gabinius acted in the interest of the State to protect Syria and its vital grain 89

supplies from the vagaries of Archelaus' pirate fleets. However, barring Gabinius' reported statement that Archelaus was encouraging piracy, little further evidence of such a threat exists, although, whilst the proconsul was away in Egypt, the Syrians did complain that 90

they had come under attack by pirates. In fact, evidence from the primary sources points to the fact that Gabinius acted on the direct orders of Pompey, although Cicero is careful not to implicate him or any other leading political figure in any wrongdoing. The principal inducement for both Gabinius and Pompey was the huge fee of 10,000 talents promised by 91

Ptolemy Auletes.

The decision of the Senate not to support the restoration of the King through military action and the news of Archelaus' arrival in Egypt in the middle of March 56 must have caused considerable concern not only to the King but also to those in Rome who had a vested interest in securing his restoration. Indeed, within the speech Cicero uses the verb contenderat to describe Postumus' departure ........................................................................................................................... pg 27 92

from Rome, suggesting it was hurried (if not unexpected to him). Cicero intimates that Postumus left for Cilicia, the province of Lentulus, but fails to give any explanation why this should have been his destination. No obvious purpose would have been served by a meeting of the two men at this time and it may be that this declaration merely contributed to the rhetorical effect needed by Cicero to distance his client's case from that of Gabinius. Anyway, Postumus' destination beyond Cilicia is not mentioned by Cicero, and, almost certainly, it was the neighbouring province of Syria. Dio records that it was Ptolemy Auletes who in person handed a confidential message from Pompey to Gabinius, and, in the absence of any reference to the King returning from Ephesus to Italy to receive such a letter, it may be suggested that it was Postumus who was delegated as courier for such an important errand. If so, Postumus must have joined the King somewhere en route between Ephesus and Gabinius' camp which, according to the sources, at this time lay across the Euphrates on 93

the way to Parthia. A combination of the King's enticements—he seems to have paid some of the money in advance—and, perhaps, promises of protection from Pompey was sufficient to persuade the general to change his plans and march on Egypt instead. Given the King's financial predicament any money that did pass to Gabinius at this time can only have come 94

from Roman financiers such as Postumus.

No specific date is given in the sources for the beginning of the military campaign to restore the King, but early summer 56 would seem most plausible. Strabo states that

Page 17 of 91

95

Archelaus 'ruled' only for the short period of six months. If the date for Archelaus' arrival in Alexandria is accepted as being March/April 56, then this would indicate that his death at the battle of Pelusium occurred around ........................................................................................................................... pg 28 October 56. Additional evidence to support this dating comes from Cicero who, despite the decision of the Senate to abandon plans for a military campaign, continued, in a series of almost monthly letters, to encourage Lentulus not to hold back from undertaking the 96

expedition to Egypt. The last of these letters is dated late June or the beginning of July 56, suggesting that it was not long afterwards that some news, most likely of Gabinius' fait accompli, reached Cicero's ears, which again suggests that Gabinius marched his army from 97

Syria sometime in the early summer of 56.

Gabinius must have mustered a substantial force for what he expected to be a difficult campaign against the Parthians. Now, with Mark Antony and a large force of cavalry in the van, he appears to have swiftly turned the whole of this large and experienced army, with his fleet in support, towards Egypt for a task he seems to have judged to be potentially of equal difficulty ('Αἲγυπιον δ‎ʼ ἰέναι δολιχὴν ὁδὸν ἀργαλέην τε‎').

98

Indeed, the Syrians were 99

subsequently to complain that he had left the province defenceless. Gabinius seems to have made good progress on the long journey from the Euphrates to Egypt. Dio states that he was only detained for a short time on the way by the need to arrest Aristobulus, the Judaean leader, who was apparently causing some unrest after escaping from Rome. Once in custody, he was sent to Pompey.

100

He may also have been briefly delayed

........................................................................................................................... pg 29 by the tribute he collected in Palestine, although the experienced Syrian tax farmers from Tyre within his retinue no doubt facilitated this process. The ease of Gabinius' journey was assured through the good offices of Antipater the Idumaean, who was, in effect, the head of the Jewish state, since he was said to enjoy complete influence over the official ruler Hyrcanus II. He provided Gabinius with money, troops, and provisions and apparently 101

arranged a free passage to Egypt for his army.

The Roman army crossed into Egypt near Pelusium. Gabinius split his army into two divisions and just outside the town completely vanquished the Egyptian forces which had gathered under Archelaus. The sources say little about the battle, but Pelusium lies in a region replete with lakes, large areas of marshland, and muddy lagoons, which make it a difficult town to reach, especially from Alexandria and the East. It is possible that these geographic obstacles may have prevented Archelaus, who seems to have rushed to meet the Romans in battle as soon as they entered Egyptian lands, from mobilizing substantial military units to reinforce

Page 18 of 91

102

any local border garrison. Certainly, the rout of the Egyptian army seems to have been complete. Archelaus died in the battle, allegedly slain by Gabinius himself. Afterwards the Egyptian leader received a soldier's burial from his friend Mark Antony, the commander of the Roman cavalry, who had, perhaps, come to know him in the camp of Gabinius in Syria and who won praise for this gesture from the family of the fallen Archelaus.

103

Victory at Pelusium did not mean that Ptolemy Auletes was restored to his throne, and now Gabinius began the long and arduous passage to Alexandria. The geography of the Nile Delta is such as not to allow—even today—easy access from the eastern to the western side without first undertaking a long detour to the ........................................................................................................................... pg 30 104

south. It, thus, seems highly probable that Gabinius on his journey to Alexandria had to march his army along the existing roads almost as far south as Memphis before turning again to the sea. It also seems likely that his fleet, sailing on the navigable arms of the Delta up from the Mendesian Mouth (Damietta) to the apex at Heliopolis and then down towards Alexandria through the branch that reaches the sea at the Bolbitine Mouth (Rosetta), stayed in support throughout this journey, as Dio mentions military engagements on the river after the battle of Pelusium. Strabo states that the distances between Pelusium in the East and Alexandria in the West to the vertex of the Nile were almost equidistant, being 750 105

stadia and 840 stadia respectively. This gives a combined distance of approximately 200 miles and, with the fleet possibly making slow progress on the upstream branch and the residue of the Egyptian forces apparently continuing to offer stiff resistance, it might be suggested that at least one month, and more probably two, passed before Gabinius reached Alexandria, especially if he also took the opportunity of assuring the passivity of important 106

centres such as Memphis during his journey. Thus, allowing for the battle of Pelusium to have taken place in October 56, it may well have been the beginning of 55 before Gabinius arrived at Alexandria, where he faced further possible difficulties in pacifying a capital whose population was riven with dissension, and, certainly, he had cause to enslave some of its 107

citizens, including Timagenes, at this time.

The King was definitely restored to his throne by 24 June 55 and almost certainly before April of that year. This is suggested by both papyprological evidence and a letter from Cicero to Atticus dated 22 April 55 in which he anxiously seeks verification of the rumours ........................................................................................................................... pg 31 108

circulating in Puteoli that the King had been restored. The winter sea journey from Alexandria to Puteoli could be a long and arduous struggle against continuous foul winds, 109

often stretching to a voyage of fifty, sixty, or even seventy days.

Page 19 of 91

Two months or more

could, thus, have easily elapsed before Cicero heard the news, suggesting that the restoration may have taken place in February or even earlier. This supposition is further supported by the aforementioned demotic graffito dated 4 January 55, which recorded the year as '26 of Ptolemy and 3 of Cleopatra'. This can either be taken as evidence that the King was truly back in Alexandria at this time and, perhaps in a move to relegitimize his position on the throne, associated himself once again with his wife and sister Cleopatra V Tryphaena, as he had done previously, in 79; or, since Monkores was a staunch supporter of Ptolemy Auletes, the reference to both monarchs could perhaps indicate a 'stubborn' refusal to recognize the absence of the King, especially if news was already abroad that his return to Alexandria was imminent. It seems highly likely that the King was not present in person at the battle of Pelusium and, although on the pylon at Edfu he was portrayed as a warrior slaying his enemies, the truth is that he was a man of mild disposition who never appears to have participated in 110

any military engagement. Instead, it seems likely that he awaited news of a successful outcome to the campaign at a safe distance from the fighting. Indeed, Cicero, in the last of his aforementioned letters to Lentulus, suggests that, if Lentulus secured the command, he could avoid violating the oracle's prophecy—namely that the ........................................................................................................................... pg 32 King should not be restored by military force—by settling him at a suitable place somewhat distant, such as Ptolemais, to await the result of the campaign. This, then, would have allowed Lentulus to proceed to Alexandria with his army and fleet, and only when he had 111

'pacified and garrisoned that town Ptolemy Auletes could return to his kingdom'. It seems quite possible that Gabinius, in deference both to the oracle and opinion in Rome, adopted a similar strategy, bidding the King wait his time at a safe distance during the campaign and only summoning him to Alexandria when his forces had successfully pacified Egypt in his name. If this was the course of action chosen, it further points to a delay in the restoration beyond Gabinius' presumed arrival in Alexandria at the beginning of 55. With the mission to restore the King successfully accomplished, the Roman financiers set about trying to recoup their loans, and Cicero gives a graphic impression of the times, when he speaks of bankers arriving in Alexandria waving contracts in their hands, in search of 112

their money. However, it must have become clear at an early stage of the mission that the contents of the Egyptian treasury would not be sufficient to meet all the outstanding debts of the King and that the money-gathering operation would be lengthy and complex. Indeed, Gabinius seems to have been prepared for this eventuality, as among his retinue 113

from Syria there were experienced tax farmers from Tyre. To facilitate the process of money gathering in Egypt, Postumus, as the leading financier with the largest investments at stake, assumed the official post of dioecetes or chief royal treasurer. This title was

Page 20 of 91

probably taken to legalize his money-gathering activities, but whether it was willingly conceded or not is not clear, although the continued presence in Alexandria of a contingent of Gabinius' army, which was left behind ostensibly to safeguard the King, must have also 114

exerted considerable leverage on the monarch.

The amount of

........................................................................................................................... pg 33 money Postumus and the other Roman creditors sought to gather was considerable, being at least part of Gabinius' 10,000 talents, the outstanding loans made by Postumus and his banking associates, including Caesar and Pompey, and the money lent by other investors after the senatus consultum of 57 on the expectation that Lentulus would restore the 115

King. Once in his new position, Postumus seems to have set about his task of gathering money with a vengeance for, although his activities are not attested in any of the historical sources, a recently discovered papyrus (P. Med. Inv. 68. 53) describes the rapacious behaviour of a man named Πόστομος‎ during his time of office, which seems to have been as a dioecetes:

⟨⟩ Πόστομος‎· λαβών γαρ‎

when Postumus was in charge

[τὴν ἀρχ‎]ὴν τοὺς μὲν ἐξ‎

he replaced the people who had

    ἀρχῆς χαθεσ‎-

    usually been

[ταμέ‎]νους χαὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ‎

appointed and had traditionally

    πατέρων‎

    succeeded their

[χαὶ π‎]άππων διαδεδεγμένους‎

fathers and grandfathers in the

    τὰς‎

    office.

[τάξ‎]εις μετέστησεν‎,

Instead, he appointed

χατέστησεν‎

 

[δὲ ἀ‎]νεπιτηδείους χἀὶ‎

unsuitable and boorish men

ἀπεγνωσμέ‎-

 

[νου‎]ς, πωλήσας τὰ πάντα‎

after he had sold everything

τὸν χρό‎-

 

νον‎ [δια‎]π‎[ε‎]φυλαγμένα‎· ἐγ‎

saved over the years; and, among

    δὲ τούτοις‎,

    these measures,

συντά‎[ξας‎] τοὺς μὲν‎

he ordered that the most useful

    χρησίμους χαὶ ὠφελι‎-

    and efficient

Page 21 of 91

μωτ‎[άτου‎]ς τῶν διοι‎[χη‎]τῶν‎

of dioecetai should be replaced,

    μετασταθῆναι‎,

 

ἐφ‎' ἁρπαγὴν‎ … [vacat]

with the intention of plunder …

........................................................................................................................... pg 34 Written in Greek, this fragment is the first confirmation of Postumus' presence in Alexandria, independent of Cicero's assertion in the speech, and it tells the story from a purely 116

Egyptian perspective. The exact nature of the document from which it derives remains unidentified, but could it be from a general history of the period or is it, perhaps, a libellus in the Acta Alexandrinorum condemning Postumus' behaviour in Alexandria? Or, was Postumus, perhaps, implicated in a legal action and this tirade constitutes part of the prosecution 117

speech?

The bulk of the money owed was probably raised from a tribute levied on the Egyptian population and this both is obliquely intimated in the speech and can be inferred from the numismatic evidence. This shows that shortly after the King's restoration the silver content of the Egyptian coinage began to plummet sharply, falling by 20 per cent from the previous level of purity. At this time heavy demands must have been placed on the Egyptian treasury, and, in minting new coins to allow for the shortfall created, the Egyptians were forced 118

to introduce a debased coinage. Although it is not certain, it seems probable that this situation was created by the need to pay off the Romans in current coinage. Considerable amounts of money must also have been seized from the royal treasury and other crown holdings, and, intriguingly, within the papyrus there is also a reference to objects saved over the years being sold (πωλήσας‎), which suggests an operation of considerable complexity, fully in keeping with Postumus' mercantile background. What was sold is not specified, but Cicero in the speech notes rumours of Postumus' ships arriving back in Puteoli laden with papyrus, glass, and linen, and so it seems not impossible that this reference may imply stocks of royal monopolies. Slaves also seem to have been seized by the ........................................................................................................................... pg 35 Romans at this time, including Timagenes, who was taken as captive by Gabinius but was 119

later freed and achieved some renown as a rhetorician and a man of letters. Hermodorus, a man later freed by Postumus, may also have been enslaved at this time. He bears a Greek name common in Egypt, and the conjecture that this was his country of origin is further supported by the fact that his daughter Usia Prima was a priestess of Isis who carried the 120

Sistrum. The papyrus also laments Postumus' lack of respect for traditional institutions and, particularly, his replacement of the regular office holders who had 'succeeded their fathers and grandfathers' by new, boorish and uncouth, men. This indicates that Postumus

Page 22 of 91

held considerable powers—at least as regards the appointment of dioecetai—but any changes he instituted should also be seen in the context of the wholesale transformation of the Egyptian élite at this time, as Ptolemy Auletes on his restoration moved with a vengeance against his foes. His daughter Berenice and many of the most powerful and wealthy members of Alexandrian society were killed, whilst many others were removed from office and had their estates confiscated, presumably to satisfy the requirements of the 121

Romans. How much of the money Postumus was able to gather is difficult to gauge. The picture of extortionate practices and rapacious behaviour painted in the papyrus suggests extreme methods and, certainly, raising such a huge amount can have been no easy task. Undoubtedly Postumus' actions would have alienated the Egyptians, and Cicero during the speech tells us that he was even thrown into jail for his pains. Subsequently, according to Cicero, Postumus was forced to flee the country, arriving back in Italy some time in the 122

summer of 54, having spent just over a year in Alexandria.

........................................................................................................................... pg 36 Following his restoration Ptolemy Auletes was to enjoy an untroubled reign. The presence of a garrison of troops left behind by Gabinius, the Gabiniani, in conjunction with the austere measures of repression adopted after the King's restoration appear to have been sufficient 123

to cement his hold on the throne. The exact number of troops left to serve as a garrison (praesidii causa) is unknown, but they were evidently a heterogeneous group including 124

500 Gauls and Germans, as well as Romans. Perhaps because of their mixed origins, they appear to have found it easy to shift allegiances and attune to the traditional military structure of Egypt. Ptolemy Auletes seems to have quickly won their loyalty, perhaps because he paid them substantial salaries and rewarded them with estates and a life of 125

luxury. Indeed, they seem to have become thoroughly softened by life in Egypt, adopting the unruly lifestyle of the Alexandrians and taking wives by whom they had many children. In the process, at least according to Caesar, they lost the good name and orderly conduct of Roman soldiers, although he is hardly the most unbiased of commentators, since a section of this assimilated force fought with the Egyptians against him in 48. However, even if they were gradually amalgamated into the Ptolemaic army, they still seem to have retained their status close to the King, because Caesar refers to them as 'the royal army' (exercitus regius) 126

with their leader Achillas as 'the royal prefect' (praefectus regius). Rather than being a source of leverage by which Pompey could continue to exercise influence in Egypt they, in effect, fully adapted to eastern practices and became the new mercenaries of Ptolemy 127

Auletes.

Ptolemy Auletes' long reign finally ended in 51, when he died from natural causes. Prior to his death he had made a will naming as ........................................................................................................................... Page 23 of 91

pg 37 his heirs his elder son Ptolemy XIII and his daughter Cleopatra VII, and, in a reflection of the new political reality, he sent a copy of this testament to Rome so that it could be 128

deposited in the public treasury, in an attempt to assure their accession to the throne. As the Senate was too busy to deal with the matter, the will eventually ended up in the hands of Pompey, who seems never to have abandoned his interest in Egypt. Indeed, in his last desperate attempt to renew the battle against Caesar in 48, Egypt was to be his 129

base and the scene of his brutal death at the hands of the Gabiniani. Ironically, Ptolemy Auletes' attempts to provide for a smooth succession were virtually ignored by the Romans, who were preoccupied by the Civil War. Instead, his plans were to be undone by a renewed internal strife within Egypt as his two heirs fought for the throne. Throughout his long-lasting reign the principal aim of Ptolemy Auletes was to secure his hold on the Egyptian throne so as to pass it, eventually, to his heirs. To achieve this goal, he was prepared to sacrifice much: the loss of rich Ptolemaic lands, most of his wealth, and even, 130

according to Cicero, the very dignity on which the mystique of kingship rested. On his accession to the throne the principal concern of the King had been to prove his legitimacy to rule to a domestic audience, but, as his reign progressed, in the face of rampant Roman imperialism his policies became increasingly shaped by the dictates of foreign affairs. Continuing weakness at home and the sheer strength of Rome combined to prevent him from mounting military operations in order to reassert Egyptian claims over lost territory and so, instead, the King sought to safeguard the position of his throne through lavish bribes and skilful diplomatic manipulation of the political situation abroad. The costly and lengthy campaign he fought to secure the title of 'friend and ally' (socius et amicus) was motivated not only by hope of the protection it might have yielded against internal enemies, but also by the ........................................................................................................................... pg 38 belief that the Romans would be unwilling to invade the territory of one upon whom they had conferred that honour. That such a ploy might have had some basis is shown by Cicero, who observed at the time of the annexation of Cyprus that the Roman people had participated in a crime, since the King through his ancestors and brother was a friend and ally of the 131

Roman people. Given his restoration by Roman arms, it is easy to excoriate the King for being a mere pawn of the Romans, but even after these events Roman influence appears to have remained far from total, as the experience of Postumus and the Gabiniani would 132

seem to indicate. Ptolemy Auletes' unstinted labours to preserve his throne and to assure the succession of his heirs in terms of realpolitik must be judged a success, although his 133

achievements were not seen by his contemporaries in such a light. By following the same path of relying on diplomacy and guile rather than military prowess his daughter Cleopatra

Page 24 of 91

was to maintain the existence of the kingdom for another twenty years. However, the precedent had also been set of Roman armies marching into Egypt. Following Gabinius there came Pompey, Caesar, and, finally, Antony and Octavian, and it was to be on the pretext of a war undertaken 'on behalf of the Republic'—not as a civil war—that he, as the undisputed master of Rome bound to nobody's opinion but his own, was to make Egypt by imperial fiat a constituent part of the Roman Empire.

2. GAIUS RABIRIUS POSTUMUS Pro Rabirio Postumo constitutes the primary and most extensive source of information on the life of Gaius Rabirius Postumus. Throughout the speech Cicero finds it expedient to downplay his client's attainments. In reality the picture was far different. Postumus was a man of much greater stature than Cicero allows, with considerable influence in both social and political spheres. In this Chapter it will be suggested that he can be equated with (a) the man referred to as Curtius, Postumus, or Curtius Postumus ........................................................................................................................... pg 39 in Cicero's correspondence, (b) the Postumus mentioned in a newly discovered papyrological fragment, (c) the proconsul Gaius Rabirius of the Delos inscription, (d) the Postumius of Appian's narrative of the Civil War, (e) the Rabirius Postumus of Caesar's account of the African war, and (f) the Postumus, addressee of one of Horace's odes. Gaius Rabirius Postumus was the son of Gaius Curtius and Rabiria and, probably, first bore 1

the name Gaius Curtius [Postumus]. He seems to have had at least one elder brother, who was rumoured to have met an untimely and slightly suspicious end. During the trial of Postumus' uncle on his mother's side C. Rabirius, in 63, Cicero, who acted for his defence, mentions an old allegation that his client was accused of murdering his nephew—the brother 2

of Postumus. This charge was levelled at a time when C. Curtius, the father of Postumus, was on trial, with the prosecution claiming that the murder of his son had been designed by the uncle as an excuse to postpone the legal The genealogy of Gaius Rabirius Postumus

Page 25 of 91

........................................................................................................................... pg 40 proceedings launched against Curtius at the time. However, as Cicero relates in dismissing the accusation, it is difficult to believe that an uncle would be more attached to his brotherin-law than his nephew. The family into which Postumus was born was of solid equestrian stock. His father C. Curtius is described by Cicero, who avers that he knew him from his youth as a most valiant leader of the equestrian order and an eminent publicanus who engaged in tax farming and money 3

lending. Other members of what appears to have been the same or a related family, the Curtii Postumi, seem to have been of sufficient importance for Verres to have bribed them to gain their political support in his bid for the praetorship, and it would seem possible that C. Curtius, the father of Postumus, was also to be numbered among those businessmen 4

powerful enough to influence political decisions. Little else is known for certain about C. Curtius' career, except that at one time he was arraigned for embezzling state funds and burning public archives. Although the circumstances surrounding this trial remain unclear, from two similar cases involving arson attacks on targets of the same nature, it seems that such drastic action was usually only taken in a desperate effort to destroy evidence of bad 5

debts or, perhaps, criminal activities such as forgery. The date of the trial is unknown, although, since it is mentioned during the trial of C. Rabirius in 63, it must have occurred before that date. Cicero also tells us that C. Curtius was honourably acquitted because of his 6

impeccable character.

Page 26 of 91

It has often been suggested that our Postumus was given the cognomen 'Postumus' because he was born after his father's death, the evidence coming from a passage in this speech in which Cicero ........................................................................................................................... pg 41 states that his client had never seen his father. The importance of personal names obtained from the 'circumstances of birth' is testified in the ancient sources, with Varro being quite explicit when he states 'that he should be Manius who was said to have been born "in the morning", and he who was born "at dawn" should be Lucius, and he who was born "after" 7

his father's death should be Postumus'. Kajanto, in his study of Latin cognomina, accepts this view when he classifies Postumus' name under those acquired due to 'circumstances of birth', and Nicolet also follows this line. However, it is noticeable that Dessau, who in his studies at the beginning of the century first addressed the issue of Postumus' identity, was more cautious and hesitant in passing judgement, being content merely to suggest that 'Postumus' father might have died before the birth of Postumus'—an interpretation which was later followed by Guiraud, who in his profile of Postumus was more concerned with his financial and political achievements than the complexities surrounding his name.

8

In fact, evidence does exist from Cicero's Verrines that Postumus was a name associated with the Curtii family, with at least two contemporaries of C. Curtius, Q. Curtius Postumus (a juror) and Cn. Curtius Postumus, bearing the same appellation. The order of the names in this source ('Q. et Cn. Postumi Curtii'), however, is rather puzzling, as Cicero seems to have inverted the nomen and cognomen despite the presence of the praenomen, a practice

which normally only occurred if the praenomen was not stated. That the name of the family was 'Curtii Postumi' is further attested by a recently discovered and, as yet, unpublished inscription which testifies to the names of two freedmen, a man and a woman, both bearing the name Q. Curtius Postumus, who it might be presumed was the juror mentioned above. The combination of the names

9

........................................................................................................................... pg 42 Curtius and Postumus is sufficiently unusual to make it likely that our Postumus came from some branch of the same family. Moreover, not only does 'Postumus' seem to have been a cognomen within the Curtii family, but a careful study of the language used in this speech also raises some doubts as to the fate of Postumus' father. What is striking is that Cicero, rather than explicitly referring to Curtius' death, chooses, instead, a more equivocal form of words (quamvis with the indicative viderat), when he declares that the young Postumus 'had never set eyes on his father', conveying hypothetical overtones which would not otherwise have been present if the more emphatically objective quamquam had been employed.

Page 27 of 91

10

The doubts cast by

Cicero's statement allow for speculation over the fate of Postumus' father. Could it be that the young Postumus did not know his father for reasons other than his death? Perhaps he took the cognomen 'Postumus' from another prominent branch of his agnatic family, the 11

Curtii Postumi, in order to shun some dishonour associated with his father's name. Nothing is known for certain, but a single source provides the grounds for a tentative suggestion that C. Curtius may have been forced into exile at the time of his son's birth or shortly afterwards. This evidence can be found in correspondence addressed by Cicero in 45 to his staunch friend, and at the time legate in Etruria, Q. Valerius Orca, concerning land holdings in 12

Volaterrae.

Since the time of Sulla, the Volaterrans had been left in a precarious position 13

vis-à-vis their lands, which by law belonged to the State as ager publicus. Several times, over the intervening years, proposals had been made to redistribute the lands, and when in 45 ........................................................................................................................... pg 43 the issue once more came to the fore, Cicero, for political reasons long an advocate of securing holdings in the area, wrote to his friend Valerius Orca—who seems to have been in charge of assigning property in Volaterrae to Caesar's veterans—asking him on behalf 14

of the whole population of the city to exercise restraint. When his first appeal apparently fell on deaf ears, Cicero persevered in his request with a second more personal epistle in which he vigorously pleads (vehementer rogo) with the legate to show his generosity and understanding and spare, in particular, the property of one C. Curtius on the grounds that, if his lands were to be seized, he would be unable to support his newly acquired status as a Senator, recently granted by none other than Caesar himself.

15

From this letter we learn that this C. Curtius, who seems to have been not of local origins, is an old and very close friend of Cicero and a victim of the Sullan proscriptions who was forced 16

into exile. He appears to have lost almost his entire fortune upon proscription, and after his rehabilitation, which was secured with Cicero's help, he subsequently sank 'the wreck of his estate' into a property in Volaterrae. However, either because the land purchased by C. Curtius had not been accompanied by a clearly specified title of ownership or because the purchaser had failed to pay the full sum due, his holding appears to have been a target of 17

the land redistributions instituted by Caesar in 45. The identity of this C. Curtius has never been established, but it has been suggested that he might have been the son of the man mentioned in another Ciceronian speech, a professional prosecutor who, although he had already ........................................................................................................................... pg 44

Page 28 of 91

withdrawn from the bar because of old age, also fell victim to the Sullan proscriptions, being killed near the Servilian basin in Rome, where the heads of the slain accused were 18

exposed.

No further evidence is available as to the identity of Cicero's friend C. Curtius, but, if the known facts are compared, enough evidence emerges to allow for a tentative suggestion to be made, that this man could have been the father of our Postumus: (a) He went into exile at the time of Sulla, which is about the time Postumus would have been born, allowing Cicero to make his remark that Postumus had not seen his father. (b) He was then an eques, the 19

same rank as Postumus' father. (c) Within the letter Cicero declares that he was an old and very close friend of C. Curtius, having known him since his youth, when C. Curtius was evidently older. Cicero makes a strikingly similar statement regarding his familiarity with 20

Postumus' father in this speech. (d) Although the length of C. Curtius' exile is unknown, Cicero seems to have been working for the rehabilitation of some of those who suffered 21

during the Sullan proscriptions as late as 63. If Postumus' father had suffered exile, it might help explain the rather unexpected and puzzling assertion by Cicero in the peroration of the speech, that his client had been particularly attentive to the cause of exiles, assisting morally and financially not only Cicero himself but also many others—among whom may 22

have been his own father. (e) C. Curtius seems to have been raised to the Senate at an advanced age (he must have been around seventy years old in 45). Why Caesar should choose to bestow such a status ........................................................................................................................... pg 45 on an old and apparently obscure man is difficult to understand, although it has been suggested that special reward was given to members of the families who had resisted Sulla, and there is no doubt about C. Curtius' impeccable record in this regard. However, added impetus to such a gesture could have been given if C. Curtius was, indeed, the father of a man who by this time was a member of Caesar's inner circle and who himself had recently been raised to the same senatorial status—as is the case with Postumus.

23

Whatever the fate of C. Curtius, there is no doubt that Postumus was effectively left fatherless from an early age. If he was the son of the man proscribed under Sulla, it would seem possible to suggest that he was born sometime in the eighties, giving him an age of around thirty at the time of his trial in 54/53. In the absence of his natural father, his mother Rabiria may be presumed to have sought the protection of her own family, since Postumus was subsequently to be adopted by her brother—the very uncle, C. Rabirius, who 24

had once been accused of murdering Postumus' brother! The date at which Postumus was adopted is unknown, but the trial for treason (perduellio) of his uncle and adoptive father C. Rabirius can serve as a terminus post quem. Within the trial Cicero makes no mention of the

Page 29 of 91

adoption of Postumus, when referring to the allegations of infanticide, which he might have been expected to do if it had occurred, as testimony of the love the uncle felt towards his nephews. It can, therefore, be presumed that the adoption occurred sometime after this trial in 63, but before Postumus' own trial in 54/53, when Cicero explicitly states that Postumus had been adopted. Adoption was an important means of sustaining family networks and preserving family names and, since C. Rabirius seems to have been without an heir, it is likely that he adopted Postumus sometime not long before his death—that is in the years 25

before 54/53—so as to be able to pass to him his estate. Postumus would have been in his mid-twenties at that time and would surely have been appreciative of any support that might have furthered his ambitions in both business and politics. In particular, if it is accepted that his ........................................................................................................................... pg 46 father was the proscribed and exiled Curtius, then, as the son of someone who had lost their civil rights, Postumus' own citizenship might have been in question. Adoption by his maternal uncle would have removed any lingering doubts and freed him to pursue his many ventures. Upon adoption it was customary for the adoptee to take the names of his adoptive father. Thus, Postumus took the praenomen of his adoptive father—although fortuitously this was probably the same as that he had borne since birth, for both fathers were called Gains—as well as his nomen. But, since the adoptive father does not seem to have had a cognomen, 26

Postumus kept the one associated with his agnatic family. Thus, from Gaius Curtius [Postumus] he became Gaius Rabirius Postumus, the name by which he was known at his trial in 54/53. After adoption the adoptee was expected to use his new legal name, at least in formal contexts, such as court cases, official documents, and historical accounts, but in everyday life it was common for him to retain his old name, often until he died. In the same way, Postumus seems to have continued to use and be addressed by both his old 27

and new adoptive names concurrently—usage being dependent on circumstances. On formal occasions, such as at his trial, his full adoptive name, C. Rabirius Postumus, was used, although even here it is noticeable that Cicero only addresses his client at the beginning of his speech as C. Rabirius and at the very end as C. Rabirius Postumus, but otherwise 28

throughout refers to him as Postumus.

........................................................................................................................... pg 47 In his political life Postumus seems to have also used the official form of his name, as its association with his uncle, who was a Senator, would have been greatly beneficial to his aspirations in this domain. A later inscription bears the name C. Rabirius, and contemporary 29

histories also refer to him as C. Rabirius and Rabirius Postumus. At all other times both in business, where he was perhaps able to employ a family trading name to good advantage, Page 30 of 91

and in informal usage he seems to have retained his old name of C. Curtius Postumus— and it is noticeable that this is also the name carried by all his freedmen and women, bar one, probably on account of the domestic and commercial environments in which they had 30

served. Particularly in his letters, just as in the case of Atticus and other close friends, Cicero, as would be only natural with an old friend of the family, continued to refer to Postumus as Curtius Postumus, Curtius, or sometimes just plain Postumus. This use of different names has caused much obfuscation in the past and hampered efforts to trace the career of Postumus, with references to him within the Ciceronian corpus sometimes being erroneously attributed to a lesser figure, M. Curtius, who makes a brief appearance in two of Cicero's letters, asking to be recommended to Caesar for a military tribunate of 54. The principal proponent of this false identification was Frank, whose article dates from the early years of this century. Contrary opinions upholding the view that Cicero in his letters was referring to Postumus and not to this M. Curtius were voiced by Dessau and Sumner and, recently, scholarly consensus has been consolidated in their favour following a 31

re-evaluation of the evidence by Shackleton Bailey. The debate by its very nomenclatural nature is complex, but in relation to M. Curtius suffice it to say that he is only known from these ........................................................................................................................... pg 48 two letters, and from these it becomes clear that Cicero did not know him personally, but was merely responding to a request from his brother Quintus, who asked him to recommend the young man to Caesar. In all the other letters under discussion Cicero shows considerable familiarity with the man known either as Curtius, Postumus, or Curtius Postumus—from the context of the letters it is clear the same person is indicated in each case. If M. Curtius is the person referred to in these letters, then he must have been a member of the Curtii Postumi family, but we have no evidence of this. Moreover, since Cicero knew at least one branch of the Curtii Postumi family very well, through Postumus and Postumus' fathers, it may be wondered why M. Curtius did not write to the orator directly rather than asking his brother to act as an intermediary. Furthermore, M. Curtius obviously had military inclinations and there is nothing in the historical record to indicate that he came from a background comparable to that of the man referred to in these letters, who regularly appears in the company of an influential group of financiers, as would be expected of our Postumus. Postumus' adoptive father C. Rabirius seems to have been active in politics from early youth, when he was still an eques. In particular, he seems to have belonged to a group of knights who were known for their fervent hostility to the political demagogue of that time Lucius Appuleius Saturninus and the reforms he instituted as the tribune of the People in 103 and 100. Saturninus had been brutally slain during his last year of office, and, in particularly strange circumstances thirty-seven years later, in 63, C. Rabirius was brought

Page 31 of 91

32

to trial accused of his murder. Although C. Rabirius is best known from Cicero's defence at this trial, Pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo, he, in fact, seems already to have been tried and cleared of the same charge on a previous occasion. In 63 he seems to have been brought to trial by Caesar and others in a specific attempt to curb the powers of the Senate, to which C. Rabirius had been raised in the meantime, and, particularly, the rights conferred on 33

magistrates by a senatus consultum ultimum.

C. Rabirius was defended by Cicero at

........................................................................................................................... pg 49 his trial in 63 and, indeed, the two seem to have been old friends, possibly from as early as 89, when they may have served together in Cn. Pompeius Strabo's army, Cicero as a tiro and 34

C. Rabirius as a tribunus militum. From Pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo it can be inferred that throughout his life C. Rabirius continued to play an active role in public affairs, and it can be presumed that his activities impinged on the young Postumus who, during his formative years, may well have had the opportunity to meet many of the leading political figures of the day. Several times C. Rabirius faced trial in the courts, once in 73, when he was accused by a C. Licinius Macer of violating sacred groves and shrines, on which charge he was apparently acquitted, and again when he was arraigned for violating the law of Fabius by detaining another man's slaves and that of Porcius by killing Roman citizens. On this latter occasion Cicero stresses that the people of Campania and Apulia rose to his aid not 'from neighbourly feeling' but out of real 'enthusiasm' and 'goodwill', and this may be taken as some indication that C. Rabirius' estates within these areas were such as to allow him to wield sufficient 35

influence to establish his own fides. Like many well-to-do Romans C. Rabirius also seems to have owned a house in Naples; it was presumably his property Cicero was alluding to when he wrote to Atticus in November 68 telling him that C. Rabirius' house in the city, which Atticus had in mind for himself, had unfortunately been sold to somebody else.

36

The date of C. Rabirius' death is unknown, but it must have been some time before 54/53, because at the time of his trial Postumus had not only inherited C. Rabirius' handsome and profitable estate to put alongside some lands of his father but had also—according to Cicero —considerably augmented this fortune. However, Postumus' wealth was not just based on these estates, since he also seems to have been one of the most prominent merchants and 37

financiers of his day.

Some evidence of the extent of

........................................................................................................................... pg 50 his trading interests comes from a number of amphorae found throughout the Mediterranean, bearing an abbreviation of the name 'Postumus Curtius' stamped on their handles. These are normally associated with Postumus and, given his known trading interests, understandably so. The inversion of the order of the nomen and cognomen in his 'trade mark' ('POST CURT') would seem to conform with a growing trend at the time because,

Page 32 of 91

by then, the cognomen often took the place of the praenomen, especially if the latter was not stated, as a means of making the first part of a man's name as distinctive and significant 38

as the others. It could also be that Postumus chose to continue to trade under an old family logo for purely commercial reasons. The handles of these amphorae are in the style of the Dr(essel) 2–4, those called Brindisi, found particularly in Delos and Alexandria. It has been suggested that they may have been produced in the workshop of Pullus at Ugentum in 39

the Salentini area of southern Apulia and that their main function was the carrying of wine. Indeed, since Postumus had connections with Apulia on both his mother's and adoptive father's side, it seems quite probable that he had his amphorae produced and stamped with 40

his own seal at the local kiln at Ugentum. Moreover, he also appears to have possessed his own vineyards, and Tchernia, in his study of wine production in Italy, places his holdings on a par with those of M. Aemilius Lepidus, Pompey, L. Marcius Libo, P. Sestius, and L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus, all of whom had sufficient status and enough wine-producing estates to 41

warrant amphorae being produced with their stamp. Amphora handles bearing Postumus' stamp have been found in various parts of southern Italy, including Syracuse, Paestum, and Taranto, and also as far afield as Alexandria and Fayum in Egypt.

42

The three

........................................................................................................................... pg 51 stamped amphora handles discovered in Egypt are identical to those found in Italy, suggesting that they come from the same kiln and were probably also used for the transportation of wine. They may either be regarded as further evidence of Postumus' extensive commercial activities or as somehow connected with his presence in the country following the restoration of Ptolemy Auletes.

43

Some indications of the high status of Postumus also come from the large number of freedmen and women who bear his full name. Inscriptions found in and around Rome testify to his manumission of a woman called Helena and a number of men including Phileros, Bello, Hermodorus, Helenus, Dicaeus, and M. Hordeonius, the latter apparently being in the service of both Postumus and M. Hordeonius. It has also been suggested that the textual critic Nicias of Cos, known from Cicero's letters and whom Suetonius called 'Curtius Nicias', could have been associated with Postumus, who was active in the eastern lands and possibly 44

possessed a property in Cos, where Nicias was either a slave or a freedman's son. The presence of a freedman of Postumus in Ephesus may also be an indication of the breadth of his commercial (and perhaps political) interests. In a letter dated sometime between 46 and 44 addressed to the proconsul of the province of Asia Servilius Isauricus, Cicero asks him for his assistance in the case of a freedman, C. Curtius Mithres, who lives in Ephesus and whose ex-master Postumus is an intimate friend of Cicero. ........................................................................................................................... pg 52

Page 33 of 91

The freedman in question seems to have been implicated in a dispute over some property in 45

the country with a certain citizen of Colophon. Perhaps this freedman assisted Postumus in Asia and was left behind to look after his business interests in the province. However, it was as a financier that Postumus was really to make his mark, since he was a lender to many of the most prominent figures of his day, including, as has been seen in the first Chapter, none other than the King of Egypt Ptolemy Auletes. This relationship was to be particularly significant in Postumus' life, as it seems to have marked an important step in his passage from back-room financier to the centre of the political stage. However, rather than as an independent actor, it is probably best to see Postumus as an influential agent in the unfolding 'Egyptian drama'. As the chief financier funding Ptolemy Auletes it can be assumed that he was deeply involved in the politics of the Egyptian affair and privy to some, at least, of the triumvirs' plans. Indeed, the most significant consequence of the whole Egyptian adventure for Postumus' subsequent career was the close bond forged between him and Caesar. The extent of Caesar's role in financing the operation is difficult to gauge, but it would seem likely that, given the high risk of the project, in order to raise the initial money Postumus would have had to make some assurances to his fellow investors. Guaranteeing such a large sum may well have been beyond his means and, anyhow, given the political sensitivity of the matter, the presence of at least one strong backer from the beginning would seem to have been almost inevitable. Besides, that Caesar did give the financier his backing at this time is borne out by Postumus' subsequent career in which, with his fortune apparently still intact, he bound himself ever closer to his political patron. Cicero may have successfully defended Postumus in 54/53, but differing political allegiances were to place strains on their relationship, and by 49, when we hear of their paths crossing again, the orator expresses considerable irritation at the constant pestering of his friend. And, indeed, these were the times when the Senate was composed of men of non-consular lineage, like Postumus, as ........................................................................................................................... pg 53 a result of the disappearance of many noble lines because of war or proscription and the exclusion of others for favouring the losing side during the Civil War. Following Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in January 49, Cicero was particularly preoccupied as to whether he should join Pompey and, wrestling with this dilemma in a series of almost daily letters during March, April, and May 49, he turned to his dearest friend Atticus for advice and succour, especially since he was being constantly pestered by an unwanted visitor, none other than Postumus. The close sequence of these letters indicates that Cicero is referring to the same person throughout even though, in naming him, he freely interchanges the appellations Curtius and Postumus and, at one point, calls his tiresome guest Curtius Postumus. Writing from his villa at Formiae Cicero, in a letter dated 8 March 49, states that his old friend and former client (presumably an allusion to the trial) has come to pay him a visit, but has talked

Page 34 of 91

incessantly of nothing else but fleets and armies and Caesar's plans to pursue Pompey in 46

Greece. Perhaps Postumus, who by now was obviously a fervent Caesarian, had sought to sway Cicero's opinion in his patron's favour, but, instead, his constant visits only seem to have aroused his old friend's ire. On the next day Postumus is reported as calling for a second time with further news about Caesar's military progress and acquisition of ships, 47

and on 10 March 49 he was yet again in Cicero's house tiresomely boasting about Caesar. By now, Cicero was extremely upset with himself for having received Postumus in the first place, and, obviously vexed by his constant pestering, the orator wonders how he is going to endure his attacks in the Senate, if he is not able to deal with him in his own house.

48

From 54 Postumus had, therefore, cemented his alliance with Caesar and, presumably as 49

some type of reward, been upgraded to the Senate. have

Once raised to this body he seems to

........................................................................................................................... pg 54 actively sought magisterial office, since on 3 May 49 Cicero writes from his villa at Cumae to his friend Caelius Rufus about how his friend Postumus has been promised a high priestly 50

office by Caesar. In this letter Postumus is also for the first time mentioned alongside L. Oppius, an eques, who was a friend and financial agent of Caesar. Oppius is usually

associated with Cornelius Balbus, another financier close to Caesar, and it seems that this was the circle in which Postumus now moved, because three years later, in September 51

46, he is still mentioned in conjunction with these men. At that time Cicero, writing to his Pompeian friend Ampius Balbus to reassure him that he has numerous friends close to Caesar who could grant him a passport and let him return to Italy, cites among his Caesarian acquaintances Gaius Vibius Pansa Caetronianus, Aulus Hirtius, Lucius Cornelius Balbus, Gaius 52

Oppius, Gaius Matius, and Postumus.

Postumus, thus, was not only a successful financier with growing political influence, but was also moving in the select circle of those aptly termed by Gelzer 'Caesar's cabinet 53

ministers'. Moreover, a further possible indication of these links with Caesar may be discerned in the career of one of Postumus' many freedmen. An inscription from Rome, which was later transferred to Sicily, records that one of these, Gaius Curtius Helenus, 54

served as a priest in the college of the Luperci.

By the time of Cicero minor

........................................................................................................................... pg 55 religious boards, such as that of the Luperci, were in decline and considered somewhat louche, but in 46 Caesar made a concerted attempt to improve their status by allotting 55

them extra funds and incorporating new members, among whom were his own freedmen. Caesar's efforts were apparently of no avail, since the college remained a dubious home Page 35 of 91

for raffish aristocrats, but it seems quite possible that the elevation of one of Postumus' freedmen to the office of the Lupercus owes much to Caesar's attempts to upgrade the institution, since he also encouraged his powerful friends to enrol their freedmen within the college at this time. The only extant evidence suggesting that Postumus attained high political office during his life is two sources which attest that he served as a proconsul. The first of these is a bilingual inscription found in Delos on a rectangular grey-blue marble block, situated in the northwest portico identified as that of Philippus V, near the western side of the road leading to the southern entrance of the Sanctuary of Apollo. The inscription on this marble block attests that 'C. Rabirius the son of Gaius'—the formal version of Postumus' name being adopted for a public inscription—was a proconsul, but it does not state which was the province in 56

question nor the time of his period of office. Delos seems to have bristled with statues of Roman and Italian dignitaries, including those of A. and P. Gabinius A. f., ancestors of Gabinius, Postumus' partner in the restoration of the Egyptian King, and at first sight it is tempting to think that this 80 × 60 cm. inscribed block may also have formed the pedestal of a statue. However, since it is smooth on all sides except for the back and there is no trace 57

of anything ever being mounted on its surface, this seems unlikely. It seems to have had a different function, perhaps projecting from a wall or niche in commemoration of Postumus' deeds, as was customary for influential figures of the commercial and financial world of ........................................................................................................................... pg 56 the time, including representatives of the powerful Delian business community. This epigraphical source for Postumus' proconsulship is confirmed and expanded by literary evidence from Josephus, who also provides enough clues to suggest that Postumus was 58

a proconsul of Asia. Josephus recorded that the magistrates of Laodicea, a town in that province, acknowledged receiving a letter from Sopatrus, the envoy of the Jewish high priest Hyrcanus, who was sent by 'Gaius Rabirius, the son of Gaius, proconsul'. In the letter there were instructions that they should grant the Jewish inhabitants of Laodicea the right freely 59

to practise their religion. Earlier instructions seem to have met with some initial local opposition, not only in Laodicea but also in the neighbouring town of Tralles in the same province, and the magistrates of Laodicea were writing to Postumus to assure him that, this time, they would comply with his wishes and that the documents would be lodged in the public archive. The high priest of the Jews mentioned in the document seems most likely to be Hyrcanus II, who held office from 63 to 40, and the 'Gaius Rabirius' our Postumus and not his adoptive father C. Rabirius—he is not recorded as ever having held the office of 60

proconsul of Asia. Moreover, the identity of the incumbent of that post is known for each of the years between the ascension of Hyrcanus II and the trial of Postumus in 54/53, in which it is revealed that C. Rabirius was dead, leaving no opportunity for him

Page 36 of 91

........................................................................................................................... pg 57 Promagistrates of Asia between 50 and 44 BC

Date

Proconsul

Propraetor

Proquaestor

Legate

50

 

Q. Minucius Thermus

 

 

49

 

C. Fannius

L. Antonius

T. Ampius Balbus

48

Cn. Domitius Calvinus?

 

? Appuleius

T. Ampius Balbus

 

(from summer)  

 

Q. Patisius

47

Cn. Domitius Calvinus?

 

? Appuleius

 

 

(until late summer)

 

 

 

 

C. Rabirius Postumus?

 

 

 

 

(from late summer)

 

 

 

46

P. Servilius Isauricus

 

 

 

 

(from summer)  

 

 

45–44

P. Servilius Isauricus

 

 

 

 

(until summer 44)

 

 

 

44

C. Trebonius

M. Appuleius

 

 

........................................................................................................................... pg 58 to have held the office. During the period in office of Hyrcanus II the Jews of Laodicea are known to have suffered injustices. It seems highly likely that Postumus had himself received orders from Rome to issue these decrees, which, although they may not have been directly the work of Caesar, were perhaps issued at his instigation, since they fall within his policy of meeting the demands of the provincials, so as to consolidate the empire, and also reflect

Page 37 of 91

his general policy towards the Jewish communities, which were not to be hindered in their 61

religious practices.

The date of Postumus' proconsulship is a matter of some scholarly debate, but, considering that he was still an eques at the time of his trial in 54/53, whatever the result of the legal proceedings it can be safely suggested that he only ascended to the office sometime after 50. The date can then be further narrowed down through reference to the other holders of the post at this time. Until summer 48 the cities of Asia had been loyal to Pompey, but the depredations of Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica, proconsul of Syria, imperator, and father-in-law of Pompey, who during 49–48 had bled the population white with his heavy taxation, caused them to switch their sympathies to Caesar, who arrived in Asia in August 62

48. It seems likely that this date can serve as a terminus post quem for Postumus' period of office (see below). During his short visit—three to four weeks—on his journey to Egypt (where he stayed until June 47), Caesar assigned the general control of the Roman provinces of the eastern Mediterranean to Cn. Domitius Calvinus. However, his exact status remains unclear, as according to the testimony of Suetonius he was one of Caesar's legates, and his sphere of operations seems to have been considerable, stretching well beyond Asia ('Asiam finitimasque provincias administrandas tradiderat') to include neighbouring provinces, most likely Bithynia—Pontus and Cilicia but perhaps even Syria. Calvinus seems to have been constantly engaged in military

63

During his period in office

........................................................................................................................... pg 59 endeavours, even marching as far as Comana and Nicopolis on the Armenian border in an unsuccessful war against Pharnakes, the King of Pontus. The ambiguity of his status and his ceaseless war making combine to suggest that he may not have been formally enrolled as proconsul of any of the provinces and that, instead, he enjoyed some supra-governorial role, with perhaps no promagistrates being appointed in the individual provinces at this time 64

of chaotic Civil War. On the other hand, it might also be that official promagistrates were appointed at this time, and it is just possible that Postumus' stint in office dated from this period, although the balance of probability points to a date after Calvinus. The latter seems to have left Asia during the late summer of 47, as by September he was back in Rome ready 65

to take part in Caesar's African campaign.

Appian's account of the Civil War provides evidence that during 48 Postumus played a key role in Caesar's campaign against Pompey in Greece. Although in the history his name is inaccurately recorded as 'Postumius', a number of factors would justify an identification with Postumus—a view strongly supported by Shackleton Bailey, who harbours no doubts 66

about Postumus being the 'Caesarian Postumius'. First, it would not be surprising to find Postumus in Caesar's camp during the Civil War, given the latter's unstinted support at the time of Postumus' earlier trial and the evidence from Cicero's aforementioned Page 38 of 91

67

correspondence of 49 which directly links Postumus with the logistics of this campaign. Secondly, the environment Postumus is reported to be moving in is somewhat familiar, as he is mentioned in conjunction with Gabinius, his partner from the Egyptian venture, and Mark 68

Antony, who participated as a cavalry officer in the same campaign. Thirdly, Postumus, a man accustomed to dealing with exceptional tasks, given his background as dioecetes in Egypt, appears now to be entrusted with an errand crucial for Caesar's success in his campaign against Pompey. ........................................................................................................................... pg 60 Having failed once personally and a second time with messengers to communicate his orders to this army stranded across the Adriatic in Brundisium, Caesar in desperation turned to Postumus, who seems to have been something of a right-hand man, for the accomplishment of this, by all accounts, seemingly impossible mission—although Appian puts it slightly differently 'Καῖσαρ ἐπεποίθει τῇ τύχῃ‎'. In effect, Postumus appears to have been given carte blanche by Caesar, since in a letter, which was read to the waiting army, the latter clearly states that 'they should follow Postumius on shipboard and sail to any place the wind might carry them'. Gabinius failed to respond, instead leading his army to disaster in Illyria, but Antony complied with Caesar's instructions, and Postumus, demonstrating the skills to be expected of an experienced and well-known merchant, then successfully brought this force, under adverse winds, across an Adriatic sea seething with Pompeian vessels to 69

Caesar's camp pitched at Dyrrachium.

Since the last act of the Civil War was to be played in Egypt, where Pompey met his untimely death, and Caesar presented a bill for what were probably the outstanding debts from 55, it is tempting to think that Postumus remained part of the Caesarian entourage throughout this 70

period. Certainly, he is recorded as being part of his retinue, not only before but also after the Alexandrian war, with the sources relating that he participated in the African war of 46. It would seem quite likely that Postumus' unique experience of Egyptian conditions prompted Caesar to consign to him similar duties during the Alexandrian campaign. Indeed, whilst in Egypt the Romans engaged in tasks which would have been particularly suitable to the Roman financier's talents, because Dio states that Caesar delayed his return to Rome, after the defeat of Pompey, in order to levy money from the Egyptians. The money was collected with such vigour that they indignantly complained that not even their temples were left 71

untouched.

In July 47 Caesar was urgently recalled from Alexandria by Calvinus on account of the threat of an imminent invasion by Pharnakes of Pontus. The treacherous King was subsequently defeated by Caesar at Zela in August and his army completely ........................................................................................................................... pg 61 Page 39 of 91

72

destroyed by Calvinus at Sinope. On his march north to Pontus Caesar placed new governors in the various provinces he visited, and it would seem most likely that it was at this time that Asia was placed in the hands of Postumus, as a recognition for services 73

rendered. Officially, Postumus would not have been qualified to hold such an elevated post, since there is no evidence of him ever previously achieving the necessary qualifying offices—although he does seem at one point in 45 to have considered standing for the 74

consulship. However, Postumus was not the only proconsul appointed in 47 who had not previously held high office, since Caesar seems to have rewarded several of his loyal lieutenants with similar posts, including Q. Marcius Philippus, who was granted the proconsular command of Cilicia, Sex. Julius Caesar, granted the province of Syria, and C. 75

Vibius Pansa Caetronianus, granted the governorship of Bithynia. And, although none of them had passed through the necessary stages of the cursus honorum, their close connections with Caesar seem to have been sufficient to secure them high positions. Quintus Philippus, for instance, had married Caesar's niece and was the brother of L. Marcius L. f. L. n. Philippus, the pro-Caesarian tribune of 49; Sex. Julius Caesar, a proquaestor pro praetore, was also a staunch supporter of Caesar, whereas Pansa, a tribune in 51, was not only a close ally of Caesar but one of his key financiers, like Postumus. atmosphere that

76

Dio, describing the euphoric

........................................................................................................................... pg 62 prevailed in Rome with the return of Caesar in autumn 47, states that the victorious general rewarded those who had supported his cause during the Civil War by freely bestowing offices that were to last either for the rest of the year or, in some cases, for that period and the following year. And, although provincial governorships are not specifically mentioned among these rewards, it seems quite plausible that Postumus' proconsulship dated from this period —running, perhaps, from July/August 47 until the end of that year or possibly the beginning of 46 (see Table). The proconsulship of P. Servilius Isauricus, who served for two years in the province and ascended to office in the summer of 46, would seem a likely terminus ante quem for Postumus' period of office, and certainly, on the basis of the letter recorded by Josephus, he cannot have held office after the death of Hyrcanus II in 40. Indeed, by early 46 Postumus seems to have joined Caesar in Africa during his campaign against the last Pompeian remnants, since in the history of the war, the Bellum Africum, a formal source in which he appears under the official name of Rabirius Postumus, it is mentioned that he was despatched to Sicily with some of Caesar's warships to secure a second convoy of reinforcements and food supplies—again just the type of mission a leading merchant and publicanus, who is likely to have possessed his own vessels, might be 77

expected to have undertaken.

Page 40 of 91

Following the African war, it is to Cicero we once more turn for the last-known details of Postumus' political career. The picture that emerges from the letters is of a man with fervent Caesarian sympathies, who frequently causes Cicero exasperation, but still remains his friend and a regular visitor to his house. In a letter dated 19 May 45 in which, writing from Tusculum, he tells Atticus about his decision to defend Gaius Marius, a relative of Caesar, Cicero with dismay exclaims: 'what times we live in if Postumus is thinking of standing for the consulship!' From the context and the highly ironic tone of the letters it becomes apparent that Cicero is referring to his old 'annoying' friend, and it seems quite plausible ........................................................................................................................... pg 63 that Postumus tested his chances—and these must have been high under the circumstances 78

—of rising to the consulship during that year. However, he is never recorded as achieving this office and in the next year, 44, his political ambitions must have been dealt a crushing 79

and apparently irrevocable blow by the death of Caesar. Postumus seems to have remained faithful to his great patron until the end. When Cicero writes to Atticus bewailing the unsettling political climate after Caesar's death, he remarks that the staunch Caesarians, such as Postumus, would rightly point to the dangers that the murder of their patron had unleashed and criticizes the anti-Caesarians for retaining and fulfilling Caesar's acta after 80

his death. In the same month in another letter to Atticus, dated 19 April 44, from Puteoli, Postumus is also placed in the company of other Caesarians, such as Censorinus, Messalla, and Plancus, whom Cicero calls 'a gang of brigands' (latrocinii auctores) who 'if they had 81

been bolder after Caesar's death could have prevailed'.

Following the death of his great patron, Postumus—along with the other band of financiers who had supported Caesar, the inseparable Oppius, Balbus, and Matius—seems to have readily transferred his allegiance to Caesar's adoptive son Octavian. This relationship was probably fully reciprocated by the young Octavian, who upon his arrival in Rome might be expected to have contacted the friends and financiers of his adoptive father, especially after his fruitless efforts to persuade Antony to release Caesar's money. It was Octavian who had to pay the unpaid legacies of Caesar to the plebeians, and he could not have done this unless he sold his own property and resorted to the aid of the closest Caesarian financiers. That Postumus had entered Octavian's camp is shown by a letter of May/June 44 in which Cicero, writing to Atticus about his impressions of Octavian's speech, notes that he has been assisted in his preparations for the games (ludi Victoriae) commemorating Caesar's victory at ........................................................................................................................... pg 64 Pharsalus, through the resources offered by Caesar's old friends—and now Octavian's 82

financial agents—Matius and Postumus.

Page 41 of 91

With the death of his friend Cicero, in 43,

Postumus begins to fade from history, but it can be suggested that Octavian would have wished to continue to show favour to such an important financier. We do not know when Postumus died, but he would only have been in his early forties at the death of Cicero, and it may be presumed that he lived for some time longer. His death is not recorded as being untimely, as was the case with other Caesarians such as Hirtius, who was killed at the hands of his own soldiers, who were acting at Octavian's instigation, 83

and Pansa, who died of poison sprinkled on his wounds after battle. Instead, it is possible to accord Postumus a more peaceful retirement—perhaps in a villa on the Bay of Naples— given his origins from the south of Italy (Campania and Apulia) on both his mother's and 84

adoptive father's side. Such speculation is further supported by the evidence found in one of Horace's odes, addressed to a Postumus, a childless but happily married old man and one of the poet's coeval friends. This Postumus is revealed as a retired wealthy landowner who possesses vast estates teeming with trees, has wine cellars (Caecuban) 'carefully 85

guarded with a hundred keys', and has a town house paved with exotic marbles. Aside from the name 'Postumus', there are enough coincidences here to suggest that Horace's friend and Cicero's client might be one and the same person. Our Postumus would have been approaching fifty years old when the forty-year-old Horace delivered his poem and 86

a lifetime in business had presumably left him an extremely wealthy man. Now retired amidst his vineyards and estates, he may have turned to providing support for some of the literati of the area, including Horace, who also ........................................................................................................................... pg 65 87

hailed from Apulia. The Postumus of the poem also appears to be a devout observer of religious rites and this, perhaps, would not be unfitting for our Postumus, a previous holder of priestly office, who must have been increasingly aware of his own mortality—making it no coincidence that Horace's ode is a lyric admonition regarding the transience of innocent pleasures and the ephemeral nature of possessions in the face of the relentless passage of time and the imminence of death.

3. THE TRIAL The Motives Postumus' extortion trial marked the closing act of the long-drawn-out 'Egyptian drama', but in itself it formed little more than an epilogue to the earlier trials of Gabinius. The cases of the two men cannot be divorced, despite Cicero's constant protestations in the speech. In both instances the motive for bringing the defendants to trial was a desire as much to exert pressure on their political patrons as it was to make sure that they reaped none of the

Page 42 of 91

rewards of the Egyptian venture. The trials, therefore, can only be understood within the context of the wider frenzy of anti-triumviral activity unleashed in the Roman courts during the mid-fifties by a certain faction of the nobility which had M. Porcius Cato as its most vocal 1

advocate. By virtue of their holding imperium both Caesar and Pompey were immune from 2

prosecution, but their friends were not graced with such protection. In consequence, in nearly all the major trials which came before the courts in the mid-fifties, the defendants were followers of the triumvirs, with the majority being either magistrates of 56 and 55 or agents of the coalition who had provoked disturbances and delays in the elections. A deeply ........................................................................................................................... pg 66 disgruntled and disenchanted Cicero was repeatedly cajoled into acting for the defence, but in the summer of 54 even this most inveterate of lawyers was left breathless by the weight of the cases amidst the stifling heatwave that paralyzed the centre of Rome at the 3

time. The general hostility of the aristocracy to the triumvirs' self-aggrandizing schemes was further aggravated by persistent rumours of dictatorship. In particular, with Caesar's continuing absence on campaign in Gaul and Britain, a command renewed in 55, and Crassus' departure to Syria, all fire seems to have been directed at Pompey, the third triumvir, who, instead of going to Spain, chose to govern his provinces through legates, so that he himself could remain at home and keep a close eye on political developments in Rome.

4

The chief opponent of the triumvirs in Rome was M. Porcius Cato. The great-grandson of Cato the Censor and grandson of Marcus Livius Drusus, he was able to present himself as the very embodiment of Roman traditional values. Cato had emerged as the leader of the optimates in the early sixties during the debate on the Catilinarians and, with the support of many of the most aristocratic houses of Rome, including the Luculli, Hortensii, Livii, Drusi, Servilii Caepiones, Junii Silani, and Marcii Philippi, he proved to be a doughty opponent of the plans 5

of both Caesar and Pompey. In 54, the year Gabinius was brought to trial for treason and he and Postumus were probably brought to trial for extortion, ........................................................................................................................... pg 67 the Catonian faction seems to have been strong enough to seize most of the chief political offices. Cato himself secured the praetorship for the criminal court of extortion—one 6

of the key quaestiones, given the corrupt nature of politics at the time. His brother-inlaw L. Domitius Ahenobarbus was elected consul, and his nephew P. Servilius Isauricus was elected a praetor and later brought about the prosecution of C. Messius, a friend of 7

Caesar and a legate of Pompey. The other consul of that year, Ap. Claudius Pulcher, whose daughter was married to Pompey's elder son, was initially supportive of the schemes of the triumvirs. However, he switched his allegiance as a result of his brother C. Claudius'

Page 43 of 91

consular candidacy for the following year against Pompey's protégé M. Scaurus, and, in the 8

end, in collaboration with Ahenobarbus launched a fierce attack on Gabinius in the courts. Other members of the Catonian faction who also obtained office that year were C. Alfius Flavus, who either as praetor or quaesitor presided over the trials of both Gabinius and Plancius for treason, and Gaius Memmius, tribune of that year, who, despite being Pompey's own nephew, was a staunch supporter of the nobility and undertook the prosecution for 9

extortion of both Gabinius and Postumus. Through their domination of these key posts in the government the enemies of the triumvirs in 54 were in an exceptionally strong position to rally their followers to a more concerted action against Caesar and Pompey, especially after the ending of Pompey's and Crassus' consulship of 55. The motives of the Catonian faction in instigating charges against Postumus cannot be separated from those that caused the earlier assaults against Gabinius. The gravity of the charges laid against the proconsul of Syria can be gauged from Cicero's speech 'In Pisonem' where, among other strictures, he states: 'he sold to the King of Egypt his person, his fasces, the army of the Roman people, ........................................................................................................................... pg 68 the name and the interdict of the immortal gods, the responses of the priests, the authority of the Senate, the mandate of the Roman people, and the name and the dignity of the 10

empire'. Such was the eagerness of his enemies to bring charges of treason against him that the first prosecutors had already approached Alfius Flavus, the president of the 11

maiestas (treason) court, well before the proconsul had even returned to Rome. Indeed, so fearful was Gabinius that his very life might be in danger that he felt constrained to enter the city of Rome gingerly under the cover of darkness. He was indicted for treason under the lex Cornelia de maiestate, a statute which forbade Roman governors to leave their province, on a charge of restoring Ptolemy Auletes to his throne in Alexandria without the express permission of the Senate or the people. Despite the strength of the evidence amassed by the prosecution, in the ensuing trial the proconsul was acquitted. In order to achieve such a verdict Gabinius seems to have spent a considerable amount of money, but the decisive factor in his defence seems to have been Pompey's auctoritas, with persistent rumours of an imminent dictatorship apparently working wonders with the more timid members of the jury. Some indication of the pressure that was exerted at that time comes from the fact that it appears to have been fear of Pompey's anger that led Cicero to appear as a prosecution 12

witness instead of acting for the prosecution. Public declarations by loyal supporters of the triumvirs that the Sibylline prophecies prohibiting restoration held no substance because they referred to a different time and king, and, most importantly, because they made no reference to any type of punishment, seem to have further confused the issue and helped 13

secure the 'not-guilty' verdict.

Page 44 of 91

The narrow acquittal of Gabinius, by thirty-eight votes to

thirty-two, caused such turmoil in Rome that even the floods the city suffered in October were interpreted as being a divine reaction to such an indefensible judgement. In the cries for justice that followed there were demands for the immediate ........................................................................................................................... pg 69 execution of those jurors who had let such a scoundrel as Gabinius off scot-free. However, some measure of the discomfort the jurors themselves may have felt about such a blatant miscarriage of justice can be inferred from the fact that, only one hour later, a Greek freedman of Gabinius, Antiochus, was convicted under the lex Papia for exercising Roman 14

citizenship illegally.

Having failed in their efforts to convict Gabinius for treason his opponents now attacked him on two legal fronts. A formal indictment was lodged against him under the Tullian law de ambitu, alleging corrupt practices during his campaign for the consulship five years before, but this was left in abeyance because of the success of his opponents in preferring charges 15

for extortion under the lex Iulia. Gabinius was brought to court accused of both corrupt practices during his proconsulship in Syria (57–54) and of making an extraordinary financial 16

gain whilst restoring the Egyptian King to his throne. This time Gabinius seems to have spent very little money, either because his reserves had already been seriously depleted 17

or because he was overconfident of securing another legal victory. This expectation can only have been increased by Pompey's success in securing for him what was thought to be the strongest asset in his favour, the legal services of Cicero himself as defence counsel. Undoubtedly, given his long-standing feud with Gabinius, the orator would have preferred to act for the prosecution. When this proved impossible, he next determined that he would not 18

defend Gabinius, but, instead, stay an independent figure, rising above factional politics. Cicero well knew that if he were to have acted on Gabinius' behalf such a volte-face would only have brought him dishonour and marked the road to public disgrace. However, against all his better instincts, this was the position into which he was eventually forced, publicly excusing his actions, as he does in Postumus' trial, by stating that it had been ........................................................................................................................... pg 70 19

his own choice. However, despite the favourable testimony of the Alexandrian witnesses, the evident co-operation of Caesar, who sent a letter from Gaul in support of Gabinius, Pompey's speech delivered to the people on his behalf, and, above all, Cicero's expertise, it was all to no avail, for Gabinius was still found guilty.

20

During the assessment of the damages an enormous sum of 10,000 talents was fixed against Gabinius—a sum matching that allegedly promised to him by the King for his military services—but, unable to pay, he chose instead to go into exile. Unsuccessful in gathering the

Page 45 of 91

set fine and keen to press home their advantage after such a spectacular judicial success, the foes of the triumvirs now turned to Gabinius' 'financial partner' Postumus, who was also said to have gathered a rich haul from the Egyptian venture. Charged under the same law as Gabinius, the Julian law for extortion, and, more precisely, under its clause 'What has become of the money', Postumus was held to be liable to make up the deficiency on the absconding Gabinius' unpaid fine, if it could be proved that he had received some of the 21

money which had illegally passed to Gabinius from Ptolemy Auletes. Postumus' hearing, thus, formed an appendage to Gabinius' earlier extortion trial and, under the procedures of the clause, it was heard by the same prosecutor, C. Memmius, defence counsel, Cicero, and 22

jurors. Since he had been the initiator of Gabinius' extortion trial, it seems safe to assume that Cato was also behind the prosecution of Postumus, and, indeed, as the presiding praetor, it may have been he who exploited his power to bring Postumus to trial under a quaestio for which technically, as an eques, he might not have been eligible—as Cicero 23

repeatedly asserts throughout the trial.

........................................................................................................................... pg 71 Among the numerous charges levelled at Postumus at the trial were accusations that his various financial dealings were a general incitement to corruption in public life, that he personally goaded Gabinius into restoring Ptolemy Auletes, and that he had secured money 24

for himself over and above the original loan. The main line of defence within the speech rested on the notion that Postumus returned from the enterprise impoverished, although it is difficult to believe that so experienced a businessman supported by such powerful figures would lose heavily on this type of deal. Indeed, Cicero is purposefully silent, in the speech, about Postumus' role in the events, probably in a deliberate attempt to distance his client from Gabinius. Instead, he focuses his line of argument on a succession of legal technicalities before resting his peroration on a rather blatant invocation of his client's 25

close relationship with Caesar. However, although it was outwardly concerned with the recovery of the money, Postumus' trial, like those of Gabinius before, was primarily designed to maximize the public furore within Rome in the hope of bringing an end to the unsavoury projects of the triumvirs. Cato and his followers had been infuriated by the cavalier attitude shown by the triumvirs towards the decisions of the Senate and by the evident ease with which they manipulated the political system to their advantage. In bringing Postumus to trial the Catonian faction was merely following in the long tradition of using the Roman criminal courts to wage political warfare. They not only sought to create an opportunity to censure the activities of the triumvirs publicly but also, by forcing them to defend what the Catonians saw as being constitutionally dubious, the nobility hoped to strengthen their moral and political position in the eyes of the Roman public, and in the process reassert the power of 26

the Senate.

Page 46 of 91

The trials of Gabinius and Postumus also presented an opportunity for the Catonian faction to attack the political position of the individual triumvirs, especially Pompey. He had become particularly closely identified with the Egyptian King's cause and had ........................................................................................................................... pg 72 incensed a large section of the nobility through the duplicitous stance he had adopted during the affair when, whilst publicly backing P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, the Senate's favoured candidate for the King's restoration, he had privately toyed with the idea of leading the campaign himself, before taking advantage of the irresolution of his adversaries to 27

sponsor an operation under his protégé Gabinius. The Egyptian question not only provided Pompey's enemies with the chance to humiliate him publicly but it also strained his relations with friends such as Cicero, who freely urged him to shun the infamy that support for Ptolemy Auletes must inevitably bring. It also provided P. Clodius Pulcher, a frustrated political demagogue of the time, with an opportunity to destroy a large part of the great 28

general's popular support. As if political alienation from the most prominent aristocratic houses in Rome, such as the Clodii, Lentuli, Caecilii, Metelli Curiones, Servilii, Pisones, and Lepidi, was not sufficient to undermine Pompey's political position, during 54 his foes were determined to alienate him from even the political small fry. By bringing men like Afranius, Milo, Messius, Lupus, Scribonius Libo, Caninius Gallus, and Postumus to trial they sought not only to embarrass Pompey publicly by forcing him to come to the defence of these people but also to exert additional strain on the relationships which bound him to these men.

29

As well as damaging the political position of their opponents, calling Postumus to justice also provided the nobility with a golden opportunity to exert financial pressures on the triumvirs, especially Caesar, who had been the target of the anger of the Catonian faction since the 30

early fifties. Undoubtedly Caesar was heavily involved in the affair, but the degree of his involvement is difficult to ........................................................................................................................... pg 73 gauge. By underwriting all the pecuniary obligations that Postumus had to his fellow financiers, thereby effectively consolidating all the outstanding debts under his name, Caesar became in the process Postumus' largest 'creditor', although it is unlikely that the latter ever forced repayment. If the other financiers had directly invested in the operation, Caesar may have given them loans or bought out their debts, allowing them to stave off bankruptcy. Or, perhaps, he stepped in to underwrite their financial commitments, reassuring their business partners until they were able to offset the losses from the Egyptian affair. However, if they had not invested directly but instead given loans to Postumus, who acted on their behalf, perhaps Caesar paid back this money. It remains questionable whether Caesar's financial guarantees extended to all the investors involved in the Egyptian affair. Certainly, it would seem likely that those financiers who lent money to the King of Egypt Page 47 of 91

after the senatus consultum of 57 on the expectation that P. Lentulus would restore the 31

King fell outside the bounds of the group of financiers aligned with the triumvirs. The bitter feeling of betrayal and disillusionment nurtured by those investors who had lost money in the affair must have provided fertile ground for the Catonian faction to decry the triumvirs' sheer greed for monetary and political gain and their apparent unwillingness to settle accounts. By bringing Postumus to trial the Catonians may have even hoped to inflict grievous financial injury on Caesar, believing that if Postumus was found guilty and ordered to pay, the triumvir would have to foot the bill and, thus, face potential bankruptcy. It is the 32

dangers of such a folly that preoccupy Cicero in the stirring closing lines of his speech. However, in bringing the allies of the triumvirs to justice, it was not really the money that Cato and his friends were after, but rather the further demoralization and weakening of their political opponents.

The Date Since Postumus' trial under the clause 'What has become of the money' formed an appendix to Gabinius' case and was set in motion when the assessment of damages had revealed the proconsul's assets were insufficient to meet the fine, it is usually believed ........................................................................................................................... pg 74 that it followed almost immediately after Gabinius had been convicted of extortion. According to Cicero, in such a trial no new witnesses or evidence were normally produced and the jury remained the same. This presupposes a rapid hearing after the original proceedings, and, although in Postumus' case it seems that witnesses, either old or new, were expected to appear, this need not have delayed the trial, as the Alexandrian witnesses, 33

who had testified at Gabinius' trial for extortion, seem still to have been present in Rome.

In certain instances, cases closely linked with a trial just concluded could even be given the status of extra ordinem, which meant that they had priority over others on the list and that during vacations they were brought immediately to court instead of waiting until 1 January 34

of the following year. It is tempting to think that such a procedure may have been used in the case of Postumus, since his trial seems to have occurred at the close of the year, but there is no evidence to suggest that it was declared extra ordinem. The dating of Postumus' trial is, thus, intimately related to the date of Gabinius' second trial for extortion; and this, in turn, has usually been calculated on the basis of the known date of the end of his first trial for treason, which was 23 October 54. The assumption that Gabinius' second trial closely followed the first comes from Dio's narration of the Egyptian question, which emphasizes the 35

contiguity ('αῦθις‎') of the two trials. However, it has recently been argued that a later date should apply for Gabinius' extortion trial, namely sometime in the late summer of 53, and, if this date is accepted, then it immediately presupposes that Postumus' trial must have taken Page 48 of 91

36

place afterwards, presumably sometime in the autumn of the same year. this new dating of

The argument for

........................................................................................................................... pg 75 the trial is largely based on an interpretation of Cicero's decision to defend Gabinius for extortion—and presumably Postumus for that matter—as being a change of heart occasioned by the orator's efforts to win Pompey's support for Milo's consular candidacy in 37

53. Furthermore, Dio's placing of Gabinius' second trial at the end of 54 is considered to be a mere 'appendage' to his wider discussion of Gabinius' proconsulship of Syria in a historical narrative which, in this particular section, is structured more by topic than by chronology. 38

However, although Dio is admittedly not always the most reliable of sources, it may be doubted whether he misplaced such a major event as Gabinius' second trial by over half a year. Apart from Dio's testimony, which should be treated, then, with some caution, a number of other factors would also seem to support the contention that the trials of Gabinius and Postumus did, in fact, take place, as has generally been supposed, sometime between December 54 and mid-January 53. Foremost among these is the fact that Cato's period of office as praetor of the criminal courts for extortion was due to expire at the end of 54. Once Gabinius' trial for treason had failed, the opportunity to prosecute him for extortion must have been too good to miss for this persistent adversary of the triumvirs, especially since the result of the earlier trial had caused such a turmoil in Rome. The circumstances could not have been more unfavourable for the defendant and it is difficult to believe that the Catonian faction did not take swift 39

action to overturn the earlier acquittal immediately. Indeed, the centrality of Cato's role in bringing Gabinius to trial for the second time can be deduced from the fact ........................................................................................................................... pg 76 that there was a delay in the delivery of the indictment for extortion because of his illness —despite the fact that another praetor could have acted in his stead, for the praetorian 40

sphere of jurisdiction was not strictly fixed. The enormous influence the praetor enjoyed in sending a case to trial, even if his year of office was drawing to a close, as seems likely in this instance, can be seen from a similar case involving Cicero, when he was praetor of the extortion courts in 66. Then, the prosecutor relinquished all but one day of the ten allocated for the gathering of testimony, allowing Cicero to press for an immediate disposition of a case involving C. Manilius, despite the fact that Cicero's praetorship was due to expire in 41

one day's time (29 December 66). Normally, a praetor's term of office coincided with the calendar year, and upon discharge it was lawful, but not expedient, that a judicium already 42

presented before a certain praetor should be transferred to his successor. However, under the legal anarchy prevailing at the time in Rome, with the new year opening without

Page 49 of 91

elected magistrates, and there being no immediate prospect of any resolution to the political impasse, it is just possible that Cato, as the outgoing praetor, in his determination to see the trials through, may have appointed himself as iudex quaestionis so as to continue the 43

hearings into 53. Unless this was the case, it seems unlikely that the trial took place in the first months of 53, because in the absence of any elected magistrates a series of interreges drawn from the ranks of the noblest members of the Senate were empowered to discharge praetorian functions. They held office for just five days before they were replaced by others and this could only have hampered rather than eased any court proceedings. It is also noticeable that, when he later discusses the considerable legal trammels in Postumus' case, Cicero makes no reference to any appeals to the interreges—as would have been expected if 44

such legal procedures were in place.

........................................................................................................................... pg 77 The urgency with which Gabinius' opponents sought to bring him to trial for extortion can also be seen from the fact that they made use of special legal procedures dealing with cases which were submitted late. Perhaps because of Gabinius' belated arrival in Rome, the announcement of the intention to prosecute (postulatio) was not made until the middle of September—well beyond the official deadline of 1 September stipulated by the law of the tabula Bembina. It was only on 12 October of the same year that the contest for the right to 45

prosecute (divinatio) took place and was won by C. Memmius. Later, after a short interval, on 21 October, the charge of extortion was formally accepted by the president (nominis 46

receptio), and Gabinius was ordered to appear in court as defendant (reus) ten-days later. This ten-days' gap was normally allowed for prosecutors to collect evidence, but in cases of extortion which dealt with misconduct of officials in distant lands longer periods of time 47

could be demanded. However, as this right lay within the purview of the prosecution, in Gabinius' case it would seem unlikely that any extra time was demanded by the prosecutor and that C. Memmius, instead, would have been waiting with scarce-concealed relish for the right moment to, finally, air his official charges against this most forsaken of individuals. In expectation of bringing the proconsul to trial his opponents had been collecting evidence against him throughout the year, especially after the completion of the Egyptian operation —a tactic which suggests a private suit rather than a general investigation of the conduct of a magistrate. The tribunes of 54, among whom was C. Memmius, had been determined to expose Gabinius' illegal actions before ........................................................................................................................... pg 78 the public assembly in February of the same year and, as early as 14 February, a delegation from Tyre, which consisted mostly of tax farmers who had accompanied Gabinius to Egypt, 48

had arrived in Rome ready to testify to his rapacious behaviour. The eagerness of the many potential prosecutors, the abundance of witnesses willing to give testimony against

Page 50 of 91

him, and the plenitude of incriminating complaints all stand as ample testimony to the 49

depth of Gabinius' unpopularity. In general, it is difficult to believe that having enacted the procedures necessary to press on with the case Gabinius' opponents would have then waited almost a year to put him in the dock. In Cicero's correspondence during the last months of the year there is complete silence as regards the extortion trials of both Gabinius and Postumus, except for an oblique mention in a letter to his brother Quintus dated 24 October in which, after announcing the acquittal of Gabinius in his treason trial, he states clearly that 'other trials are hanging over his head, 50

he is not out of the wood yet'. The first trial ended on 23 October and, if the customary ten-days' interval was taken, then the earliest date at which the second trial could have commenced was 2/3 November. However, this date seems unlikely because the end of October to the middle of November was a period of great festivities in Rome with most legal business being adjourned during the ludi victoriae Sullae, held between 25 October and 1 November, the ludi plebei, which extended from 4 November to 17 November, and, in this particular year, the supplicatio of 23 November, which may have been prompted by the Tiber floods that had devastated Rome during October.

51

The last letter sent by Cicero to his brother Quintus in 54 is dated sometime in December and bears all the hallmarks of the writing of a disillusioned and frustrated man who, in his efforts to vindicate his own political position, 'absolves' himself by announcing that 'evil men', by which he implies Gabinius, do not enrage him ........................................................................................................................... pg 79 any more but leave him unmoved. The appearance of this sudden sentiment of neutrality towards his erstwhile enemy, which can also be traced in Cicero's last letter of this year to Atticus, in November, sits somewhat uneasily alongside the many expressions of distaste that appear elsewhere in the correspondence and are, perhaps, a sign of a man wrestling 52

with his own conscience before an abrupt change of heart. However, it could be that it was his extreme sensitivity both politically and emotionally over the events surrounding Gabinius' second case, as well as his general embarrassment and reluctance to admit to his political and moral volte-face, an act which he feared would lead to his 'political undoing', that accounted for Cicero's reluctance to talk openly about the trial, rather than the fact that it had not yet occurred. Cicero harboured an almost obsessive fear of untrustworthy couriers with the result that he frequently adopted extreme secrecy when conveying news of 'overt political disorders', cautioning his brother 'not to trust anything to a letter which 53

might embarrass us, if it became public'. This argument is further supported by the complete absence of any references to Gabinius' and Postumus' trials for extortion within the 54

correspondence either at the end of 54 or in any of the following years.

Page 51 of 91

If Cicero's last letter to Quintus is taken as a terminus post quem, then it would seem quite possible that Gabinius' trial commenced sometime in December. The month of December had only three nefasti days, during which legal business was suspended, so the rest of the month would have been available for the customary administration of justice, with the 55

standing courts handling criminal law offences. was

The most celebrated festival of the month

........................................................................................................................... pg 80 the Saturnalia, which, from a purely religious point of view, was celebrated only on 17 December, but, in practice, by Cicero's time it could extend to as many as seven days. However, there was nothing to prevent criminal courts (especially those without any publicsafety aspect) from being held on such days, and, given the importance of Gabinius' case and the evident desire of the prosecution to overturn his earlier acquittal, it seems unlikely that any further proceeding would have been delayed for long, especially if it was solely to 56

allow for a period of festivals.

In letters dated towards the closing of the year Cicero indicates that he was soon to be promoted to the office of a legate in Pompey's staff during the latter's proconsular governorship of the two Spains, which was due to commence on 13 January 53. The correspondence speaks of 'accounts recently being settled' (quadrare) between the two men and Cicero's overt satisfaction with the 'deal' they had reached is clearly evident when he says: 'it seemed to me to square with a good many things. I need not say more'. But what was this reward for? It would seem highly likely that one of the many things (multa) the two great men had agreed upon was that Cicero would defend in the courts Pompey's protégé Gabinius, in exchange for a legatio which, fortuitously, would also have furnished the orator with an honourable excuse for his departure from Rome, once the trials were over, 57

so as to prevent him from having to face any attacks on his political integrity. Since Cicero was expected to assume these duties from the Ides of January and not from the beginning of the year, as was normally the case with such appointments, it is also possible to infer that Pompey perhaps anticipated that the trials of the two defendants—given the chaotic circumstances at the time—might well run into the following year. Thus, if Cicero's last letter to his brother Quintus, written sometime in December 54, ........................................................................................................................... pg 81 can be taken as the orator's final painful attempt to come to terms with his conflicting feelings over the defence of Gabinius, then it is quite possible to suggest, in the absence of any other clearer indication to the contrary, that Gabinius' extortion trial may have started not long afterwards, when Cicero had finally yielded to Pompey's political pressure. It would also seem likely that both Gabinius' and Postumus' extortion trials had been completed before Cicero was appointed as a legate in Pompey's camp on 13 January 53, because after

Page 52 of 91

this date he would at least have been expected to be ready to depart abroad—irrespective of the fact that he never left Rome for Spain! Further evidence that the trial did, indeed, take place in the heart of a bitterly cold winter comes from the speech itself, when Cicero, whilst delivering his panegyric to Caesar, mentions the general's extraordinary ability, even in the midst of military operations, 58

to 'withstand the ferocity of this harsh winter', hardly bearable in Rome. Moreover, if Postumus' trial had occurred as late as autumn 53—almost three years after the restoration of Ptolemy Auletes to his throne and approximately one and a half years after Postumus' return to Rome from Alexandria—how could Cicero have been so confident that his audience would not have associated his opening gambit about 'the power and arbitrary whims of royalty' with some other king, given the fact that Ptolemy Auletes was not mentioned by name? Without any firm evidence to the contrary, there seems little reason to change the traditional date of December 54 ascribed to the extortion trials of Gabinius and Postumus. The only slight qualification to be made is that the cases might have extended into January 53, although they were probably over by the middle of that month, since other more pressing matters, such as the establishment of a new government, would have demanded 59

the attention of the politicians implicated in the two trials.

........................................................................................................................... pg 82

The Result

When Cicero rose to speak, 'winning a case was not everything it was the only thing', but 60

whether he won in the case of Postumus remains unknown. The only extant reference to a possible verdict comes in a later work by Suetonius, where Postumus' case is compared with another and it is stated that he was found guilty. However, Suetonius erroneously states that Postumus was on trial for treason and from the context it would seem that he most probably 61

confused Postumus' case with that of Gabinius. On balance, it would seem probable that Postumus was acquitted. Certainly, this would seem the most likely verdict, if the precedents set by other political cases at the time are considered. The conviction of Gabinius clearly went against the norm, as most of the other defendants called to trial during this year were acquitted—after all, Cicero himself states that nothing less than murder was punishable at 62

that time.

It has been suggested that since the triumvirs had failed to save Gabinius they could hardly have been more persuasive on Postumus' behalf—especially when he was facing the same 63

jury and prosecutor. However, set against this there is some evidence to suggest that jurors often tended to be more lax in subsidiary cases of this kind after having shown severity in the principal case. Moreover, it can also be suggested that Cicero was more Page 53 of 91

willing, and, thus, presumably more motivated, to undertake the defence of his avowed friend Postumus, who, he suggests, had been a tower of moral and material strength to him and his family while he was in exile, than he was to plead for Gabinius, who caused him ........................................................................................................................... pg 83 64

nothing but embarrassment. In particular, Gabinius had been a leading supporter of Publius Clodius Pulcher, the most unscrupulous gang leader and Cicero's bitterest enemy, who had procured the orator's exile in 58. In such circumstances the publication of the speech Pro Aulo Gabinio must surely have been suppressed as much out of fear of the doubts it would cast on the orator's political integrity as out of embarrassment over the 65

outcome of the case. Nevertheless, Cicero's trump card in securing the acquittal of Postumus is most likely to have been the reiterative emphasis he placed on his client's close links with Caesar. Here, there is possibly an important contrast with Gabinius' trial, in which it is likely that Cicero placed much greater stress on Pompey and his political influence; in fact, Pompey is hardly mentioned within Postumus' trial. Instead, Cicero, in his panegyric to Caesar at the close of the speech, sends a warning shot across the bows of both the prosecutor and the jury by reminding them that they ought to be on their guard when passing their final judgement on Postumus, the great politician's long-standing friend and 66

admirer.

A telling piece of evidence in support of Postumus' acquittal would also seem to be the very survival of the speech, since publication was a positive act calling for a conscious decision 67

and considerable labour. In Brutus Cicero asserts that the published speeches were meant to be treated as textbooks on oratory, aimed not so much at the general public as at the young men studying rhetoric, and, from this, it can be inferred that 'unsuccessful' forensic exercises would have been highly unlikely to see the light of day, since ........................................................................................................................... pg 84 their use as exempla would have been impossible. Aside from pure didacticism, political considerations also figured in any decision to publish a speech and, thus, by implication, Pro Rabirio Postumo was viewed as displaying enough signs of 'political correctness' to warrant its publication, although it is possible that publication may have been delayed to a more opportune time, when Cicero might have needed to issue a reminder of the kind words he 68

had once said about Caesar.

When the votes were finally tallied, it may be supposed that the majority of the equites and tribuni aerarii voted on 'class' lines and, thus, for acquittal. The behaviour of the senatorial section of the jurors is less easy to gauge. However, given the high profile of Postumus' banking and lending activities, it is quite likely that many of his clients were Senators. Some, from financial expediency, may have had a vested interest in seeing him Page 54 of 91

convicted and bankrupted, whilst others may have been persuaded to vote in his favour. Postumus' subsequent political career, which saw him elevated to the Senate not long after the trial, would seem to indicate that the consequences of the Egyptian venture were not too deleterious for him personally. He obviously retained sufficient resources to acquire the necessary offices and his political advancement hardly matches that of a man who bore the 69

stigma of conviction.

Finally, it is also possible to suggest that the actual verdict in Postumus' case would have been of secondary importance to the nobiles. The forcing into exile or bankrupting of any supporters of the triumvirs may have been a satisfactory outcome of a trial, but the prime intention of the aristocracy in instigating these trials was to show that they could still 70

influence decisions in the iudicia.

The Julian Law of Extortion Although Caesar's Julian law of extortion was promulgated during his first consulship in 59, the origins of his statute can be traced ........................................................................................................................... pg 85 to an old law, conventionally referred to as the law of the tabula Bembina and identified with 71

the Acilian law of C. Gracchus. This had been the first law to establish a standing criminal court to hear the cases of magistrates and government officials who illegally exacted monies from provincials. Generally, these malefactors would have been of senatorial rank, and it seems to have been accepted that members of the equestrian order were excluded from the law, although not explicitly by name—a provision which was still in force at the time 72

Cicero delivered this speech. By the time of Caesar, the scope of the law had expanded considerably so that it bore only a faint resemblance to the earlier law of the tabula 73

Bembina. Within its 101 clauses features were to be found from a number of other laws, including the Porcian law, the lex de provinciis praetoriis, and the Cornelian law for treason, so that the Julian law came to condemn a wide range of crimes which went far beyond 74

the issue of mere extortion. Still, combating corruption among provincial administrators remained a central plank of the law, and many of its stipulations were concerned with curtailing the powers of such magistrates and, according to the imperial jurisconsult, also 75

members of their staff of the rank of comites and above.

The law limited the amount of money governors could claim from the treasury and restricted their powers in raising ship money or levying corn from the provincials. It forbade them to accept gifts from their subjects and demanded that they respect the privileges ...........................................................................................................................

Page 55 of 91

pg 86 and freedoms granted to the inhabitants of their province by the Senate (i.e those relating to military service, taxes, billeting, etc.). Upon completion of their term of office magistrates were obliged to publish their accounts in two cities of their province and deliver a third copy to the quaestor at the treasury in Rome. There was also a clause prohibiting provincial magistrates from waging war against an ally without the sanction of the Senate or the People—a charge Gabinius had already faced and been acquitted of under a different law, 76

the Cornelian law for treason. The primary sources for the contents of the Julian law are the Ciceronian texts, with additional information coming from later documents such as the senatum consultum Calvisianum of AD 4, the Annals and Histories of Tacitus, the Letters of the Younger Pliny and the extracts from jurists of the second and later centuries in the Digest. All of these confirm that the Julian law went far beyond the punishment of acts of misconduct committed in the provinces.

77

Those suspected of having committed offences punishable under the Julian law were arraigned as soon as the prospective accuser obtained permission from the praetor in charge of the standing court of extortion to press charges. This procedure constituted the preliminaries of the trial, and the official criminal charge did not arise until the prosecutor, who was chosen out of many candidates in a precursory session, had lodged specific accusations against the accused and questioned him in the presence of the praetor. If he was satisfied with the progress of the interrogation, the latter then drew up a formal 78

statement of charges.

Between the formal acceptance

........................................................................................................................... pg 87 of the charges and the actual appearance of the accused in the court a break, usually of ten days, was fixed during which the prosecutor would conduct an inquiry in order to amass 79

evidence relevant to the case. The actual trial for extortion was compulsorily divided into two major hearings, both parts usually involving formal speeches, examination of the evidence, and interrogation of witnesses by prosecution and defence. The time-span between the two parts of the trial is believed to have been more than one day, although its Latin name (comperendinatio) suggests a single day. At the end of the second hearing the prosecutor would ask the jury to consider their verdict, which was officially pronounced by the praetor in the form of 'I shall collect' (redigam) or 'I shall not collect' (non redigam) —a mere declaration that a fine was due or not, rather than a statement of the guilt 80

or innocence of the defendant. A simple majority of the jury's votes appears to have been required to determine the verdict, and conviction was followed by an assessment of 81

damages which dictated the amount of money to be paid to all the claimants.

In keeping with the nature of the law, which was markedly recuperatory, pecuniary restitution of the illegally exacted money to all the victims affected was the normal Page 56 of 91

82

penalty. In the past, under the law of the tabula Bembina payments had been fixed at double the loss sustained by the victims and this appears to have been maintained by both 83

the Servilian and Cornelian extortion laws. It is not altogether clear whether the Julian law kept the penalty of double restitution or regressed to the simple restitution which is believed to have been stipulated in the earlier Calpurnian and Junian extortion laws. However, from Postumus' case, where a ........................................................................................................................... pg 88 fine of 10,000 talents was imposed on Gabinius, which matched exactly the sum promised by the King, it can be inferred that simple restitution was in order. And, indeed, later evidence from the senatus consultum Calvisianum further confirms that simple pecuniary restitution was the norm by the end of the first century.

84

Although there is no statement in the fragments of the law of the tabula Bembina of any penalty other than a monetary fine, from Postumus' case alone it becomes apparent that a convicted defendant had to suffer other dire consequences. The debate over the penalties applicable under the Julian law hinges on the precise meaning and usage of the term 85

caput. This has long been a bone of contention among scholars, with some going so far as to suggest that the death penalty was possible in such cases, whilst others hold to the view that a loss of civil rights with expulsion from the Senate or from Italy was more in order. The evidence from this trial points to the latter view, as Cicero speaks of Postumus being 86

threatened with exclusion from all facets of public life, if he were to be found guilty. And this conclusion is further supported by other evidence from the Late Republican period, which indicates that in trials involving capital charges the imposition of a heavier penalty, 87

such as death, on a convicted defendant was extremely rare. Instead, in such cases the convicted citizen went into exile, most probably through suffering 'interdiction from water and fire' (aquae et ignis interdictio). Caesar prescribed this as a penalty in cases of

murder (vis) and treason (maiestas), and it has been suggested that it might also have been applicable in extortion cases, especially those that involved extortion aggravated by violence (saevitia); but, if this was so, it seems that it was only because such cases were indictable under ........................................................................................................................... pg 89 88

other laws which carried stricter penalties. These circumstances would not have been applicable in this case, as Postumus was on trial under the Julian law of extortion and does not seem to have been accused of aggravated extortion with violence. It, therefore, seems unlikely that he was facing the prospect of 'interdiction from water and fire'. Instead, because Cicero states that Postumus, if he had been found guilty, would have been deprived of the 'enjoyment of public life', and even his equestrian status and title would have been

Page 57 of 91

withdrawn, tarnishing irrevocably his name and reputation, then, it seems most likely that 89

he was liable to suffer the consequences of infamia. This, ever since the earliest laws of extortion, was not so much a prescribed legal penalty as an unvarying consequence of 90

condemnation. Convicted persons who suffered infamia were proscribed from competing for magistracies, voting in the assemblies, participating in the Senate, sitting on a panel of jurors, and testifying as a witness in a criminal court. Furthermore, later evidence from the Augustan and post-Augustan periods also suggests that in simple cases of extortion repayment and infamia were the expected penalties. In general, Caesar's Julian extortion law was highly praised by Cicero, and the comprehensiveness of its measures can be judged from the fact that, supplemented by later interpretations, it remained on the statutes for 91

many years and was made the subject of juristic comment down to the time of Justinian.

........................................................................................................................... pg 90

'What has become of the money'

This was a special clause of the Julian law of extortion which stipulated that the same jury, defence counsel, and prosecution should be retained from the original trial in any subsidiary one. A case tried under this clause took place if either the convicted defendant in the principal trial had been unable to provide sufficient securities, or money from the confiscation and sale of his property was inadequate for the payment of all the claimants. Thus, if Gabinius had provided enough money to cover the damages assessed against him, then, no matter how much money had passed to Postumus, he would not have been brought 92

to trial for this crime. It also seems clear from Postumus' case that to be charged under the clause 'What has become of the money' a defendant had to be specifically named in the 93

earlier extortion trial.

Although this legal formula seems to have been in force at least from the time of the Servilian (101) and Cornelian (81) laws of extortion, it appears that it was rarely used. Indeed, there are only two known cases of charges being brought under the clause. Its 'unpopularity' may have stemmed from the difficulty in producing sufficient incriminating evidence to meet the strict stipulations of the law, and this speculation is in part confirmed by the case of M. Servilius. His trial was linked to that of C. Claudius Pulcher, governor of Asia 55–53, who was charged with extorting money from the population of his province. Pulcher was found guilty and, like Gabinius, promptly fled into exile without paying his fine. Subsequently, a charge was brought against Servilius, who seems to have been a member of his staff, under the clause 'What has become of the money'. However, the case was not allowed to proceed by the praetor, presumably for lack of evidence, and Servilius was instead prosecuted for extortion under the full Julian law. Only when new and far more substantial evidence was presented by Pulcher's son Appius Pulcher Minor, revealing that Page 58 of 91

Servilius had, indeed, received a large bribe from his father, the governor of Asia, in return for fixing a collusive prosecution, was the case under the ........................................................................................................................... pg 91 full Julian law suspended and the indictment under 'What has become of the money' 94

reinstated. Restrictions on the introduction of new testimony in subsidiary cases may also have dissuaded prosecutors from using the clause. According to Cicero, witnesses, either those who had previously given evidence at the main trial or entirely new ones, were not normally permitted to give evidence in person at the subsidary trial. Instead, the testimony of the original witnesses was normally read aloud to the court, although they do seem to have had the option of emending their evidence if they desired.

95

Thus, although in theory this piece of legislation might have been attractive—given the high levels of corruption at the time—in practice the clause seems to have been virtually unworkable. Not only does it seem to have been difficult to amass sufficient evidence to bring a successful prosecution against a secondary defendant but also the clause seems to have been particularly difficult to apply. In Pro Rabirio Postumo, which after all is the only surviving example of a case brought to trial under this clause, Cicero is at pains to argue that the proper procedures have not been followed, as his client was not formally named during the trial of the principal defendant, and witnesses, most of whom, if not all, had previously appeared at Gabinius' trial for extortion, were being summoned to appear again a second time to testify at Postumus' trial, which, according to Cicero, was completely unprecedented. Here, either Cicero is playing upon some ambiguities in what was a complex piece of legislation, in order to confuse the jurors, or the prosecution, following the collapse of Gabinius' trial, in their haste to bring Postumus to court had failed to meet, either deliberately or through carelessness, the exact requirements of a little used clause. ........................................................................................................................... pg 92

Notes 1

In order to aid comprehension and for reasons of consistency the name 'Postumus' will henceforth be used when it is believed that the person in question is Gaius Rabirius Postumus. 2

cf. note on 3. 5 suppliant; elsewhere, in a similar vein, he terms him 'neither in birth nor in spirit royal' (Agr. 2. 42), but on another occasion (Sest. 57) he accorded him greater respect, calling him a 'true descendant of the Ptolemies'.

Page 59 of 91

3

Bevan (1927) 342–58; Bloedow (1963); Olshausen (1963) 22–63; Fraser (1972) I. 124–5; Grant (1982) 102, 197. 4

Sullivan (1990) 229–48; Hölbl (1994) 195–205, 248–54, 258.

5

Dio fr. 41 = Zonar. 8. 6 (PI379); App. Sic. 1; Eutr. 2. 15; Liv. Per. 14; Gruen (1984) 62–3, 673–4. 6

These exchanges bore immediate rewards for the Romans when Ptolemy II Philadelphus refused to lend 2,000 talents to the Carthaginians during their crucial war against the Romans (Harris (1979) 183–4). 7

Plut. Luc. 2. 5–3; Gruen (1984) 672–719.

8

Diod. 31. 18. 1 f.; Val. Max. 5. 1. 1f.; Liv. Per. 46.

9

Porph. FGrH 260, fr. 2. 11; App. B. C. 1. 102; Sullivan (1990) 89–90.

10

Two Ciceronian speeches, de lege agraria 1. 1, 2. 41–4 and de rege Alexandrino, esp. frs. 3, 5, constitute the main source of information about this will, but their alarmist tone and the far from clear exposition hide more than they reveal and create uncertainty as to the actual existence of the will and the identity of the testator, who in Cicero's account is called simply Alexas (Porph. FGrH 266, fr. 28). Scholars are divided as to his identity between Ptolemy X Alexander I (117–88) and Ptolemy XI Alexander II (80), the nineteen-days' king (Olshausen (1963) 22–37; Badian (1967) 178–92; Maehler (1983) 2, 12–13 n. 23; Braund (1983b) 24–8; idem (1984) 134, 149–53; Crawford (1994) 52). Nevertheless, these ambiguities cannot but reflect one reality: the compelling search for any pretext to lay hands on the wealth of Egypt. 11

For the juridical aspect of royal wills see Braund (1983b) 20 ff. Sometime during his reign Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (163–45) also drew up a will bequeathing Cyrene to the Romans (Fest. Brev. 13; SEG, IX, no. 7). For Ptolemy Apion (PP, 14553) see Liv. Per. 70; Mørkholm (1980) 145–9. On the reasons for the will see Justin 39. 5. 1–2; SEG, IX, no. 5; Bagnall (1972) 358–68. 12

For the precondition of proper descent see Caes. B. Alex. 78; for sources disputing Ptolemy Auletes' royal lineage see Justin. Prol. 39–40; Paus. 1. 9. 3; Joseph. A. J. 13. 349; App. B. C. 1. 102; Mith. 29. 93; for the opposite point of view see Porph. FGrH 260, fr. 2. 12; Strabo 17. 1. 11 (796); RE, XXIII. 2, cols. 1748–53; MRR, II. 188; SEG, IX, no. 5; Samuel (1962) 152–5; Skeat (1969) 36–7; Bernand (1975) I. 35–7, nos. 9–10; Sullivan (1990) 229–30.

Page 60 of 91

13

2Ver. 2. 76, 4. 60–8; Joseph. A. J. 13. 419–20; B. J. 1. 116; Strabo 16. 2. 3 (749); Heinen (1968) 113–14. 14

For Ptolemy IX Lathyros see PP, 14554 and for Cleopatra Selene see PP, 14520.

15

For Cleopatra V Tryphaena see PP. 14523; BGU, VIII. 1736–40; for the King's official coronation in Alexandria, instead of Memphis, which did not take place until March 76, see Thompson (1988) 128–31; idem (1990) 100; Sullivan (1990) 93–4. 16

Thompson (1973) 78–101; idem (1988) 110; Lenger (1980) 191–7, 202–4; Quaegebeur (1989b) 94–9. Ptolemy Auletes was the first Ptolemy to appear in Greek inscriptions with the title 'Theos' (Harris stele B.M. 886, l. 8 ff.; OGIS, 191. 2; Quaegebeur (1980) 69, no. 27; Crawford (1980) 39–40). 17

Harris stele B. M. 1026, II. 258, 264 ff., 886 ff.; Hölbl (1994) 258–60.

18

The contemporary Sallust (Hist. 2. fr. 43) dates the annexation to 75, Appian (B. C. 1. 111) to 74, and Eutropius (6. 11) offers an unlikely 67; see also Harris (1979) 267; Braund (1983b) 23 n. 29. 19

For the non-annexation policy see Badian (1968) 22, 29–30; for the small size of Cyrene being a factor see Otto (1934) 109 n. 1; Bagnall (1976) 32–3; and for the importance of desert tribes see Moretti (1976) 385–98; for various other speculations see Perl (1970) 320– 5; Braund (1983a) 241–4. 20

Among these measures were Tiberius Gracchus' attempts to build a state granary (Liv. 38. 35. 5), the special antipiratical commands to secure a safe passage for grain ships in 102–100, 74–71, and 67, and the investment of money raised from taxes in Asia on the newly established food-distribution network (Reynolds (1962) 98; Garnsey (1988) 127, 153, 158–62, 214–17). Unfortunately, we do not know for certain whether Rome drew any tribute from Cyrene before 75, but if it did, then, the incentive to establish a province was obviously weaker. For the publicani as an extra reason for the annexation see Sall. Hist. 2 fr. 43; Applebaum (1979) 63–5. 21

SEG, III, no. 378 B1.

22

Dio 39. 56. 2; Joseph. A. J. 14. 55; Polyb. 29. 27. 1–7.

23

Diod. 17. 52. 5; Strabo 17. 1. 6–9 (792–4); D. Chr. Or. 32. 361ff. From 167 we find numerous Romans appearing in Alexandria on political errands, but there is little evidence of

Page 61 of 91

a settled community of Roman negotiatores in the city, at least before the sack of Delos in 88 (Fraser (1972) I. 89, II. 170 n. 348; ILLRP, 343–5). 24

Scipio Aemilianus' embassy in 140/139 (Diod. 33. 28b. 1–3), L. Memmius' in 112 (P. Tebt. 1. 33), and L. Licinius Lucullus' in 87/86 (Plut. Luc. 2. 5–3).

25

Sallust described the newly aggressive tribunate of the sixties as marking the start of a period when the protectors of the people's rights were as selfish and ambitious as the aristocratic establishment which defended its own supremacy in the name of the Senate (Sall. Cat. 38. 1, 39. 1; Drummond (1995)). Indicative of the changing attitudes was Pompey's declaration in 48 before the battle of Pharsalus, in which he placed his personal relations with kings on a par with those of Rome (App. B. C. 2. 8. 51). 26

Plut. Cat Min. 35. 2–5; Off. 1. 25; Schol. Bob. reg. Alex. fr. 1 (p. 91 St.).

27

Agr. 1. 1; Schol. Bob. reg. Alex. fr. 5 (p. 92 St.) and fr. 9 (p. 93 St.).

28

Schol. Bob. reg. Alex. fr. 6 (p. 92 St.); Plut. Crass. 13. 2; Sherwin-White (1994) 271.

29

Plut. Crass. 13. 2; Schol. Bob. reg. Alex. fr. 7 (p. 92 St.); Crawford (1994) 54–5.

30

In Schol. Bob. reg. Alex. frs. 1–2, 6–7 (pp. 91–2 St.) Cicero alluded to Crassus' grasping greed, and two years later, in Agr. 2. 41, 2. 44, his objections are more forcibly evident. 31

Agr. 1. 13, 2. 10–12, 2. 43–4, 50; Schol. Bob. reg. Alex. fr. 6 (p. 92 St.); Rab. Perd. 32; Sul. 65; Pis. 4; Att. 2. 13. 1; Fam. 13. 4. 2; Plin. Nat. 7. 117; Dio 37. 25. 4; Syme (1964) 98–9; Sumner (1966) 569–82; Ward (1972) 245–58; Gruen (1974) 391–2. 32

Suet. Jul. 11; Agr. 2. 44; see below p. 13. This has led some to believe that Crassus and Caesar were working together against Pompey (Balsdon (1966) 217; Sumner (1966) 579; Ward (1972) 248); for a more recent discussion on the subject see Sherwin-White (1994) 271–3 n. 74. 33

Agr. 2. 44; Ward (1972) 244–58; Gruen (1974) 393; Marshall (1976) 66; Seager (1979) 64. This initiative of Crassus', supported by Caesar, was interpreted by Piganiol (1956) 137–8 as a reaction to Pompey's and Ptolemy Auletes' prior secret agreements; see also Syme (1964) 102 n. 88; Gray (1979) 56–63. 34

Piganiol (1956) 133–8; Luc. 2. 583–7 tr. Braund (1992) 37.

Page 62 of 91

35

Plut. Pomp. 30. 1.

36

Strabo 8. 7. 5 (386–8), 14. 3. 3 (665); Plut. Pomp. 28. 3–4; App. Mith. 14. 96; Servius ad Verg. Georg. 4. 127; Piganiol (1956) 137–8; Reynolds (1962) 97–103. 37

Olshausen (1963) 35–6; Heinen (1966) 167–75; Sullivan (1990) 233.

38

Pliny (Nat. 33. 136) following Varro, mentions 8,000 armed men but fails to mention any gifts, whereas, according to Appian (Mith. 17. 114) and Josephus (A. J. 14. 35), Ptolemy Auletes showered Pompey with presents, including a crown worth 4,000 gold pieces sent to the Roman general in Damascus (Porph. FGrH 91, Strabo fr. 14). For Crassus' poetic utterance see Cael. 18; Euripides II. 1–10: 'Would that the Argo had never winged / its way to the land of Colchis through / the dark blue Symplegades! Would that / pine trees had never been felled in the / glens of Mount Pelion and furnished / oars for the hands of the heroes who / at Pelias' command set forth in / quest of the Golden Fleece! For them my / lady Medea would not have sailed to / the towers of Iolcus, her heart / smitten with love for Jason'; Seager (1980) 89. 39

App. Mith. 17. 114, records that 'Pompey either feared the greatness of this still prosperous kingdom or wished to guard against the envy of his enemies or the warning voice of oracles'; Olshausen (1963) 35–6; Heinen (1966) 167–75. 40

2Ver. 2. 76.

41

cf. note on 2. 4 previous occasion; Att. 2. 1. 6, 2. 16. 2; Plut. Cat. Min. 35. 1–7; Luc. 8. 518 ff., 595; Dio 39. 12. 1; Seager (1979) 87. The recognition was a further stage in a succession marked by earlier royal wills which had brought Egypt into increasingly open dependence on Rome (Braund (1984) 182, 185). 42

Luc. 8. 518, 595; Dio 39. 12. 1; Hölbl (1994) 199.

43

Dio 39. 12–13, 60–2; Marshall (1976) 140. Many Senators also seem to have benefited from the King's payments (cf. note on 3. 6 Senate). 44

A possible candidate for the leadership of the embassy to Alexandria was P. Clodius Pulcher. However, as Cicero tells us, he was offered, instead, the leadership of the Armenian embassy—a far inferior task (Att. 2. 4. 2, 2. 5. 1, 2. 7. 2–3, 2. 9. 1; Fam. 1. 9. 7; Wiseman (1994) 373). Cicero's assertion (cf. note on 2. 4 previous occasion) bears all the hallmarks of being a true statement of affairs and not merely a rhetorical device as suggested by

Page 63 of 91

Klodt (1992) 99; see also Suet. Jul. 54; Dio 39. 12. 1. Part of the money also came from the pockets of the Egyptian population. 45

Att. 2. 5. 1; that Pompey had a hand in the scheme is shown by Cicero's remark on Theophanes, Pompey's scribe and close assistant, talking to Atticus about this matter (cf. note on 3. 6 Pompey's Alban villa). 46

Diod. 1. 44. 1, 1. 83. 8–9.

47

Wilcken (1920) 404–6; Lenger (1980) 198.

48

Ten years after her father's trip to Rome in 58 Cleopatra VII would turn to the same quarter for support under similar circumstances (Strabo 17. 1. 11 (796); Dio 51. 5. 4; Caes. B. Civ. 3. 103. 1f.; Zonar. 10. 10 (PI 488); Vict. vir. ill. 86). 49

Dio 39. 12. 2–13. 1.

50

cf. note on 2. 4 Sibyl; Justin Prol. 40: 'seditione flagitatus Alexandriae'.

51

Dio 39. 58. 2; for their unruly nature see Dio 51. 161; Strabo 17. 1. 52–3 (819); Tac. Hist. 1. 11, and for an incident of alleged cannibalism in 127 see Juv. 15. 14 ff; Jones (1978) 37. 52

D. Chr. Or. 32. 70. 1; Joseph. B. J. 2. 490; Jouguet (1948) 86–92. The date of the speech is suggested by Jones (1973) 302–9. Strabo 17. 1. 11 (796) also speaks of the King's expulsion by the Alexandrians 'οἱ‎ 'Αλεξανδρεῖς ἐξέβαλον‎'. In Appian's account (Syr. 51. 257; Mith. 114. 557), although the Alexandrians are not mentioned specifically as the culprits, the King is described as 'έχπεσών‎'. Finally, Suetonius' evidence (Jul. 11) is on the same lines but falsely attributes these events to 65. 53

He came from a noble and highly aristocratic family of Illyrian origins which had been prominent since early Ptolemaic times (D. Chr. Or. 32. 70; Diod. 1. 83. 8; Zucker (1952) 338; idem (1957) 164–6; Masson (1966) 248–54). Unfortunately, information on such political groups is scarce, but evidence points to their continued existence into early imperial times (Philo in Flac. 135). 54

Plut. Pomp. 49. 6; Cato Min. 35. 2. However, Plutarch (Pomp. 49. 7) immediately, one paragraph below, contradicts himself by stating that Ptolemy Auletes 'left home without sufficient reason and under no necessity, and the abandonment of Egypt was owing to the persuasions of Theophanes, who was aiming to give Pompey profitable occupation in the holding of the new command'.

Page 64 of 91

55

Liv. Per. 104; FGrH 260, frs. 2. 8, 2. 14.

56

Diodorus 17. 52. 6 states that there were 300,000 free citizens in Alexandria in 60, but his more general statement (1. 31. 6–8) that Alexandria was the largest city in the world has led Fraser (1972) I. 91, II. 171–2 to suggest that a figure of one million is more likely (Joseph. B. J. 2. 385). 57

Polyb. 34. 14. 4–5. Although the composition of this feared mob is impossible to determine, it might be presumed to have included many of the lower elements of society, such as poor and unprivileged Greeks, urban Egyptians, and Graeco-Egyptians who were not incorporated into the citizen body. 58

Dio 39. 12. 2. That the loss of Cyprus was part of the agreement between Ptolemy Auletes and the Romans is suggested by Van't Dack (1988) 187 n. 4; for the avaricious character of the King of Cyprus see Fest. Brev. 13. 1; Val. Max. 9. 4, ext. 1; Vell. 2. 45. 5; App. B. C. 2. 23; for the insatiable appetite of the Romans see Oost (1955) 101–2. It has also been suggested that Cyprus was annexed as a consequence of the will of Ptolemy X Alexander I (De DeSanctis (1932) 59–67; Luzzato (1941) 280 n. 70; Badian (1967) 178 n. 2). 59

Oost (1955) 100; Badian (1965) 116–17. Cato remained in Cyprus from autumn 58 until 56 as a pro quaestore pro praetore, when the newly acquired isle was placed under the

responsibility of Lentulus Spinther, proconsul of Cilicia (Fam. 1. 7. 4). Clodius appears to have held a personal grudge against the King of Cyprus (PP, 14559; Dio 38. 30. 5; Strabo 14. 6. 4 (684); App. B. C. 2. 23). For the law see Liv. Per. 104; Sest. 57; Dom. 20, 52–3; Fam. 3. 6. 3–6; Vell. 2. 38. 6; App. B. C. 2. 23; Plut. Cat Min. 35–6; for the atmosphere in Rome at this particular time and Clodius' profitable arrangements with rich eastern luminaries see Wiseman (1994) 379. 60

Badian (1968) 46, 76; Garnsey (1988) 216.

61

The scenes engraved on the pylon at Edfu depicting the Ptolemies waging war against foreign enemies, aside from being a ritual confirmation of military prowess, might be construed as pandering to this sense of popular xenophobia and, indeed, such feelings are vividly captured by Cicero in Agr. 2. 45–6; Cauville & Cauville Devauchelle (1984) 31–55. For the notorious incident with the cat see Diod. 1. 83. 1–9, although harsh punishment was inflicted on anyone who offended against the Egyptian religious practices and the above treatment should not be regarded as one only applicable to Romans. 62

Fam. 1. 1. 1, 1. 4. 2, 7. 17. 1; Q.fr. 22. 3; Cael. 18; Plut. Pomp. 49. 6; Dio 39. 12. 3; cf. note on 2. 4 Sibyl, 3. 6 Pompey's Alban villa. Continuing animosity can be discerned in

Page 65 of 91

the demonstrations against Caesar, and the assassinations of Roman soldiers, in 48, during the absence of Ptolemy XIII and Cleopatra VII from the city (Caes. B. Civ. 3. 106. 4–5). The Romans seem to have harboured equally antagonistic feelings towards the Alexandrians and, during his speech in defence of Postumus, Cicero pours scorn on them, sarcastically commenting on their propensity to perjury, theatricality, and irresponsibility (cf. 12. 34–3, 13. 36; Juv. 7. 13–16; Sonnabend (1986) 85–8, 96–108; Braund (1989) 45–52). 63

Dio 39. 12–13; D. Chr. Or. 32. 70; Att. 2. 16. 2; Suet. Jul. 54. Papyrological evidence also indicates heavy taxation at this time (BGU, VIII. 1773, 1782, 1821, 1825, 1828, 1846; BGU, XIV. 2315). A different picture, which should probably be taken with a pinch of rhetorical salt, is presented by Cicero in the speech (cf. 11. 31), where he states that it was not in the character of the King to impose further taxation on his subjects. 64

Rostovtzeff (1941) II. 903; Mooren (1975); idem (1981) 299; idem (1985) 214–22; Austin (1981) no. 235, col. 36; no. 236, col. 43; no. 240; no. 241. 65

cf. note on 3. 6 money was provided; for courtiers who resumed their offices after the restoration of the King see Mooren (1972) 110, 123 n. 14; idem (1975) 110, 118, 242; Ricketts (1990) 51 n. 17; PP, I. 303, 403. 66

For those who possibly masterminded his downfall see Mooren (1975) 96, 111, 138–9, 242, and for Hephaestion cf. note on 8. 22 treasurer. A similar pattern can be discerned later when conflict in the court between those willing to placate Rome and those wishing either to ignore her or to forge other alliances in the East, in order to bolster Egypt's independence, led to the expulsion of Cleopatra VII by her brother's friends Pothinus, the chief minister, and Thedotus, his tutor (Vict. vir. ill. 86; Liv. Per. III; Strabo 17. 1. 11 (796); Dio 51. 5. 4; Caes. B. Civ. 3. 103. 2; Bloedow (1963) 24; Heinen (1966) 36 ff., 45 ff.; Fraser (1972) II. 227 n. 284). 67

The claim that Ptolemy Auletes had no mercenary troops, found in Dio 39. 12. 2, is false (Bouché–Leclerq (1903–7) II. 134 n. 1; Van't Dack (1988) 214–28); for Ptolemy X Alexander I see Porph. FGrH 260, fr. 2. 8–9 = Porph. ap. Euseb. Chron. I, col. 164, Schoene; Justin 39. 5. 1; Paus. 1. 9. 3. 68

BGU, VIII. 1762; Rostovtzeff (1941) II. 898.

69

Volkmann (1958) 52–3; Grant (1972) 37–8.

70

It has generally been accepted that the papyrological evidence dated 11 August 58 (year '23' Mesore 30) is the last available source mentioning Ptolemy Auletes as King of Egypt before his deposition from the throne, although he is not cited by name (Gardiner, Page 66 of 91

Thompson, et al. (1913) 78–80, nos. 12–15). His years of kingship continued to be marked during his absence, as his 24th year (commencing 7 September 58) was equated with that of his daughter Berenice IV (Pestman (1967) 81). In P. Oxy. 2222 it is stated that his exile lasted two years (ἔτεσι δύσι‎), but it is possible that an additional number of months may have been indicated in the lacuna which follows. Porphyry also suggests a time of two years, but it may be that he means the exile spanned the regnal years 24 and 26 (Skeat (1969) 37, 38 n. 9; Rea (1988) no. 3777, 1–5; Ricketts (1990) 49–60). 71

cf. note on 3. 6 Senate; Sall. Jug. 8. 2.

72

Gruen (1966) 120–30; Lintott (1967) 157–69.

73

cf. note on 3. 6 Pompey's Alban villa; Fam. 7. 17. 1; Dio 39. 14. 3–4; Strabo 17. 1. 11 (796). 74

cf. note on 2. 4 in doubt, 2. 5 over-extended, 9. 25, 13. 38, 14. 39; Fam. 7. 17. 1.

75

For the joint rule see the undated reference to the two queens in BGU, VIII. 1762. 4–5; for the death of Cleopatra V Tryphaena see Porph. FGrH 260 fr. 2. 14 and Ricketts (1990) 51–9;

for the demotic graffito see Thissen (1977) 182–4; Rea (1988); Quaegebeur (1989b) 603–5; for the circumstances of the marriage of Ptolemy Auletes and Cleopatra V Tryphaena in 79 and for their relationship see Whitehorne (1994) 183; Hölbl (1994) 196, 201–3. Other papyri that appear to bear such a dual dating during this period (57/56) include the P. Louvre 3452 of 'year 2' of an unnamed queen (presumably Berenice IV) and 'year 25' of an unnamed king (presumably Ptolemy Auletes); Pestman (1967) 80–1. 76

Dio 39. 13. 1, 39. 57. 1–2, 42. 36. 3, 42. 44. 2; Strabo 17. 1. 11 (796); for Berenice IV's solitary year of rule see BGU, VIII. 1757, 1821; P. Oxy. 3777; SB, III. 6156; Rea (1988) 1–5.

77

For Antiochus see Diod. 40. 1. 1a–1b; for an extensive discussion on his identity see Heinen (1968) 105–14; for Gabinius' obstructions to Philip II's election see Euseb. Chron. 1. 40. 25–7, where he mentions Porphyry FGrH 2B. 260 fr. 1. 2 as his source; Bouché-Leclerq (1903–7) II. 160. The fact that Pompey instructed Gabinius to prevent Philip from leaving Syria is suggested by Bouché-Leclerq (1913) 454–5; for Seleucus see Dio 39. 57. 1–2; Strabo 17. 1. 11 (796). 78

cf. note on 8. 20 Archelaus.

Page 67 of 91

79

On the basis of the dual dating found on some papyrological documents, which record a 'year 2', presumably of Berenice IV, with a 'year 1', some scholars have assigned the latter to Archelaus, although he does not appear by name (Rea (1988) 3; Ricketts (1990) 54 n. 27). 80

cf. note on 8. 20 State; Strabo 17. 1. 11 (796), 12. 3. 34–5 (558); Dio 39. 56–8; Val. Max. 9. 1, ext. 6; App. Mith. 17. 114. 81

SB, III. 6156. 38 shows Berenice IV ruling alone no later than 7 March 56, and the first reference which might be possibly assigned to Archelaus' 'joint rule' with Berenice IV is dated 16 April 56 (Grenfell & Hunt (1897) 62–5, no. 38). 82

cf. note on 3. 6 owner. The embassy constituted 100 men (Dio 39. 13. 1; Cael. 23–4, 51); for the assassination of Dio see Har. 34; and for the King's temporary residence in Ephesus see Dio 29. 16. 3, 39. 16. 3, 39. 55. 1; Fam. 1. 1. 1; Att. 15. 15. 2; Har. 28. 83

cf. note on 2. 4 Sibyl. Pompey believed that the Sibyl's prophecy, forbidding military intervention in Egypt, was the work of Crassus who was hiding behind the aggressive and headstrong young tribune and whose intention in forcing the Senate to demilitarize the mission was to hasten its complete abandonment (Marshall (1976) 123–4; idem (1978) 163– 4). 84

cf. note on 3. 6 Senate; Pompey's Alban villa; Q.fr. 2. 2. 3; Fam. 1. 1. 1–4, 1. 4. 2, 1. 7. 4, 7. 17. 1; Cael. 18; Plut. Pomp. 49. 6; Dio 39. 12. 3. 85

cf. note on 3. 6 consul; 8. 21 P. Lentulus; Fam. 1. 1. 3; Pis. 50; Dio 39. 12. 3; for Caesar's support of Lentulus see Caes. B. Civ. 1. 22. 4. 86

cf. note on 8. 21 P. Lentulus; Dio 39. 15. 1 f; Fam. 1. 1. 1, 4. 2. A number of proposals were put forward in relation both to the candidacy and the method of execution of the project (Shatzman (1971) 366–7; Gruen (1974) 106–8; Seager (1979) 116–17). 87

On Crassus' intentions see Marshall (1976) 122–3; on Pompey's plans see Fam. 1. 1. 3, 1. 2. 3, 1. 5b. 1; Q.fr. 2. 2. 3; on Gabinius cf. note on 4. 8 Gabinius.

88

Through Clodius' bill of 58 the province of Macedonia was allocated to Piso and that of Cilicia to Gabinius. However, political tactics dictated a change of plans as it is stated by Cicero in Dom. 23; for Gabinius' preparations to invade Parthia see Joseph. A. J. 14. 98, 103; B. J. 1. 175, 178; App. Syr. 51; Dio 39. 56. 1–3; Strabo 12. 3. 34 (558).

Page 68 of 91

89

cf. note on 8. 20 pirates; 8. 21 avarice; 12. 34; Pis. 49 f. It seems that, at least by March 56, the Egyptians considered themselves to be in a state of war since when Berenice IV took Seleucus as her husband she 'made him partner in the kingdom and in the war', and, in the absence of any other known conflict at this time, this must be presumed to refer to the military threat posed by Ptolemy Auletes and the Romans (Dio 39. 57. 1). 90

cf. note on 8. 20 State; pirates; Gabinius' assertion is treated as true by Williams (1985– 6) 25–32. 91

cf. note on 8. 19 prompted; 8. 21 10,000 talents.

92

For the decision of the Senate see Fam. 1. 1. 1 (dated 13 January 56); Q.fr. 2. 2. 3 (dated 17 January 56); for Postumus' departure cf. note on 8. 21 had hurried. 93

For Postumus' involvement as a courier cf. note on 8. 19 prompted; for Gabinius' camp in Parthia see Dio 39. 56. 3–4; Strabo 12. 3. 34 (558); Joseph. A. J. 14. 98; B. J. 1. 179. 94

For the supposition that part of the money was never paid see Suet. Jul. 54; cf. note on 11. 30 money for Gabinius, 13. 38 did not return it to him, 15. 41 shouldered. 95

Strabo 12. 3. 34–5 (558). In the absence of any other evidence this figure of Strabo must be allowed to stand, although it may be that the time of six months, rather than being precise, is an approximation, indicating a 'short period of reign'. The validity of the above date has been questioned by Samuel (1969) 156, Skeat (1969) 39–40 and, more recently, Ricketts (1990) 55 n. 32, who believe that the figure, because it was written as a numeral, is corrupt and that Archelaus stayed longer in power. 96

Fam. 1. 7. 4; Shackleton Bailey (1988a) 302. Cicero seems to have known very little of the Egyptian operation, let alone of Pompey's plans and, indeed, he complained how uncommunicative Pompey was in February 56 (Fam. 1. 5b. 1). Cicero's correspondence also points to a beginning of the campaign not before March 56 (Q.fr. 2. 2. 3, 2. 4. 5, 2. 5b. 1–2, 2. 6. 1). 97

Williams (1985–6) 31 dates the beginning of the expedition 'not much before January 55' and Wiseman (1994) 397 'just after January 55' on the grounds that Pompey's position was stronger at that time. In both cases, if we take into account that the King was restored by January/February 55 (see below) very little time would be left for such a major military operation. 98

Strabo 17. 1. 12 (798); Q.fr. 2. 12. 2.

Page 69 of 91

99

Dio 39. 56. 1–5, 39. 59. 1–2 states that Gabinius had left behind his son Sisenna, a mere boy, with very few soldiers in Syria. For the rapidity with which he changed plans see Dio 39. 56. 4 'ήπείχθη‎'. Both Cicero (Fam. 1. 7. 4) and Dio (39. 58. 1) state that it was a combined operation involving fleet and army; for the equestrian forces involved see Plut. Ant. 3.2. 100

For the lack of any opposition see Dio 39. 58. 1; for Aristobulus' trouble see Dio 39. 56. 6; Strabo 17. 1. 12 (798); Joseph. A. J. 14. 92–7; B. J. 1. 171–5. Gabinius does not appear to have left a garrison unit in Judaea as suggested by Klodt (1992) 29. 101

Joseph. B. J. 1. 175; A. J. 14. 98–9; Schürer (1973–87) I. 234–5.

102

For the morphology of the area see Strabo 17. 1. 21 (803); for the division of Gabinius' army see Dio 39. 58. 1; Strabo 17. 1. 12 (798), 12. 3. 34 (558); and for the battle of Pelusium see Caes. B. Civ. 3. 110. 1f.; B. Alex. 7; Val. Max. 9. 1, ext. 6; Plut. Ant. 3. 2–4; Peremans (1978) 45–9. 103

For Archelaus' death see Plut. Ant. 32–4; Dio 39. 58. 3; Strabo 12. 3. 34 (558). Strabo, in a later reference—17. 1. 11 (796)—contradicts himself with the unlikely statement that it was Ptolemy Auletes who personally killed Archelaus. For an account glorifying Mark Antony's actions see Plut. Ant. 3. 2–4; Pis. 49; Suolahti (1955) 344 n. 3. 104

A few years later, in 47, during the war in Alexandria, troops marching to support Caesar from the East led by Mithridates of Pergamum followed the same route through Pelusium to Memphis and, thence, to Alexandria (Joseph. B. J. 1. 187–92; A. J. 14. 127–36; Kees (1961) 183–4; Sijpesteijn (1965) 123 n. 1; Applebaum (1979) 318 n. 367). 105

For the military engagements on the river see Dio 39. 58. 1. One stadium equalled eight and a third Roman miles according to Strabo 17. 1. 24 (804); Gardiner (1920) 99–116. 106

On the importance of the clergy at Memphis see Thompson (1990) 97–116.

107

According to Suda (s.v. Timagenes), Timagenes of Alexandria was a war captive of Gabinius, brought back to Rome in 55 and later freed (Plut. Ant. 72. 3; Seneca Con. 10. 5.; Ira 3. 23.; Treggiari (1969) 123, 223, 246). 108

Att. 4. 10. 1f. (dated 22 April 55); Dio 39. 59. 1–2. BGU, VIII. 1820 dated the year '26' Pharmuthi 19 = 22 April 55, although there is no reference to the King by name, is usually accepted as 'year 26' of Ptolemy Auletes. BGU, III. 1002 also refers to 'year 26' Payni 22 = 24 June 55 and mentions the King by name Πτολεμα‎[ί‎]ου νέου Διονύσου Φιλοπ‎[άτορ‎]ος

Page 70 of 91

Φιλαδέλφου‎'; Mussies (1968) 70–6. For a dating from his first full regnal year '27' after the restoration see Stele Bucheum 200 Pestman (1967) 80–1; Rea (1988) 1–5. 109

cf. note on 14. 40 summer.

110

In 104, when Cleopatra V Selene left Egypt to marry Antiochus VIII Grypus, she is recorded as leaving her two sons by Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyros behind in Egypt for her mother Cleopatra III to raise, suggesting that Ptolemy Auletes must have been born before his mother departed—this assumption is only plausible if Cleopatra V Selene is accepted as his real mother and not a concubine. And, indeed, if his father was Lathyros, then Ptolemy Auletes would have been born before his father fled Egypt in 107, indicating that he was at least twenty-seven years old at the time of his accession to the throne in 80 (Justin 39. 4. 1– 4; Cauville & Devauchelle (1984) 43). 111

Fam. 1. 7. 4; Shackleton Bailey (1988a) 34 suggests that the Ptolemais mentioned in this letter is the Ptolemais (Hormou) on the Nile near Fayum; however, this seems highly unlikely given the nature of the operation, and a more suitable location would have been the Ptolemais (Acre) in Phoenicia, although this was the considerable distance of 1,600 stadia from Alexandria (Strabo 2. 5. 39 (134)). 112

Fam. 7. 17. 1.

113

Dio 39. 56. 6; Q.fr. 2. 12. 2; Treggiari (1973) 246.

114

cf. note on 8. 22 treasurer, 14. 39 tyrant. In a muddled text in which he confuses Postumus with Gabinius, saying that he was tried for treason after leaving his province, Suetonius dates Postumus' arrival in Alexandria to after the restoration of the King (Suet. Cl. 16; Sullivan (1990) 245 nn. 116, 117). For the Gabiniani see below n. 126. 115

Pis. 49; Plut. Ant. 3. 2, 4; App. Syr. 51; Dio 39. 55–6; Schol. Bob. Arch. 9 (p. 177 St.) and Planc. 86 (p. 168 St.); Joseph. A. J. 14. 98–9; B. J. 1. 175. For businessmen investing in the project after the senatus consultum of 57 see Fam. 7. 17. 1, 1. 5a. 3–4; Plut. Caes. 48. 4; Shatzman (1971) 366–7. 116

The content and spirit of this document would make it extremely unlikely that it refers to C. Julius Postumus (AD 45–7), the prefect of Egypt during Claudius' reign, who is primarily known from the edict of Ti. Julius Alexander; for the career of C. Julius Postumus see Bennet (1971) 86–9; Sijpesteijn (1990) 102.

Page 71 of 91

117

Balconi (1993) 1–20; this papyrus can be dated to sometime between the middle of the first century BC and first century AD, and, although its place of origin is uncertain, it is attested that it was found among a mixed group of papyri which related to the nomoi of Arsinoe and Oxyrynchus. The text of a possible edict containing a list of transfers drawn up by a strategos and a royal scribe, which appears on the verso of the document, is of a later date and has no relevance to Postumus' case. 118

cf. note on 11. 30 revenue, 11. 31 taxation.

119

cf. note on 14. 40 ships; for Timagenes see above n. 107.

120

CIL, VI. 2246, S = ILS, 4404 (a) 'C. Rabirius Post. l. Hermodorus' (b) 'Rabiria Demaris' (c) 'Usia Prima sac. Isidis', with the annotation 'Sistrum patera'. A photograph of this particularly fine tombstone dating from 13 BC–AD 5 can be found in Kleiner (1977) 231–2, no. 63 and fig. 63 a, b, and c, where the bust of a man, a woman, and a child—presumably the daughter of the couple—is depicted (for this reference I am indebted to Dr Susan Walker, Curator of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the British Museum). 121

Strabo 17. 1. 11 (796); for the seizure of the wealth of courtiers see Dio 39. 58. 3; for the heavy taxation imposed on the Egyptians cf. note on 11. 31 taxation; Mørkholm (1975) 7; Walker & King (1976–8) I. 150 ff. 122

cf. note on 14. 39 prison, 14. 40 summer.

123

Caes. B. Civ. 3. 4. 4; Dio 42. 3. 4.

124

Plut. Pomp. 80. 3; App. B. C. 2. 49. 200–4; Dio 42. 38. 1, in his narration of the civil wars, distinguishes between the Roman soldiers and the Gabiniani; Lesquier (1918) 2. 125

BGU, VIII. 1828, dated 52/51.

126

For the life of the Gabiniani in Alexandria see Caes. B. Civ. 3. 110. 1–6; Launey (1949) 675; Heinen (1966) 48–52; Bagnall (1984) 7–20; Carter (1993) 230–1 suggests that perhaps they had veterans' rights, including marriage; for their possible amalgamation with the Ptolemaic army see Lesquier (1911) 267–8; idem (1918) 2; for their function as the King's army see Caes. B. Civ. 3. 104. 1. 127

Caes. B. Civ. 3. 103. 5, 3. 104. 3; Plut. Pomp. 78. 1, 79. 3; Heinen (1966) 48–52; Van't Dack (1983) 77–86; idem (1988) 185–213; some of the Gabiniani may have defected to Caesar's camp (Caes. B. Civ. 3. 106. 4).

Page 72 of 91

128

cf. note on 3. 6 treaty; Caes. B. Civ. 3. 108. 1f.; Braund (1983b) 33–4; Criscuolo (1989) 325–39. The exact date of the will is not certain. The year 51 has been generally adopted, since this is the year of Ptolemy Auletes' death. An earlier date of 55 has also been suggested because of Caesar's statement that Ptolemy Auletes, while making the will, swore by all the gods and by the treaties (note the plural) which he had made at Rome (Sullivan (1990) 246). However, in the absence of any evidence of a formal treaty between Ptolemy Auletes and Rome other than the recognition of 59, this same statement has led Carter (1993) 228 to suggest that the will was drawn up in 59 as an insurance against production of a false will in Alexandria after Ptolemy Auletes' death. 129

Dio 39. 14. 3; Plut. Pomp. 65–80.

130

cf. note on 3. 5 suppliant.

131

Dom. 20, 52; Sest. 57; Fam. 3. 6. 3, 6; Plut. Cat Min. 35–6; Vell. 2. 45. 3; Dio 39. 22. 2–4.

132

Bloedow (1963) 87; Barns (1978) 12.

133

Strabo 17. 1. 13 (798), who says that Ptolemy Auletes administered the kingdom in the worst (χάχιστα‎) and most careless way (ῥαθνμότατα‎). 1

cf. 2. 3, 17. 45; Rab. Perd. 8; RE, I. A1, col. 25, no. 6; Dessau (1911) 613–20; idem (1913) 320. 2

Rab. Perd. 8. It is not certain that this brother was older, but, given the fact that Postumus was said never to have seen his father's face (cf. 2. 4), it must be presumed that any other child was born before him. 3

cf. note on 2. 3 publicanus, 17. 45; RE, IV. 2, cols. 1863–4, nos. 5 and 6. 'Curtius' is a very common family name, but it has been suggested, on the basis of a tablet found in Capua (near St. Lucia) bearing a list of twenty-four Campanian magistrates between the years 108 and 105, including an M. Curtius C. f., that the Curtii may have had their roots in Campania (De Franciscis (1956) 354; AE, 1958, no. 267). 4

2Ver. 1. 100, 102, 158; for details on the exact order of the names see below n. 9; for the Curtii Postumi being listed among other successful businessmen see Barlow (1980) 208. 5

Rab. Perd. 8. For the trials of an eques, Quintus Sosius, who confessed to the crime of burning the tabularium, and that of Lucius Alenus, who committed the same act, because he had forged the handwriting of six senior treasury clerks, see N. D. 3. 74; Tyrrell (1978) 66–7.

Page 73 of 91

6

cf. 2. 3; Rab. Perd. 8, the 'C. Curius' of the MSS is generally accepted as being C. Curtius.

7

cf. note on 2. 4 although … father; Varr. L. 9. 60–2; Quint. 1. 4. 25; Plin. Nat. 7. 150; Douglas (1958) 62–6. 8

Guiraud (1905) 205; Dessau (1911) 613–14 (emphasis added); Kajanto (1965) 295; Nicolet (1966–74) II. 1000. 9

2 Ver. 1. 100, 102, 158. The standard reading 'cum Q. et Cn. Postumis Curtiis' is, in fact, an emendation by Ps-Asconius of the original MS, which read, 'Q. Q. Postumus Curtus' (Stangl (1912) II. 247). For possible interpretations of the inversion see Nicolet (1966–74) II. 861, 1000; Shackleton Bailey (1988b) 43. I would like to thank Professor Gian Luca Gregori of the University of Rome for drawing my attention to the following inscription: 'Q. CURT. POST. L. NOEUS' and 'CURTIA Q. L. SERAPIAS'. 'Postumus' was an ancient praenomen which became more prominent in the Republican period as a cognomen, as in the cases of T. Furfanius Postumus (Fam. 6. 8. 3), Q. Seius Postumus (Dom. 115), L. Servilius Postumus (Fam. 12. 26. 2

1) and many others recorded in CIL, I ; Kajanto (1965) 41, 295. On forms of address in the time of Cicero see Adams (1978) 165–6. 10

cf. note on 2. 4 although … father.

11

A number of probable analogues to Postumus' case can be found in Shackleton Bailey (1991a) 55. 12

Fam. 13. 4–5; for Q. Valerius Orca's support for Cicero's recall from exile whilst he was praetor in 57 see Red. Sen. 23. 13

Harris (1971) 264, 274. The inhabitants of Volaterrae suffered loss of civil rights, although the courts refused to uphold such a measure, and confiscation of property by Sulla because of their long (two-years') resistance to his army (Dom. 79; Seager (1994) 203–5). 14

The cities of Italy and especially Volaterrae staunchly supported Cicero's consulship and toiled hard to bring him back from exile (Dom. 28, 75); for the letter see Att. 1. 19. 4, and for speculations about its date see Shackleton Bailey (1977) II. 459, where he suggests it was written either after Caesar's return from Spain in September 45 or during his third dictatorship between April 46 and April 45. Letters of this nature were written by Cicero on other occasions too (Fam. 10. 6. 1 f.). 15

Fam. 13. 4. 1; Att. 1. 19. 4; Brunt (1971) 323; Deniaux (1991) 226 ff.

Page 74 of 91

16

cf. note on 17. 47 I can … charge; Fam. 13. 4. 2.

17

Brunt (1971) 323–5 suggests that this purchase could have taken place after 49, when Caesar had exempted the ager Volaterranus from redistribution. The same land had also been under threat of distribution in 63 (Fam. 13. 4. 1–2) and 60 (Att. 1. 19. 4). Perhaps, there was no legal distinction between land merely owned by Sullan partisans and that left to other inhabitants of Volaterrae when it was targeted again by Caesar in 45. 18

For C. Curtius see Shackleton Bailey (1977) II. 460; idem (1988a) 482; RE, IV. 2, col. 1864, no. 6; for the father of C. Curtius see S. Rosc. 90; RE, IV. 2, col. 1863, no. 1; Hinard (1985) 347–8, no. 21. Cicero speaks of a terrible misfortune befalling Postumus' father (Fam. 13. 5. 2), and it has been suggested that this might be a reference to the death of his own father (Wiseman (1971) 228). However, on the basis of the argument advanced here, it more probably refers to his own proscription and loss of civil rights. 19

cf. 2. 3; Fam. 13. 5. 2.

20

cf. note on 2. 3 young; Fam. 13. 5. 2: 'C. Curtio ab ineunte aetate familiarissime sum

usus'. 21

Fam. 13. 4. 11; Gruen (1974) 276.

22

cf. 17. 47 I can … charge. If it is accepted that C. Curtius was tried on a criminal charge after his rehabilitation, then it can be presumed that he had somehow regained his citizenship. This fact, perhaps, is not taken into account, when it is suggested that he remained, like other victims of the proscriptions, excluded from his civil rights until Caesar restored them in 49 (RE, IV. 2, col. 1864, no. 6; Syme (1955) 61). 23

Att. 9. 5. 1; for other examples of the promotion of anti-Sullan campaigners see Deniaux (1991) 226; Rawson (1994) 452. 24

cf. 17. 45; on C. Rabirius see RE, I. A1, col. 24, no. 5 and on Rabiria see RE, I. A1, col. 29, no. 8. Adoption had to be approved and validated by the Pontifices (34–8). 25

cf. note on 17. 45 discretion and goodwill, 14. 38, 17. 47; Rab. Perd. 8.

26

The natural father's praenomen was traditionally given to the first-born son, with later sons receiving different praenomina, but, as in this case the eldest son had died, Postumus bore the praenomen of his father (Watson (1967) 82–8; Salomies (1987) 204 ff., esp. 209 ff.; Syme (1979–88d) 159–60).

Page 75 of 91

27

There is a plethora of examples of adopted persons who employed variants of their names (formal, informal) strictly depending on the circumstances, including the cases of P. Cornelius Lentulus, M. Brutus, P. Clodius Pulcher, and P. Cornelius Dolabella (Shackleton Bailey (1991a) 53–60; Harlan (1995) 178–81). Cicero, after the adoption of his close friend T. Pomponius Atticus by his uncle Q. Caecilius, in 58, continued to address him in his letters by the familiar 'T. Pomponius' rather than by his new name 'Q. Caecilius Atticus', and his freedmen also carried both versions of his name, as in the case of 'T. Caecilius', who took Atticus' former praenomen, Titus, along with his new nomen, Caecilius (Att. 4. 15. 1), and Q. Caecilius Epirota, who carried Atticus' new praenomen and nomen (Suet. Gram. 16); see also Att. 3. 20. 1, 3. 22. 3, 4. 2. 5, 5. 2. 1, 7. 7. 7; Brut. 10; Nep. Att. 5. 2; Val. Max. 7. 8. 5; Salomies (1992) 8–10. 28

cf. note on 1. 1 C. Rabirius; Dessau (1911) 615; Adams (1978) 159–60; for a contrary point of view see White (1995) 158, who contests the idea that so many appellations appertain to one and the same person. 29

See below pp. 55–60.

30

A tessera nummularia bearing the name of Rabirius found in Rome and dating from the consulship of D. Silanus and L. Murena in 62, given our Postumus' age at that time and the use of the name 'Postumus' in a commercial context, possibly refers to his uncle and 2

adoptive father C. Rabirius (CIL, I , 911 = ILLRP, 1026: 'Flaccus / Rabiri (servus) / sp(ectavit) K(alendis) Apr(ilibus) / D. Sil(ano), L. Mur(ena)'; for Postumus' freedmen see below pp. 51–2). 31

Q.fr. 2. 14. 3, 3. 1. 10; RE, IV. 2, col. 1869, no. 26; Dessau (1911) 616–17; Frank (1920) 278–80; Shackleton Bailey (1962) 81; idem (1965–70) IV. 361; idem (1991a) 21; Sumner (1971) 254. Recently, in an attempt to establish the identity of the Postumus mentioned in Horace's ode (Hor. Carm. 2. 14. 1f.), White has treated the Curtius Postumus mentioned in Cicero's correspondence between 49 and 44 as a previously unknown figure distinct from either Postumus or M. Curtius (White (1995) 151–61). 32

Rab. Perd. 31; Serv. A. 1. 13; Dio 37. 26. 3; Vict. vir. ill. 73; MRR, II. 495.

33

On the legal issues involved see Rab. Perd. 18, 31; Att. 2. 1. 3; Orat. 102; Quint. Inst. 7. 1. 9, 16; Suet. Jul. 12; on the political implications see Dio 37. 26. 1–3, 27. 2, 37. 2; Gruen (1974) 277–9. An unknown writer of the fourth century AD (Vict. vir. ill. 73) also records that 'a certain Senator called Postumus carried the head of Saturninus round the dinner table as a joke'. For Rabirius' senatorial status see Rab. Perd. 31; Dio 37. 26. 3.

Page 76 of 91

34

Rab. Perd. 2; Phil. 12. 27; for C. Rabirius see AE (1912), no. 126: 'C. Rabeiri(us) C.f Galer(ia tribu)'; Criniti (1970) 116–17; MRR, II. 35, 38 n. 15, 495; Wiseman (1971) 255, no. 353. 35

Rab. Perd. 7–8; for the date of the first trial see RE, I. A1, col. 24, no. 5; Drumann & Groebe (1899–1929) VI. 207. 36

Att. 1. 6. 1.

37

For Postumus' activities cf. note on 2. 4 My client … kings, 14. 38, 17. 45; for his wealth see Guiraud (1905) 204–40; Nicolet (1966–74) II. 860; Shatzman (1971) 365; Andreau (1987) 33, 38, 41, 250–1, 428 n. 135, 643, 647. 38

Axtell (1915) 392; Syme (1958) 172–4; Wiseman (1970b) 212; Adams (1978) 165–6.

39

Benoit (1956) 26; Pagliara (1968) 227; Hesnard (1980) 143–4; Peacock & Williams (1986) 17. 40

Rab. Perd. 7–8; Callender (1965) 214, no. 1371 wrongly attributes them to M. Curtius, an identification which has been rejected by Criscuolo (1982) 131. 41

Tchernia (1986) 117 n. 234, 129; Manacorda (1989) 451.

42

For the handle found in Syracuse with the abbreviation 'POST CURT'—the letters ST and RT 2

forming a monogram—see CIL, I , 2340a = ILLRP, 1184 = CIL, X, 8051, 26; for the one found 2

in Paestum with the stamp 'POS CUR' see CIL, I , 2340b = CIL, X, 8042, 130 = Callender (1965) 214, no. 1371; for the double handle found in Taranto, near St. Lucia, with the stamp 'POST CUR' in the middle of the lower part of the handle and 'DI' in the middle of its upper 2

part, see CIL, I , 2340c; Criscuolo (1982) 131, nos. 194, 199. For the suggestion that the monogram 'DI' may be the initials of a slave called Diphilus see Callender (1965) 214, no. 1371; Andreau (1987) 486–506; Manacorda (1989) 455–7. Another handle also found in Taranto bears the same abbreviation 'POST CUR' and the letters 'II' and 'A' in ligature on its double handle—a possible abbreviation for a slave named Appeles (Manacorda (1989) 457). 43

For a reddish-yellow single-handled amphora with the stamp 'POS CUR' see Breccia (1921) 53 n. 282, and for a double-handled one (P. 11603 Alexandria Museum) see Empereur (1977) 197–233. 44

Freedmen customarily took the praenomen and the nomen of their former master upon manumission. For Helena see CIL, X, 1088, 122; CIL, XI, 3328: 'Curtia Postumi l. / Helena / Theocritae Per Se F / Matri et Patri'; for Phileros see CIL, VI, 38267(D): 'C. Curtius Postumi l. Page 77 of 91

Phileros'; for Bello see CIL, VI, 17913: 'C. Curtio Postumi l. Belloni'; for Dicaeus see Dessau (1911) 618 n. 1; CIL, VI, 38266: 'C. Curtius Post l. Dicaeus'; for Hordeonius see CIL, VI, 24896: 'Postumulena ⊃. l. Rufa / sibi et Μ‎. Hordeonio M. / et Postumi Curti l. Astra / viro suo et libertis et li- / bertabus utriusque / M. Hordeonius Μ‎. l. Stabilio / M. Hordeonius M. l. Lucrio / M. Hordeonius M. ⊃. l. Comunis.'; for Nicias see Att. 7. 3. 10, 12. 26. 2; Suet. Gram. 14; Syme (1961) 25; Rawson (1985) 71–2; Shackleton Bailey (1991a) 35; for Hermodorus and Helenus see Introd. p. 35. 45

For C. Curtius Mithres see Fam. 13. 69. 1f. (name given: Postumus) and the inscription bearing his name: ''Ο δήμος‎ / Γάιον Κύρτιον Μίθρην‎ / ἀρετης ἕνεκεν‎/ καἰ εὐνοίας της εἰς αὑ‎/ τόν‎.' (Πελεχίδις‎, 13–15 (Naxos)). For this reference I am grateful to Professor Olli Salomies of the Institutum Classicum at the University of Helsinki; Reynolds (1976) 197; Shackleton Bailey (1977) II. 450; idem (1991a) 21, 82. 46

Att. 9. 2a. 3 (name given: Postumus Curtius), Att. 9. 6. 2 (name given: Curtius).

47

Att. 9. 3. 2 (name given: Postumus). Att. 9. 5. 1, where Cicero freely interchanges the appellations Postumus and Curtius. 48

Att. 9. 6. 2 (name given: Curtius), where Cicero is called 'patronus' of Postumus, perhaps in reference to the orator's defence of Postumus in this trial (for a differing point of view see White (1995) 155); Att. 10. 13. 3 (name given: Curtius); Att. 9. 5. 1. 49

The exact date and the circumstances of his promotion as a Senator are unknown, but by 10 March 49 Postumus seems to have been an active member of the Senate (Att. 9. 5. 1; Dessau (1911) 617; Syme (1979–88a) 96–9). 50

Fam. 2. 16. 7 (name given: Curtius); on the political value of the priesthoods see Beard

(1990) 17–48. 51

Att. 15. 2. 3 (name given: Postumus), Fam. 6. 12. 2 (name given: Postumius), Fam. 2. 16. 7 (name given: Curtius); because these letters also contain references to the other financiers close to Caesar, it has been commonly accepted that they all refer to Postumus (Dessau (1911) 617; Shackleton Bailey (1977) I. 495, II. 392; idem (1991a) 82); for the enrichment of all those who enlisted in Caesar's service, such as Balbus, Oppius, and Labienus, see Q.fr. 3. 1. 8, 10, 13, 18. 52

Fam. 6. 12. 2. Pansa served under Caesar in Gaul, became tribune in 51, governed Bithynia and Cisalpine Gaul in 47, and attained the consulship in 43 (MRR, II. 325; see below n. 76). Hirtius was a Caesarian officer and praetor of 46, promagister in Gaul in 45, and consul in 43 until his death at Mutina (MRR, II. 295, 309). Balbus was in Caesar's entourage Page 78 of 91

during the Civil War and quaestor in 44, serving under Pollio in Spain, the family's native country. He became a legate pro praetore in Asia, but the date of his office is uncertain (MRR, II. 433; Broughton, Supplement, XXXIII); his uncle was among the financial advisers of Caesar (MRR, II. 325). For Oppius see RE, XVIII. 1, cols. 729–36, no. 9, and for Matius, who was Cicero's friend and attached himself to Caesar during his years in Gaul without official rank, see RE, XIV, cols. 2206–10, no. 1; AE (1987), no. 397. 53

Gelzer (1968) 273.

54

CIL, VI, 32437 = ILS, 4945: 'C. Curtius / Post. l. Helenus / lupercus'.

55

Treggiari (1969) 195–6; for examples of the freedmen of Caesar and his friends enrolled in the college of the Luperci at this time see CIL, XIV, 2105 (C. Julius Caesaris l. Salvius) and CIL, VI, 1933 (Q. Considius Q. l. Eros).

56

2

CIL, I , 773 = CIL, 7239 = ILLRP, 399: '[C. Rabirium C.f.] / pro. cos / Γ‎'άιον‎ 'Ραβήριον Γαίου‎ / υἱὸν ἀνθύπατον‎ / 'Ρωμαίων‎.; Durrbach (1921) 167; Bruneau (1970) 553. 57

For an extensive account of such luminaries see Rauh (1993) 9, 296, 298 nn. 19 and 20; for promagisterial visits to Delos and their purpose see Athen. 5. 212 a–b, 213 c–d; App. Mith. 6. 39; ILLRP, 343; Ferrary (1980) 35–61; Étienne (1990) 127–34. 58

Joseph. A. J. 14. 241: 'Λαοδιχαίων ἄρχοντες Γαίῳ Ραβηρίῳ Γαίου υίῷ ἀνθυπάτῳ χαίρειν‎'. The MS reads 'ὑπάτῳ‎' and ''Ραβελλίῳ‎', which Homolle (1882) 608–12, on the basis of the inscription found at Delos, emended to 'ἀνθυπάτῳ‎' and ''Ραβηρίῳ‎'. 59

Between 62 and 56 the three districts of Cilicia, Laodicea, and Apamea with Synnada were joined to the province of Asia (Magie (1950) I. 384, 402, II. 1245 n. 18; 1256 n. 77). In 56 they were detached from Asia and assigned back to Cilicia (Fam. 3. 7. 5, 1. 3. 2; Att. 5. 21. 8), but this arrangement did not last long, for in 49 they were again returned to Asia, as is indicated by the cistophori of C. Fannius, governor of Asia of that year, minted in Ephesus, 2

Tralles, Laodicea, and Apamea (CIL, I. 763, no. 376; Syme (1979–88b) I. 141–4). 60

The view that it refers to Hyrcanus II is supported by Juster (1914) I. 146 n. 7 and Schürer (1973–87) I. 275. A contrary view has been advanced by Reinach (1899) 161–71 and Syme (1979–88c) 639–40, who identify the high priest with Hyrcanus I (135–104) and erroneously imply that the proconsul of Asia mentioned here might be 'C. Rabirius', who at that time could hardly be expected to be out of his childhood. Indeed, the overall weakness of their argument in favour of Hyrcanus I can be judged from the fact that it rests on as flimsy an observation as the similarity of the name of the envoy, Sopatrus, mentioned in the above

Page 79 of 91

correspondence, to Sosipater, an envoy mentioned in the Pergamene decree issued by Hyrcanus I (Joseph. A. J. 14. 249). 61

Juster (1914) I. 146 n. 7 and Schürer (1973–87) I. 275 date the document to 45 and view it as one of the four which may constitute part of a single legislative act emanating from Rome at the time of Caesar (Joseph. A. J. 14. 241–3, 244–6, 256–8, 259–61); for the state of the Jews in Laodicea at that time see Flac. 28–68.

62

Dio 42. 2. 1.

63

For the time Caesar spent in Asia see Magie (1950) I. 405 f., II. 1258, nn. 2–3. On his lenient taxation programme for Asia see Caes. B. Civ. 3. 105. 1f.; App. B. C. 2. 89, 5. 4; Dio 42. 6. 3. On Calvinus' identity and career see Suet. Jul. 36; Caes. B. Alex. 34; B. Afr. 86. 64

MRR, II. 289, speculates that Calvinus' sphere of control might have been only Asia.

65

Caes. B. Afr. 86, 93; Deiot. 25; Caesar, in his lex de provinciis, prescribed two years as the normal tenure for a governor of consular rank (Dio 43. 25. 3). 66

App. B. C. 2. 56–9; Shackleton Bailey (1991a) 38.

67

For a contrary opinion see White (1995) 159; for the diverse nature of bankers and businessmen see Welch (1996) 451–71. 68

Plut. Ant. 3. 2–4; Pis. 49.

69

App. B. C. 2. 58–9.

70

cf. note on 15. 41 shouldered; Luc. 8. 823–6.

71

Dio 42. 34. 1, 42. 49. 1–5.

72

For Calvinus' unsuccessful campaign against Pharnakes see Caes. B. Alex. 34–40; for Pharnakes' defeat at Sinope see App. Mith. 12. 120; Caes. B. Alex. 70–6; Dio 42. 47. 5. 73

For suggestions on the date of Postumus' proconsulship see Sumner (1971) 254–5; Masson (1974) 160–1; Broughton, Supplement, CLXXXI; ILLRP, 399. 74

Att. 12. 49. 2, 13. 9. 1; Broughton has suggested, solely on the basis that Postumus rose to become a proconsul, that he served as a praetor in either 48 or 47, a view he later came

Page 80 of 91

to revise (MRR, II. 273; Broughton, Supplement, CLXXXI). Postumus should not be confused with a Postumus mentioned in Mur. 54, 56, 57, 69, who was a candidate for the praetorship in 63, since the senatorial career of Postumus began much later (Fam. 2. 16. 7; Broughton, Supplement, CLXXXI). 75

Dio 42. 51. 3; Saller (1980) 44–63.

76

For Quintus Philippus see Caes. B. Civ. 1. 6. 4; Fam. 13. 73–4; Magie (1950) 2. 1270 n. 40; Sumner (1971) 252–5; Syme (1979–88b) 127–8. Broughton initially suggested that Philippus, Pansa, and Postumus might have held the praetorship in 48 before their proconsulships in 47. Later, he came to revise his position regarding Philippus and Postumus, but continued to argue that Pansa, who was in Rome in 48, held a praetorship in that year (MRR, II. 258, II. 273, II. 289; Broughton, Supplement, III. 139, III. 181; Badian (1959b) 142–4; Sumner (1971) 254, 259). For Sex. Julius Caesar see Caes. B. Alex. 66; Dio 47. 26. 3; Joseph. A. J. 14.

160, 170, 178, 180; for C. Vibius Pansa see Introd., p. 54; Fam. 6. 12. 2; Dio 45. 17. 1; Syme (1979–88b) I. 127–8. The exceptional circumstances of 47 effectively negate the argument put forward by White (1995) 156–60 suggesting that Postumus could not have been the proconsul of Asia because the previous holders of the office in that province were all exconsuls. 77

The first convoy had been led by Alienus (Caes. B. Afr. 8, 26, 44; Dio 43. 6. 3; cf. note on 14. 40 ships; MRR, II. 273, 302; Garnsey (1983) 121). 78

Att. 12. 49. 2 (name given: Curtius), Att. 13. 9. 1 (name given: Curtius); Fam. 2. 16. 7 (name given: Curtius); Dessau (1911) 617 f.; Shackleton Bailey (1965–70) V. 362. 79

Brunt (1988) 5.

80

Att. 14. 9. 2 (name given Curtius); Shackleton Bailey (1991a) 21.

81

Att. 14. 10. 2 (name given: Postumus). The supposition that this is Postumus is further substantiated by the reference in the same letter to his fellow-financier and staunch Caesarian Balbus, who received Octavian in his house in Naples. 82

Att. 15. 2. 3 (name given: Postumus); for Matius see Att. 14. 1. 1; Fam. 11. 28. 6–8; Suet. Aug. 10. 1; Obsequens 128; Plin. Nat. 11. 93; Dio 45. 6. 4; Alföldi (1976) 31. 83

Brut. 1; Fam. 11. 9. 1; Tac. Ann. 1. 10; Suet. Aug. 11. 1.

Page 81 of 91

84

The pattern is not uncommon; for instance, Sallust also retired from politics at the death of Caesar and wrote history until his own death ten years later (Dio 40. 63. 46). 85

Hor. Carm. 2. 14. 22–7.

86

For the date of this ode see Nisbet & Hubbard (1978) 226, where it is suggested that it can be either before 30 or after 28, the latter being supported by Armstrong (1989) 68. 87

There may also be an oblique reference to Postumus' Etrurian connections, through his natural father, in Horace's ode (Nisbet & Hubbard (1978) 230; Armstrong (1989) 87). It is unlikely that the Postumus described by Propertius in his romantic elegy (3. 12. 1ff.) of 21, who is a young man full of military plans eager for war and gain from the East, is our Postumus. 1

cf. note on 3. 8 unrelated; on the various factions of the aristocracy and their relations with the triumvirs, and especially with Pompey, see Gruen (1969a) 72–108; David (1980) 170–98. 2

Dio 39. 32. 2–3; for Caesar's and Pompey's immunity see Taylor (1949) 120; Weinrib (1968b) 32–56. 3

For Cicero's political subservience to the wishes of the triumvirs see Fam. 1. 2. 1–4, 1. 4. 1, 1. 7. 3, 7. 1. 4; Q.fr. 2. 2. 3, 2. 4. 5, 2. 16. 1; Planc. 91–4; Gruen (1974) 340 ff.; Crawford (1984) 173. He was coerced to defend a great range of people, such as L. Caninius Gallus in August 55 (Alexander (1990) no. 280), L. Scribonius Libo in August 55 (Fam. 1. 1. 3; Val. Max. 6. 2. 8; Caes. B. Civ. 3. 18. 3), T. Ampius Balbus in 55 (Alexander (1990) no. 281), C. Messius before July 54 (Alexander (1990) nos. 287, 289), M. Nonnius Sufenas in July 54 (Alexander (1990) 285), M. Livius Drusus Claudianus in July/August 54 (Alexander (1990) no. 290), P. Vatinius in late August 54 (Alexander (1990) 292), A. Plotius in August/September 54 (Planc. 54; Fam. 13. 29. 4; Dio 39. 16. 2), Cn. Plancius in August/September 54 (Alexander (1990) no. 293), M. Aemilius Scaurus in September 54 (Alexander (1990) nos. 295, 300) and A. Gabinius probably in November/December 54 (Alexander (1990) nos. 296, 303, 304), all aligned with the coalition. For Cicero being extremely busy in the courts at the time see Q.fr. 2. 16. 1, 3. 1. 3, 3. 3. 1, 3. 5. 4; for the heatwave see Q.fr. 2. 16. 1, 3. 1. 1. 4

For rumours of Pompey's impending dictatorship see Att. 4. 18. 3; Q.fr. 2. 13. 5; Plut. Caes. 28. 7; for his decision to stay in Rome see Vict. vir. ill. 77; Caes. B. Civ. 1. 85. 7. 5

For the domination of the Catonian faction see Syme (1939) 21–7; Taylor (1949) 119–41; Meier (1966) 270–80.

Page 82 of 91

6

The election of the magistrates for this year did not take place until March 54 (Q.fr. 2. 12. 3); for Cato's resistance, as a public figure, to the triumvirs see Plut. Cat Min. 42. 1, 44. 1; David (1992) 845. 7

For Ahenobarbus see Suet. Nero 22, Jul. 24; Dio 39. 60. 3–4, 64 ff.; Q.fr. 2. 11. 2; MRR, II. 221; for Isauricus see Att. 4. 15. 9; MRR, II. 221–2; Gruen (1969a) 101–2. 8

For Pulcher see Dio 39. 60. 2–4; Q.fr. 3. 2. 3; Gruen (1974) 324 n. 63; for Scaurus see Att. 4. 15. 7; Scaur. 31–6; Asc. Sc. 16 (Clark 1907). 9

For Flavus see Q.fr. 3. 1. 24; Planc. 43, 104; for Memmius see note on 3. 7 C. Memmius; Q.fr. 3. 1. 15, 3. 2. 1, 3. 3. 2; Val. Max. 8. 1 abs. 3; David (1992) 871. 10

Pis. 48; cf. note on 12. 34 military purposes.

11

For the first prosecutors see Q.fr. 3. 1. 24. L. Cornelius Lentulus, the son of the flamen martialis, acted for the prosecution in Gabinius' trial for treason; for speculations on his motives see Fantham (1975) 432–3. The identity of the defence advocate is uncertain but M. Calidius, the praetor of 57, is generally accepted (Alexander (1990) no. 296). 12

Q.fr. 3. 1. 15, 3. 2. 1–3, 3. 4. 2–3, 3. 5. 4; Att. 14. 19. 1 ff.; for the law see Ρ‎is. 50; Vat. 25.

13

cf. note on 2. 4 Sibyl; Att. 4. 18. 3; Dio 39. 62. 3.

14

Att. 4. 18. 1; Q.fr. 3. 2. 1, 3. 3. 3, 3. 5. 8, 3. 9. 3; Pis. 20; Dio 39. 55. 6, 39. 56. 3, 39. 62. 3; App. B. C. 2. 89–90 erroneously dates this trial to 52; Williams (1978) 195–210; for Antiochus see Att. 4. 18. 4. 15

Q.fr. 1. 2. 15, 3. 1. 24, 3. 2. 1–2; Att. 4. 18. 3; Sest. 18; Dio 39. 62. 1.

16

Q.fr. 3. 1. 15; Att. 4. 17. 4.

17

cf. note on 14. 39 without a penny; Dio 39. 5. 5, 39. 63. 2 suggests that Gabinius spent less money on his second trial because he was confident of an acquittal. 18

Att. 4. 5. 2, 4. 18. 2; Fam. 1. 7. 10, 1. 8. 1; Q.fr. 2. 7. 3, 3. 4. 2.

19

For Cicero's sentiments of dishonour see Q.fr. 3. 4. 3; for his assertion that defending Gabinius was his own choice see Fam. 1. 9. 21; Pompey's pressure on him is hinted at in Q.fr. 3. 1. 15, 3. 2. 2, 3. 4. 2; Att. 4. 18. 1; Fam. 1. 9. 19–20, 3. 10. 10. In the search for a quiet life

Page 83 of 91

the orator had weakly acquiesced, although the decision to defend Gabinius left him with a deeply troubled conscience (Q.fr. 3. 5. 5, 3. 6. 2; Att. 4. 19. 2). 20

cf. note on 12. 33 unwillingly; Dio 39. 63. 1–5; Val. Max. 8. 1, abs. 3; Gruen (1974) 322– 31; Fantham (1975) 443 speculates over the possible reasons for Gabinius' condemnation. The prosecutors in this trial were L. Lentulus, Ti. Nero, C. Memmius the tribune, and L. Capito (Q.fr. 3. 1. 15). 21

cf. 4. 8–3, 11. 30–3.

22

cf. 3. 7–4. 8, 5. 10, 11. 30–12. 34, 13. 36–3; Alexander (1990) 303.

23

For Cato's role see Q.fr. 3. 1. 15; for Cicero's objections based on the equestrian status of his client cf. 4. 8–7. 18, esp. note on 6. 13 raised … Senate. It was Pompey himself who had proposed the question of eligibility of Roman knights on the governor's staff under the Julian law of extortion, a theme also exploited by Cicero in his Pro Cluentio (143–60); Kirby (1990) 108–11. 24

cf. note on 3. 6 Senate, 8. 19 prompted, 11. 30 charge.

25

cf. note on 15. 41 shouldered.

26

Att. 2. 9. 2.

27

cf. note on 3. 6 Pompey's Alban villa; Fam. 1. 1. 2, 1. 5b. 1–2; Q.fr. 2. 3. 2–4; Att. 1. 16. 5; Dio 39. 16. 2. 28

Q.fr. 2. 3. 2; Fam. 1. 1. 3; Seager (1979) 114–20.

29

On Pompey's alienation from the other aristocratic houses see Gruen (1969a) 79– 87; Marshall (1976) 124. Pompey's Sullan connections broke when P. Sulla sought the prosecution of Gabinius in his de ambitu trial (Att. 4. 18. 3; Q.fr. 3. 3. 2). In early 56 Cicero

states that Pompey's fortunes were at their lowest ebb, and, not long afterwards (April 55), when he confided his feelings about politics to Cicero, he expressed his profound displeasure with himself (Q.fr. 2. 4. 5; Att. 4. 9. 1). 30

cf. note on 15. 41 shouldered, 16. 44 these days; Dio 39. 12. 1; Suet. Jul. 54. 3. Indeed, such was Cato's aversion to Julius Caesar that he even refused to refer to the Julian law by its name (Dio 38. 7. 6).

Page 84 of 91

31

cf. note on 14. 39 without a penny, 15. 41 shouldered; Fam. 1. 5a. 3–4, 1. 7. 6, 7. 17. 1; Q.fr. 3. 3. 2; Plut. Caes. 48. 4.

32

cf. 17. 48.

33

See n. 21 above; Clu. 116; Q.fr. 3. 1. 15; cf. note on 11. 31 will be; witnesses, 11. 32 standard procedure; Introd. pp. 76–8. 34

Fam. 8. 8. 1; Clu. 20, 56–9 (in 66); Cael. 1 (in 56); Mil. 14 (in 52); Greenidge (1971) 457, n. 6; Jones (1972) 77. 35

Q.fr. 3. 4. 1; Dio 39. 55. 5 'Τότε μὲν οὖν διὰ ταῦτα ἀφείθη, αὖθις δὲ ἐπί τε ἑτέροις τισί, χαὶ ὅτι πλέον ἤ μυρίας ἐχ τῆς ἀρχῆς μυριάδας ἥρπασε, χριθεὶς έάλω‎'. The traditional date for the trial is accepted, among others, by Drumann & Groebe (1899–1929) III. 54; RE, VII. 428–9; Boulanger (1978) 7; Shackleton Bailey (1988a) 78. 36

Lintott (1974) 67–8. Klodt (1992) 47–51 suggests an even later date, March 52, for Postumus' trial. She accepts Lintott's dating of Gabinius' extortion trial to August 53 and, then, taking into account the political situation and drawing on the parallel case of M. Servilius, who was also tried under the clause 'What has become of the money', she argues that there was a further delay of six months before Postumus' trial. However, it would seem highly unlikely that the Catonian faction would have allowed such a long period of time to elapse after Postumus' return to Italy, and the delays that plagued Servilius' trial were specific to the case and not related to the procedures associated with the clause (Shackleton Bailey (1977) I. 398–9; for a detailed rebuttal of Klodt's argument cf. note on 16. 44 these days). 37

For Cicero's problems with Pompey over his decision to support Milo's candidacy for the following year's consular elections see Q.fr. 3. 1. 15–16, 22, 3. 2. 2, 3. 4. 1–2, 3. 7. 1; Att. 4. 19. 2; Fam. 2. 6. 3. 38

For instance, the floods of October 54 (Q.fr. 3. 7. 1) are misplaced by a few months to before Gabinius' return to Rome (Dio 39. 61. 1–4), and Cicero is erroneously presented as the prosecutor in Gabinius' trial for treason in 39. 62. 2. 39

Dio 39. 63. 1–5; Q.fr. 3. 2. 3, 3. 3. 2, 3. 4. 6, 3. 6. 3; Att. 4. 17. 4.

40

For Cato's illness see Q.fr. 3. 1. 15; for the importance of the praetor see lex rep. 11. 4–6.

Page 85 of 91

41

cf. note on 4. 9 praetor; Plut. Cic. 9. 4–6; Dio 36. 44. 1–2; Ramsey (1980) 323–36; for C. Manilius' case see Asc. Com. 53–8 (Clark 1907); Plut. Cic. 9. 4; Gruen (1974) 261, nn. 2, 3. The case did not take place at that time because the defendant and his supporters demanded a delay. 42

Dio 36. 44. 1–2; 1Ver. 10, 30; Q.fr. 3. 1. 15, 3. 3. 2; Fam. 8. 6. 2; Plut. Cic. 9. 4–6; Frier (1985) 47. 43

Fantham (1975) 425–43.

44

Fam. 7. 11. 1; Mommsen (1887–8) 1. 660 ff.

45

For the postulatio see Q.fr. 3. 1. 15; Greenidge (1971) 456; for the rapidity of late cases see lex rep. 11. 6–8; Crawford (1996) I. 97. Of course there are cases which began at the close of a year and were heard in the following year (Brunt (1981) 227–31). For the divinatio see Q.fr. 3. 2. 1, 3. 3. 2–3, 3. 4. 1–6; Att. 4. 18. 3; Gruen (1969a) 105–6. 46

For the short interval between the divinatio and the nominis receptio see Fam. 8. 6. 2; for the ten days before the beginning of the court proceedings see Q.fr. 2. 12. 1; Plut. Cic. 9. 5; Greenidge (1971) 466–7. 47

In other extortion cases a considerable amount of time was used for gathering evidence. Cicero used only fifty out of the 110 days he was allocated to collect evidence against Verres in Sicily, another prosecutor was granted 108 days to fetch testimony from Achaia, and in the case of Scaurus the prosecutor was allotted a total of sixty days; 1Ver. 6; 2 Ver. 1. 30; Asc. Sc. 17–18 (Clark 1907). Note that Lintott (1974) 67, in his argument for a later date for Gabinius' trial for extortion, suggests that 150 days would have been necessary for collecting evidence in Syria and Egypt. 48

Q.fr. 2. 12. 1–2; February was traditionally the month in which the Senate paid attention to foreign affairs (Q.fr. 2. 2. 1). 49

Dio 39. 62. 1; on Gabinius' reputation see Q.fr. 2. 7. 1; Pis. 41, 45; Prov. 14; Schürer (1973–87) I. 267–9. 50

Q.fr. 3. 4. 1; Lintott (1974) 67–8.

51

2Ver. 2. 130; Q.fr. 3. 6. 3; for Cicero being away from Rome in Tusculum for this holiday period see Q.fr. 3. 4. 6.

Page 86 of 91

52

The dating of the letter Q.fr. 3. 7. 1 to December was suggested by Watt (1958) and has been commonly accepted ever since (Fantham (1975) 439–40; Shackleton Bailey (1988a) 732). It is rather puzzling, however, that, after a period of silence about Gabinius, Cicero should merely repeat information already given in the letter to his brother (Q.fr. 3. 4. 1 f.) written the day after Gabinius' trial for treason (23 October 54)—although the change in mood between the two is striking. 53

Q.fr. 3. 6. 2, 3. 7. 2; Att. 4. 15. 3, 4. 17. 1; Fam. 2. 4. 1–2.

54

Q.fr. 3. 5. 5, 3. 6. 9; Att. 4. 19. 1; Fantham (1975) 426. Another reason for Cicero's silence could be that the letters were being destroyed at the time of delivery (Fam. 7. 18. 4). 55

For Cicero's intention of setting in motion Manilius' case for extortion as late as 27/28 December see Plut. Cic. 9. 4–6; Dio 36. 44. 1–2. The standing courts were not limited to dies fasti, which were only 42 in the year, and, indeed, many criminal trials took place on days of every type (Michels (1967) 35, 50–51; König & König (1991) 71–4, 103–4). 56

Att. 5. 20. 5, 13. 52. 1; Scullard (1981) 205–7, 255 n. 281, 275–6; for evidence on the administration of justice during the festival of Saturnalia see Q.fr. 2. 4. 1, 2. 3. 2; Quinct. 29; Michels (1967) 78 n. 54. Fantham (1975) 440 dates the beginning of Gabinius' trial for extortion after the end of the festival of Saturnalia. 57

Att. 4. 19. 1 ff.; for the use of quadrare see 2Ver. 1. 92; OLD, 1500; Cicero was first notified about this appointment by his brother Quintus, who was serving on Caesar's staff in Gaul. Once the orator recovered from the initial shock over this decision—to which Caesar seems to have been party—he accepted the 'deal' with pleasure; for Cicero's initial reaction see Q.fr. 3. 1. 18–22 and for his expectation of rewards for his labours in the courts see Fam. 7. 1. 4. 58

cf. note on 15. 42 winter; for a different point of view see Klodt (1992) 47 n. 122, 48.

59

Dio 39. 63. 3; Gruen (1969b) 311–19; Lintott (1974) 68. Dio relates that Pompey, having failed to attend Gabinius' first trial, was determined not to miss the second, so he did not retire from the suburbs of Rome—being a proconsul he was not allowed to enter Rome—until the second trial was also finished (τελεσθῆναι‎). Could it really be possible that Pompey was hovering for half a year outside the pomerium until the second trial took place sometime in summer 53? 60

Frier (1985) 133 n. 121.

Page 87 of 91

61

Suet. Cl. 16 where the prosecution of a certain person who left Rome without Emperor Claudius' permission is wrongly compared with Postumus' trial; Henderson (1951) 71–88 has erroneously suggested that Postumus' indictment also included the charge 'in regnum accedere'. 62

The acquitted defendants were: C. Porcius Cato (Att. 4. 15. 4, 4. 16. 5), M. Nonnius Sufenas (Att. 4. 15. 4), P. Vatinius (Fam. 5. 9. 1), M. Livius Drusus Claudianus (Q.fr. 2. 16. 3), M. Aemilius Scaurus (in the de repetundis trial, Att. 4. 17. 4–5; Q.fr. 3. 1. 16), A. Gabinius (in the de maiestate trial, Att. 4. 18. 1; Q.fr. 3. 4. 1, 3. 9. 3), C. Messius (possibly acquitted, Att. 2. 2. 12), Cn. Plancius (possibly acquitted, Fam. 4. 14–15, 6. 20. 1; Q.fr. 3. 1. 11); for Cicero's statement on the anarchic nature of the law courts at the time see Att. 2. 1. 8, 4. 18. 3; for a detailed account of the trials between 55 and 53 see Gruen (1974) 312–37. 63

This opinion was voiced by Gruen (1974) 330, 336.

64

For jurors' laxity in subsidiary trials see Clu. 41, 116; Fam. 8. 8. 3; on Postumus' support ο‎f Cicero cf. note on 17. 47 you; on Cicero's assertion about his reconciliation with Gabinius cf. note on 12. 33 unwillingly; Gruen (1974) 322 nn. 52, 53 and 327 n. 80. Cicero's genuine defence in the courts of C. Messius and Cn. Plancius, who both had helped the orator in his exile, fits within the same pattern. 65

For the non-publication of Cicero's Pro Aulo Gabinio see Fantham (1975) 441 n. 37;

Crawford (1984) 188–97. 66

cf. 15. 41–16. 44; Cicero and Caesar at the time were on good terms (Planc. 93; Q.fr. 2. 13. 1). 67

Douglas (1986) 334. Although the publication of the unsuccessful Pro Milone at first sight would appear to run counter to this argument, it must be borne in mind that it appeared in exceptional circumstances as a defence of Cicero's own political position, since he had acted on Milo's behalf against the wishes of Pompey. Cicero decided against publication of about half of his speeches; for a detailed account of his reasons for doing so see Stroh (1975) 51–2; Crawford (1984) 12–15. 68

Hopkins (1978) 181.

69

Att. 9. 5. 1, 9. 6. 2, 10. 13. 3; Dessau (1911) 613, 617; Ciaceri (1926–30) II. 134–7 favour acquittal, whereas Drumann & Groebe (1899–1929) VI. 70 and Gruen (1974) 330, 336 suggest conviction.

Page 88 of 91

70

The extent of the success of their judicial warfare can be gauged by the subsequent alignment of Pompey with the Catonian faction in 52—proving, once again, that no divisions were cast in iron and that no groups were strictly cohesive. 71

Its antecedents, the Calpurnian (149) and Iunian (of uncertain date) laws, are attested in the text of the law of the tabula Bembina, lex rep. II. 23, 58–9, 73–5, 81, as well as other sources such as Plut. Sull. 5. 6; Brut. 106; Off. 2. 75; 1Ver. 51; 2Ver. 1. 26, 2. 15; see also Mommsen (1905–13) I. 1–64; idem (1955) 708 n. 6; Lintott (1981) 162–212; idem (1992) 166–9; for Cardinal Pietro Bembo and his association with the law see Williamson (1987) 162–6. 72

lex rep. 11. 2, 3, where the misconduct of Roman magistrates, Senators and Senators' sons is mentioned; cf. note on 6. 13 raised … Senate; 6. 14 If … measure; App. B. C. 1. 22. 96–7; Diod. 34; 35., 2.25–7; Vell. 2. 13. 3; Plin. Nat. 33. 34. 73

Vat. 29; Prov. 7; Q.fr. 8. 8. 3; Oost (1956) 19–28.

74

Venturini (1979) 472–3, 482–504; Lintott (1981) 202–7; idem (1992) 27; Crawford (1996)

II. 770. 75

cf. note on 7. 19 For if … cases?, 8. 21 partner; 2Ver. 2. 26; Dig. 48. 11. 1, 3, 9. In the Late Republic the members of the cohort were immune from direct prosecution unless they were the sons of Senators, but sums could be recovered from such persons if the principal defendant's estate proved inadequate to meet repayment (Plin. Ep. 3. 9. 6; Mommsen (1907) 3. 9 ff.; Ciaceri (1918) 208 n. 4). Later, in the Julio—Claudian period, equestrian procurators and governors were directly prosecuted (Tac. Ann. 4. 15, 13. 30, 14. 28). 76

Dig. 48. 11. 1, 3, 9; for the governors' expenses see Att. 5. 10. 1–2, 5. 16. 3; Plin. Ep. 4. 9. 7; for receiving gifts see Pis. 90; for money raised for ships see Pis. 90; Sherwin-White (1949) 13–14; for levying corn see Flac. 27 ff.; for respecting freedoms and privileges see Prov. 7; Att. 1. 19. 9, 1. 20. 4, 2. 1. 10; lex rep. ll. 76–9; for penalizing the unauthorized waging of war see Pis. 50. 77

To receive money without authorization while rendering judgements, bearing witness, delivering opinions in the Senate or consilium, enrolling or releasing men from military service, contracting for public works, and even distributing public grain was also forbidden by the Julian law of extortion (Dig. 48. 11. 3, 6, 7; 22. 5. 13; Pis. 87; 2Ver. 2. 78; Crawford (1996) I. 341–4, II. 771); for a detailed list of offences punished by the Julian law of extortion see Pis. 50, 91; Prov. 7 ff.; Venturini (1979) 363–97, 472–3, 482–504; idem (1987) 133–57; Fallu (1970) 180–204; Lintott (1981) 195–6, 202–7.

Page 89 of 91

78

For a detailed analysis of the procedure of an extortion trial see Venturini (1979) 129–235; for obtaining the praetor's permission see Div. Caec. 20, 64; Clu. 43, 120; for the selection of the prosecutor see 1Ver. 15; Div. Caec. 10, 37; for the launching of the accusation see Fam. 8. 6. 2; lex rep. 11. 9, 18–9, 60, 63; and for the official declaration of the charge see Dom. 29, 77; Dig. 48. 2. 3; 2Ver. 2. 94, 101; Fam. 8. 8. 2; Val. Max. 3. 7. 9. 79

For the inquiry see Scaur. 23; Flac. 13; Val. Max. 8. 1. 10.

80

cf. note on 5. 11 voting tablet, 13. 37 reclaimed; for the commencement of the trial see Clu. 29, 49, 50, 74, 199; 2Ver. 2. 74, 98; S. Rosc. 8; 1Ver. 32; Sul. 81; for the evidence see 1Ver. 55; Quint. Inst. 4. 4. 1, 5. 7. 9, 25; Flac. 21; lex rep. l. 34; for the division of the trial into two parts see 2Ver. 1. 26, Asc. 123; Lintott (1981) 189–91; lex rep. l. 55; for an indication that extortion trials normally lasted about one month see Asc. Sc. 16–17 (Clark 1907). 81

cf. note on 5. 11 voting tablet; Clu. 74; for the assessment of damages cf. note on 4. 8 Damages were assessed. 82

cf. note on 4. 8 people.

83

lex rep. 11. 58–9; for the Cornelian law see Div. Caec. 19; 2Ver. 1. 146, 2. 27; Mommsen (1955) 722–32; Jones (1972) 74–5. 84

It seems safe to presume that the Calpurnian and Iunian extortion laws demanded simple restitution (Crawford (1996) I. 91, 107); for the fine cf. note on 8. 21 ten thousand talents; SEG, IX, no. 8; De Vischer (1940) 183; for a different opinion see Lintott (1981) 207. 85

cf. note on 4. 8 more strictly and severely, 17. 47 I can … charge, 17. 48 I implore … Forum; 2Ver. 2. 76–7; Font. 3; Flac. 96; Clu. 90, 104, 114–16; Pis. 50, 90–1; Fam. 8. 8. 3; Off. 2. 75; for debates on the meaning of caput see Sherwin-White (1949) 10; idem (1952) 46; Henderson (1951) 71–88; Jones (1972) 75; Lintott (1981) 202; Crawford (1996) II. 769–72. 86

cf. note on 5. 11 banish from the city, 17. 48 I implore … Forum; Rhet. Her. 1. 20; Sherwin-White (1949) 13; Mommsen (1955) 729, 993–8; Kaser (1956) 254–64; Greenidge (1971) 508. 87

For a discussion of the evidence see Cloud (1988) 578–95; idem (1994) 513 n. 105.

88

Phil. 1. 23; 2Ver. 2. 100; Dig. 58. 8. 3. There was no mention of extortion through violence in the original Julian law of extortion. For plain extortion see Tac. Ann. 12. 22, 13. 33, 14, 18,

Page 90 of 91

14. 28, 14. 48; Hist. 1. 77; for extortion in aggravating circumstances see Tac. Ann. 3. 66– 9, 4. 15, 13. 30, 13. 52; Hist. 4. 45. This view does not entirely fit with Pliny's letters about extortion trials, where it is stated clearly that to enquire about violence is to go beyond the scope of extortion (Plin. Ep. 2. 11. 2, 3. 9. 1–6, 4. 9. 6, 5. 20. 2, 10. 75. 1 f.). For a full discussion on these points see Strachan-Davidson (1912) II. 29–31; Sherwin-White (1949) 16–17; idem (1966); Jones (1972) 73; Lintott (1981) 202–7; Venturini (1987) 133–57; Brunt (1988) 220 n. 71; Bauman (1996) 26–9. 89

cf. 17. 48 I implore … Forum.

90

Suet. Jul. 43; Dig. 48. 11. 6. 1. In the surviving text of the law of the tabula Bembina there is no explicit evidence of infamia—as in the lex Latina of the tabula Bantina (I. 1 ff., Crawford (1996) I. 205)—except in the form of disqualification of the accused, whether convicted or not, from becoming a juror (lex rep. ll. 11. 13, 23; Strachan-Davidson (1912) II. 12–13); for infamia in the Servilian law or even before see 2Ver. 2. 76–7; Rhet. Her. 1. 20; Caec. 100; Asc. Mil. 48 (Clark 1907); Mommsen (1887–8) 728–9; Sherwin-White (1949) 11–12; Lintott (1976) 78. 91

cf. note on 4. 8 more strictly and severely; Sest. 135 'optima'; Pis. 37 'iustissima atque optima'; Vat. 29; Prov. 7; Dig. 48. 11. 1 f. 92

cf. 4. 8, 13. 36; Fam. 8. 8. 2–3. There is evidence that C. Licinius Macer, convicted for extortion, managed to save his property by committing suicide and passing his possessions on to his heirs. It seems that in cases like this the recovery of money was only partial and did not involve full confiscation (Val. Max. 9. 12. 7). 93

cf. note on 5. 10 yourselves; Witness do I say?.

94

cf. note on 4. 9 named, 13. 37 their own trial; Fam. 8. 8. 3 f.; Mommsen (1955) 731 n. 6, 732; Shackleton Bailey (1977) I. 398–400; Alexander (1982) 150–1; Damon & Mackay (1995) 44 n. 32. 95

cf. note on 11. 31 will be, 11. 32 standard procedure.

Page 91 of 91

Oxford Scholarly Editions Online

Cicero [Marcus Tullius Cicero], In Defence of Rabirius Postumus (54 BC)

Mary Siani-Davies (ed.), Clarendon Ancient History Series: Marcus Tullius Cicero: Pro Rabirio Postumo Published in print:

2001

Published online:

January 2017

........................................................................................................................... PG 93

TRANSLATION

1

1If there is anyone, gentlemen of the jury, who feels that C. Rabirius ought to be censured for having entrusted his fortune and his riches, principally the result of honest and sound investment, to the power and arbitrary whims of royalty, let him add to his judgement not only my own opinion but also that of the very man who committed the deed; for no one is more disgusted with his behaviour than Postumus himself. It is our standard practice, nevertheless, to judge the worth of a project by its results, so that, if its outcome has been successful, we say that it was well conceived, but if unsuccessful, that it showed a lack of foresight. If the King had proved himself trustworthy, nobody would be considered wiser than Postumus, but, as the King betrayed him, nobody is held to be more foolish; thus, today a man's wisdom appears to consist of nothing more than intuitive guesswork. 2Still, gentlemen of the jury, if there is anyone who thinks that the unfounded confidence of Postumus, ill-advised decision, or, to put it more bluntly, sheer recklessness, ought to be criticized, I personally do not disagree with his opinion; however, I beg of you only one thing, that no man should consider inflicting further hardship on him in his current plight—when he sees that Fortune herself has punished my client's enterprises in the most ruthless manner. It is bad enough not to rescue those who have fallen through lack of sound judgement, but surely it is truly barbaric to trample upon those who lie prostrate on the ground or to push further those who are falling; especially, gentlemen of the jury, since nature has virtually decreed to the human race that if a family has achieved some particular distinction, that generally is the one which its scions pursue with passion, because the virtues of earlier generations are constantly invoked in people's conversations and recollections. For example, not only did the sons Scipio and Maximus in their military prowess imitate Paulus, but ................................................................................................................

Page 1 of 103

pg 94 also in his act of devotio and the manner of his death the son of P. Decius emulated his father. 2Therefore, gentlemen of the jury, let small examples echo those great ones. For, when I was young, Postumus' father C. Curtius was a most valiant leader of the equestrian order and an eminent publicanus, whose great business acumen would not have met with such public approval had he not, at the same time, shown extraordinary generosity, so that in the process of increasing his wealth he appeared to be seeking not the spoils of avarice but a means for philanthropy. 4This son of his, although he had never set eyes on his father, with nature as his guide, which is the most powerful of influences, and by the constant recollections of the members of his household, was yet led to mould himself in his father's ways. My client accomplished much, his business interests were extensive, his shares in public contracts were numerous, he acted as a banker to States, his financial transactions criss-crossed many provinces, he also offered his services to Kings; he even, on a previous occasion, lent large sums of money to this very King of Alexandria himself. In the midst of all this, he never ceased to enrich his friends, dispatching them on profitable ventures, offering them shares, backing them with his wealth, and supporting them through his good name. Need I say more? In both his sagacity and munificence he had conformed to his father's life and practices. Meanwhile, Postumus heard that Ptolemy had come to Rome after his expulsion from his kingdom by fell trickery—as the Sibyl prophesied. My unfortunate client lent money to an indigent and mendicant king, and not for the first time, for Postumus from afar had made loans to the King whilst he was in power. He did not believe that his loans were at risk, since nobody was in doubt that the King would be restored to his throne by the Senate and the Roman people. 5However, in advancing and crediting money he overextended himself, lending not only his own but also that of his friends. A foolish move! Who denies it or now will dare think well conceived something which has come to grief? But it is difficult not to pursue to the bitter end a venture which you embarked upon with such high hopes. ................................................................................................................ pg 95 3The King presented himself as a suppliant; he was asking for a great deal and was promising the earth, so that by now Postumus was being driven to fear the loss of what he had already lent, if he placed restrictions on the amount of the loan. However, nothing was more alluring than the King's promises and nobody more well-meaning than my client, with the consequence that the more he regretted his initial participation the more he was not at liberty to withdraw. 6The first charge arises from an allegation that the Senate has been bribed. Heavens above! Is this the cherished gravitas of our courts? Those who corrupt us Page 2 of 103

plead their case; do we, the corrupted, have no chance to defend ourselves? I am at a loss. Am I to defend the Senate in this place, gentlemen of the jury? Certainly, I ought to defend the Senate everywhere, since I am so greatly obliged to that order; however, neither is this our business today nor is this matter related to Postumus' case. Although the money was provided by Postumus to cover the costs of the expenses incurred during the King's journey, and to uphold the pomp and regal status of his retinue, and although the written contracts were signed at Pompey's Alban villa, after the owner had left Rome, still, a lender should not inquire of the borrower how he plans to spend the money he has received. For, Postumus did not loan his money to a brigand but to a king, not a king hostile to the Roman people but one whose restoration he saw entrusted to a consul by the Senate; not a king who had no connections with this empire, but one with whom he had seen a treaty signed on the Capitol. 7But if it is the lender who is at fault rather than the borrower who used the money dishonestly, then let us condemn the manufacturer and the seller of a weapon rather than the man who used it to slay a fellow citizen. Therefore, neither should you, C. Memmius, behave as if you wish to see the Senate, to whose authority you have devoted yourself since early manhood, plunged into such disgrace, nor should I defend something which does not pertain to this case. Because Postumus' case, whatever its nature, is distinct from that of the Senate. 8And if I also prove that it is unrelated to Gabinius' trial, then, without doubt there will be no case left to answer. ................................................................................................................ pg 96 4For, this legal action under the heading 'What has become of the money' is just a litle appendix to a case which has been tried and ended in a condemnation. Damages were assessed against A. Gabinius, but neither were securities given, nor could the full amount demanded be recouped by the people from the sale of his assets. The Julian law decrees that compensation should be sought from those to whom money has passed from a party adjudged guilty. If we have here in the Julian law an innovation, in the way that many provisions have been formulated more strictly and severely than in ancient laws, then, by all means let a new judicial procedure also be adopted for dealing with such cases! 9But if this whole paragraph of the law has been transferred word for word not only from the Cornelian law but also from the Servilian which preceded it, in heavens' name, gentlemen, whatever are we doing? Or, more precisely, what new judicial practice are we introducing into our State? Certainly, this kind of legal procedure was well known to you all, yet, if practical experience is the best guide, then, it is to me of all people that it should be most familiar. I have prosecuted in extortion trials, I have served on juries hearing such cases, as praetor I have presided over the standing court for extortion, and I have been the defence counsel for many Page 3 of 103

facing such charges. I have neglected no area which could yield an opportunity to gain further knowledge. My contention is this, that nobody who has not been named during the assessment of damages has ever been put on trial under the charge 'What has become of the money.' However, during the assessment of damages nobody was considered named unless he was cited in the testimony of witnesses, the ledgers of private individuals, or the official civic accounts. 10As a result, during the assessment of damages those who had something to fear used to be present and on being called they usually rebutted any allegations at once, if they saw fit; but if they were alarmed by the atmosphere of hostility newly aroused by the trial, they used to give their response later. And by acting in this way many often won their cases. 5In fact, in this trial there is something new and completely without precedent. During the assessment of damages Postumus' name was never heard. I say, during the ................................................................................................................ pg 97 assessment of damages, but just recently you yourselves sat as jurors in A. Gabinius' trial. Did any witness mention Postumus? Witness do I say? Did even the prosecutor? Did you, in short, hear Postumus' name during the entire trial? 11Therefore, Postumus stands not as defendant, consequent upon a trial on which a verdict has already been pronounced, but as the only eques Romanus to be seized and charged with extortion. On the basis of which ledgers? Those which were not read out at the trial of Gabinius. And according to which witness? One who at that time never mentioned his name. During the assessment of what damages? An assessment in which Postumus' name was never mentioned. Under which law is he charged? Under one which does not apply to him. From now on, gentlemen of the jury, the case rests upon your discretion and wisdom; you ought to consider what it is fitting for you to do, and not what the law allows you to do. For, if you keep to the letter of the law, you have the authority to banish from the city any citizen whom you wish. It is the voting tablet which confers upon you this power; this same voting tablet is open to misuse, and there is no reason why a man should fear an awareness of this, unless he fears his own conscience. 12In what, therefore, does the wisdom of a juror consist? It consists in weighing up not only what is in his power to do but also what he ought to do, and being conscious not only of how much power he is permitted to exert but also within what limits it has been extended to him. The voting tablet is granted to you as a juror. Under which law? 'The Julian law of extortion.' And who is the defendant here? 'An eques Romanus.' But that order is exempt from this law. However, the prosecutor states that he is charged under the clause 'What has become of the money.' Yet, when sitting as a juror during the trial of Gabinius you heard nothing against Postumus, nor did you hear anything when Gabinius was convicted and you Page 4 of 103

were assessing the damages against him. 'But I hear it now.' Therefore, Postumus stands as defendant under a law from which not only he himself but also his entire order is free and exempt. 6In this present instance, I will not appeal to you first, equites Romani, whose legal right is being blatantly undermined in ................................................................................................................ pg 98 this trial, but rather to you, Senators, whose goodwill towards this order is in question; goodwill which has, indeed, been displayed not only on many occasions in the past but also during this present case. For, when our worthy and distinguished consul Pompey raised the question of this same issue in the Senate, there emerged some few, but admittedly harsh, proposals which, indeed, sought to subject military tribunes, prefects, scribes, and the entire retinue of magistrates to this law. You, your very selves, I stress, and a full house of the Senate opposed this motion, and, although the situation flared up because of the multitude of crimes at that time, so as to place even innocents in peril, still, whilst you would not quench the flames of hatred against us, you did not permit a new conflagration to be lit beneath this order. 14Such, then, was the spirit of the Senate. But you, you equites Romani, I ask you, how are you going to act? Glaucia, that loathsome but shrewd individual, used to exhort the people, whenever a law was being promulgated, to pay heed to the opening line. If it read 'Dictator, Consul, Praetor, Master of Horse', they should not be perturbed, since they should understand that it was not applicable to them; but if it began 'Whoever after the enactment of this law', they should be careful not to fall foul of some new measure. 15Now, equites Romani, be on your guard. You are well aware that I have risen from your ranks and have always advocated your cause. I do not give voice to any of these things without the utmost regard and deepest affection for your order. Some have shown favour to other men and orders, but I have always embraced you. While this case and its issues remain unresolved, I adjure and implore you, I deliver, and call upon all men and gods to witness, this warning: whilst you have the power and the opportunity, beware that you do not impose on yourselves and on your order a condition harsher than you are able to bear. Believe me, this insidious plague will spread further than you think. 7When that most powerful and distinguished plebeian tribune M. Drusus was introducing a new measure aimed at the equestrian order: 'if anyone had received money to give a verdict', the equites Romani openly objected. Why? Did they wish to be allowed to engage in such practices? By no means; ................................................................................................................ pg 99

Page 5 of 103

they considered money acquired in this way not only discreditable but also immoral. And yet they argued thus, that only those who had intentionally followed that way of life ought to be subject to these laws. 'The highest offices of civic life, the curule chair, the fasces, military commands, provincial governorships, priesthoods, triumphs, and, finally, the images themselves handed down to preserve your memory for posterity exert their allure on you; 17then, at the same time, let there also be a sense of responsibility and a greater reverence for both the laws and the courtrooms.' 'We never showed disrespect for these offices', so the equites argued, 'but rather followed this quiet and unassuming life; and, as it lacks public recognition, let it also lack anxiety.' A Senator may say to an eques: 'You are just as much a juror as I am'. In reply the eques will retort: 'So I may be, but you sought your office, whilst mine is thrust upon me. Therefore, I should have the right either to decline to act as a juror or not to be bound by a law applicable to Senators.' 18Will you, equites Romani, surrender this right received from your fathers? I admonish you against this. Unless you act with caution, men will be dragged into these courts not only through all manner of feuds but also by malicious gossips. If at this time it came to your attention that in the Senate measures were being put forward to make you liable under these laws, you would think it incumbent on you to rush to the Senate House; and, if a law were being proposed, you would flock to the rostra. The Senate has desired you to be free from this law, and the people have never obliged you to be otherwise; you have come here in a state of liberty, make sure you do not depart in fetters. 19For, if Postumus, who was neither a tribune, nor a prefect, nor a member of the retinue which Gabinius brought from Italy, nor his friend, were to be held culpable, by what means will members of your order defend themselves in the future when implicated with our magistrates in these cases? 8The prosecution says: 'You, Postumus, prompted Gabinius to restore the King to his throne.' My present favourable disposition towards Gabinius prevents me from speaking about him harshly. For, I ought not to harass him in his predicament, since, after so much animosity, I received him as a ................................................................................................................ pg 100 friend and zealously acted in his defence. Had not the authority of Pompey led me to renew my friendship with him in the past, his own plight would do so now. 20But, when you allege that Gabinius went to Alexandria at Postumus' instigation, do you also forget, even if you do not believe the pleas made in Gabinius' defence, your own accusation? Gabinius himself maintained that his action had been determined by the interests of the State, because of his fears concerning Archelaus' fleet and his belief that the sea would be awash with pirates; furthermore, he

Page 6 of 103

claimed that it was permitted by law. You, being ill-disposed, deny that. I forgive you, especially since the decision of the court runs contrary to that claim. 21Thus, I return to your charge and indictment. What was your constant allegation? That 10,000 talents had been promised to Gabinius. I am sure an exceptionally persuasive person would have to be found to prevail upon this man, who is, according to you, the epitome of avarice, not to willingly turn up his nose at the 240 million sesterces. No matter what Gabinius' plan was, it was unquestionably his own; whatever his rationale was, it was his alone. Whether his search was for glory, as he himself said, or for money, as you prefer to believe, he was acting for himself and not for Postumus; for, my client had hurried from Rome with a firm plan and assured hopes not as Gabinius' partner, nor as a member of his retinue, but on the authority of that distinguished gentleman P. Lentulus, granted to him by the Senate, and not of Gabinius, whose brief did not extend to this matter. 22'But he was appointed royal treasurer.' This is true, but he was also imprisoned by the King and his life was almost snatched from him; moreover, the caprice of the King and the demands of the moment forced him to endure many hardships. In all these matters one criticism can be levelled at him: namely, that he entered the kingdom of Egypt and placed himself in the King's power. In all honesty, he acted absurdly. For, what is more ludicrous than for an eques Romanus, and, I stress, a citizen of this State which alone now and in the past has always enjoyed exceptional liberties, to depart from this city for a place where he is to be obedient and subservient to others?

................................................................................................................ pg 101 9However, how can I fail to pardon Postumus, a man of modest learning, for an error into which I see the most sagacious of men have fallen? We are told that Plato, by far the most learned man in all Greece, was exposed to the gravest dangers and treacheries because of the wickedness of Dionysius, tyrant of Sicily, under whose protection he had placed himself; that Callisthenes, a learned man and a member of Alexander the Great's entourage, was assassinated by that very Alexander; and that Demetrius called Phalereus, an eminent man renowned both for his excellent administration of the Republic of Athens and for the breadth of his learning, lost his life in the same kingdom of Egypt when an asp was laid on his body. 24I freely confess that no action can be more preposterous than knowingly to come to a place where you are likely to lose your freedom. But this very act of folly has its defence in another earlier one which, in turn, makes this most nonsensical behaviour—namely, that he entered the kingdom and put himself under the power of the King—appear to be an act of wisdom, since it is not so much the characteristic of a man who is always foolish but rather of one who too late becomes wise in an attempt to extricate himself at any cost when embarrassed by his own stupidity. Page 7 of 103

25Therefore, let what cannot be moved or changed remain fixed and abiding; the impartial say that Postumus acted in hope, the prejudiced that he transgressed, and even he himself puts it down to sheer madness, in that he lent not only his own money but also that of his friends to the King, placing his capital at the greatest of risk; but, once he had embarked upon the enterprise and had exchanged contracts, then, all privations had to be borne in order to secure eventual reimbursement for himself and his friends. You may reproach him, therefore, as much as you like, for having often donned the Greek cloak and having displayed insignia not befitting a Roman, but the more you refer to any of these, the more it amounts to one and the same thing: namely, that he rashly lent money to the King and placed his wealth and reputation at the mercy of the royal whims. 26His behaviour was foolhardy, I admit; but now there was no way in which the situation could be mended; either he ................................................................................................................ pg 102 had to wear the Greek cloak in Alexandria, in order to preserve his right to wear the toga in Rome, or, had he retained the toga, all his wealth was to be surrendered. 10In the name of pleasure and self-indulgence I have often seen not only Roman citizens but even young men of noble family and even some Senators of the highest birth garbed in Greek attire, and not just in their gardens or country villas but also in the most frequented city of Naples, where even the great general L. Sulla was seen by many sporting a Greek cape. 27Indeed, you can see on the Capitol a statue of L. Scipio, who waged war in Asia and defeated Antiochus, which displays not only a Greek cape, but also Greek sandals. Those men remained free not only of criticism from the courts but even from gossip! Even easier to excuse is the behaviour, out of necessity, of P. Rutilius Rufus who, when detained by Mithridates at Mytilene, escaped the cruel fate visited by the King on those in the toga, through changing his apparel. Therefore, this P. Rutilius, regarded by our fellow citizens as the paradigm of traditional virtue and wisdom and a man of consular rank, wore Greek shoes and cloak; and, indeed, nobody considered that blame ought to be imputed to the man, but rather to the circumstances; so, will Postumus face the charge of wearing Greek clothes—an act in which lay the hope that one day he might recoup his fortune? 28For, when he arrived in Alexandria, gentlemen of the jury, this sole course of action was proposed to Postumus by the King in order to safeguard his money, that he should undertake the management and virtual running of the Royal Exchequer. Yet, this duty could not be fulfilled unless he was appointed as treasurer, the name under which those who are concerned with the accounts pass. This was viewed as a loathsome obligation by Postumus, but there was no possibility of refusal; the title itself was also irksome, but this was the name borne by the post in that country, and it was not his invention. He also detested the costume, but without it he could Page 8 of 103

secure neither the title nor the office. To quote our poet: 'There arose a force which shatters and destroys the mightiest of powers.' ................................................................................................................ pg 103 29'He should have chosen death,' you will say; for, that is the only alternative. If he could have ended his life without the greatest dishonour because of his unmet obligations, he certainly would have chosen death. 11Do not, therefore, blame Postumus' misfortune on himself or view the illtreatment by the King as his 'crime'; do not interpret an act of necessity as one of intention, or one performed under coercion as freely chosen. Unless, of course, you, perhaps, also think that those who fall into the hands of enemies or brigands should be heavily rebuked because they act differently under duress than when they are at liberty. Even if we do not have first-hand experience, none of us is ignorant of the habits of kings. Kings command thus: 'Pay heed and obey my behest,' and: 'If you do more than is required of you …', and they threaten thus: 'If I catch you here on the morrow, you shall be put to death.' It befits us not only to read and watch such things for pleasure, but also to learn from them to be cautious and keep a respectful distance. 30But the prosecution alleges that from this very situation a further charge arises: namely, that whilst Postumus was collecting money for Gabinius he appropriated for himself 10 per cent out of the revenue he was ordered to gather. I am utterly perplexed as to whether he added an extra 10 per cent, as is usual among our tax collectors, who demand 1 per cent per month, or whether he subtracted that amount from the total. If the first was the case, Gabinius would have received 11,000 talents. But not only were 10,000 talents cited by you, but the jury also assessed this sum. 31I add this point also: How does it make sense, I ask, either that 1,000 talents were added to such an enormous figure due to be collected, when the burden of taxation was already so great, or that a deduction of 1,000 talents was allowed in such a large payment made to a man who is, as you maintain, the epitome of avarice? For, it was not like Gabinius to surrender so much of his prize nor was it like the King to accept the imposition of higher taxes on his people. Yet, there will be the testimony of the Alexandrian witnesses. They said nothing against Gabinius; on the ................................................................................................................ pg 104 contrary, they spoke highly of him. What happened, then, to the principles and the traditions of our courts? To the precedents? Does a witness, who said nothing against the man in whose name the money was collected, normally speak against the collector? 32If this is usually the case, I ask you, then, what if he actually praised the recipient? It is the standard procedure for a case such as this, which is virtually Page 9 of 103

prejudged, to be tried on the basis of the testimony of the same witnesses, though not present in person, but upon their depositions which are read aloud. 12And yet, my learned and distinguished friend states that the motive of the Alexandrians in praising Gabinius was the same as mine in defending him. In fact, for me, Memmius, the reason for defending Gabinius was our reconciliation. And, indeed, I do not regret that with me enmities die whereas friendships endure for ever. 33For, if you think that I took up his case unwillingly so as not to offend Pompey's feelings, I am afraid you have absolutely no understanding of either him or myself. For, neither would Pompey have wished me to act against my will just to please him, nor would I, who have treasured the freedom of all citizens most highly, have placed my own in jeopardy. When I was at loggerheads with Gabinius, Pompey never ceased to be my dearest friend; and when later, at his prompting, I duly forgave Gabinius, it was no pretence, since any dishonesty on my part would have slighted the very man for whom I had performed this favour. For, not extending the hand of friendship to my enemy was no insult to Pompey; but if the reconciliation to which he had persuaded me had been under false pretences, I would obviously have been, first of all, letting down myself, but, to a lesser degree, him as well. 34But enough about me; let us return to these Alexandrians. What cheek and what insolence they have! A little while ago, when you were sitting as jurors in Gabinius' trial, they were on their feet at every other word denying that money had been given to him. Pompey's testimony was repeatedly quoted to the effect that the King had written to him stating that he had given no money to Gabinius except for ................................................................................................................ pg 105 military purposes. 'But at that time,' my learned friend says, 'no faith was placed in the Alexandrian witnesses.' What then? 'They are believed now.' And why? 'Because now they admit what they previously denied.' 35What is going on? Is it standard practice for witnesses to be disbelieved when they deny something and believed when they affirm it? But if at that time, staring us straight in the eye, they told the truth, then they must be lying now; but if they lied at that time, then let them show us what look they normally have in their eyes when they tell the truth. We heard rumours about Alexandria; now we know! Alexandria is the home of all deceit and falsehood; in short, it is the birthplace of all the plots of the mime plays. And I long for nothing more, gentlemen of the jury, than to see their faces! 13A short while ago, here in this court, they testified before us and denied the charge relating to these 10,000 talents, just by raising their eyebrows! You are already familiar with the impertinence of the Greeks; at that time, they shrugged their shoulders out of expediency, I suppose; now, obviously, that need has passed. But once a man has perjured himself, no further faith should be placed in him, even Page 10 of 103

if he swears in the name of many gods; particularly, gentlemen of the jury, because in cases of this nature there is normally no place for fresh witnesses, and for this very reason the same jurors who tried the principal defendant are retained, so that all the details are familiar to them and nothing new can be concocted. 37Defendants under 'What has become of the money' are normally not tried and condemned on accusations arising from their own trial. Consequently, if Gabinius had provided securities or if the people had received from his property an amount equivalent to the damages assessed against him, then, no matter how much had passed from him to Postumus, money would not have been reclaimed from him; so, it should be easy to understand that normally the money reclaimed in this type of trial is only the amount which has been proven during the previous trial to have passed from the condemned man to another. But now what is going on? Where on earth are we? How can ................................................................................................................ pg 106 such a perverse and preposterous thing be mooted or even come to mind? 38The accused is a man who did not take money from the King—as Gabinius was found guilty of—but one who lent vast sums to that same King. The King then gave the money to Gabinius who did not return it to my client. Then, please tell me, as the King, who owed money to Postumus, did not return it to him but passed it on to Gabinius, and since Gabinius has been convicted, to which of the two should the clause 'What has become of the money' apply? 14'But he possesses the money and conceals it,' there are people who say so. I ask you, what a bizarre way to show off and seek glory! If he had never possessed any money, if he had worked for it, still he would have had no cause to feign poverty. In fact, he had inherited two handsome and prosperous estates and further augmented his fortune through honest and reputable endeavours; what cogent reason, I ask, could there be for him to wish to be considered a pauper? 39Or, perhaps, do you believe that when he was lending money, lured by the high interest rates, his intention was to amass as much as possible, yet after he had secured payment of what he was owed he wished to appear bankrupt? What a novel way of seeking glory! 'Well, he acted like a tyrant in Alexandria,' states the prosecution. Far from it, it was he who was the victim of the worst kind of tyranny; he himself was cast into prison, saw his friends in chains, frequently lived under the shadow of death, and, exposed to the four winds and without a penny to his name, finally fled the kingdom. 40Still, the prosecution states, at some time he received payment in kind; Postumus' ships were berthed in Puteoli and merchandise was talked about and seen. In reality, those goods were nothing more than cheap imitations made from paper, linen, and glass; and, although many ships were loaded with these, the whole

Page 11 of 103

lot together could not equal the debt. The voyage to Puteoli, the fuss generated then, the hustle and bustle and open display of the crew, as well ................................................................................................................ pg 107 as the opprobrium heaped upon the name of Postumus at that time by the malicious because of all this chatter about the money, kept the tongues of the gossips wagging for just one summer, not more. 15However, gentlemen of the jury, if you wish to know the truth, we should long ago have lost Postumus from civic life had it not been for the munificence of Caesar himself, liberal to all, but to my client truly astonishing. It was Caesar alone who shouldered the burdens of many of Postumus' friends; these were apportioned among many business associates and carried by them whilst Postumus was prospering, but now that his fortunes are at a low ebb it is only Caesar who bears the brunt of it all. What you witness here, gentlemen of the jury, is the shadowy image of an eques Romanus supported by the succour and loyalty of a single friend. Nothing more can be stripped from him except the pitiful shell of his former dignity which only Caesar upholds and secures, a dignity which ought to be generously accorded to him still, even if his affairs are in such a miserable state. Unless, indeed, it is mediocre quality that can lead a man of such high rank as Caesar to hold my client in such high esteem, especially when he is beset by travails and in a foreign land; and it is remarkable that, when his own fortune is so great, he busies himself with the well-being of another, and, when he is occupied with the greatest of tasks, it would not be suprising if he were to neglect others, or, if he did remember them, that he should readily furnish a plausible excuse for having let them slip from his mind. 42Many of the supreme and marvellous virtues of Caesar I have come to know, but the rest have become almost commonplace, being played out on the public stage: to select sites for army camps, to deploy his troops in battle, to storm cities, to rout the enemy, to withstand the ferocity of this harsh winter, which we can barely endure even sheltered here in the city, to pursue the enemy on those very days when even wild animals seek the refuge of their lairs and all wars cease by the common consent of nations—these achievements are undeniably great; but rich rewards and the eternal veneration of posterity were their spur, so we ................................................................................................................ pg 108 should not be astounded by the deeds of a man who has always aspired to immortality. 16This is a true glory, which is not celebrated in the stanzas of poets or the annals of historians, but is valued in the judgement of the wise. Caesar took under his wing an eques Romanus, a staunch friend of long standing, a confidant and an admirer, a man who comes to grief not from debauchery or from dissipation and shameful Page 12 of 103

extravagance driven by insatiable appetites, but from tirelessly striving to enrich his patrimony; Caesar spared no effort to break his fall and sustained and supported him with his money, fortune, and name; and today he saves and does not let a friend who teeters on the brink plunge to disaster. The splendour of his name does not dull the sharpness of his intellect, nor do high rank and glory impede in any way the clarity of his mind. 44Let us admit that these accomplishments are outstanding, as they truly are, although one may consent with me or not as one pleases; for, what I value most in a man of such wealth and fortune, above all his other virtues, is his munificence and loyalty to friends. This is an unaccustomed benevolence seldom met in men of eminence and distinction; one, indeed, gentlemen of the jury, which, far from disdaining or denying, you should rather embrace and encourage; especially as you see that these days have, in fact, been spent in undermining his authority. From this, nothing can be stripped without him either bearing it bravely or restoring it with ease. But if he learns that his dearest friend has been robbed of his honour, he will suffer it with great sadness, and he will have lost something beyond all hope of recovery. 17These points should be sufficient for men who are not partial, and more than enough for you, whom we trust to be completely free from prejudice. But to satisfy anyone's suspicion, malevolence, and vindictiveness, let us suppose: 'Postumus is hiding the money and royal riches remain concealed.' But who from the whole populace would wish Gaius Rabirius Postumus' property to pass to them for a single sesterce? Ah, wretched me, how it pains me to have uttered these words! For you, Postumus, are you not the offspring of Gaius Curtius, by discretion and goodwill the ................................................................................................................ pg 109 adopted son of Gaius Rabirius, the true son of his sister? Are you not that man so magnanimous to all your relatives, whose benevolence has enriched so many, and who has spent and lavished nothing on any personal gratification? Am I, Postumus, to be the 'auctioneer' of your property for a single sesterce? How distressful and bitter is my task! 46Yet this ill-fated creature even desires you actually to condemn him, if by this means his property may be sold so that all can be fully compensated. He treasures nothing now, bar his reputation, nor can you wrest anything more than this from him, should you now choose to forget to be clement. I beseech and implore you, gentlemen of the jury, refrain from this, especially when adventitious money is demanded of one whose own money is not reimbursed. For, hatred has been stoked against one who deserved sympathy. 47But now, since I have, as I trust, manifested my loyalty to you, Postumus, I shall shed the tears I also owe; those which I myself surely saw you weep so copiously at my own misfortune. That night so sorrowful for all my family passes before my eyes, Page 13 of 103

when you so wholeheartedly placed yourself and your means at my disposal. And it was you with your companions, your protection, and as much gold as the occasion required, who facilitated that departure; it was also you who never failed my wife and children during my absence. I can call upon many restored exiles to testify to your generosity, which, I have often heard, was, indeed, of great succour to your father when he was tried on a capital charge. 48But now I am full of every foreboding, and I tremble with fear at the envy which kindness itself may excite. For, the lamentations of so many testify to how dear you are to your kin, and grief paralyses me and chokes my voice. I implore you, gentlemen of the jury, not to deprive this excellent man, whose better has never lived, of the title of eques Romanus, of the enjoyment of public life, and of the honour of gazing upon your presence. He begs you for nothing more than the right to look upon this city with his head held high and to set foot in this forum, and fate would have robbed him even of that, had not the power of a single friend come to his rescue.

Notes 1

Througout the translation the numbering system follows that of A. C. Clark's (1909) edition of Pro Rabirio Postumo: M. Tulli Ciceronis Orationes.

Page 14 of 103

NOTES 'To err is human' is the age-old tenet on which Cicero decides to rest the beginning of his defence (1. 1–3. 5), as he boldly admits that even Postumus in hindsight considers his behaviour to have been foolhardy and ill-advised. However, before they come to an instant judgement, Cicero subtly reminds his audience that the defendant is not the only one to have fallen for the wiles of the King of Egypt, because at the time all of Rome had fallen under the charm of this capricious monarch. Invoking the virtues of his client, Cicero presents Postumus not as a parvenu merchant but as a respectable 'eques' from a good family who, after dedicating his life to upholding the true Roman values of the 'mos maiorum', had fallen on hard times only because of unfortunate circumstances. In a measured passage of rhetoric Cicero appeals to the jurors' innate sense of justice by asking them to spare his client from any further suffering. 1. 1. If. About one in four of Cicero's orations begins with a conditional clause (Caec., Cael., Rab. Perd., Arch., Red. Sen., Sest., Vat., Prov., Balb., Mil., Phil.). The hypothetical 'if' is not used here to cast doubts in the minds of the jurors but, instead, forms part of a dramatic announcement intended to win their confidence. By openly acknowledging Postumus to be culpable of entrusting money to the King of Egypt, Cicero is engaging in a calculated ploy to forestall objection. anyone. A generic term encompassing everyone present in the court, including both the prosecution and defence (cf. note on 17. 45 anyone's). gentlemen of the jury. Out of respect as well as to attract their attention Cicero immediately addresses the jurors hearing the case. Postumus was put on trial under the Julian law of extortion, and, more specifically, under the clause 'What has become of the money.' Under previous laws of extortion, such as the law of the tabula Bembina (123/122) and the Cornelian law (81), juries had been drawn from a pool of between 450 and 400 (Att. 1. 14. 5). The size of the jury panel under the Julian law is unknown, but in 51 Cicero states that there were 300 eligible jurors of senatorial rank alone and, when the jurors of the other two orders, the equites and tribuni aerarii (cf. note on 6. 13 Senators), are added, it can be supposed that the total was at least double that number (Fam. 8. 8. 5; Att. 8. 16. 2; Strachan-Davidson (1912) 75; Greenidge (1971) 445). The number of jurors who actually sat to hear Postumus' case is also unknown, but if Gabinius' trial for treason, which took place not long before, and the outcome of which was decided by thirty-eight votes for acquittal against thirty-two for condemnation, is any guide, then it might be suggested that around seventy jurors may have been present (Att. 4. 18. 1). Some support for this estimate also comes from the fact that at the trial of M. Aemilius Scaurus, who was accused of extortion under the Julian law in September of the same year, the case was decided by a similar number of jurors, with twenty-two Senators, twenty-three equites, and twenty-five tribuni

Page 15 of 103

aerarii casting their vote (Asc. Sc. 25 (Clark 1907)). In this particular instance the three orders do not seem to have been equally represented, but at other times, such as in the case of L. Valerius Flaccus, who was accused of extortion in 56, the jury was based on an equal representation of twenty-five jurors drawn from each order, giving a total of seventyfive (Flac. 4). C. Rabirius. Gaius Rabirius Postumus was the natural son of C. Curtius and the adoptive son of his maternal uncle C. Rabirius (see Introd.). In typical Ciceronian fashion, at the opening of the speech the defendant is addressed formally using both his praenomen and nomen. During the remainder of the speech the more familiar and intimate appellation, Postumus, is used twenty other times until the very end, when Cicero returns to the more official C. Rabirius Postumus (cf. note on 17. 45 Gaius Rabirius Postumus; Adams (1978) 146). fortune. The similarity between the vocabulary used here and that in the opening lines of Cicero's defence speech for Postumus' uncle C. Rabirius, delivered in 63, is striking, implying that Postumus' family was of exceptional wealth (Rab. Perd. 1; 38 ff.). royalty. Ptolemy XII Theos Philopator Philadelphos Neos Dionysos, nicknamed Ptolemy Auletes (the flute player), the King of Egypt, who ruled, save for an interlude of a few years, for more than a quarter of a century from September 80 to spring/summer 51 (see Introd.). What is interesting here is that Cicero prefers not to mention the King by name but, instead, employs the more generic term 'royalty'. Indeed, throughout the whole speech, apart from once when he is called 'Ptolemy' (cf. 2. 4), and once when he is 'the King of Alexandria' (cf. 2. 4)—the term Cicero generally preferred to use in his correspondence (Fam. 1. 1. 2, 1. 7. 4, 2. 16. 2, 8. 4. 5)—he is consistently referred to as 'the King' (1. 1, 3. 5, 3. 6, 8. 19, 8. 22, 9. 24–6, 10. 28, 11. 29, 11. 31, 12. 34, 13. 38, 17. 45). This may simply have been because to most Romans Ptolemy Auletes was the 'King' and any further identification was unnecessary. His name had been a commonplace in Rome since the 80s (2Ver. 2. 76), after it had become entangled in a succession of contentious political issues including Ptolemy Auletes' quest for official recognition from the Roman Senate, a 'mooted' Roman annexation of Egypt (Agr. 2. 41–2; Thompson (1994), 319), and, finally, the restoration which was eventually to lead to the trials of both Gabinius and Postumus. Indeed, in not referring to the King by name Cicero may have been adopting a deliberate ploy, in an attempt to distance Postumus from Ptolemy Auletes and his nefarious activities (on Cicero's common tactic of avoiding the use of names with embarrassing connotations see Adams (1978) 163–4). After all, kings to the Romans were whimsical and tyrannical creatures who only indulged in pleasure (cf. note on 11. 29 habits of kings). judgement. Legal metaphor employed to encompass the jurors' opinion (iudicium) both as ordinary citizens and in their capacity to deliver justice. To express his opinion, together with that of his client, Cicero normally uses the term sententia, which in classical texts never means legal judgement but rather the opinion of a member of the jury on which the Page 16 of 103

presiding magistrate bases his judgement (in that respect it is synonymous with iudicium; Phil. 3. 20). It is … foresight. cf. 2. 5; Hom. Il. 17. 32: 'After the event, even a fool is wise.'; Pis. 98; Dem. Olynth. 1. 11. trustworthy. Cicero refers here to the 'faith' of the Romans, and more specifically Postumus' faith, that Ptolemy Auletes would eventually repay their loans (cf. note on 2. 4 he … practices; for a fanciful etymology of the word fides see Rep. 4. 7; Off. 1. 23). betrayed. This highly emotional word is amplified later in the speech, where Cicero explicitly states that not only did the King not pay his debt to Postumus but that he, instead, passed the money to Gabinius, the Roman proconsul of Syria who restored him to his throne (cf. note on 13. 38 did not return it to him). guesswork. An ironical comment on the advantages of hindsight (Ter. Hec. 696; Planc. 46). 1. 2. unfounded … recklessness. Highly charged words which are formed into a descending pattern to highlight the extent of Postumus' admitted folly. beg. By begging as a suppliant Cicero seeks to win the favour of the jurors, who have to weigh juridical principles against ethical reasoning (see below 'barbaric'; cf. note on 5. 11–5. 12 you ought … extended to him; Dom. 113; Janssen (1981) 361–6). Here, the real point is not to establish whether Postumus is to blame, but to ensure that he is not incriminated further. plight. This term contrasts with 'fortune' and 'riches' (cf. 1. 1). Cicero's words paint a graphic picture of Postumus' impoverishment—a line of argument which is further elaborated later in the speech (cf. 15. 41 ff.). Fortune. Cicero refused to credit a blind force to Fortuna (Ac. Post. 1. 7. 29; Pis. 5), and here the usage is formalistic, merely serving to underline Postumus' misfortune (cf. note on 8. 19 predicament, 17. 48 fortune). A belief in blind fortune, whether conceived as a deity or not, although already popular in the Hellenistic world, only gained ground in Rome after Caesar's death, reaching a peak during the first century AD, as exemplified by the well-known passage of the elder Pliny (Plin. Nat. 2. 22: 'Everywhere in the whole world at every hour by all men's voices Fortune alone is invoked and named, alone accused, alone impeached, alone pondered, alone applauded, alone rebuked and visited with reproaches'; RE, VII. 1, cols. 12–42). Here, Cicero's references to the abstract nature of divine will and his emphasis on the vis fatalis permit him to present Postumus as a victim of unfortunate circumstances, not the perpetrator of a crime, and his actions as only those that could be

Page 17 of 103

expected of a mere mortal (for more information on Cicero's conception of 'Fortune' see Heibges (1969) 833–49; Paolella (1989) 33–48). It is bad … falling. cf. note on 16. 43 break his fall; Shak. Henry VIII, V. iii. 83: ''Tis a cruelty, to load a falling man.' Cicero may have been mindful of his own experiences while in exile—note the use of 'surely', which adds a subjective colouring to the sentence (K-St (1955) II. 799–802); the language he used to describe his own misfortune a few years before was strikingly similar 'but had not even protected me as I lay on the ground' (Sest. 64, tr. Shackleton Bailey (1991b); Att. 3. 13. 2). barbaric. The emotive and highly charged epithet (inhumanum) serves not only to demonstrate the orator's own humane understanding of the imperfections of man's nature but also to highlight the un-Roman nature of such behaviour (Off. 2. 16 ff.; Büchner (1961) 636 ff.; Moritz (1962); Astin (1967) 302–6). This latter meaning is further amplified in the argument which follows, where the humanitas displayed by a man in sparing another's downfall is viewed as a particularly Roman virtue (Romanitas), precious enough to be handed down to one's descendants. The words humanitas and humanus figure strongly in Cicero's writings, where they are often used not only to indicate a contrast with what is supernatural, immoral, or animal, but also to embrace many or even all the qualities proper to the ideal civilized man (Fam. 3. 2. 1 and Att. 1. 17. 4, where humanitas means helpfulness and kindness, Q.fr. 1. 1. 25 and Fam. 13. 15. 1, where it is paired with the idea of clemency and refinement, and de Orat. 1. 32, where it implies tolerance, social grace, and is considered to be a requisite for the ideal orator). distinction. Pride in the heroic exploits of their ancestors led the Romans to make their deeds the basis of a moral tradition (Sall. Jug. 85. 23; Off. 1. 115–16; Earl (1960) 237 ff.; Achard (1973) 207–21; Lind (1979) 7–58; Bonnefond-Coudry (1989) 374–86). An appeal to the deeds of one's illustrious ancestors would have constituted an effective argument to the jurors who based their judgement on precedent. Cicero is reminding them of the glories of the past and the distinctiveness of Roman culture, asking them to judge Postumus, who, through the exploits of his ancestors, embraces the same values in the same honourable spirit; for the semantic difference between the words 'distinction' (laus) and 'glory' (gloria) see Sest. 60, 139; Thomas (1994) 93. For example … father. In earlier times the viri gloriosi came almost exclusively from the great families, such as the Aelii, Aemilii, Caecilii, Cassii, Claudii, Cornelii, Fabii, Horatii, Licinii, Manlii, Sempronii, and Valerii, as sons typically emulated their fathers. Cicero's cast, in the following lines, are all men of action, renowned warriors, statesmen, and men of intellect, with the mos maiorum being used as a preceptor of civic wisdom and virtue as well as a guide out of present difficulties. Almost any Ciceronian speech will provide examples of his use of history (Clarke (1945) 76), as Cicero believed that historical knowledge gave authority and credibility to an oration (de Orat. 1. 18, 201, 256). In this speech he digs Page 18 of 103

deep into history for his analogies (cf. 9. 23 ff.), but when addressing the general public he would employ fewer and more recent and obvious examples, since he did not expect many members of a popular audience to have the same level of historical awareness as jurors (Thompson (1978) 84). military prowess. To die fighting for one's country was the preeminent way of winning glory (Off. 2. 1, 9, 18, 31, 45; Vict. vir. ill. 32), ensuring constant public veneration (Earl (1960) 240; idem (1970–1) 143–62; Lind (1979) 16–19; Thomas (1994) 91–100). Scipio. P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (Africanus minor), the natural son of Aemilius Paullus (Off. 1. 121), served under his father in Macedonia. Later, he was adopted into the Cornelian family by the elder son of Scipio Africanus (MRR, 1. 459) and the family's name and reputation were such as to secure Scipio's election to the consulship in 147, before he was legally eligible. During his first consulship he brought to an end the Third Punic War and in 134, when he was elected consul for the second time, he triumphed over the Numantines. Scipio was often praised as a paragon of military virtue by Cicero and other writers, and in his de Republica (9. 14, 11. 17, 12. 18 ff.) Cicero uses Scipio's voice as a medium to lend gravitas to his own ideas (Astin (1967) 18 ff.). Maximus. Quintus Fabius Maximus, the brother of Scipio (Amic. 69). Paulus. Lucius Aemilius Paullus, the consul of 182 and 168 (RE, I. 1, s.v. Aemilius, no. 114), won a military victory in Spain, and in 181 celebrated a triumph over the Ligurians. Later, a second and more splendid triumph was awarded to him on account of his success in the war against Perseus, the last King of Macedonia, who was defeated at Pydna in 168 (Plut. Life of Aemilius Paullus). devotio. An act of self-sacrifice by a commander-in-chief at the moment when defeat seemed imminent, consecrating himself, together with the enemy troops, to the gods of the underworld (RE, V. 277–80). Fowler (1922) 206 also stresses the magical nature of the act when he writes: 'By the act of self-sacrifice, which is the potent element in the spell, Decius (see below) exercises magical power over the legions of the enemy, and devotes them with himself to death' (on the formula and the details of the ritual see Liv. 8. 10. 11–14; on the devotio of P. Decius Mus see Janssen (1981) 357–81; Guittard (1984) 581–600; Leigh (1995) 195–212). Decius. Among the many Romans who defended their country and ancestors, the Decii, father, son, and, according to some (Stievano (1951) 3), even grandson, owe their chief fame to the manner of their death. Publius Decius Mus (1), consul in 340 (MRR, I. 135), gained renown through his act of self-sacrifice for the success of the Roman armies against the Latins at Veseris in Campania (Liv. 8. 6–11; Sest. 48; Val. Max. 1. 7. 3). His son Publius Decius Mus (2), consul in 312, 308, 297, and 295 (RE, IV. 2, cols. 2281–4), in 295, together

Page 19 of 103

with Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus (his colleague in the last three consulships), defeated the Gauls and their allies at Sentinum (Liv. 10. 26–30; Polyb. 2. 19. 6). Although the Romans owed their victory to the tactical genius of Fabius Rullianus (Liv. 10. 39. 3), the popular hero of the battle was the fallen Decius Mus, whose death was portrayed as a deliberate act of devotio (Salmon (1967) 267). Into these stories of individual courage, patriotism, and selfsacrifice the Romans poured their deepest feelings of admiration, and by introducing them into his speech Cicero is seeking to emphasize the principal psychological as well as moral traits of his client, whilst also adding weight to the point he is making. 2. 3. small examples. Cicero now presses home his point through a series of somewhat far-fetched parallels in which he tries to persuade the jurors that Postumus' efforts to live up to his natural father's reputation can be equated with the actions of these great men (for similar parallels see Verg. Ecl. 1.23; Orat. 14; Brut. 213; Thucyd. 4. 36. 3). young. Cicero seems to have become acquainted with Postumus' natural father at an early stage of his life, presumably when the young orator moved to Rome in 96 at the age of ten (Leg. 1. 13; Brut. 303). From the wording here it seems clear that at that point Curtius was already an eminent leader of the equestrian order, suggesting that he was at least ten years Cicero's senior and that he was born around 116, if not before. In his correspondence (Fam. 13. 5. 2) Cicero also speaks warmly of Curtius, suggesting that they really were acquainted and that his statement here is not just for rhetorical effect. The orator also knew the family of Postumus' mother, since he had defended Postumus' maternal uncle and adoptive father C. Rabirius in 63, when the latter was accused of treason (see Introd., pp. oo ff.). C. Curtius. For a full prosopographical account of Postumus' natural father see Introd., pp. 48–9. publicanus. cf. note on 6. 13 goodwill … in question, 6. 15 You … embraced you, 7. 17 unassuming life, 14. 38 worked. The publicani originated from the equestrian order, but within their ranks there were also some municipal aristocrats who had close relationships with the senatorial order. Organizing themselves into financial companies, the publicani engaged in a wide range of economic activities, including taking government contracts for public works and tax farming (especially the grain tax). As the owners of merchant fleets, they had extensive trading interests, including the task of carrying to Rome the large quantities of grain necessary for provisioning the city and the army, as well as providing the ships to transport military forces overseas when required (for an evocative enumeration of Postumus' own activities as a successful publicanus cf. note on 2. 4 My client … kings and for the publicani in general see Badian (1972) 66–81; Nicolet (1966–74) 357–63; Gabba (1980) 91–102; D'Arms (1981) 24–31; Andreau (1982) 299–302; Demougin (1988) 19–129; Garnsey (1988) 118–30, esp. 121–2; Harlan (1995); Welch (1996) 450–71). That Cicero favoured this group is borne out by his frequent references to them as homines honestissimi, and by his actions in Cilicia, where he was careful to curry the favour of the tax farmers Page 20 of 103

(Man. 17–18; Har. 60; Agr. 1. 22–7, 2. 1–16, 2. 102; Att. 6. 1. 16, 6. 3. 3). In return, they were in the habit of requiting his services with loans or legacies (see, for example, Att. 11. 14. 3, where it is attested that Fufidius, an eques Romanus ornatissimus, left money to Cicero; for more details on their relations with the orator see Syme (1939) 14; Strasburger (1956) 46 ff.; Gelzer (1969) 98; Mitchell (1979) 98–106; D'Arms (1981) 27–8 n. 44, 30 n. 55, 80). whose … philanthropy. This section serves as a character reference for Postumus' father, who is portrayed as a successful and popular businessman whose enterprises and profits had been large enough to earn him a dignitas of his own. Traditionally, 'generosity' (magnitudo animi) was an exclusively aristocratic trait and the virtue was conferred only upon the great families who had displayed the highest valour in defending Rome. Cicero, in claiming such qualities for an equestrian leader such as Curtius, would at first sight appear to be attributing virtues to him that were above his station (cf. note on 2. 4 he … practices). However, the claim is cleverly tied into a description of the virtues of an ordinary publicanus, allowing it to be interpreted in terms of a sound judgement. generosity. Within his orations from 63 to 54 Cicero displays a relatively free use of this term, coupling it with at least twelve other prominent Roman ideas, such as 'authority' (Sest. 139), 'well-being' (Sul. 14), 'resolution' (Sest. 26), 'loyalty' (Sest. 26), gravitas (Planc. 50), 'honesty' (Mur. 60), 'integrity' (Sest. 60), 'justice' (Mur. 60), 'charity' (Har. 43), 'temperance' (Mur. 60), 'frankness' (Sul. 14), and 'virtue' (Prov. 27); Knoche (1935) 1–88; Lind (1979) 19–22. 'Generosity' is often contrasted with the vice of 'avarice' (Off. 1. 104, 1. 150, 2. 64); for the varied treatment of this word in Latin literature see the informative article by Manning (1985) 73–83. avarice. Cicero had an unfavourable view of avarice, considering it to be one of the greatest vices and the commonest cause of political wrongdoing (Mitchell (1979) 28). In this direct denial that Curtius was motivated by avarice, Cicero would hope not only to associate his client's father, and, thus, by inference Postumus himself, with these honourable virtues of the past, but to establish a favourable impression of Postumus as a non-avaricious man, before his subsequent discussion of the financial complexities surrounding the Egyptian expedition (cf. 11. 31 ff.). 2. 4. although … father. This statement is usually interpreted as an indication that Postumus' father died before the birth of his son, a circumstance that led to him being named 'Postumus'. However, it is striking that Cicero's carefully chosen words state that the young Postumus had never laid eyes on his father, instead of openly declaring that the latter had died. This subtle nuance is further accentuated by the rare employment of quamvis with the indicative viderat in the MS reading—quamvis patrem numquam viderat—according a degree of subjectivity in Cicero's statement which would not otherwise be present if the more emphatically objective quamquam with indicative had been employed (Clark (1909) replaced quamvis with quamquam; for other examples of this rather unusual construction Page 21 of 103

see K-St (1955) II. 439, 443; for a detailed analysis of this point see Serra Zanetti (1956– 7) 151–2 n. 14; Pasoli (1966) 71–5). The supposition that C. Curtius was still alive and had spent time in exile is given further credence through a reference made by Cicero at the end of the speech, where he praises Postumus for being helpful and generous to exiles and, particularly, his father. Cicero does not expand this further at this point of the speech, presumably because he was wary of touching upon a subject as sensitive as exile at the opening of the defence (cf. note on 17. 47 capital charge). Moreover, if Postumus' father had really died, out of pure rhetorical expediency Cicero would have been expected now to make a prolix and emotional plea vis-à-vis his client's misfortune. nature. Cicero here refers to the traits which Postumus both inherited and gained through emulation of his natural father. The effectiveness of character as a source of 'proof' led Roman orators to present the facts of the case as reflections of the litigant's personality rather than as a basis for logical argument (Off. 1. 121). Indeed, in all his speeches the single factor that remains ever constant is Cicero's use of ethos, and here he uses it not only to portray his client as an honest and gifted man, in keeping with the mos maiorum, but also to present him as heir to his father's virtues. recollections. The servants' references to C. Curtius' ways; the term sermones may also carry an implication of informality, for, generally, in the plural it means gossip. My client … kings. This list of activities gives a taste of what the busy life of a successful publicanus encompassed (cf. note on 7. 17 unassuming life, 14. 38 worked). In Rome the traditional senatorial view was that engagement in any form of trade was undignified, and if it was of a retail nature then it was particularly contemptible (2Ver. 2. 122, 5. 45; Parad. 43 f.; Liv. 21. 63. 4, 22. 25 f.; Val. Max. 3. 4. 4; Wiseman (1976) 21–2). Cicero seems to have held a similar opinion, with the words 'merchant' and 'trader' appearing in his works almost as terms of abuse (Rep. 4. 7. 7; Off. 1. 151; Brut. 232; Pis. fr. 2; Earl (1967) 30–1; D'Arms (1980) 77–8). Conscious of his audience's prejudices, Cicero here seems to take particular care to choose the right terms, so as to depict Postumus' transactions in an honourable light. For example, although the verbs 'accomplished' (gerere) and 'had shares in public contracts' (contrahere) are normally used in a general sense, here they are also employed in a legal sense to indicate legally binding transactions (Off. 2. 18; Berger (1953) 411, 482; Nicolet (1966–74) II. 1000–1, no. 297 n. 3). The mention of Postumus' activities as a contractor would also seem to be an attempt by Cicero to emphasize the public spirit of his client's works rather than the private gain from them; a point reinforced by his assertion that Postumus was no passive shareholder but an active member of these corporations. We have no evidence of Postumus' dealings with other kings and the use of the plural in this case may well fall within the conventions of rhetoric, although, given the scale of his operations, such activities would not be impossible. Ptolemy Auletes was not the only king who was in debt to Roman financiers at this time, with the sources referring to Nicomedes IV of Bithynia

Page 22 of 103

(App. Mith. 11. 36–7), Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia (Att. 6. 1. 3–4), Brogitarus, the Gallatian leader who was said to have paid Clodius for his recognition in 58 (Har. 28), and Herod, who promised Antony money for his support in 40 (Joseph. A. J. 14. 382). By stressing the scale of Postumus' business interests, both their extent throughout the Roman world and the high status of many of his clients, Cicero is attempting to dispel any doubts the jurors may harbour about Postumus' respectability. previous occasion. Dio tells us that the King borrowed money from the Romans in 59 in order to secure the Senate's decree, by which he was officially recognized as a 'friend and ally' of Rome, as well as to provide some of the money needed for the payment due to Caesar and Pompey, and it seems quite possible that Postumus lent the King money on this occasion (Dio 39. 12. 1; Suet. Jul. 54; Introd., p. 13). The information provided here, which is repeated three times within the same section (cf. note on 2. 4 afar, 3. 5 already lent), would seem to support Dio's account and the subsequent accusation that some Senators were bribed (cf. note on 3. 6 Senate). King of Alexandria. Ptolemy Auletes is normally so called by Cicero (cf. note on 1. 1 royalty). The Ptolemies were considered to be kings of mythical wealth, and so the fact that Ptolemy Auletes turned to Postumus for money would indicate not only Postumus' high social standing but also the scale of his wealth. he … practices. With his fulsome tribute to Postumus' qualities of generosity and trustworthiness towards his friends, Cicero seems to be once more building his client's ethos. However, at the same time he is also preparing the jury for later reference to the involvement of Postumus' friends in his moneylending activities, as he states that when the King left his debts unpaid Postumus felt personally responsible for the loss encountered and made concerted efforts to retrieve, at least, their money (cf. note on 2. 5 over-extended, 10. 29 dishonour, 15. 41 shouldered). good name. The concept of fides was deeply rooted in Roman history and formed the basis for a complex network of mutually advantageous relationships which permeated all levels of society from the ruling élite down to the mass of voters (Off. 1. 92; Badian (1958); Freyburger (1986) 300–1; Wallace-Hadrill (1989) 63–87). It could be expressed in a variety of forms ranging from common political patronage to legal representation in court (patrocinium), or through certain financial services, such as the granting of credit to clients or guaranteeing them credit through one's name. Fides with the sense of 'trust, confidence' only came into general use in post-Republican Latin (Fraenkel (1916) 193 ff.; Heinze (1929) 153; Gelzer (1969) 65–9; Freyburger (1986)). expulsion. Ptolemy Auletes' departure from his kingdom sometime in August 58 (Introd., pp. 14 ff.).

Page 23 of 103

Sibyl. The Sibylline books were preserved in the Capitoline temple. The priests authorized to consult the books were among the chief officials of the Roman religion, hardly less distinguished than the pontifices and the augurs (Taylor (1949) 85–90). Here, Cicero states that the Sibylline books had foretold the plotting against Ptolemy Auletes which resulted in his overthrow. This reference is a good indication of popular awareness of the Sibylline oracle, as Cicero assumes the jurors are familiar with its prophecies and also, by implication, the King's case (Luc. 8. 823–6; Parke (1988) 208). In January 56, during the debate over who was to restore Ptolemy Auletes to his throne, the Sybilline prophecies were used by Gaius Porcius Cato against his political opponents (Q.fr. 1. 2. 15, 2. 2. 3–4, 2. 3. 2; Fam. 1. 1. 1, 1. 4. 2, 1. 7. 4; Har. 1–7, 17; Dio 39. 15. 2; Introd., p. 25). Cicero himself did not doubt that the oracle was a fraud (Fam. 1. 4. 2, 1. 7. 4). indigent and mendicant. A paradoxical use of adjectives to describe a king of fabulous wealth such as Ptolemy Auletes, cf. note on 3. 5 suppliant. afar. This must allude to the first period of borrowing by the King from the Romans, in 59 (cf. note on 2. 4 previous occasion). It also indicates that the King may not have travelled to Rome in person to receive his title as a 'friend and ally' of Rome (Plut. Cat. Min. 35. 1– 7; Luc. 8. 518 ff.; Dio 39. 12. 1; Seager (1979) 87). What Cicero seems to intimate here is that if Postumus was unable to refuse to lend money to the King without having made his acquaintance, it would have been even more difficult to do so when the latter was present in Rome and pleading in person for help. at risk. In 57, when Ptolemy Auletes found himself in need of more money, it must have been clear to any who might have lent it to him that the King would only be able to repay his debts if and when he could regain his kingdom. The risks for potential investors were great, but so also were the prospective profits, and the temptation was such that bankers and speculators were attracted to support his schemes of restoration. in doubt. Here, Cicero attempts to bring the weight of public opinion to Postumus' aid as he states that nobody should be surprised at his actions, since everybody, including the Senate, believed the King would be restored and able to pay back his debts from the great wealth of Egypt. Besides bankers and moneylenders, such as Postumus, and people of consular rank, such as Hortensius and Lucullus, Ptolemy Auletes' major creditors included Caesar and Pompey, who were also expected to support the King's restoration in order to regain their money (Fam. 1. 1. 3, 1. 5a. 3–4; Att. 1. 12. 1; cf. 15. 41 ff.). Still, the confidence of Cicero's assertion here is somewhat undermined by the fact that there was widespread hostility towards Ptolemy Auletes in Rome (Dio 39. 56. 4). 2. 5. overextended. We have very little knowledge of the identity of Postumus' banking friends who were involved in financing the loans to the King. There was a group of investors who, counting on Lentulus Spinther being authorized by the Senate to restore the King, Page 24 of 103

invested in the enterprise, believing that he would ensure they were repaid (Fam. 1. 7. 6). Out of these moneylenders only one can be identified, Q. Selicius, a known investor and a close friend of Lentulus, who in Cicero's correspondence is mentioned in the company of two Senators who might have invested too, Axius and Considius (Fam. 1. 5a. 3–4; Att. 1. 12. 1; MRR, II. 475). In a letter to Trebatius dated October 54 Cicero mentions that some creditors travelled to Alexandria in person to recoup their money with no success (Fam. 7. 17. 1; Shatzman (1971) 367–8), but whether these were connected with Selicius is unknown. Even less is known about the other group of financiers, who participated as friends and associates of Postumus and his mentors Caesar and Pompey, aside from the fact that their existence is mentioned in this speech (cf. note on 15. 41 shouldered). pursue. Vague and a little cryptic, this would seem to anticipate the later charge that Postumus travelled to Alexandria as the King's chief financial treasurer (cf. note on 3. 5 However … withdraw, 8. 22 treasurer). 3. 5. suppliant. A strong rhetorical and stylistic contrast is made by juxtaposing the terms 'suppliant' and 'King'. Despite the general low regard in which the King was held, such a breathtakingly open declaration that Ptolemy Auletes was nothing more than a petitioner must have caught the jury unawares. Ptolemy Auletes was not the first Egyptian king to arrive in straitened circumstances in Rome. He was merely following in the footsteps of Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy VII Euergetes II (Diod. 31. 18. 1–2; Val. Max. 5. 1. 1 ff.; Liv. 44. 19. 6–14; Gruen (1984) 672–719). asking. It is possible that Ptolemy Auletes borrowed such a large sum of money in order to give his creditors a vested interest in restoring him to his throne (Dio 39. 12. 1; Maehler (1983) 3). However, once he returned to Alexandria, it soon became clear that the contents of the treasury would not be sufficient to cover his debts (Fam. 7. 17. 1), and it is within this context that Postumus came to act as the chief royal treasurer in Egypt (cf. note on 8. 22 treasurer). already lent. This presumably refers to the King's borrowings at the time when he was recognized as a 'friend and ally' of Rome, in 59 (cf. note on 2. 4 previous occasion; afar). However … withdraw. Cicero here hints at some of the reasons underlying the association between Postumus (hoc) and Ptolemy Auletes (illo), although, aware of the negative view of Ptolemy Auletes prevailing in Rome at that time (Dio 39. 56. 4), he addresses the issue sotto voce. Cicero now begins the narration (3. 6–16. 44) which forms the backbone of the speech. Traditionally, the narration served both to provide the facts and explain the issues to the jurors, so as to furnish a base for the arguments of the defence. Here, Cicero deals with the first charge against Postumus, that his money was used by Ptolemy Auletes to corrupt the

Page 25 of 103

Senate, and dismisses it on the grounds that Postumus had lent the money in good faith and that a man cannot be held responsible for the use of his money once it passes out of his hands. This section also introduces Pompey and Gabinius to the narrative. 3. 6. first charge. Instead of offering a detailed refutation of all the allegations one by one, the defence commonly adopted the strategy of dwelling on the more insubstantial and unjust of the charges in the hope of making the jurors forget those which were more incriminating. Here, Cicero deals with the first allegation against Postumus: that he supplied the money by which the King and his men bribed Senators. Senate. From 58 till the end of 57 Ptolemy Auletes resided in Rome at Pompey's villa in the Alban hills, busily working to gain official support for his restoration to the throne of Egypt. To aid his cause he resorted to bribery, using members of his retinue, such as Ammonius, to lure members of the Senate (Dio 39. 12–15; Fam. 1. 1. 1; Weinrib (1970) 419–34; Griffin (1973a) 116–20; David (1992) 251 n. 79). It is not surprising that Ptolemy Auletes should have resorted to bribery, considering its historical precedent as a means by which princes and kings attempted to influence the decisions of the Senate. Timarchus, who travelled to Rome in 162 as Demetrius' ambassador, came well provided with money, with which 'he did much harm to the Senate', the poorer members especially falling victims to his wiles (Diod. 30–40. 13). However, setting out to bribe the Senate could also be a dangerous road to take, as P. Scipio recognized when he took the youthful Jugurtha aside after the fall of Numantia and advised him to cultivate the friendship of the Roman people by services to the State rather than by trafficking with individuals (Sall. Jug. 8. 2). By the time of Ptolemy Auletes' arrival in Rome such scruples had long been abandoned and he found a society rife with bribery and corruption—a simple indication of this being the fact that the consular elections of 53 were postponed to the spring of the following year after all the candidates were accused of corruption (Att. 4. 15. 7; Q.fr. 2. 14. 4; Taylor (1949) 69 ff.; Seager (1979) 81 n. 59; Nicolet (1980) 298). Here, in a move of rhetorical aggression rather than defence, Cicero cunningly allies himself with the Senators by launching a dismissive attack on Memmius for daring to doubt their integrity. If Postumus is found guilty and Memmius' charges are vindicated, Cicero is suggesting that it could only give validity to wider accusations concerning the corruption of the Senate—although he is careful to deal with the matter diplomatically; no doubt, because he was aware that some Senators had indeed succumbed to bribery. It is an obvious ploy for Cicero directly to link his client's propriety with that of the Senators and later (cf. 6. 15) he will try to do the same with the equestrian members of the jury. Heavens above! The exclamation paves the way for the barrage of rhetorical questions which follows. Cicero's plea to the gods takes the form frequently found in his speeches and correspondence. It is a highly conventionalized exclamation used without much conscious thought to underline a rhetorical point, rather than a direct appeal for divine assistance.

Page 26 of 103

(Note the absence of any reference to the gods in Cicero's anguish over the death of his daughter Tullia.) gravitas. A technical term which, in this context, is used to call attention to duty (2Ver. 5. 45). who corrupt us. According to the code of practice of Roman law, the dispensing of inducements was acceptable; it was only the taking of bribes which was illegal (cf. note on 7. 16 new measure). What is noticeable here is the indirect means by which Postumus and his fellow creditors influenced political decisions: by lending the money they themselves did not bribe anyone but their loans made bribery possible (Bonnefond-Coudry (1989) 342). obliged. This is another attempt by Cicero to win the Senate to his side. From his youth Cicero's ambitions had directed him towards senatorial office (Att. 1. 17. 5) and, although he was not a member of the dominant nobility by birth, his earliest associations had been with influential members of that group, including L. Crassus, the Metelli, and the Scaevolas. They had been instrumental in shaping his political thinking at the outset of his career and supported his bid for the consulship of 63, despite any doubts they may have harboured over his equestrian background, his support for Pompey, and some long-standing fears that there was a popularis streak hidden beneath his belief in law and order (Mitchell (1979) 1–51). Notwithstanding his influential friends, Cicero, realizing that the nobility wished to keep its circle closed, had continued during his senatorial career to identify himself with the equites as well (2Ver. 5. 180–2; Agr. 2. 100; Att. 4. 8a. 2; cf. note on 6. 15 You … embraced you). This was a political balancing act which took practical shape in his concordia ordinum programme, through which he sought to build a coalition of a majority of the Senate and the equestrian order against both the extreme oligarchs in the Senate and the exponents of political domination based on populist politics. His attempt, however, to find a via media was ultimately to leave him isolated (Att. 1. 18. 1; Strasburger (1956); Stockton (1971) 50, 143– 75; Mitchell (1979) 201–3, 235–8). matter. That the Senators have been corrupted. related. Before entering upon the main body of his argument—the analysis of the legal implications of Postumus' case—Cicero includes a preliminary refutation designed to rebut the charges made by the prosecution and pave the way for a stronger and more emphatic statement that Gabinius' and Postumus' cases were totally unrelated. money was provided. Cicero is quite categorical here in stating that Postumus' money was not used to bribe the Senators but, instead, was spent on practical needs, such as the financing of the King's travels, that would take him back to Egypt, and his upkeep, together with that of his retinue, during their residence in Rome. The orator is suggesting that his client thought he was engaging in a reputable financial transaction, and any indication to the

Page 27 of 103

contrary is deflected by the simple, but unconvincing, aphorism that the 'person who gives money does not have to ask the person who receives it how it is spent'. written contracts. In criminal trials, as in civil procedures, account books, ledgers, and public records (codices, tabulae accepti et expensi) could play an important role in the evidence presented before the court (Quint. Inst. 5. 2. 5; Greenidge (1971) 121 n. 1, 126, 488–9, 493). The Greek form of contract, syngrapha, whose main characteristic was that one of the two parties involved had to be a foreigner or a provincial (Phil. 2. 95–6), had been adopted by the Romans for business transactions in the East (Barlow (1978) 174), and it is quite possible that if any contracts were signed, they may have been of this type. These may or may not have been presented at either of Gabinius' trials or at that of Postumus. Pompey's Alban villa. The choice of Pompey's Alban villa for such contract-signing has great significance, in that it shows how deeply implicated the Roman general had become in the Egyptian venture (for Pompey's involvement see Introd. pp. 11–14, 26– 9). Cicero had spoken freely in urging Pompey to shun the infamy that association with Ptolemy Auletes must bring (Fam. 1. 1. 2) and he thought his words had had some effect, because in February 56 he wrote that Pompey had lost interest in the Egyptian question and dropped the matter of the restoration (Fam. 1. 1. 3, 1. 2. 3, 1. 5b. 1; Q.fr. 2. 2. 3). However, the general's own ambitions with regard to the command were always slightly obscure even to Cicero and, whatever Pompey's public protestations, this passage would suggest otherwise. With the King lodged in his villa Pompey must have been aware of Ptolemy Auletes' many intrigues and both Strabo 17. 1. 11 (796) and Dio 39. 13–14 go so far as to imply that Pompey actually connived in the poisoning of the King's opponent, the Academic philosopher Dio, and in the slaying of the Alexandrian envoys, who had come to Rome in order to obstruct the monarch's plans, as well as in the related violence that erupted in Puteoli—although it is notable that Cicero makes no mention of this in Cael. 23–4, 51. For a description of the site of Pompey's famous estate at Albano Laziale near the Alban Lake see Att. 7. 5. 3; Lugli (1946) 60–83; Coarelli (1985) 66–9. owner. In the past it has been suggested that the word ille in the text might refer to either Ptolemy Auletes or Postumus, but, in fact, it seems more probable that it alludes to Pompey. If this is so, then Cicero would seem to be suggesting that the exchange of contracts took place when Pompey was absent from Rome, perhaps referring to the time, between December 57 and April 56, when he was visiting the grain-growing provinces of Sicily, Sardinia, and Africa (Plut. Pomp. 50. 1f; Dio 39. 14. 3–4; Strabo 17. 11. 1 (796); Fam. 1. 9. 9, 7. 17. 1; Q.fr. 2. 6. 3). In the past, both Boulanger (1978) and Führmann (1970– 82) have taken the view that it refers to the King's departure from Rome to Ephesus in 56 (Dio 29. 16. 3, 39. 16. 3, 39. 55. 1; Fam. 1. 1. 1; Att. 15. 15. 2; Har. 28). However, this would seem unlikely, because it would have been only natural for the King to be present in Rome during the actual negotiations over the loans. Besides, of what possible use could

Page 28 of 103

the information that Ptolemy Auletes was absent from Rome be for the defence at this point in the speech? Cicero's duty in the court was neither to defend the King nor to impart additional information. The suggestion that it might refer to Postumus was based on an erroneous interpretation of Cicero's statement that Postumus' departure from Rome was hasty and his position was defined in relation to Lentulus and not Gabinius (cf. 8. 21). This led Fantham (1975) 430 to suggest that Postumus must have left sometime in winter 57, when the Senate authorized Lentulus to restore the King. However, not only was Lentulus' commission to restore the King not certain (note Cicero's continuous letters encouraging the proconsul to persevere with the Egyptian command as late as January 56) but also it seems highly likely that Postumus, in his position as one of the main financial agents, would have had a vested interest in being present at the signing of the contracts (cf. note on 8. 21 P. Lentulus). It is not Cicero's intention to distance Postumus from these transactions, as— just one sentence later—in an elaborate metaphor he effectively identifies Postumus as the lender and Ptolemy Auletes as the borrower. lender. Cicero's argument here is framed within a general statement concerning the responsibility of investors. For, Postumus (the lender) is not to blame for not daring to question Ptolemy Auletes, a King (the borrower), about how he disposes of the money (cf. 7. 18–3). brigand. Originally, the word latro meant 'mercenary soldier', that is 'one serving for pay', and it was often used in this sense by Plautus (Pl. Mil. 949); later, it came to mean 'brigand' or 'plunderer' (Phil. 2. 5). Cicero's tone here varies from the plain expository to the sarcastic—'brigand' is a very rude and provocative word—and his striving for both stylistic impressiveness and emotional appeal is apparent in the following strong and contrasting doublets: 'brigand' vs. 'king', 'king hostile' vs. 'entrusted', and 'a king … Empire' vs. 'one with whom … Capitol'. consul. P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (cf. note on 8. 21 P. Lentulus). empire. Could this be a hint at Pompey, who was the 'glory and the light of the empire' (Phil. 2. 54)? For Pompey equating his personal relations with kings with those of Rome see App. B. C. 2. 8. 51; for Ptolemy Auletes' early connections with the Romans see Introd. pp. 44 ff. treaty. The recognition of a king as a 'friend and ally' of Rome was usually conferred by the Senate, as it was in Ptolemy Auletes' case (Dio 39. 12. 1; Caes. B. Civ. 3. 107. 2; Sest. 57; Braund (1984) 23, 56–60, 134–7). Rome claimed the right to interfere in all cases of disputed succession in neighbouring states and, by virtue of its power, became the kingmaker of the ancient world (Dio 39. 56. 2; Joseph. A. J. 14. 55). The eastern kings recognized the strength of Rome and sometimes welcomed such interference, as it helped guarantee dynastic stability. Page 29 of 103

Capitol. The Capitol, and especially the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, was often used for the signing of decrees and agreements involving kings (Joseph. A. J. 14. 388). 3. 7. But if … citizen. In this passage Cicero exaggerates by analogy, imparting a vividness that must have seized the attention of the listeners (Lanham (1968) 7). Metaphor, which was in common use among both educated and uneducated speakers, was seen as being particularly suitable for low-style oratory (Orat. 81–6). By linking the lender with the arms dealer and the murderer with the unscrupulous spender in this bold and imaginative pairing Cicero makes an emotive plea for Postumus' innocence (for the employment of the same metaphor elsewhere see Top. 64; Sest. 19; S. Rosc. 56–7). C. Memmius. C. Memmius, the tribune of 54 and a staunch supporter of the nobility, has been identified by Münzer as Pompey's nephew, son of his sister Pompeia and the quaestor C. Memmius, by a marriage first attested in 81 (RE, XV. 1, s.v., cols. 616–18 n. 9). Memmius' father died in Spain in 75 and sometime afterwards, while Memmius was still a child, his mother married again, this time to P. Sulla, a match which was to place the young Memmius at the heart of Roman political life (Q.fr. 3. 3. 2; Fantham (1975) 437 dates the marriage to Sulla before 70; for P. Sulla see RE, XV. 1, s.v., cols. 608–9 n. 7; and for details of the Memmii family see Wiseman (1967) 164–7; Crawford (1974) I. 69, 315, 451). In 54, when his second cousin C. Memmius Gemellus was a candidate for the consulship, Memmius became a tribune. On 11 October 54, the day Memmius' own stepfather P. Sulla launched a formal indictment against Gabinius for electoral corruption, Memmius also addressed a public meeting accusing him of treason (Q.fr. 3. 2. 1, 3. 3. 2; Val. Max. 8. 1. 3). This was probably a device to provoke public indignation against Gabinius and support Memmius' claim to be his prosecutor, although in this he was to be disappointed, as L. Lentulus, the son of the flamen martialis L. Lentulus, who had been a rival of Gabinius for the consulship of 58, was chosen to act as plaintiff in Gabinius' trial for treason (Fantham (1975) 433– 4). Following Lentulus' incompetence and subsequent failure to secure a conviction in this trial, Memmius was to have more success in the competition to sue Gabinius for extortion when, after a divinatio, he beat both Lentulus and Ti. Nero for the job (Q.fr. 3. 1. 15, 3. 2. 1). Subsequently, he mounted a successful prosecution, with Gabinius being found guilty and fined 10,000 talents. After Gabinius' flight into exile Postumus was brought to trial under the clause 'What has become of the money', with Memmius and Cicero again appearing for the prosecution and defence respectively. Following these two trials nothing further is known for certain of Memmius' career. He may have been the Memmius who was consul 2

in 34 (CIL, I , 66), and it has also been suggested (MRR, II. 223) that he was responsible for prosecuting Domitius Calvinus for bribery in October 54 (Att. 4. 17. 5; Q.fr. 3. 2. 3; for a different view see Shackleton Bailey (1965–70) II. 218). Here, by stressing Memmius' high senatorial background, Cicero is virtually accusing him of bringing his class into disrepute.

Page 30 of 103

authority. In the ideal Republic power lay with the people and authority with the Senate (Leg. 3. 28), although the history of the Late Republic showed that the Senate had little apart from auctoritas to cloak its constitutional weakness. whatever. It is not surprising that Cicero, who has argued so convincingly, if rather deviously, on the basis of the ethos of the Senators, concludes this paragraph with a statement tinged with irony. 3. 8. unrelated. Regaining from Postumus what Gabinius could not pay was one of the main aims in launching the subsidiary case under the clause 'What has become of the money' (cf. note on 3. 6 related). However, Cicero's line of argument is that the two cases are not linked and that Postumus is effectively being charged under the main Julian law for extortion, in which case this trial should be struck out, because, as an eques, he is not liable. Cicero, now, in an attempt to influence his audience through a combination of emotional and intellectual appeals, launches a rather prolix but at the same time trenchant legal argument centred on the question of whether Postumus is eligible for trial under the clause 'What has become of the money'. Emphasizing the threat that the precedent of Postumus being found guilty could pose to equestrian rights, the orator, proud of his expertise in the field of delivering justice, seeks to win the jurors of that order to his side by issuing a forewarning: If Postumus were to be found guilty, they could soon find themselves weighed down with all the responsibilities already appertaining to the senatorial class but without its compensations. 4. 8. 'What has become of the money'. When Gabinius had been found guilty and was unable to pay the fine assessed against him, it was supposed—on the basis of their alleged collabotarion in restoring Ptolemy Auletes to his throne—that some of the ill-gained money had found its way into the pockets of Postumus. In such circumstances the Julian law of extortion allowed, under its special formula, 'What has become of the money', for the retrieval of the illegally exacted money from the person to whom the money had passed (Introd., pp. 90–1). little appendix. This constitutes the only recorded use of the term appendicula by Cicero, suggesting that it was chosen with care in place of the more standard 'paragraph' (caput) employed below (cf. 4. 9). Perhaps, the diminutive form is used as a deliberate ploy to downplay the importance of the clause and, consequently, the link binding Postumus' trial to that of Gabinius. case. Gabinius' extortion trial, which took place in October 54. Damages were assessed. When a defendant in an extortion trial was convicted and either guarantees had been given for the payment of any fines or property had been seized in

Page 31 of 103

lieu of such assurances, the jurors, together with the praetor in charge of the extortion court, proceeded to assess the damages due to the injured parties (lex rep. ll. 32–5, 58– 9; Clu. 116; Balb. 11; de Orat. 2. 281; Flac. 1; Q. Rosc. 3; Greenidge (1971) 502; Jones (1972) 75–6; Lintott (1992) 31). Although any decision, regarding the validity of individual claims, reached at this time was based on the original proceedings, the actual procedure of allocating damages was clearly distinct and constituted a separate stage of the trial. The claims for recompense were recorded one by one in a list and, since they might come from many different quarters, the assessment could be a long and complex affair. Moreover, the procedure was not solely concerned with the assessment of damages. Consideration was also given to the penalty inflicted, the question of levelling additional charges, and the possible involvement of other persons apart from the defendant in the same case (Clu. 116; 1Ver. 38–9; 2Ver. 1. 95; Mur. 42; [Pseud.-Asc.] 1Ver. 39 (p. 219 St.); Fam. 8. 8. 2). In Gabinius' case the amount of damages assessed reached the astronomical sum of 10,000 talents; for the identity of the injured party see below. A. Gabinius. At the time of the speech Aulus Gabinius, the man who had successfully restored Ptolemy Auletes to his throne and then been placed on trial for his efforts, was the most conspicuous amicus of Pompey, an ex-Consul, ex-Governor of Syria, and exile. Gabinius, who was of senatorial stock and whose family originally hailed from Capua, first appears in the sources as Sulla's legate at Chaeronea during his campaign against Greece in 86 (App. Mith. 12. 66; Man. 8; Badian (1959a) 88–9; Shackleton Bailey (1960) 263 n. 10; Hind (1994) 156). His name is associated with a considerable amount of legislation, the majority of which was probably passed during his tenure as a plebeian tribune in Rome, in 67, and anticipated that sponsored later by Pompey and Crassus during their joint consulship of 55. The most famous act which was passed in the teeth of senatorial opposition was the 'piracy law', which gave Pompey sweeping powers to deal with this threat (Rowland (1966) 220–1). Other laws probably also date from the same period, such as the stipulation that the month of February should be reserved for the hearing of foreign embassies, with the right of postponement being transferred from the Consul to the Senate (Niccolini (1934) 256–8; Sanford (1939) 13; Griffin (1973b) 209; Gruen (1974) 252 n. 162), and the law which forbade Roman citizens, under the penalty of a fine, from lending money to representatives of provincial communities in Rome (Att. 5. 21. 12, 6. 2. 7; Niccolini (1934) 256–8; Barlow (1978) 185; that this law also applied to all loans from Romans to provincials is not proven (Shackleton Bailey (1965–70) III. 237). Later, during his joint consulship with L. Piso, in 58, Gabinius was also to be responsible for a piece of legislation which exempted Delos from custom dues (CIL, I. 2500, 1. 4; Nisbet (1961) 189, nn. 3, 4, 5). During the Mithridatic war Gabinius served as Pompey's legate, gaining valuable military and diplomatic experience as well as knowledge of the terrain and peoples of the new provinces (Man. 57–8; Sanford (1939) 71). Following his successes in the East, he was hailed imperator and approached the Senate for an official celebration of his victories, but this was resoundingly rejected, a rebuff never previously administered (Prov. 14–15; Pis. 17, 41 ff.; Fantham (1975) 429). Gabinius'

Page 32 of 103

elevation to the consulship, in 58, was clearly as Pompey's candidate in a division of the spoils between the triumvirs, his fellow consul being Caesar's father-in-law L. Piso (MRR, II. 193–4; Pis. 3; Plut. Pomp. 48. 4; Cat. Min. 33. 7; Dio 38. 9. 1–4; but see also App. B. C. 2. 14, where Gabinius' election is attributed to the influence of Caesar). Cicero publicly attacked the means by which Gabinius had won the consulship, and C. Cato tried to prosecute him for electoral corruption, but political machinations intervened, with the praetor in charge obstructing a hearing (Q.fr. 1. 2. 15–16, 3. 1. 15; Att. 2. 19. 3, 2. 21. 5; Sest. 18; Vat. 25). The consulship proceeded as it had begun, with constant political intrigues, and in an unflattering passage Cicero likened the new consul to a comic character who is 'reeking with perfume, his hair fresh from the curling tongs, scorning his accomplices in vice and the ancient troublers of his youthful bloom' Sest. 18 tr. Shackleton Bailey (1991b) 145; Red. Sen. 11–13; Dom. 60; Sest. 93; Prov. 9–10; Pis. 41; Q.fr. 2. 11. 2, 3. 2. 2; Schürer (1973– 87) I. 267–9; May (1988) 92–6, 103–5). Upon the completion of his consulship, Gabinius was originally rewarded with the proconsulship of the province of Cilicia under the law Clodia de provinciis (Dom. 23; Sest. 55), but this was later changed to Syria, where his governorship spanned the mid-fifties (Seager (1979) 103 n. 5; MRR, II. 203; Sherwin-White (1984) 271–9). His rule was marked by both military successes in suppressing revolts in Judaea and Nabatene and a vigorous domestic administration, but, as he moved to check business exploitation in the province, probably also acting in the interests of his own pocket (as Roman governors in the East regularly did), he seems to have upset the publicani who were operating—among other things—as tax farmers (cf. note on 8. 19 animosity). The most striking event of Gabinius' governorship of Syria was his campaign in Egypt and the restoration of Ptolemy Auletes to his throne, after which he was arraigned for electoral corruption, treason, and extortion—although only the last two came to trial. Found guilty of extortion, he was forced to flee into exile and nothing more is heard of him for several years until, at the beginning of the Civil War, he was summoned by Caesar to command Illyricum. Forced to retire to the loyal sea port of Salonae, Gabinius was besieged by Octavian, with the town only falling when Gabinius died of disease at the beginning of 47 (Dio 42. 11. 1–5; Caes. B. Afr. 42–3). Perhaps, it can best be said of Gabinius that he lacked political insight. It was sheer folly to make enemies of both the Senators and the equites at the same time. His stubborn reliance on Pompey for protection was also ill-fated and misjudged, because Pompey appears to have deserted him in times of crisis—a factor that, no doubt, accounts in part for his support of Caesar during the Civil War. securities. Upon the defendant being found guilty it was the praetor's responsibility to see that the quaestor (quaestor aerarii) secured personal guarantees from the defendant, to cover the fine which had been decided by the jurors through a majority vote. The extortion law of the tabula Bembina (lex rep. ll. 56–8, 66–7) stipulated that this procedure should take place before the assessment of damages, but here Cicero gives the distinct impression that, in fact, the securities were not demanded until after the assessment of damages had taken place. Evidence from later trials, however, indicates that the original procedure was still in

Page 33 of 103

force (CIL, I. 1863, no. 198; Greenidge (1971) 282, 505; Sherwin-White (1982) 26; Lintott (1992) 143–4; Crawford (1996) 107). full … assets. If sufficient securities were not forthcoming, then the praetor proceeded to confiscate the culprit's property. Indeed, the threat of such an action must have prompted most of those found guilty of extortion to produce the required securities with alacrity, if they were in a position to do so. The seized estate or goods were then sold by public auction, with the money raised being handed to the quaestor for the payment of individual claimants (lex rep. ll. 57–8). According to the law of the tabula Bembina this auction also occurred after the conviction of the defendant and before the assessment of damages. If the pledged securities or the property seized failed to cover the fine imposed, the praetor normally devised a schedule of proportional repayment, called tributum (lex rep. ll. 62–4). In Gabinius' case it seems that he fled into exile without providing sufficient guarantee for his debts and before his property was seized. people. The word 'people' can here be taken as implying primarily the State, although it may also include some of the investors in the Egyptian venture who had lost their money and, subsequently, filed claims for compensation (cf. notes on 13. 37 property, 17. 45 populace, and 17. 46 all … compensated; lex rep. ll. 6–8, 59–61, 66–8). The Julian … guilty. Introd., pp. 84–9. innovation. Cicero strategically echoes this emphatic word at the end of the sentence ('new judicial procedure') so as to leave the jurors in no doubt about the absurdity of bringing Postumus to trial. Indeed, 'innovation' in this case would almost seem to be synonymous with 'illegality', as Postumus had been brought to trial under the clause 'What has become of the money' even though, according to Cicero, he was not named during the assessment of damages in Gabinius' trial for extortion. more strictly and severely. At first sight Cicero here seems to be giving the impression that the Julian law was much stricter than its predecessors. However, the real implication of these adverbs is far from clear. Henderson has suggested that the law did introduce stricter penalties such as capital punishment (Off. 2. 75; Tul. 8; Suet. Jul. 42; Henderson (1951) 77 ff.), whilst Sherwin-White has argued that in this case 'strictness', as such, did not stem from the increase in penalties but rather from the wider range of offences which fell within the ambit of the law (Pis. 90; Sherwin-White (1949) 13 ff.). Indeed, according to Sherwin-White, various procedural changes could even have accounted for this epithet. An analogous case is the lex Acilia (probably the law of the tabula Bembina) which is described as 'milder' than the Servilian law of extortion purely because the latter introduced tighter procedures, such as the 'compulsory adjournment' of the hearing (2Ver. 1. 26). Indeed, rather than referring specifically to the Julian law, it may be that Cicero's words, which are chosen carefully for rhetorical effect, reflect a general trend at the time. The use of 'by all means' (sane) often Page 34 of 103

carries more than a hint of irony, and here this is combined with exaggeration to great effect, as he drives home to the jury the irrationality of the prosecution's actions. 4. 9. word for word. The nonsensical sit of the MS was emended to sin by Manuzio (1541), and this reading has since been widely accepted (Clark (1909), Olechowska (1981), Klodt (1992)). In the past, Cicero's statement here has often been taken as an indication that the clause 'What has become of the money' had been transferred verbatim from the Cornelian and Servilian extortion laws (Lintott (1981) 190 nn. 106, 107, 198). However, the hypothetical overtones conveyed by 'if' (sin) cast his words in a more ambiguous light, suggesting that the clause may not have been transferred word for word from the previous laws, and that Cicero, being well aware of this, inserted the conditional 'if' to protect his legal standing. Cornelian. The lex Cornelia for extortion, promulgated in 81 during the dictatorship of Sulla, provided the framework for Caesar's subsequent legislation. Apart from the incorporation of a new senatorial jury (App. B. C. 1. 100), it largely retained the innovations of the earlier Servilian law of 101. Servilian. Providing that Cicero is being comprehensive in his chronology of the laws, the general ascription of the clause 'What has become of the money' to C. Servilius Glaucia's legislation on extortion and not to Q. Servilius Caepio's would seem to be supported by the choice of the singular rather than a plural here (cf. note on 6. 14 Glaucia; App. B. C. 1. 28; Val. Max. 7. 1. 8; Rab. Perd. 20; Brut. 224). Apart from the introduction of the clause 'What has become of the money' (Crawford (1996) 185–7), the Servilian law also introduced the innovation of 'compulsory adjournment' (2Ver. 1. 26), which, in effect, divided an extortion trial into two stages—a procedure which can be seen in the trials of Verres in 70 and Fonteius in 69, under the Cornelian law, and in those of Flaccus in 59 and Scaurus in 54, under the Julian law. It is not clear whether the procedure of divinatio, by which the prosecutor was selected by a panel of lawyers and was not necessarily the person chosen by the plaintiff, was introduced by Caepio's or Glaucia's law (Caec. 63; Lintott (1981) 189–93; Crawford (1996) 209–19). Both laws kept the clause of the law of the tabula Bembina which offered the reward of citizenship and exemption from military service and other public duties to any non-citizen plaintiff who was successful in their prosecution (Balb. 54; Rhet. Her. 1. 20; lex rep. ll. 76 ff.; Sherwin-White (1972) 96–7; Griffin (1973a) 108–26; Lintott (1976) 78; Ferrary (1983) 70–7; Alexander (1985) 29–30). However, it is unclear whether this reward was still on offer at the time of Cicero (Scaur. 36; Phil. 3. 7). whatever are we doing? Logical and legal arguments, even when favourable, can become complicated, and facts and figures confusing. Therefore, Cicero gives a break to his listeners with this rhetorical question, the tone of which is more oratorical than righteous, as with sarcasm he once more labours the point that the prosecution is adapting the laws to suit its own needs. Page 35 of 103

State. Cicero seems most typically to employ the term res publica, as he does here, when he wishes to emphasize the idea of common interest and the responsibility of the State to the People. Certainly … familiar. Note the two sets of comparison in operation in this unit 'well known' vs. 'most familiar' and 'to you all' vs. 'to me of all people'. These make the statement even more forceful. At first sight, Cicero's assertions about his knowledge of legal matters might appear merely boastful, but in a Ciceronian speech little is wasted in egotistic selfindulgence and, in establishing his credentials as a lawyer, he is seeking to emphasize the validity of his legal analysis. By building up his persona he hopes to persuade the jurors, who, being non-specialists, might not appreciate the finer nuances of the law, to accept his argument on trust (Beard & Crawford (1985) 57–9). Indeed, this passage of heightened emotional vigour may also, typically, have offered Cicero the opportunity to raise his tone and gesticulate by pointing first at the jurors and then at himself (Quint. Inst. 11. 3. 65–8). if practical … guide. For the employment of the same expression see de Orat. 1. 15; Caes. B. Civ. 2. 8. 3. I have … trials. Verres', in 70, is the only known extortion case where Cicero acted for the prosecution. I have … cases. Given both his social standing and legal expertise, Cicero was likely to have served on jury panels in many extortion trials but this is not attested in any of the available sources. praetor. As praetor, in 66, Cicero was in charge of the court of extortion (Clu. 147). Among the cases that came before him were those of C. Licinius Macer (Att. 1. 4. 2; Val. Max. 9. 12. 7; Plut. Cic. 9. 1 ff.) and of C. Manilius, the People's tribune. After his period of office ended at the close of the year, Manilius was instantly accused of extortion, but the trial never took place and in the following year, when he faced similar allegations, Cicero, freed from the responsibilities of the praetorship, was urged to act in Manilius' defence (Dio 36. 44. 1; Plut. Cic. 9. 4; Asc. Corn. 53, Clark, 1907). defence counsel. By the time he defended Postumus for extortion, Cicero had good reasons to make this claim; among those he is known to have defended against such charges are M. Fonteius, in 69, C. Calpurnius Piso, in 63, L. Valerius Flaccus, in 59, M. Aemilius Scaurus, in 54, and, in the same year, Gabinius (Alexander (1990) nos. 186, 225, 247, 295, 303). It is also generally accepted that he defended P. Oppius in 69 and C. Antonius Hybrida in 59 against charges of extortion (Alexander (1990) nos. 187, 241). However, given the rarity with which, apparently, the clause 'What has become of the money' was employed, it may be presumed that even Cicero was not fully cognizant with the finer points of this law.

Page 36 of 103

knowledge. Few would have dared challenge Cicero's claim to legal knowledge, based both on practical experience and his earlier studies under Q. Mucins Scaevola the augur, from c. 90 until his death in 88, and, later, with his cousin Scaevola the pontifex, killed in 82, (Amic. 1; Leg. 1. 13, 2. 47–9; Brut. 306; Phil. 8. 31; Bürge (1974) 31–45; Neuhausen (1979) 76–87). Despite the convention which prevailed in Cicero's time that one should not speak about oneself in court and that an apology should be issued if such etiquette was breached, this rule is apparently totally ignored here as he presses home his argument, although the orator must have been aware of the standard of conduct expected (Caec. 64; Mur. 29; Phil. 7. 8; Balb. 1; Planc. 24; Sest. 31; Allen (1954) 121–44). named. Cicero here comes to the crux of his argument, that Postumus' trial is highly irregular and without precedent, as his client was not named during the assessment of damages in Gabinius' extortion case (cf. note on 4. 9 word for word). The term appellabatur employed here does not appear to refer to a formal court order summoning a person to attend a trial, because a few moments later Cicero indicates that those who suspected they might be named attended the courts voluntarily. Instead, the process seems to have involved nothing more than the mentioning of a person's name within the proceedings of the primary trial or the evidence gathered for that trial. If a person was publicly named in this fashion during the trial, he then had the right to interrupt the proceedings to rebut any accusations. The constant reiteration of this point throughout the speech is intended not only to hammer home a critical legal point either neglected or deliberately bypassed by the prosecution but also gradually to persuade the jurors of the veracity of his previous syllogism. testimony. Cicero confirms that during the assessment of damages in Gabinius' trial Postumus' name was absent from both the testimony of witnesses and any other form of written evidence, such as private or public accounts, presented to the court. The precision with which Cicero mentions the places where naming could occur suggests that at this point he is directly stating the stipulation laid down in the law, although, out of mere rhetorical expediency, he will later amplify his statement to encompass the whole of Gabinius' trial (cf. note on 5. 10 prosecutor). Normally, testimony given in person was taken immediately after the pleadings (cf. 12. 35; 1Ver. 55), whilst any written evidence was read out to the court during the speeches (Quint. Inst. 5. 7. 2; Cael. 55). This type of evidence was produced either from compulsory witnesses who were not able to appear, or from voluntary ones, who were usually unwilling to take the trouble to attend (Greenidge (1971) 488; Jones (1972) 71–2, 114). The prosecutor was required to deposit any documents which he proposed to produce in evidence during the course of the trial beforehand with the praetor, who secured them with the jurors' seal (lex rep. l. 34; Flac. 21). However, given the highly irregular nature of the Egyptian venture, which seems to have largely functioned on a 'cash-in-hand' basis, it is quite understandable that Postumus' name did not appear in any such documents.

Page 37 of 103

4. 10. As … cases. By listing the alternative courses of action open to a named person, Cicero stresses the uniqueness of his client's case. Because he was not named during Gabinius' trial, not only can Postumus not be considered as an accomplice but he has also been deprived of the possibility of defending himself by rebutting any charges levelled against him and, thereby, lost his chance of preparing himself legally for the current trial —the vital importance of forewarning being underlined by the following statement, which suggests that it allowed many defendants to win their cases. response. For the legal meaning of 'response' as 'answering a summons to appear' see Att. 7. 14. 2; RE, VI, s.v., col. 713. 5. 10. without precedent. cf. note on 4. 8 innovation. Disputes over legal technicalities could arise in many ways, such as when the prosecutor attempted to bend the law to his own advantage, when there was a discrepancy between the spirit and the letter of the law, or when the defence considered that the law under which the case was brought was not applicable to the case on trial (Top. 92, 96). It is the last point that Cicero chooses to emphasize here, alleging blatant injustice as a prelude to the outburst of rhetoric which follows (cf. 5. 11). 5. 10–5. 11. During … to him. The structure of this passage is such as to require it to be treated as a single unit. Not only is the wording strikingly repetitive but so also are the general manner of exposition and the analytical categories used. In fact, rhetorically, Cicero's general attitude in this paragraph is reminiscent of the old vaudeville skit in which a man is found on his hands and knees under a lamp-post. He tells a passer-by who offers assistance that he is searching for a coin he has dropped. 'Where did you drop it?' the passer-by asks. 'Over there', says the man, pointing to a dark corner of the stage. 'Then, why are you looking here?' 'Because the light is better'. Cicero, like any other lawyer, looks for his defence strategies where the light of persuasion is best, not necessarily where the facts are clearest. Through a barrage of rhetorical questions—a strategic stylistic device intended to be unanswerable (Quint. Inst. 9. 2. 6–15; Orat. 67; Rhet. Her. 4. 22)—and an artfully developed network of recurring themes, such as 'damages', 'witnesses', 'defendant', 'prosecutor', and 'ledgers', the defence plays to the full the allegation that Postumus had not been named in the previous trial, so as to cast even wider aspersions on the very legality of the current trial (cf. note on 3. 8 unrelated). yourselves. Cicero takes advantage of the fact that a subsidiary trial, such as Postumus', was heard by the same jury as in the principal case, in order to draw them personally into the argument (cf. note on 11. 32 standard procedure). Reminding them that they themselves did not hear Postumus named at Gabinius' trial, on the basis of this, for him, indisputable truth Cicero now proceeds cleverly to construct the outline of what will be his next argument: Since his client was not named in the previous trial, he cannot be tried under the clause 'What has become of the money' and, so, instead, he must stand before the court Page 38 of 103

charged under the wider Julian law of extortion; but, as members of the equestrian order were not liable to this law, then Postumus is falsely accused—and how could the jurors of that very order stand as mute testimony to this miscarriage of justice? Witness do I say? Cicero's argument, based on the complete absence of Postumus' name from Gabinius' trial, is technical and casuistic. It would have been in the best interests of the prosecution to minimize the scale of the affair by not drawing attention to any accomplices. It is also noticeable that Cicero, in his defence of Postumus, sticks to the bare essentials and makes no reference to anyone else involved in the venture. prosecutor. Earlier (cf. note on 4. 9 testimony) Cicero suggested that in order to be considered named in an assessment of damages an accomplice and prospective defendant had to be named in the statement of witnesses, the ledgers of private individuals, or the official civic accounts. No suggestion was made that he could be named by the prosecutor in his speech. Thus, this would seem to be little more than a rhetorical prelude to the next statement, where, in a sweeping gesture designed to underline the strength of his point, Cicero suddenly widens the scope of his argument from the assessment of damages to the whole of Gabinius' trial for extortion. 5. 11. the only eques Romanus. Cicero has a number of reasons for introducing the term 'eques Romanus' into his argument—a dominant leitmotif of the speech which is repeated eleven times (cf. 11–16, 18, 22, 41, 43, 48). First, it forms part of an obvious ploy to evoke a sense of camaraderie among the equestrian jurors towards a fellow member of their class. In this, it follows the pattern of Cicero's earlier attempt to enlist the support of the senatorial jurors (cf. 3. 6). Secondly, it forms part of the concerted effort made throughout the speech to distance the case of Postumus, an eques, from that of Gabinius, a magistrate. Thirdly, Cicero is also seeking to cast further doubts on Postumus' liability under the Julian law. Whilst there can be no doubt that elected and appointed magistrates were liable under the law, the picture is not so clear as regards others, particularly lesser officials of whatever order serving within their retinues, who may or may not have been exempted. The use of the term 'only' in this case has the dual purpose of underlining the fact that Postumus was not part of Gabinius' retinue (cf. note on 8. 21 partner) and that, as a member of an order generally held to be excluded from the rules of the extortion law, he was not liable to stand trial as a principal defendant. On the basis … to him. In an artful conversational style Cicero now makes a bold attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the jurors. The wording of the questions may be similar to that above, but, following Cicero's brazen assumption that, through his argument regarding the absence of Postumus' name, he has successfully decoupled the two cases, the line of argument shifts. For, if Postumus' case was not connected with Gabinius', then where was the fresh evidence coming from to begin this new trial? Stylistically, the passage is couched in terms of amazement interlaced with moral indignation. Maximum impact is achieved Page 39 of 103

through a series of staccato phrases delivered in varying tones—the whole pattern strongly reinforced by a succession of negations such as 'not read', 'never mentioned', 'does not apply'. All is intended to point to a single conclusion: There is no case left to answer. law. The true answer is given below (cf. 5. 12 'the Julian law of extortion'), but in his rhetorical answer Cicero raises his argument a notch higher, as he bluntly declares that his client is brought to trial under the wrong law (Craig (1993) 135 n. 27). Since the conditions for prosecuting Postumus as a secondary defendant under the 'What has become of the money' clause of the Julian law of extortion have not been met, Cicero argues that his client is, effectively, being prosecuted as a primary defendant for plain extortion under the Julian law, a law under which he is not liable. discretion and wisdom. Now Cicero cleverly begins to shift his line of argument. The urging of the jury to do what is fitting (Clu. 159; Fam. 7. 6–17) rather than follow the letter of the law can be seen as part of his previous discussion on the applicability of the law to Postumus' case but, in fact, it is also linked to the question of penalties, raised below. Indeed, the general shift of emphasis to legal morality at this stage is rather ironic given Cicero's previous punctilious scrutiny of legal minutiae, and it might even be seen as a partial retreat from his position. 5. 11–5. 12. you ought … extended to him. In a neatly balanced structure, Cicero sets forth three contrasting notions which a juror ought to take into account before making his final judgement: (i) 'what it is fitting for you to do' vs. 'what the law allows you to do', (ii) 'what is in his power to do' vs. 'what he ought to do', and (iii) 'how much power he is permitted' vs. 'within what limits it has been extended to him'. The jurors are repetitively reminded of their moral obligation to consider the spirit as well as the letter of the law. This was a tactic well developed by the rhetoricians because by contrasting the two the actual law tended to be undermined (de Orat. 2. 116; Classen (1978) 618). The rather patronizing attitude adopted towards the jurors, who are bombarded with a series of synonymous expressions redolent of learning by rote, even if it is cloaked by a thin veneer of flattery, may, at least in part, be justified by the fact that few of them would have had sufficient legal training readily to grasp the intricacies of the law, thus leaving them open to the wiles of skilful rhetoricians like Cicero (Barbu (1964) 211–28). banish from the city. Following his urging of the jury to show wisdom rather than adherence to the letter of the law, Cicero, in this statement, may be merely making a general observation about the powers vested in jurors, although it can also be taken as a specific reference to the provisions of the Julian law of extortion. However, it seems unlikely that a defendant, convicted under the clause 'What has become of the money', would have been condemned to exile, even if he failed to disgorge any money, because enforced exile was a penalty only in Cicero's own Tullian law of 63 on corrupt practices in elections, which specified a period of banishment of up to ten years without any loss of citizenship (Caec. Page 40 of 103

100; Dio 37. 29. 1; Nicolet (1958) 266–9). Exile appears otherwise to have been a largely self-inflicted punishment, although it seems to have been linked to 'interdiction from water and fire' (aquae et ignis interdictio)—the author of Rhet. Her. 2. 45 clearly identifies the idea of exile with this measure (Balb. 28; Tusc. 5. 108; Rab. Perd. 1, 5; Greenidge (1971) 513 ff.; Jones (1972) 74; Lintott (1981) 202–7; Cloud (1988) 580 n. 2; Bauman (1996) 27 n. 24). The exact legal standing of 'interdiction from water and fire' is far from certain, but in time it seems to have evolved from being a precautionary measure to something akin to a legal penalty, as it was associated with the loss of civil life and possibly confiscation of property. Whether it was actually part of the penalty or merely the way in which the loss ο‎f caput was interpreted is unclear, but in both cases the consequence was that the condemned defendant was forced to leave Rome. Reference to 'interdiction from water and fire' can be found in a number of post-Sullan criminal courts, including those concerned with electoral corruption, treason, murder, and embezzlement (Sul. 89; Sest. 146; Phil. 1. 23). It has been suggested that it might also have been introduced into the extortion court, probably by Sulla, or if not by him then by Caesar, to deal with cases in which more than the loss of property was at stake, and, in particular, where extortion was associated with violence, as, for instance, when a magistrate received money for executing a provincial who was innocent (Clu. 115–16; Lintott (1981) 198–202; Cloud (1994) 513; Bauman (1996) 26–9). However, even if this was the case, because Postumus' trial was concerned with financial misconduct and not extortion with violence, it is difficult to see how it could be applicable in his case. It, therefore, seems safer to interpret Cicero's statement here as pointing to voluntary exile, which was generally considered an escape from punishment and not a punishment per se. Usually, such a course of action was chosen by a defendant prior to the completion of a trial, as was the case with Gabinius, but examples also exist of defendants withdrawing into voluntary exile, for a multiplicity of reasons, immediately after their trial had ended (lex rep. l. 29; Dom. 77–8; Caec. 100; Balb. 28–9; Sherwin-White (1949) 11–12). C. Porcius Cato fled immediately after the assessment of damages for his trial, which had taken place in 113 (2Ver. 3. 184, 4. 22; Vell. 2. 8. 1; Gruen (1968) 127), T. Albucius (the Epicurean) resided in Athens after his conviction in 103 (Scaur. 40; Gruen (1968) 172 n. 74), L. Licinius Lucullus withdrew to Heraclea after condemnation in 102 (Arch. 8; Drumann & Groebe (1899–1929) IV. 214 n. 4; Gruen (1968) 176–7), C. Servilius went into exile in 101 (Diod. 36. 9. 1; Gruen (1968) 177–8), P. Rutilius Rufus took refuge in Asia (Mytilene and Smyrna) after his conviction in 92 (cf. note on 10. 27 P. Rutilius Rufus; Vell. 2. 13. 2; Dio 28 fr. 97; Gruen (1968) 205 ff.), and C. Claudius Pulcher either went into exile or committed suicide after his trial in 51 (Fam. 8. 8. 2; Alexander (1990) no. 336). All these cases point to the fact that exile was frequently preferred as an alternative to conviction, although such a course of action was based upon the decision of the defendant rather than upon any decree of the jurors. However, in Postumus' case even voluntary exile may have been out of the question, if we take Cicero at his word and accept that his client really was so impoverished as to be only solvent through the generosity of Caesar (cf. 41–4). Usually, exiles took the precaution of transferring their capital abroad before they fled (as in the case of Verres before he fled Page 41 of 103

to Massilia), but by what means could Postumus support himself if he followed the fateful path of an absconder? A further indication that Cicero is making a general statement here comes from the line that follows, in which he clearly indicates that the means by which the jurors in an extortion trial could procure the banishment of a citizen from Rome is through their vote; that is, simply by pronouncing the defendant guilty. Taken in conjunction with the contents of paragraphs 15. 41, 17. 46, and 17. 48, this statement would seem to indicate that the orator is implying here that his client could suffer infamia—not a legal penalty but an inevitable consequence of condemnation (cf. note on 17. 48 I implore … forum). Both his public conviction for extortion and subsequent pauperization would undoubtedly deliver an irreversible blow to the reputation of a man of Postumus' stature (cf. 15. 41 shell of his former dignity), and it is this unbearable stigma that will, perhaps, ultimately drive him into exile away from the city of Rome and her body politic (cf. 17. 48 the enjoyment of public life; Sall. Cat. 51). Since it is the jurors, perceived as the traditional centre of the Roman political élite, who hold the powers to deprive any citizen they wish of his civil rights (Sest. 42; Dom. 44; S. Rosc. 3; Mil. 81; Mur. 45), it is also they who can save him (de Orat. 2. 194; 2Ver. 2. 76). Thus, Cicero, through reminding them of the seriousness of their task and the extreme powers vested in them, seems to be suggesting that they should use their authority cautiously. voting tablet. When the time was right for the final verdict to be reached, each juror received a tablet marked on one side 'A' or 'L' for 'acquit' (absolvo or libero) and on the other side 'C' or 'D' for 'condemn' (condemno or damno). By rubbing out one or the other, or even erasing both sides, before placing the tablet in an urn, the jury passed their judgement, with the majority of the votes deciding the verdict (Fam. 8. 8. 3; Flac. 4; Mur. 2). Normally, equally divided votes would constitute acquittal (Clu. 74), but this was not the case in the Julian law for extortion. If there was a tied vote, it decreed that the trial had to begin afresh, with the accused arraigned again on the same charge. This was a highly unusual stipulation and was confusing enough to make the praetor M. Juventius Laterensis, in the extortion trial of M. Servilius, erroneously pronounce him 'not guilty' when the votes cast were evenly split (Fam. 8. 8. 2; Jones (1972) 22, 73; Shackleton Bailey (1977) I. 399–400). Under Sulla's Cornelian law of extortion the defendant, and perhaps also the prosecution, could demand that the vote be open, although Cicero speaks of this as being no longer the rule in 66, it having been abolished by the Aurelian law of 70 (Clu. 55, 75; Greenidge (1971) 497–8). Although the jurors were not responsible for the penalties laid down by the law, Cicero in his rhetoric still plays upon their authority (Sul. 60, 63; Henderson (1951) 83 n. 81; SherwinWhite (1952) 49–52). misuse. A series of shocking scandals arising from the acquittal of men in high public office accused of extortion, on account of undue leniency on the part of senatorial jurors (by now constituting only one third of the jury, cf. note on 6. 13 Senators) towards the fellow members of their own class, had merely served to confirm how venal and corrupt the courts

Page 42 of 103

were at this time (App. B. C. 1. 22; 2Ver. 2. 82; Att. 7. 9. 4; Balb. 60; Sall. Jug. 31. 7; Liv. 3. 9. 5). Despite his earlier protestations about the impossibility of senatorial impropriety (cf. note on 3. 6 Senate), Cicero attempts to tackle the thorny problem of a politically corrupt jury, although his convoluted word structure is designed to avoid any direct confrontation. Whilst expressly acknowledging that voting rights could be misused, he refrains from specifically alluding to the current improper practices, being content instead to settle for a more general moral lecture, suggesting that those who retain the honourable values to be expected of members of the senatorial class will vote for the correct verdict. 5.12. exempt. Displaying all his rhetorical skills, as he chooses to reason through questions and answers, Cicero draws the strands of his argument together as he returns, once more, to the question of whether an eques can be charged under the Julian law of extortion and, thus, brings the order as a whole into his argument (cf. note on 7. 18 men). convicted. Q.fr. 3. 7. 1; Introd., pp. 67–9. 'But I hear it now.' The adverb of time 'now' lends strength to this pithy statement, as it contrasts with the previous reference to silence. Despite acknowledging that Postumus' is a fresh trial under the Julian law of extortion, Cicero cannot forbear from pointing out its false basis and invalidity, in that knights cannot be tried under this law. defendant. Cicero's rhetorical question and its answer amount to a thinly veiled accusation that justice is about to be sacrificed in the interests of recovering money (cf. note on 13. 38 which of the two). free and exempt. Behind Cicero's emphatic use of these two almost synonymous adjectives (Planc. 72; 2Ver. 2. 185) lies the orator's intention of reminding the members of the equestrian class of their previous struggles to increase their security within the judicial system. If Postumus were to be found guilty, he warns them that the whole order would be open to the 'clutches' of the Julian law of extortion (cf. note on 6. 15 on your guard). It is in this spirit that Cicero is spinning a fine web of legal technicalities calculatedly arranged so as to disguise the real facts at issue. 6. 13. undermined. Having expended considerable time, effort, and rhetoric steering the jurors to his line of argument based on legal technicalities, Cicero now sets out bluntly to warn the equestrian members of the jury of the direct threat a guilty verdict in Postumus' case could pose to their legal rights. However, once he has awakened the equites' alarm, they are left on tenterhooks, as he skilfully turns, once more, to address, in a rather conciliatory tone, the senatorial jurors, so as to be assured of their full attention (cf. 6. 13–7. 19).

Page 43 of 103

Senators. As a consequence of a bill passed by L. Aurelius Cotta in 70 the jury panels in every standing court, including that of extortion, were mixed in composition to include members of all three orders, Senators, equites, and tribuni aerarii (for the history of changes in the composition of jury panels trying extortion cases see Lintott (1981) 162– 212; for Aurelius Cotta see Asc. Corn. p. 59 Clark (1907); Clu. 121; 2Ver. 2. 174). Conflicting statements, which seem to suggest that the courts were given lock, stock, and barrel to the equites (Liv. Per. 97; Plut. Pomp. 22. 5–9; Tac. Ann. 11. 22; Laffi (1967) 195–7) or were shared between them and the Senators (Vell. 2. 32. 3) seem to have arisen in part because of confusion between Cotta's original proposals and his final measures and in part because of a tendency among the literary sources to fail to distinguish between the equites and the third order, the tribuni aerarii. The Bobbian Scholiast (Schol. Bob. Flac. 4 (p. 94 St.)) speaks of equites and tribuni aerarii as 'men of the same class', and Cicero, as he does here, normally addresses the non-senatorial members of the jury collectively as equites Romani (Flac. 4). Indeed, the exact identity of the tribuni aerarii at this time is difficult to determine. Although in earlier times they were collectors of the tributum given by Roman citizens in order to pay the army (Varr. L. 5. 181; Gell. 6. 10. 2), by 70 they had long ceased to perform this function. Still, during the Ciceronian age they continue to appear as a distinct class in contexts other than the legal (Rab. Perd. 27; Planc. 21; Att. 1. 16. 3; Dio 43. 25. 2; Asc. Pis. 15 (Clark 1907); for their relationship with the equites see Strachan-Davidson (1912) II. 92– 106; Hill (1952) 155–6, 212–14; Henderson (1963) 61–72; Nicolet (1966–74) I. 593–613; Wiseman (1970a) 67–83). goodwill … in question. Appealing to the concepts of trust and good intentions Cicero displays a standard forensic technique. Through a series of emotional triggers, such as rhetorical questions and uncompleted syllogisms, he encourages the audience to make its own judgements and draw its own conclusions—a practice which he was later to abandon in favour of a more direct interpretation of the evidence, as, for instance, in Pro Ligario. Here, in calling upon the Senators' goodwill—added intensity is lent to the word by placing it in the text prominently after the verb (Gotoff (1979) 69 n. 90)—Cicero is not playing upon their higher altruistic sentiments but subtly reminding them that they can ill afford to alienate a class on which they have come to rely for the everyday running of their own business affairs. Livy states that: 'Every form of profit seeking was thought unsuitable for Senators' (Liv. 21. 63. 4), and this position was sometimes laid down in law, as with the Claudian plebiscite of 219–218 which stipulated that no Senator or Senator's son might own a trading ship of a capacity of more than 300 jars (Rotondi (1912) 249; Yavetz (1962) 325–44; Garnsey (1983) 129; Gruen (1984) 300–1, 307). This law was no mere temporary measure, as Cicero indicates that it was—technically speaking—still in force in 70 (2Ver. 5. 45), with its terms being restated in Caesar's Julian law of extortion in 59. In order to bypass measures of this type many Senators chose to engage equites to act as their financial and commercial agents (Vat. 29). Brutus, who attempted to conceal his involvement in the loan to the Salaminians of Cyprus, employed agents who were, almost certainly, equites, as

Page 44 of 103

was the representative of Torquatus in Cilicia (Att. 5. 21. 10–13, 6. 1. 5–7). The Senator P. Cornelius Sulla, the nephew of the dictator, was also a patron of the eques P. Sittius (Fam. 5. 17. 2; Sul. 55–9). However, not all Senators resorted to such subterfuge and some engaged openly in business. The Elder Cato is the first Senator known to have been engaged both in lending money and taking shares in loans, although he was not personally connected with any shipping ventures, preferring his freedman Quintio to represent his interests as agent (Plut. Cat. Mai. 21. 5–7, 25. 1; for his contemporary M. Aemilius Lepidus, who undertook similar activities, see Liv. 40. 51. 2). The Senators C. Sempronius Rufus and P. Sestius also engaged in trade (D'Arms (1981) 48–55). Indeed, by the first century BC the two classes were increasingly intertwined and mutually supporting, and examples even exist of Senators lending money to equites. Cicero (Att. 1. 1. 3) relates that both the consul Lucullus and his rich friend Caecilius, Atticus' uncle, were involved in a loan to one P. Varius (Nep. Att. 5. 1; Horsfall (1989) 67; for more cases and details on the subject see Badian (1968) 76–92; Gelzer (1969) 62–9, 110–23; Shatzman (1975) 177–210). present case. Here, Cicero is possibly making a general statement in anticipation that the senatorial members of the jury will cast their vote in favour of the eques Postumus, either out of a feeling of respect for his order as a whole, or, more probably, because of specific financial links they may have forged with the defendant. It might be, however, that the orator is dropping an early hint of the support that has been given to Postumus by Caesar, a theme which will dominate the latter part of the speech (cf. 15. 41 ff.). As neither assertion without proof or persuasive methods nor truth simply asserted without support can win over an audience (Brut. 114), Cicero, now returning to his previous line of argument, amplifies his statement with a series of concrete examples (cf. note on 6. 13 raised … Senate, 6. 14 Glaucia, and 7. 16 M. Drusus). consul Pompey. Cicero refers here to the second consulship, of 55, in the usual rich flowing prose which can leave no doubt of the respect he accorded Pompey (Pis. 34; Mil. 66; Phil. 13. 8; Fam. 1. 8. 2; cf. note on 12. 33 For … well, 12. 34 Pompey's testimony). Pompey did not use his father's cognomen Strabo and was known formally in the Senate as Cn. Pompeius. raised … Senate. This is the only historical evidence of a bill drafted by Pompey during his consulship of 55, in which he attempted to broaden the remit of the extortion laws to include the members of a magistrate's retinue, such as military tribunes, prefects, scribes, and others. The bill seems to have met fierce resistance from the combined forces of the Senators and equites. It has been suggested that this bill was part of the general legislative programme, lex Pompeia judiciaria, by which Pompey tried to modify the extortion law so as to combat bribery, by adjusting the composition of the juries. However, whilst the wider motion was passed, this particular measure appears to have been resoundingly quashed (Pis. 94–7; Asc. Pis. 15 Clark (1907), 16–17; Greenidge (1971) 448 n. 2; Nisbet (1961) 166).

Page 45 of 103

The notion that the bill was intended to be a response to the bribery practised by Ptolemy Auletes seems unlikely, since Pompey and his friends were at the very heart of the Egyptian question and, presumably, financial beneficiaries of the King's largesse (L. Fascione (1974) 340–52; Venturini (1979) 466). military … law. Offices of this type were often encountered together in legal documents (lex rep. l. 2, 8–9; Clu. 148; 2Ver. 1. 73; Plin. Ep. 3. 9. 6; Sherwin-White (1966) 232). Military tribunes were senior officers in the Republican army. Usually from the equestrian order, although in exceptional cases they could even be of senatorial or consular rank, they were sometimes used for special duties (Suolahti (1955) 43 ff.; Keppie (1984) 39–40). Prefects were junior officers appointed by a general to his own staff. Some were commanders of detachments of foreign cavalry, but the great majority were employed without any specific duties and often had little connection with the army (Suolahti (1955) 200 ff.). 'Scribe' was a title given to the clerk, or rather secretary, usually of equestrian background, who assisted a Roman magistrate in both the accounting and the judicial side of his work (Jones (1960) 153 ff.; Shackleton Bailey (1965–70) III. 194–5). A Roman magistrate's retinue comprised many officers, such as doctors (medici), surveyors (architecti), soothsayers (haruspices), messengers (viatores), heralds (praecones), and lictors (lictores), many of whom were of equestrian rank (Catul. Poems 10, 28, 46; Jones (1960) 154). your very selves. The senatorial members of the jury. full house. For the attendance recorded in the Senate at the time of Cicero see BonnefondCoudry (1989) 358, 433. situation. Cicero here paints a graphic picture of the turmoil engulfing Rome at the time Pompey promulgated his bill. In fact, most, if not all, the bills of the triumvirate met in the Senate with a general spirit of obstructionism. The triumvirs then resorted to violence to push their measures through the assembly, in the process increasing their unpopularity (Dio 39. 33–9; Plut. Cat. Min. 43. 7; Liv. Per. 105; Vell. 2. 46. 1; Lintott (1968); idem (1974) 62– 78; Beard & Crawford (1985) 70). By praising the Senators for their admirable behaviour in defending the interests of the equites—whilst at the same time pointedly reminding them of the time when even innocents could not walk abroad safely—Cicero would seem to be offering a none-too-subtle lesson in the benefits to public order to be drawn from the maintenance of harmonious senatorial—equestrian relations. Therein also lies an implicit warning to the Senators: do not rekindle the same bonfire by undermining the equites through prosecuting Postumus. conflagration. The metaphor of fire is striking and is employed figuratively to imply the likely consequences of any change in the law (Liv. 10. 24. 13; 21. 3. 6). Here, Cicero seems to be maximizing to the full the emotional impact of the words 'innocents', 'hatred', and 'fire'. Page 46 of 103

6. 14. Such … Senate. A succinct and pithy statement which serves both as a direct conclusion to Cicero's elaborate exaltation of senatorial loyalty and as the opening gambit of a prolix admonition to the equites about the care they ought to take in order to safeguard the rights handed down to them by their ancestors. But you … act? Now, as intimated at the beginning of this section (cf. 6. 13), Cicero turns to the equites, attracting their attention with this rhetorical question, which is reinforced by the repetition of 'you' and the use of the emphatic 'I ask you' (tandem). This searching question has a tone of impatience, as if to shake the equestrian jurors out of their complacency and instil in them a sense of personal shame at the idea of failing to secure his client's acquittal. Although Cicero addresses the equestrian order as a whole, and the implication is that they should display a 'class solidarity' with one of their own, in reality the order was far from homogeneous. Their vote could be split, as it was in the case of Marius. When he was accused of electoral corruption in 116, despite the large equestrian majority in the court he escaped conviction only by a very narrow margin (Val. Max. 6. 9. 14; Plut. Mar. 5. 1–7; Jones (1972) 52). The same is equally true for the senatorial jurors, and in Gabinius' extortion trial it is probable that many of his peers voted for his conviction (Q.fr. 1. 2. 15, 2. 6. 1, 2. 12. 3, 3. 1. 15, 3. 1. 24, 3. 2. 2, 3. 3. 2). Within the ranks of the equestrian jurors, there were often many publicani (cf. note on 2. 3 publicanus), perhaps because it was natural for them to have a place of residence in Rome (FIRA, I. 7, I. 13; Shatzman (1975) 180), and they, at least, might have been expected to vote for one of their own kind. Glaucia. The language with which C. Servilius Glaucia, the author of the Servilian law of extortion (cf. note on 4. 9 Servilian), is 'graced' here is sharp and direct. Indeed, 'loathsome' is a very strong term of abuse (Att. 9. 12. 2), although its effect is somewhat mitigated by its being wittily contrasted with 'shrewd'. Cicero pours out the same mixed emotions of deep dislike tinged with a recognition of cunning in Brut. 224, although in de Orat. 3. 164 Glaucia is dispatched as nothing more than 'an excrement of the Senate' (Douglas (1966) 166, where Glaucia is likened to the Athenian Hyperbolus, a political trickster who was ostracized in 416). Details of Glaucia's career are obscure (RE, II. A2, s.v. Servilius, no. 65), but it is known that he was a member of the Senate in 102, when the censor Metellus Numidicus tried unsuccessfully to have him expelled from that body (App. B. C. 1. 28). In 101 Glaucia became a tribune (Liv. Per. 69; Val. Max. 9. 7. 3) and in the following year he held a praetorship (Catil. 1. 4; MRR, I. 575)—a career progression which is rather unusual but was not illegal, given the fact that being a tribune was outside the cursus honorum. Towards the end of the same year, according to Appian (App. B. C. 1. 32–3), Glaucia, who was counting on the political support of L. Appuleius Saturninus, stood as a candidate for the consular elections, together with M. Antonius, the praetor who had undertaken the campaign against the pirates in 102, and C. Memmius, the tribune of 111. On the very day of the elections Glaucia's candidature was rejected on the basis that he could not stand for the consulship immediately after a period of office as praetor, since this violated the lex annalis (Balb.

Page 47 of 103

48; Har. 51; Crawford (1992) 126; Lintott (1994) 101). Mayhem ensued and the elections were marked by such riots and violence that a senatus consultum ultimum had to be issued authorizing Marius, the consul, to restore order. It was during this turbulent period that Glaucia perished (App. B. C. 1. 33; Rab. Perd. 20; Vict. vir. ill. 73), although the exact date of his death, together with that of Saturninus and many others, which according to Appian occurred on 10 December, the very day the new tribunes entered office, has become a matter of controversy (an earlier date has been suggested by Badian (1984) 101–47; see also Seager (1967) 9–10). If … measure. A law beginning with 'Dictator …' only applied to magistrates and officers of senatorial rank (lex rep. ll. 1–3), whilst one beginning with 'Whoever …' could apply to all citizens and therefore to the equites too. There are two points of interest here. First, that, according to Cicero, in Glaucia's time, a hundred years since the last dictator and master of horse, these two obsolete magistracies still appeared among the high offices of state (Clu. 148). And, secondly, the way legislation was explained to the Roman people, with some politicians meticulously examining a law clause by clause, just as Pompey did in the case of the agrarian law of Caesar in 59 (Dio 38. 5. 3), whilst others only skimmed it superficially. 6. 15. on your guard. This short and unadorned sentence, by its very position, commands careful consideration. Having spent some effort (cf. 6. 13–3) working on the feelings of the senatorial jurors, Cicero now turns to address the equites. Mining a strong rhetorical vein, he skilfully fashions a lengthy argument warning them about the dangers of setting a legal precedent by convicting Postumus under the Julian law of extortion and, more specifically, the clause 'What has become of the money'. You … embraced you. This unit is a tour de force of rhetoric which functions as 'emotional blackmail' to the equestrian members of the jury, as Cicero suggests that they have a legal and moral duty to support Postumus since, by doing so, they will safeguard the privileges of their class as a whole (Serv. A. 1. 13). Cicero's own father was an eques, who had derived his wealth, in the traditional way, from estates and agricultural activities at Arpinum (Agr. 1. 27; Mur. 16; Cael. 4; Pis. 2; Planc. 59; Lacey (1978) 2–3, 22–3). In keeping with his background, Cicero was always an eloquent speaker in defence of equestrian rights. In 69, in the speech Pro Fonteio, he claimed to be a spokesman for the order as whole, and in Pro Caecina spoke for the equestrians of Etruria whose interests had been abused by Sulla. Indicative of this sense of identification are, also, the references made in his letters to Atticus of December 61 and January 60, where, in the context of the growing split between the Senate and the equites brought about by an attempt to subject the latter to the law against taking bribes, Cicero describes the order as equites nostri (Att. 1. 17. 8; 2Ver. 2. 181). He frequently defended in the courts both prominent members of equestrian background who had entered on a senatorial career, such as Fonteius and Plancius in 54, and ordinary members of the equestrian class, as in the cases of Cluentius, in 66, and Caelius, in 56; he had scores of

Page 48 of 103

equestrian friends and connections and sent numerous letters of recommendation to leading Senators in Rome or governors in the provinces on their behalf (Wiseman (1971); Shatzman (1975) 178–85). However, throughout his career Cicero's equestrian background remained something of a double-edged sword because, whilst, as here, he was undoubtedly proud of his origins, they nevertheless clashed with his senatorial aspirations. unresolved. In a dramatic appeal addressed to the gods as well as his audience in court Cicero forcefully urges the equestrian jurors to hold fast to their threatened privileges. The judicial power of the equites had fluctuated widely over the previous century, reaching its nadir under Sulla as recently as 80. harsher. The liability of the equites, and, more specifically, members of a magistrate's retinue, to the Julian law of extortion. plague. In marked contrast to his previous declamatory tone Cicero now abruptly drops to the personal level. With a conversational 'believe me', loaded with prophetic overtones, he draws the audience into his confidence before, with a final flourish, evoking the threat of an insidious plague. This is not mere sabre-rattling. For, if the equestrian position were to be breached in this case, how long would it be before the rest of their legal rights crumbled? 7. 16. M. Drusus. M. Livius Drusus, the homonymous son of Gaius Gracchus' great rival, came from a distinguished and wealthy family and was considered to be a true conservative champion of the Senate (Mil. 16; Dom. 50; de Orat. 1. 24–5; Diod. 37. 10. 1; RE, XIII. 1, s.v. Livius, col. 868, no. 18; Badian (1957) 325; Gruen (1968) 206; Shatzman (1975) 276 ff.). 2

As tribune in 91 (CIL, I . 1, 199) Drusus proposed legislation which would have introduced Senators into the jury panels in all courts. Prior to this legislation the panels were composed entirely of equites, and some sources suggest that Drusus would have merely transferred the courts from equestrian to senatorial control (Vell. 2. 13. 2; Strachan-Davidson (1912) 78 ff.). However, others paint a more complicated picture, suggesting that, after 300 equites were enrolled in the Senate, Drusus' legislation provided for the creation of mixed juries drawn from both those of senatorial and of equestrian origins in the new enlarged body (App. B. C. 1. 35; Vict. vir. ill. 66; Hardy (1912) 218–20; idem (1913) 261–3). In fact, it can be

inferred from the proposed clause discussed below that his legislation would have provided for the formation of a mixed panel of Senators and equites (Liv. Per. 71; Diod. 37. 101; Gruen (1968) 208; Weinrib (1970) 414 ff.; Hands (1972) 268–74).

new measure. Drusus' judiciary law of 91 contained a provision which threatened the equestrian members of a jury with prosecution for accepting bribes while they were delivering justice (Clu. 153; App. B. C. 1. 35; Diod. 37. 10; Griffin (1973a) 108–26; Lintott (1981) 195–7; David (1992) 250 n. 75). Such proposals to curtail judicial corruption had their roots in the quaestio of 141, when L. Hostilius Tubulus was accused of accepting bribes while serving as a praetor in a murder case (inter sicarios). As there was no standing court to Page 49 of 103

deal with a crime of this nature, Tubulus was, instead, threatened with a special commission established by the People (Fin. 2. 16, 54; 4. 28, 77; 5. 22, 62; N. D. 1. 23, 63, 3. 30, 74; Att. 12. 5. 3; Weinrib (1970) 419–34; Griffin (1973a) 116–20). Prior to Drusus, Gaius Gracchus had promulgated legislation ('ne quis iudicio circumveniatur'), which was principally aimed at curtailing judicial murder. Within its clauses it allowed for the punishment of senatorial jury members who had secured a 'guilty' verdict against an innocent defendant in a capital trial in return for bribes given by presiding magistrates or others. (On the composition of the jury in criminal courts at the time see Brunt (1988) 194.) However, whether this piece of legislation ever constituted a separate law per se and whether it was later incorporated into the Sullan law on murder (lex de sicariis) remains unclear (Gruen (1968) 84–6; David (1992) 248 n. 69). Similarly, Drusus' proposed legislation, which seems to have specifically targeted jurors who accepted bribes, sought to extend the remit of the law to cover equestrian jury members. Indeed, it was partly the immunity of the latter from punishment for such a crime that had allowed them to reverse the balance of power in the courts. Naturally, Drusus' proposed law triggered ferocious opposition from members of the equestrian order and, like all his projects, it was soon abandoned. It has been suggested that Drusus' law was aimed not just at the bribery of equestrian jurors but at all forms of judicial corruption members of this order might be involved in, including false testimony, conspiracy, and general judicial misconduct (Gabba (1956) 369 ff.). However, the evidence from the two Ciceronian speeches which are the principal source for this law, Pro Rabirio Postumo and Pro Cluentio, indicates that it was exclusively concerned with extending liability to those members of the equestrian order serving as jurors (Clu. 153; Weinrib (1970) 422–3). Indeed, the law was solely concerned with those who received bribes. They were seen as incapable of fulfilling their judicial duty of delivering justice, whilst those who had corrupted them escaped prosecution, as they were seen as merely following their best intentions in offering assistance to a friend. Until the end of the Republic, liability of equestrian jurors to the bribery laws was not modified even under the Julian law. Several attempts were made to amend the legislation but none of these was successful. Particularly in 66 during his prosecution of A. Cluentius for murder, T. Accius sought to argue that the Gracchan law, ('ne quis iudicio circumveniatur'), which might have been incorporated in the Cornelian law for murder and which explicitly made Senators liable for judicial murder, should be made retrospectively applicable to all orders, including the equestrian (Clu. 9, 30, 37, 79, 83, 90, 104–8, 131, 150–60, esp. 156; Sherwin-White (1952) 46; Jones (1972) 80–1; Venturini (1979) 363–9, 433 n. 67, 437–8; David (1992) 248–9 nn. 70, 73, 251). The scandal over the acquittal of Clodius in 61/60 raised the matter again and prompted the issuing of a senatorial decree which sought to sanction the investigation of any case of bribery which involved equestrian jurors (Att. 1. 17. 8; Nicolet (1966–74) I. 615–16; Moreau (1982) 239– 48). Among those who appear to have viewed this decree favourably was M. Cato, but its actual instigator remains unknown, and, anyway, it did not lead to any legislation (Att. 2. 1. 8; Miners (1958) 241 ff.; Ewins (1960) 94 ff.; Jones (1960) 39–42). As in the previous lines (cf. note on 6. 13 raised … Senate), where he dealt with Pompey's attempts to Page 50 of 103

make the equites liable under the law of extortion, Cicero here hammers home his point through analogy. However, in contrast to that passage, having once more played upon their fears, Cicero is now content to allow the threat to hang in the air, without further sustained rhetoric. 'if … verdict'. The reading found in the MS is 'ob rem iudicatam', 'to have passed a judgement', but the expression 'ob rem iudicandam', 'to pass a judgement', would seem to be more likely here, on the basis of its regular use in the Ciceronian texts referring to judicial bribery (Clu. 98, 103, 113, 150–4; 1Ver. 38–9; 2Ver. 2. 78; Fin. 2. 54; Att. 1. 17. 8, 1. 18. 3, 2. 1. 8; N. D. 3. 74; Dig. 48. 11. 3, 6). This emendation is significant because, based on the MS reading, it has been suggested that Drusus' proposed legislation had a retroactive component which would have made jurors who had received money in the past liable to prosecution (Clu. 153: 'qui rem iudicassent'; App. B. C. 1. 35; see Mommsen (1887–8) III. 532 n. 1; idem (1905–13) III. 341 n. 4; Gruen (1968) 209). It has even been proposed that this feature of the law might have been shaped specifically to punish those judges who convicted Drusus' uncle Rutilius Rufus for extortion a year before. In fact, it seems that the jurors, rather than being bribed, had acted out of revenge for Rufus' persecutions of tax farmers in Asia. This interpretation of the scope of Drusus' proposed legislation has been robustly challenged by a number of scholars not only on the basis of the difficulty it presents for the understanding of the clause but also for syntactical and grammatical reasons (Seymour (1914) 421; Gabba (1956) 368 n. 5; Ewins (1960) 105; Nicolet (1966–74) I. 561–2). What matters here is the actual practice of bribery and not the precise time when money was offered. openly objected. As a historical precedent Cicero reminds the jury of the staunch resistance shown by the equestrian order to Drusus' law. Indeed, the prominent use of the word 'openly' could suggest not only the forceful nature of their defiance but also its unanimity. Twelve years earlier he had employed the same historical example in the defence of A. Cluentius Habitus (Clu. 152–3; Florus 2. 5. 17; Meier (1966) 211–12). money acquired. Cicero refers here to money received as a bribe by a juror for selling his vote before the delivery of the final verdict (Clu. 153). The employment of the antithetical bipartite structure 'not only … but also', together with the postponement of the more forceful 'immoral' until after 'discreditable', a device which breaks down the absolute parallelism, serves to emphasize the moral probity of the 'beleaguered' equestrian order and evoke the maximum empathy for their plight. (Note the emphatic 'By no means'.) 'The highest … on you'. It is not by means of stylistic ingenuity (i.e. the conversational style adopted in 5. 10 and 7. 17) so much as by his inventive capacity that Cicero here succeeds in stirring up the equestrian jurors, by deftly enumerating the rewards available to members of the senatorial order. The thrust of Cicero's argument in contrasting the juristic role of the two orders is that those who have contented themselves with the quiet life of Page 51 of 103

an eques should not be exposed to the same dangers and commitments as those who have chosen to pursue senatorial honours (Phil. 1. 29; Sest. 102). Cicero had employed a similar defence when he successfully represented Cluentius (Clu. 153–6), but even he was aware that it was a rather specious argument. Not long before, in 61, he had confided in his friend Atticus that the equestrian case in this matter rested on shaky ground (Att. 1. 17. 11, infirma), although their immunity from charges of judicial corruption still remained a muchprized privilege (Att. 2. 1. 8). curule chair. An ivory seat which originally served as the seat of justice (Gell. 3. 18. 4; Wanscher (1980) 122) but later became the attribute of higher magistrates while in office, such as a consul, praetor, dictator, magister equitum, curule aedile, praefectus urbi, or quaestor, as well as those holding consular or praetorian powers, such as decemvirs, proconsuls, and consular tribunes, and various others including the interrex, censors, the flamen dialis, and the vestal virgins (Hor. Ep. 16. 58; Liv. 1. 20. 2; Mommsen (1887–8) I. 399– 408, III. 863 n. 1; Wanscher (1980) 124; Schäfer (1989) 24–196). Within the Senate, those who had held a curule magistracy formed a pre-eminent group whose opinions were sought first (2Ver. 5. 36). fasces. Bundles of rods which were carried by lictors in front of all Roman high officials as insignia of rank and tenure of office. The single fascis consisted of twelve to sixteen uniform rods bound together by red bands in a cross fashion around a thicker stick. The standard number to which consuls were entitled was twelve. Axes would often be attached to the fasces as a symbol of the physical and judicial power exercised by the holders (Rep. 2. 55; Clu. 154; Sest. 17; Mart. 8. 66; Hor. Carm. 3. 2. 19; see RE, VI, cols. 2002–6; Staveley (1963) 458 ff.; Wanscher (1980) 127–8; Marshall (1984) 130; Schäfer (1989) 196–232). military commands. The essential notion behind imperium was the unfettered power magistrates could exercise in their capacity as governors and military commanders abroad, with the aim of imperial expansion (Polyb. 3. 4. 2–3, 16. 27. 2–3; Lintott (1993) 22, 97). provincial governorships. For the Romans of the ruling class the promise of a province—of which a magistrate or a promagistrate with imperium was in charge—was considered to be among the highest of rewards, and debts were frequently run up in anticipation of such an office (Lintott (1993) 25–32). priesthoods. In the first century the office of priesthood had increasingly become a political one and was awarded as a form of patronage (Agr. 2. 18; Dom. 1; Dio 37. 37. 1–3; Hahm (1963) 82 n. 30). The chief priesthoods (flamines and Salii) were still reserved for the members of aristocratic families (Dom. 38), but the three great colleges of the pontifices, augurs, and decemviri had been thrown open to the lower orders (Beard (1990) 17–48).

Page 52 of 103

triumphs. The intensity of the ambition to be granted a triumph and its importance for a public career can be gauged from the lengthy period a prospective triumphator was prepared to wait before he received his honour. For instance, Lentulus Spinther, governor of Cilicia from 56–53, had to bide his time for three years before he was allowed to celebrate his triumph (Att. 5. 21. 4), and even a general of the standing of Pompey had to wait for a whole year before he was granted his third triumph, in September 61. The pride with which triumphal insignia were depicted on family tombs is further evidence of the lasting prestige a triumph conferred (2Ver. 5. 77; Liv. 30. 15. 12; Versnel (1970); Richardson (1975) 50– 63; Marshall (1984) 124). Even Cicero, obviously not a military person, was not immune to such allurements, as he repeatedly petitioned for a triumph in Rome after his successful governorship of Cilicia in 51 (Fam. 11. 1. 1). images. A privilege highly valued by curule Senators was the right of the sons of a deceased magistrate to exhibit his wax death mask in the forecourt of his house and to carry it in the funeral procession along with his fasces and axes in a proud record of his personal attainments and a graphic display of family history. Illustrious ancestors could carry considerable kudos, particularly beneficial at the time of magisterial elections, when, as Cicero remarks, the nobles were recommended by their forebears and their smoked-stained ancestral images (2Ver. 5. 36; Sest. 21; Pis. 1; Planc. 18, 67; Hor. Ep. 8. 11; Polyb. 6. 53. 8; Hopkins (1983a) 31 ff.; for an exhaustive treatment of the subject see Flower (1996)). 7. 17. responsibility … reverence. In a moralistic vein suggesting personal conviction, Cicero here seems to be drafting the equestrian jurors' reply in defence of their juristic rights. This statement forms a continuation of the theme outlined above: that, in return for the privileges of office, Senators should show the respect due to both the laws and courtrooms. How dire the state of the courts was at this time can be gauged by the feelings of despair expressed by the orator in a letter to his brother in 54: 'It wrings my heart to think that we have no commonwealth, no courts of justice' (Q.fr. 3. 5. 4; 2. 15. 1 ff; Att. 4. 18. 3; Fam. 1. 8. 4; Gabba (1956) 369 ff.). 'We never … anxiety'. Any jurors who had heard Cluentius' case in 66 must have felt a strong sense of déjà vu as Cicero recapitulated much of the same argument (Clu. 153). However, in contrast to the earlier speech, Cicero here chooses to keep his argument brief and to the point by inserting an imaginary dialogue between an eques and a Senator. This interchange has been the subject of debate, with some scholars suggesting that, because this dispute between the senatorial and the equestrian jurors does not appear in Pro Cluentio (154–8), the events under discussion do not refer to the times of Drusus but to the period of 54–53 (Gabba (1956) 371 n. 2; Nicolet (1966–74) I. 563). This argument, however, would seem to be less than conclusive, and the general context of this passage indicates that Cicero continues to draw on the historic events of 91, whilst using full artistic licence to elaborate his point.

Page 53 of 103

unassuming life. cf. note on 2. 3 publicanus and 2. 4 My client … kings. The prerogative of members of the equestrian order to lead an unpretentious and quiet life was seen as being as socially acceptable as the right of the senatorial order to seek glory and high political office (Sest. 6, 96–8). Instead of politics, equites usually devoted their efforts to acquisitive activities such as commerce, finance, and manufacture, although literary pursuits could also prove attractive (Off. 1. 92; Att. 7. 7. 5; Sen. 49; Sil. 12. 27–32; Sall. Hist. 1. 55. 9; Wirszubski (1954) 4 ff. nn. 30, 31; André (1966) 135–201). Cicero, a Senator, wrote in restrained politeness that his own ambition had led him to pursue honours, whereas his friend Atticus, an eques, had chosen to live without ties of public office (Att. 1. 17. 5). However, the divisions were not cast in iron. The careers of Cicero and his fellow citizen from Arpinum, Marius, exemplify this, as both started their careers as equites before they rose to the senatorial rank (Brunt (1965a) 120 nn. 2, 3; Welch (1996) 450–71; on equites' aspirations for a political career for their sons see Planc. 24). Indeed, the weakness of Cicero's argument is evident from the very fact that Postumus is facing trial over his participation in a complex and far-reaching affair which had embroiled the most senior statesmen of both Rome and Egypt. The demarcation lines between quiet profit and political glory had become increasingly blurred and Cicero is once again stressing an ideal rather than the reality. 'you are … I am'. This fictitious colloquy between a senatorial and an equestrian interlocutor lends immediacy to the issue under discussion. The repartee is structurally short and simple but somewhat complex in form. Although the text is corrupt, it is clear that the topic under discussion is still the liability of the equites to prosecution for acts committed while serving as jurors (Weinrib (1970) 426). thrust upon me. Cicero appears to have shifted his argument here to address the question of jury selection. However, after contrasting the differing procedures adopted by the two orders to choose jurors, he once again reaches the same conclusion that the equites ought not to be amenable to the same penalties as those who voluntarily pursue public office. The general jury panel was compiled by the praetor, and any eques summoned for service could not refuse, his attendance being obligatory, whereas it was held that such compulsion would be unseemly for Senators, who were expected to perform their judicial duties willingly (Clu. 120–1; Planc. 79; lex rep. ll. 12–18; Staveley (1953) 201–13; Nicolet (1966–74) I. 562– 3; Sherwin-White (1982) 28). A slight modification to the process of jury selection appears to have been introduced by Pompey in 55, when he limited the arbitrary selection powers of magistrates and sought to enforce the census qualification (Pis. 94), but the overall effectiveness of this measure must be doubted, since Velleius Paterculus (2. 76) states that his grandfather has been chosen by Pompey himself to serve as a juror.

Page 54 of 103

7. 18. surrender. An emotive word which suggests inertia and apathy. The equestrian status in criminal law is imperilled if the equites do not take swift action to mend their dilatory ways and safeguard their rights. this right. The legal right that rendered equestrian jurors immune from prosecution for judicial corruption in the standing courts. men. This word is employed in a deliberately ambiguous fashion, as it is not clear whether it refers to the equestrian jurors or members of the equestrian class in general. Granted that Postumus himself was not an equestrian juror—although he might have served in this capacity at some other time—Cicero seems to be deliberately obfuscating the issue, so as to both avoid the direct linking of any equestrian jurors to accusations of bribery and highlight the dangers that would befall members of the equestrian class as a whole. feuds … gossips. The emphasis here is placed by the orator on the danger of personal vendettas sullying the principles of justice if innocent people, like Postumus, are convicted on unfair charges (cf. 14. 40, 17. 46 adventitious money; Q.fr. 1. 1. 17). If … rostra. Cicero's syllogism here is couched in suppositious terms, as Postumus' personal predicament is equated with that of the equestrian class as a whole. If the equites were specifically threatened by legal action in the Senate, they would naturally protest. The pointed contrast here is with the rather underhand way that they might be brought under the law, through precedent, if Postumus were convicted. The sentences in this section are rendered brief but powerful by repeated logical contrasts such as 'free' vs. 'obliged' and 'in a state of liberty' vs. 'in fetters'. rostra. The speaker's platform in the Roman forum (Liv. 8. 14. 12; Coarelli (1985) I. 141–6, 150–2, II. 184–7, 240–5. free. Cicero here reinforces his argument by stressing that both of the highest bodies of the Roman Republic support the principle of equestrian immunity. By this time the Senate had ceased to promulgate legislation—although some senatus consulta led to leges—which could only be passed by the People in the form of laws and plebiscites. 7. 19. For if … cases? This rhetorical question marks Cicero's last recapitulation of his argument that Postumus acted in Egypt as an individual eques, independent of Gabinius' retinue. This section may also indicate that something similar to Pompey's bill of 55 (cf. note on 6. 13 raised … Senate; 8. 21 partner) may have subsequently entered the general law of extortion. If this was so, then, the only possible defence for equestrian members of a provincial magistrate's entourage was the claim that the ultimate responsibility lay with the governor who was in charge of the province (2Ver. 2. 26). Another interesting point about this list of offices is that they indicate title or rank (for example, Comes ex Italia was used

Page 55 of 103

to describe Catullus in Bithynia; Q.fr. 2. 14. 3; Fam. 7. 8. 1). Following the familiar pattern of prefiguring the contents of the next section, Cicero now launches into a swingeing attempt to distance Postumus from Gabinius. friend. A careful choice of word (familiaris), selected out of oratorical expediency and designed to forestall any possible attack from the prosecution. Whenever Cicero wishes to express true feelings of friendship he tends to proclaim amicitia rather than familiaritas (cf. 16. 43, 17. 48; Craig (1981) 31–7). 8. 19. prompted. Cicero, in this section, rebuts the second major allegation levelled by the prosecution, that Postumus personally induced Gabinius, the proconsul of Syria, to restore the King to his throne (Joseph. A. J. 14. 98, 103; B. J. 1. 175, 178; Strabo 12. 3. 34 (558)). Gabinius was preparing an invasion of Parthia at the time, and the majority of our sources agree that it was the temptation of the huge bribe of 10,000 talents promised to him by Ptolemy Auletes that led him to change his plan and march on Egypt (cf. note on 8. 21 ten thousand talents; Pis. 49; App. Syr. 51; Dio 39. 55. 3; Plut. Ant. 3. 2–5). Plutarch suggests that Gabinius was initially reluctant to embark on the venture and only did so under the direct influence of Antony, his praefectus equitum. However, Dio, sensing the involvement of greater men, suggests that Gabinius only acted on the direct orders of Pompey—therefore reviving the successful partnership already tested against the pirates in 67—adding that it was Ptolemy Auletes himself who bore the letter to Gabinius which contained Pompey's orders (Dio 39. 56. 2–3. Williams (1978) 205 ff. examines Pompey's influence over Gabinius in terms of amicitia). In his account, Dio is careful to distinguish between the motives of Pompey and those of Gabinius, ascribing the former's actions to friendship with the King but the latter's to pure avarice (Dio 39. 57. 2–3; cf. note on 8. 21 avarice). None of the sources mentions Postumus but, as Ptolemy Auletes was residing in Ephesus at that time, it is just possible that Pompey's confidential message was delivered to the King by Postumus—the securing of a trustworthy courier for such a delicate errand being of vital importance (Dio 29. 16. 3, 39. 16. 3, 39. 55. 1; Fam. 1. 1. 1; Att. 15. 15. 2; Har. 28; Williams (1978) 207 n. 53). Even if this was so and Postumus did play such a role, it is doubtful if he alone could have persuaded Gabinius to act. Both Pompey and Ptolemy Auletes had much at stake, but, well aware of the political sensitivities of the case, Cicero is here content to avoid such difficult issues and state that whatever the motives behind Gabinius' actions, they were his own. disposition. Cicero's 'legal obligation' towards his previous client Gabinius, whom he had defended in his extortion trial. At first sight, it is rather surprising that instead of defending Postumus Cicero launches into a passionate exoneration of his own actions in defending Gabinius (cf. 12. 33; Clu. 139), but, then, his honour was at stake (cf. note on 8. 19 zealously … defence). predicament. Being exiled.

Page 56 of 103

animosity. Gabinius was widely known to be one of the most unpopular men in Rome and among his many enemies was Cicero, with whom he had a long-running and bitter feud (cf. note on 12. 32 reconciliation). In part, Gabinius provoked so much hostility because of his political alliances, especially his close ties with Clodius and, later, with Pompey (cf. note on 4. 8 Gabinius). This largely explains the public outcry at the time of his consulship and why, at least according to Cicero, among the most fervent of his opponents was Crassus, although, like Cicero, Crassus under pressure from Pompey was to come to support Gabinius at the time of his trials (Fam. 1. 9. 20; Dio 39. 60. 1). However, there also seems to have been a personal quality in much of the hostility towards Gabinius, and this is evident not only in his feud with Cicero but also in the desire of Ti. Claudius Nero, as the representative of the family of Archelaus of Egypt, whom Gabinius had killed at the battle of Pelusium, to be appointed the prosecutor at his trial (Q.fr. 3. 2. 1; Fantham (1975) 435). It may be that Gabinius had a particularly arrogant and abrasive character; some support for this notion comes from the fact that during his period in Syria he managed to alienate completely the publicani of that province, who bitterly complained about his heavy-handed rule (Q.fr. 2. 13. 2; Prov. 10–11; Sanford (1939) 92). zealously … defence. cf. note on 12. 32 reconciliation, 12. 33 unwillingly. This is the only contemporary evidence for Cicero's defence of Gabinius for extortion, his Pro Aulo Gabinio not being extant (later references can be found in Val. Max. 4. 2. 4; Quint. Inst. 11. 1. 73; Dio 39. 63. 2–5; the possibility, as suggested by Crawford (1984) 263–4, that Cicero might have also delivered a speech in defence of Gabinius in 64/62 is very slim). authority of Pompey. cf. note on 12. 33 unwillingly. 8.20. accusation. The orator brazenly ridicules Memmius, who first stated that Gabinius was lured solely by financial reward and now claims that Postumus had to persuade him to restore Ptolemy Auletes, a contradictory stance that could be interpreted as questioning the propriety of the jurors. State. Cicero here stresses that Gabinius' Egyptian adventure to restore Ptolemy Auletes was in the interest of the State, as it was designed to protect Syria and its vital grain supplies from the ravages of Archelaus' pirate fleets. Indeed, this must have formed the crux of Gabinius' defence in his trial for treason, and enough of the jury had reason to support him for the argument to be successful, despite its obvious flimsiness given the bribe of the 10,000 talents promised by the King (Q.fr. 3. 4. 1). The exact nature of Gabinius' dealings with Archelaus is far from clear. Archelaus had been with Gabinius in Syria, hoping to share the profits of the Parthian campaign, when he suddenly left for Alexandria, tempted by the offer of kingship. According to Strabo 17. 1. 11 (796) he did so without telling Gabinius of his intentions, but Dio 39. 56–8 suggests that the proconsul knew and that he even participated in a complex plot designed to extract a larger payment from the King. According to Dio, Gabinius, in return for a substantial bribe, allowed Archelaus, whom Gabinius himself Page 57 of 103

had 'imprisoned', to 'escape' in order to take up his Egyptian throne and increase the depredations of the pirates, thereby necessitating the mounting of a larger and more costly military expedition—a complicated imbroglio which might be considered to be a little farfetched even by Gabinius' standards. Archelaus. Archelaus, by falsely claiming royal descent as son of Mithridates VI Eupator, the King of Pontus, succeeded in marrying Berenice IV, Ptolemy Auletes' daughter, in April 56. In fact, he was the son of Archelaus who had fought with Mithridates against Rome before defecting to Sulla (Dio 39. 57. 2). pirates. Piracy was a constant problem in the Mediterranean during the last century of the Roman Republic, with their depredations being so great that Pompey's achievements against them won him considerable praise (Man. 44; Flac. 28; Florus 1. 41. 15; Garnsey (1988) 215). Despite Pompey's efforts, the sea still festered with pirates, with the Syrians complaining repeatedly of attacks, especially during Gabinius' proconsulship (Dio 39. 56. 1–5, 39. 59. 1–2; Joseph. B. J. 1. 176; A. J. 14. 101–4; MRR, II. 218; Seager (1979) 32 ff.). Whether Archelaus was in league with the pirates, perhaps employing them as mercenaries against the Romans, is not known (Williams (1985–6) 25–32). Barring Gabinus' reported statement here that Archelaus was encouraging piracy, no further evidence of such collaboration exists, and it seems most likely to have been concocted as a sufficiently plausible excuse for his intervention in Egypt. The word 'pirate' would have conveyed menacing overtones of a threat to Roman peace, prestige, and supplies, and, by its nature, must have played a significant role in securing Gabinius' acquittal during his first trial. law. This might be a specific reference either to the provisions of Sulla's Cornelian law for treason (lex Cornelia de maiestate) of 81, or to the Julian law of extortion of 59, both of which drew upon the Porcian law of 101, which is mentioned in the Cnidos text of the socalled 'Piracy law' (for the Cornelian law see 2Ver. 1. 12, 1. 72–3, 5. 50; Pis. 50; Clu. 97, 99; Fam. 1. 9. 25, 3. 6. 3; Vat. 12; Zumpt (1865–9) II. 1. 376–92; for the Cnidos text (III, ll. 4 f.) see Hassall et al. (1974) 202, 207, 210; Williams (1985–6) 25–38). These laws prohibited a provincial governor from waging war or entering the kingdom of an ally without the sanction of the Senate or the people, except in cases of emergency, when the interests of the Roman state were threatened (Lintott (1981) 202 n. 153). Cicero reveals that once Gabinius was appointed as the governor of Syria it was widely feared that he would feel free to attack the non-Roman lands to the east or south (esp. Dom. 23, 55, 60, 124)—as Crassus had attacked Parthia in 53 (Nisbet (1961) 189; Shackleton Bailey (1991b) 65 n. 98)—but on what legal basis the proconsul would claim the right to take this action is not explained. Gabinius was appointed as governor of Syria by the lex Clodia de provinciis of 58. Did this law free him from the territorial restrictions normally imposed upon proconsuls, as later happened in the cases of Brutus and Cassius in 43 (Plut. Brut. 27. 2; Vell. 2. 62. 2; Fam. 12. 1. 1), or was Gabinius given some special dispensation by the Senate, perhaps an imperium

Page 58 of 103

infinitum, as was given to M. Antonius in 74 (1 Ver. 8; 213), or an imperium aequum, as was given to Pompey in 67 against the pirates (Vell. 2. 31. 2; Seager (1979) 42)? We have no evidence that the Clodian bill contained such a provision and, given the reluctance of the Senate to grant such powers (Phil. 11. 17), it seems highly unlikely that his command was 'unlimited'. When Cicero refers to these powers he is probably exaggerating, because under the constitution such commands had to be legally defined and limited (Jameson (1970) 542; Marshall (1976) 140; Ridley (1981) 295; Crawford (1984) 189 n. 4). Here, he is more likely to be implying either the Julian law of extortion or the Cornelian law for treason, which allowed for military action if the Roman state was in danger—an argument that Gabinius' lawyer must have voiced with conviction, given Gabinius' acquittal in his trial for treason. ill-disposed. cf. note on 3. 7 C. Memmius. The stinging sarcasm which Cicero employs in his systematic demolition of Memmius' credibility—even going so far as to suggest that he does not respect the decision of the court—perhaps carries within it a trace of personal vindictiveness, given Memmius' recent success against him in Gabinius' trial for extortion. decision. The verdict passed in Gabinius' trial for extortion, which found him guilty and liable to a fine of 10,000 talents. 8. 21. return. Having successfully rehashed the main lines of the defence from Gabinius' trial for treason, Cicero now returns to the previous allegation, that Postumus was responsible for persuading Gabinius to restore the King to his throne. He chooses to rebut it by (a) pleading that an additional persuader (Postumus) is hardly required if 10,000 talents are on the table and (b) claiming that Postumus travelled on the authority of Lentulus and not of Gabinius. 10,000 talents. The talent was a monetary unit equivalent to 6,000 denarii or drachmae. The sheer enormity of the amount of money promised by the King to Gabinius becomes apparent when it is compared with the 7,000 talents collected in two years (58–56) by Cato from the royal treasury and the personal possessions of the King of Cyprus, although it is possible these might have been undervalued because of their forced sale (Schol. Bob. Arch. 9 (p. 177 St.), Planc. 86 (p. 168 St.); Dio 39. 56. 3; Plut. Ant. 3. 2; App. Syr. 51; Joseph. A. J. 14. 98–9; B. J. 1. 175; Pis. 48 ff.; Fam. 7. 17. 1; cf. note on 11. 30 money for Gabinius). One source suggests that the bribe was equal to twice the King's annual income of 6,000 talents (Diod. 17. 52. 6–7), and, even by Cicero's calculations, as recorded by Strabo 17. 1. 13 (798), it amounted to five-sixths of the annual income of the Egyptian treasury, which he estimated to be around 12,500 talents. It must be doubtful whether Gabinius ever received all his money, and some scholars have even suggested that the figure was largely symbolic (cf. 11. 31, 12. 34; Ciaceri (1918) 209–10, 217; Williams (1978) 207 n. 55). avarice. Gabinius' reputation for greed was common knowledge and it may date from Pompey's campaign against Mithridates in 66, from which he was said to have profited to the Page 59 of 103

tune of several million sesterces (App. Mith. 15. 104; Plut. Pomp. 33. 4–5). When, later in 61, with Scaurus he took over the negotiations with the Jews, he was alleged to have used the opportunity to secure as much booty as possible, and, according to the sources, it was not Pompey but Gabinius who received a bribe of 300 talents from Aristobulus, brother and rival claimant of Hyrcanus in Judaea, in order to mediate in his favour (Joseph. B. J. 1. 160–74; A. J. 14. 37, 14. 82–97). Some of the profits from Gabinius' enterprises were invested in a house in Rome (Pis. 51; Shatzman (1975) 342–3; Fantham (1975) 429) and a villa and estate at Tusculum, which was then enlarged and beautified from money made during his consulship and proconsulship in Syria (Dom. 62, 113, 124; Sest. 93; Pis. 48; cf. note on 8. 20 State). 240 million sesterces. The 10,000 talents, in terms of Roman coinage, is 240,000,000 sestertii. Besides the obvious point, that presenting the figure in Roman currency would make it more intelligible to a Roman audience, Cicero here would also seem to be playing for dramatic effect to underline the huge scale of the bribe. his own. For the purposes of the defence Cicero chooses to present a picture of Gabinius acting on his own responsibility motivated only by personal considerations of glory or monetary gain (cf. below 'his alone' and 'for himself'; and note the subjective colouring and the certainty which the word 'unquestionably' (certe) adds to the sentence (K-St (1955) I. 799–802; Panayotou (1984) 359). Undoubtedly this is less than the whole truth, and the most reasonable explanation is that Gabinius was acting in the interests of Pompey, because otherwise it would be difficult to explain Pompey's later efforts to protect Gabinius. Cicero, aware of the political sensitivities of the case, was not above throwing dust in the jury's eyes by describing the Egyptian expedition as a private affair (Pis. 49; Quint. Inst. 2. 17. 21). had hurried. The pluperfect tense here suggests that Postumus had left Rome well before news of Gabinius' march into Egypt had reached the city, whilst 'hurried' suggests that it was on the basis of unexpected news, which caught even Cicero unawares, perhaps in direct response to the news of Archelaus' accession to the throne in Alexandria in March/ April 56 (cf. note on 8. 20 Archelaus; for the itinerary the Romans followed on their way to Alexandria see Introd., pp. 28–30). firm plan. The plan was that Postumus would act as the financial treasurer of the King in Alexandria. However, it is not in Cicero's interest to clarify the circumstances under which this plan would have been executed. Lentulus was chosen for the restoration of the King by the Senate, and Postumus was appointed as treasurer in Egypt, but the orator is putting together these two discrete and unrelated truths to obfuscate rather than illuminate the point here. partner. To emphasize this point Cicero employs the same form of words as before (cf. 6. 13, 7. 19).

Page 60 of 103

P. Lentulus. P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther—Cicero never uses the second surname, as it derived from Lentulus' resemblance to an actor and is highly uncomplimentary (RE, IV, s.v., col. 1393). Appointed as a praetor in 60, he became the governor of Spain in the following year (Val. Max. 2. 4. 6; Plin. Nat. 9. 23; Fam. 1. 9. 13). He shared his consulship in 57 with Q. 2

Caecilius Metellus Nepos and afterwards served as proconsul in Cilicia from 56–54 (CIL, I . 757; MRR, II. 183, 199–200). During his consulship he had secured a senatorial decree that authorized him, as the future proconsul of Cilicia, to restore Ptolemy Auletes to the throne of Egypt through a military operation in the following year (Fam. 1. 7. 4; Pis. 50; Dio 39. 12. 3; 39. 13. 15). However, Lentulus' authorization was generally disputed by both Pompey's and Crassus' henchmen, who wanted to see the mission transferred to someone else, as well as by opponents among the aristocracy who invoked the Sybilline oracle to try and prevent military force from being used to restore the King. These disputes caused the reopening of a heated debate in the Roman Senate early in 56 (Dio 39. 13. 15; Marshall (1976) 124). Pompey was anxious to secure the mission for himself, but did not publicly voice his dissent, preferring his claims to be pressed by friends such as L. Tullus Volcacius, L. Afranius (Fam. 1. 13. 1, 1, 2. 3), L. Caninius Gallus (Fam. 1. 4. 1; Q.fr. 2. 2. 3), and P. Rutilius Lupus (Fam. 1. 1. 3), as well as the two tribunes of 56, P. Plautius Hypsaeus and L. Scribonius Libo (Fam. 1. 1. 3, 1. 2. 3). The preference of many others, including Cicero, Q. Hortensius Hortalus, and L. Licinius Lucullus, remained for Lentulus to lead the campaign, and there is evidence that in 56 Cicero delivered two speeches in the Senate in favour of Lentulus' candidature (Dio 39. 15. 1 f.; Fam. 1. 1. 1, 1. 2. 1, 1. 4. 2). The reasons for his support may in part be traced to the wholehearted efforts Lentulus had made to secure his return from exile and to recover his house immediately after his return (Att. 3. 23. 1; Red. Sen. 8, 27; Har. 13). However, for Cicero, who himself had once, in April 59, expected to be offered a commission as a legate to Ptolemy Auletes (Att. 2. 5. 1, 2. 7. 3), the whole matter remained both delicate and complicated—his correspondence at the time reveals the extra care he took to keep both Pompey and Lentulus happy (Q.fr. 2. 4. 5; Fam. 1. 1. 1, 1. 2. 1, 1. 4. 1, 1. 5a. 1, 1. 5b. 1, 1. 6. 1, 1. 7. 1; Shackleton Bailey (1965–70) II. 158; Wiseman (1966) 111). Up until midsummer in 56 Cicero kept reassuring Lentulus that there was no senatus consultum prohibiting him from restoring the King and that the proposal to forbid it was not ratified because of a veto (Fam. 1. 7. 4). However, events in Rome were to be overtaken by decisions made elsewhere, especially after the reconciliation of Pompey and Crassus by Caesar at Luca in April 56, which led to Gabinius, the triumvirs' own man, undertaking the task. In this passage Cicero is, as usual, being economical with the truth and, by associating his client with Lentulus, who, indeed, had been officially authorized in 57 by the Senate to undertake the restoration of the King, he tries to 'prove' to the jurors that Postumus' actions are legal and, therefore, completely independent of Gabinius' illegal transactions.

Cicero, in the following paragraphs (8. 22–11. 29), outlines the events surrounding the arrival of Postumus in Egypt and his appointment as chief financial treasurer, focusing on the foolishness of his actions both in going to Alexandria in the first place and in his subsequent Page 61 of 103

stupid behaviour in wearing Greek clothes once there. The argumentation behind these points is supported by references to wise people who had previously served kings, and Romans who had adopted Greek habit. 8. 22. treasurer. cf. 10. 28, 13. 39; Dio 39. 60. 4; Introd., pp. 32–5. By the first century BC the civil office of dioecetes had risen to be among the highest in Egypt, although we have no clear knowledge of there ever being a fixed hierarchy of such posts. It is not clear who occupied the post immediately prior to Postumus' appointment. In 60 the office seems to have been held by Hephaestion (PP (1950), I, no. 31; Mooren (1975) 96, 111, 138–9, 242), but after 57 he disappears from the historical record, perhaps because of changes in the political scene in Egypt when Berenice IV began to rule alone or in conjunction with Archelaus (BGU, VIII. 1772, 1756, 1757, 1758; Sullivan (1990) 422 n. 60). Cicero says here that Postumus was appointed to the office of royal treasurer, a statement that gives some credence to the premises that there was one dioecetes in Egypt in the first century BC. This idea has been put forward by Druffel (1920) 30–3 and Thomas (1978) 189–91, who have argued that, although there was a period of decentralization of the office in the middle of the second century BC, which led to the appearance of many dioecetai, responsible for different regions of the country, during the first century BC the government reverted to the practice prevalent in the third century BC of appointing one single dioecetes and abolishing the other posts. However, elsewhere, Cicero (cf. 10. 28) expands his argument and states that Postumus undertook the 'management and virtual running of the Royal Exchequer'. This qualification implies that Postumus was working alongside others and at first sight this supposition is further corroborated by the newly discovered papyrus (P. Med. Inv. 68. 53; Balconi (1993) 1–20), which is highly likely to refer to this time, where it is stated that Postumus tried to replace the dioecetai (note the plural), who were in key positions, with others, perhaps his own men. Whether these dioecetai held the office of dioecetes or were really sub-dioecetai, however, is not clear, and confusion between the two offices has often been encountered in other documents (Wilcken (1920) 148 n. 1; Browne (1966) 85). However, in this case the dioecetai mentioned in this papyrus are obviously inferior to the chief royal treasurer, Postumus, who is in a position to demote them or replace them. It would have been tactless in the extreme for the newly reinstated Ptolemy Auletes, at the time struggling to re-establish his position in Alexandria, to nominate a Roman alone to such a high office, and so, alongside Postumus, it seems quite likely that there were native officials whose task would have been not only to placate the Alexandrians and deal with the normal outgoings (army, customs, etc.) but also to act as mediators between Postumus and the bloated and creaking Egyptian bureaucracy (cf. note on 10. 28 management; Bloedow (1963) 77 suggests that Postumus was appointed as a kind of economic manager (Wirtschaftskommissariat); Heinen (1966) 39; Van't Dack (1988) 181; Heinen (1990) 664). Cicero's description of Postumus as royal treasurer in Alexandria, apart from being an admission of reality, serves to underline the notion that Postumus, as an employee of the

Page 62 of 103

King, was not free to act as he would have wished, an argument which will be amplified just a few lines below (a similar tactic is employed in Pro Cluentio; Quint. Inst. 2. 17. 21). imprisoned. Cicero's assertion is not corroborated in any other sources. His plea is clearly intended to elicit the jurors' sympathy and pity by presenting Postumus' treatment at the hands of the Egyptian King as akin to martyrdom, but in reality it is just as likely that Postumus' life was in danger because of his rapacious behaviour towards the Alexandrians as because of the monarch's whims—although the departure of his leading creditor would not have been mourned by the King. With a sizeable Roman garrison still stationed in Alexandria, the Gabiniani, it is difficult to see how Postumus, who after all was gathering money for Gabinius, could have been imprisoned for long against his will. Indeed, it is noticeable that at this point Cicero desists from advancing the argument further (perhaps on the following lines: 'How could a royal treasurer such as Postumus receive money from Gabinius, which could well have been at least in part paid out through his hands from the royal treasury in the first place?'). Instead, he chooses to hammer home with a string of repetitions the simpler argument that Postumus was nothing but a 'pawn' of the King or, more equivocally, a victim of the circumstances. endure. The verb perferro is often used to indicate a prolonged period of suffering (2Ver. 2. 9). criticism. Cicero suggests here that there is only one justified criticism to be levelled at Postumus: the fact that he went to Alexandria and placed himself under the King's power. For … others? With this rhetorical question Cicero shifts the line of argument from trying to distance Postumus from Gabinius to justifying Postumus' behaviour in Alexandria, by indulging in a rather sonorous, melodramatic, and patriotic digression on the rights and privileges of a Roman eques as a citizen in the Late Republican period (Nicolet (1980) 318–41). Here, ostensibly, Cicero is merely restating the strong sense of devotion that he undoubtedly felt towards the Republic—one might note that in the same year as the defence of Postumus he started composing the de Republica—but beneath the rhetorical facade, consisting of contrasting pairings such as 'liberty' and 'subservience', adjectives such as 'obedient' and 'subservient', constant repetition of the word 'foolishness' (cf. 9. 24), and historical examples (cf. 9. 23), lies Cicero's intention to show not only the extent of Postumus' folly but, more importantly, the force of necessity. For, by conceding Postumus' misjudgement, and by stressing his foolishness—which is a forgivable 'crime'—Cicero hopes to clear him of criminal intent—punishable by law. 9. 23. modest learning. This at first sight rather uncomplimentary reference to Postumus' intellectual accomplishments, made by means of comparison with men much more highly educated than him, who had found themselves in similar situations, is skilfully later transformed to the advantage of the defence (Top. 43–5). Roman businessmen like Postumus Page 63 of 103

were usually only moderately cultivated, caring more for money than culture (Q.fr. 1. 1. 15; Part. 90; Eyer (1963) 47–59; Rawson (1985) 12–13). most sagacious. Almost any speech of Cicero's contains historical exempla drawn from not only the Roman past but frequently the Greek world, since 'one should know the history of the other peoples beside one's own' (Orat. 120; 2Ver. 1. 48; Balb. 12; Scaur. 3). The historical analogies drawn here are primarily intended to demonstrate to the jury how easy it is for even the wisest of men to fall into the same predicament as Postumus (Molière, Les Femmes Savantes, IV. iii. 1296: 'Qu'un sot savant est sot plus qu'un sot ignorant'). The use of characters from classical Greek antiquity is indicative not only of the learning of the jurors and the audience who attended the case, but also of the high esteem in which such Greeks continued to be held—in sharp contrast to the low opinion held of the Greeks of Cicero's own day (cf. 12. 35–3). Although at first sight it might seem faintly amusing for Postumus, an equestrian businessman, to be compared with such luminaries, only through such exempla could Cicero hope to make his argument plausible to his audience. Plato. Cicero firstly refers to the harsh treatment, including imprisonment, which Plato suffered at the hands of Dionysius II, the tyrant of Syracuse. Plato details his experiences in his seventh letter (Lett. 7. 328 B ff.), which was a reply, or pretended to be a reply, to a letter from the friends and followers of Dion of Syracuse, ostensibly to urge moderation and the following of constitutional procedures, but, in reality, to explain and justify Plato's behaviour (Tusc. 5. 57; Friedländer (1954) 238; Seyffert & Müller (1965) 33; Klosko (1986) 186–7). Callisthenes. Callisthenes was Alexander the Great's official historiographer, who in 327 fell victim to his master's wrath over his refusal to follow the Persian custom of showing obedience to a king by physical prostration (προσχύνησις‎), a gesture which a Macedonian or a Greek would only perform to a god. Callisthenes' reaction aroused such ire that it led to him being falsely accused of involvement in a murder conspiracy against Alexander, who ordered his immediate death (Walbank (1992) 38–9). The author of a history of Greece from 387–357, Callisthenes also wrote monographs on the 'Sacred War' and the 'Deeds of Alexander' (Strabo 17. 1. 43 (814)). Demetrius. Known as 'Demetrius of Phalerum', he was an Athenian Peripatetic philosopher who, with Cassander's support, became tyrant of the city and its legislator from 317 to 307. Although he secured peace in Athens, it was ultimately at the price of the independence of the city, which was to fall under Macedonian control after Demetrius had been expelled by Demetrius I Poliorcetes. Demetrius first fled to Boeotia and then to Alexandria, where he was a librarian, before dying from the bite of an asp in 297 during the rule of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (D. L. 5. 78–9; on Cicero's admiration for Demetrius see Brut. 37–8; de Orat. 2. 95; Orat. 92). The example of Demetrius is carefully selected to underline the barbarity of alien practices in Alexandria. Page 64 of 103

9. 24. preposterous. The emphasis on the notion that Postumus' actions were foolhardy indicates the importance Cicero attached to this line of argument within the defence (cf. 8. 22 'absurdly'; 9. 24 'act of folly', 'nonsensical behaviour', 'stupidity'; 9. 25 'madness'). freedom. The effect produced by this politically charged word varied greatly depending on the circumstances in which it was used and the advocate's motives, but any invocation of the liberties enjoyed by a Roman citizen of the Republic would have elicited a strong response from the Roman jurors, and, indeed, Cicero employs it here primarily for emotive reasons (Hellegouarc'h (1963) 550 n. 10; Nicolet (1980) 322). act of wisdom. In an artful piece of rhetorical footwork Cicero proceeds to prove that two wrongs can, indeed, make a right. After freely admitting that nothing could have been more foolish than Postumus' entry into the King's service—and, thus, presumably agreeing with the prosecution's charge—in an abrupt volte-face Cicero suddenly switches to argue that, after all, Postumus was acting wisely because, once he had foolishly placed his fortune at risk—and most importantly that of his friends—he was prepared to sacrifice all and go to any lengths to defend his and, by extension, their probity. since … stupidity. For its proverbial use see Fest. 343 M: 'Sero sapiunt Phryges'. 9. 25. abiding. Shakespeare, Macbeth, V. i. 62: 'What's done cannot be undone'. Once the money was lent, Postumus had to be prepared to compromise himself in order to secure its return. This is a strong concluding statement—emphatically reinforced by repeated synonymous expressions such as 'cannot be moved or changed', 'remain fixed and abiding'—which serves as a final dismissal of the prosecution's accusation and forms an objective ending to an extremely subjective interpretation. impartial … prejudiced. In an obvious rhetorical ploy Cicero suggests that all those who consider themselves impartial, by which he implies the jurors (cf. note on 17. 45 free from prejudice), cannot but believe his argument that Postumus acted from the best of intentions, whilst only those who are prejudiced could believe otherwise and, thus, accept the prosecution's argument. friends. In spite of so brazenly admitting Postumus' 'foolishness', Cicero still manages to underline his client's basic virtues by reminding the jury of Postumus' commitment to his friends (cf. 2. 5, 15. 41; Quint. Inst. 9. 2. 17). Indeed, Cicero gives a moral dimension to his client's actions on the grounds that seeking to recoup the loans of one's friends constitutes in itself honourable behaviour. Interestingly, Cicero does not develop this line of argument further, nor are any of the friends named—probably for sound political reasons. contracts. cf. note on 3. 6 written contracts.

Page 65 of 103

reproach. The reader of a Ciceronian speech normally deduces the charges and arguments put forward by the other counsel only through what Cicero himself argues about them. A diligent prosecutor had every incentive, if not duty, to include all the charges he could come up with in order to increase the likelihood that at least one would be accepted as true by the jurors. In turn, it was equally within the defence's rights to deliberately ignore the strong points of their opponent's case and furnish strong rebuttals to the weak ones (de Orat. 2. 291 f.). Having acquainted the jurors with Postumus' 'folly', Cicero now takes the relatively minor accusation that his client wore Greek dress whilst in Alexandria and plays it to the full. By doing so, he not only presents himself with a chance to mount an easy and rhetorically stylish defence, thereby deflecting the case away from the question of money, but also reinforces the picture of Postumus as a foolish man. Greek cloak. The pallium was a rectangular Greek mantle which was wrapped loosely around the body, exposing or concealing one or both of the shoulders. References to it in Latin literature first occur in the works of Plautus and Terence, and initially it was worn only by philosophers, teachers, and intellectuals, before being later adopted by ordinary citizens (RE, XVIII. 3, cols. 249–53). The Latin equivalent, the toga, worn by both the Etruscans and the Romans, was the formal and official dress of the Roman citizen, and so distinctive were these items of clothing held to be among the Romans that a Greek was sometimes spoken of as a palliatus and a Roman as a togatus (Phil. 5. 14; Suet. Aug. 40. 5; Liv. 1. 8. 3; Tert. Pall. 1; Serv. A. 2. 781; Dionys. 3. 61; Ov. Rem. 150; Rep. 1. 36; Wilson (1924); Richardson (1953) 77–124; Granger-Taylor (1982), 3–25; Heskel (1994) 133–45). Occasionally a Roman could wear the pallium, but only as an outer cloak on top of the toga, for, if he discarded the toga entirely and wore the Greek cloak in its stead he was liable to face heavy criticism (Liv. 29. 19. 12; Suet. Tib. 13; Wilson (1924); idem (1938) 78–84). befitting. To conservative Romans of the Late Republic the dress code was an important signifier of social status which was legally regulated by decrees. Any deviation from the norm constituted a serious breach of social conventions and could be interpreted as a political act (Heskel (1994) 133–45). High-ranking Roman officials abroad tended to wear Roman dress to distinguish themselves from their subjects, and, more importantly, because the Romans at home expected them to do so. If they did not comply, it was considered to be an affront to the 'dignity' of Rome, because they were required to be not only rerum dominos but also gentemque togatam (Verg. A. 1. 282). Attacks on styles of dress were effective means of undermining political foes, with those who exchanged the revered toga for Greek dress being particularly prone to criticism (de Orat. 2. 266; Pis. 92; Marshall (1984) 121). However, by the time of Postumus' trial fashions were changing, and even Cato, that most conservative of Romans, who at one stage had acted to exclude Greeks from the city, in his later years learned their language and even wore the pallium (Tert. Pall. 3). It seems that invective against the pallium or other inappropriate dress was spurred by their association with immoral behaviour (cf. 10. 27 'free of criticism'; see also Cicero's attacks on Verres in

Page 66 of 103

2Ver. 5. 137). A loose toga could be regarded as a sign of moral turpitude (Suet. Jul. 45; Aug. 73. 1) and magistrates, including Cicero, were mocked for wearing their praetexta toga too long (Clu. 40. 111; 2Ver. 5. 86; Liv. 29. 19. 11; Dio 46. 18. 2). 9. 26. amended. By directly linking the question of Postumus' need to retain his wealth with his retention of an honourable status in Rome, Cicero once again justifies Postumus' foolish actions as being driven by necessity. This line of argument might be credible, but it still transcended the received orthodoxy of Roman society to such an extent that after this brief parry Cicero drops it and, instead, resorts to a lengthy list of examples to persuade the jury that Postumus' actions had sound historical precedent. 10. 26. pleasure and self-indulgence. 'Deliciae' implies light enjoyment but often suggests moral decadence (Brut. 18), while 'voluptas', which lends a malicious twist to Cicero's diction, intimates wantonness (Süss (1910) 253). Roman citizens. Cicero, here proceeding from the general to the particular, struggles to find examples to back up his argument. The city of Naples had long had a Greek identity and the famous individuals mentioned here, known to have worn Greek attire, had all won acclaim in the East (Sulla, Scipio, Rutilius Rufus). young men. Cicero seeks here to give an impression that wearing Greek clothing was widely practised among the higher circles, from the fashion-conscious youth to the most respectable of Senators relaxing in the seclusion of their villas. Senators. Certain Romans became philhellenes, such as Titus Flamininus, who proclaimed the freedom of Greece in 196, Aulus Postumius Albinus, consul in 151, who was described as a lover of Greece by Polybius, and Titus Albucius, praetor in 104, who turned himself into a Greek at Athens (Lucil. 2.91–98; Tert. Pall. 5), whereas others remained suspicious of the East. By the second century BC a conflict had arisen between the Hellenizers and the anti-Hellenizers (Astin (1967) 15 ff.; 294–6; idem (1978) 157–81; Ferrary (1988) 505), and, although some embraced Greek practices, in general there remained a prejudice against the Greeks and their culture, with the notable exceptions of art and literature (Tusc. 1. 1–3). The typical attitude of the Roman nobility was to combine an interest in Greek culture with strict adherence to traditional Roman values and standards. Foreign influences and importations were admissible only if they remained matters of private interest (Earl (1967) 41). Greek attire. As the text here is corrupt, the nonsensical maeciappella has been emended to tunica pulla, a term found in 2Ver. 4. 54, 5. 40 to indicate a dark grey, woollen Greek garment, normally worn by artisans, slaves, and people of lower classes (Calp. Ecl. 7. 26, 7. 81). This certainly would have been inappropriate for a Roman Senator!

Page 67 of 103

gardens or country villas. The term hortus indicates a villa in the country, usually with spacious grounds (Plin. Nat. 19. 50; 2Ver. 2. 87; Grimal (1943); Shackleton Bailey (1976) 209; idem (1980) 208–9, where he notices the varied meanings of the word and points out that, when used by Martial (5. 62), it applied to the dining room in a villa). Suburbana indicate residential villas near the capital (Att. 4. 2. 7). Naples. Cicero here gives an indication of the high standing in which the city of Naples was held both as a fashionable seaside resort and as a thriving commercial centre (Att. 2. 8. 8; D'Arms (1970)). Long settled by Greeks, who since the fourth century BC had enjoyed a foedus aequum with the Romans, it had managed to preserve a strong Greek cultural identity (Liv. 8. 26; Balb. 21). Within this milieu, and in the relaxed surroundings appertaining to the Roman riviera, social distinctions, including those indicated by clothing, would have seemed less important than in hierarchy-conscious Rome. L. Sulla. The depiction of Lucius Sulla sporting a Greek cape must belong to the period after his return from his eastern campaigns and, indeed, after his dictatorship, when he retired to Campania, an area with a large Greek population, which was, according to Cicero, more suitable for soothing men's passions than for rekindling animosities (Sul. 17; Val. Max. 3. 6. 3; App. B. C. 1. 94). Greek cape. Chlamys, the brooch-fastened short Greek cloak, had by the first century AD come to mean specifically a semicircular cloak. It originated from either Macedonia or Thessaly and was commonly worn by hunters and young aristocratic horsemen, but in the Hellenistic period it came to be worn by soldiers in particular (Wilson (1938) 100–4; Losfeld (1991) 171–83). 10. 27. L. Scipio. Lucius Cornelius Scipio, the consul of 190, who received the command against Antiochus III on the understanding that his brother Scipio Africanus would serve as legate and be effectively in charge (Mur. 32; Liv. 38. 12 ff.), was the first to lead a Roman army into Asia, and won a triumph, together with the appellation 'Asiagenes', for his decisive victory over the King of the Seleucid Empire Antiochus III at Magnesia (Mur. 31; RE, IV. 1, cols. 1471–83 n. 337; Scullard (1970) 200 ff.). Both Lucius Cornelius Scipio and Scipio Africanus were noted philhellenes (Boren (1977) 72–3), and the enthusiasm of the latter for Greek attire led Livy (29. 19. 12) to disparagingly describe him as 'not only un-Roman but unsoldierly', for it was said that when Scipio Africanus was in Sicily he walked about the gymnasium in Greek cloak and sandals. It is worth noting here that, instead of alluding to Scipio's personal clothing, Cicero chooses to refer to his statue on the Capitol, which stood as a constant reminder of the great man's affiliations (Val. Max. 3. 6. 2; Hiesinger (1973) 805–25 ascribes the use of Greek garments on this statue to the heavy influence of Hellenistic portraiture at this time).

Page 68 of 103

Greek sandals. These would be thin and very unsuitable for a consul, but seemly for a philhellene. A 'kρηπίς‎' was of simple construction, consisting of a sole attached by straps to the feet. Worn by Greeks, they were usually regarded as an affectation when adopted by Romans. Cicero's acceptance of the wearing of Greek attire here sharply contrasts with the opprobrium he poured on Piso in 55 for wearing similar dress (Pis. 93). P. Rutilius Rufus. The consul of 105. As Scaevola's legate in Asia (probably in 97/96) he offended the publicani and was eventually condemned for extortion under the Servilian law of Glaucia in 92 (Kallet-Marx (1989) 305–12; Alexander (1990) no. 94). He spent his exile among his alleged victims in the province of Asia, shedding the toga and taking up Greek dress in order to escape execution by Mithridates (Balb. 11, 28; Dio 28. 97. 3–4; Liv. Per. 70; Vell. 2. 13. 2; Alexander (1990) no. 94). Rutilius Rufus, who became a citizen of Smyrna and was visited there by Cicero in 78 (Rep. 1. 13; Brut. 22, 85–9), was considered an eminent figure whose wide intellectual learning, political conservatism, and moral integrity put him on a par with Scipio Aemilianus (RE, I. A1, cols. 1269–80 n. 34; de Orat. 1. 229; Hendrickson (1933) 153–75; Badian (1956) 104–23). His reputation was fostered by his own memoirs and by the many references to him in Cicero, especially after the orator's own exile. Cicero, in comparing Postumus to Rutilius Rufus, intimates that, like Rutilius Rufus, his client possessed all the Roman virtues and was a model of courage, honour, and wisdom, whose very survival depended entirely on his choice of apparel. Mithridates. Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysus (120–63), the King of Pontus, who occupied most of Asia Minor together with the islands of the Aegean except Rhodes and, with Athenian help, much of Greece (Rubinsohn (1993) 5–54). Greek shoes. The Greek shoe or slipper, most commonly seen worn by women, was considered highly unseemly attire for a Roman man (Plin. Nat. 37. 17; Ep. 9. 7. 3; Hor. Ars. 80. 90; de Orat. 3. 127). circumstances. In a deliberate analogy to the circumstances of Rutilius Rufus' case, Cicero implicitly asks the jurors to view Postumus' actions in Alexandria as being similarly inevitable (Clu. 80). In fact, Cicero's argument is (as often) specious, for Rutilius Rufus would have been held in no less honour if he had retained Roman dress. charge. By shedding the toga Postumus could be seen as symbolically renouncing Roman citizenship (Kidd (1972) F. 253, 78–84, p. 223; idem (1988) 874–5). However, the thought that he could be 'charged' with wearing Greek clothes is theatrical—as we have no evidence of any legislation forbidding such a thing. hope. In support of his argument Cicero poses this rhetorical question, which serves to restate his thesis more expansively. Whilst Rutilius Rufus took to wearing Greek clothing, when he had no hope of returning to Rome, Postumus did the exact opposite. He only

Page 69 of 103

donned the pallium in order to return to Rome—and, by implication, to avoid the need to wear it again. His conduct, therefore, was less blameworthy than that of the renowned Rufus. Cicero has sought to make what seems a trivial point sound ridiculous; but behind the comic façade lies the charge that Postumus betrayed Roman values, and, by inference, the interests of Rome, by entering the King's service. And it is to this fact that Cicero now returns. 10. 28. management. Having his chief creditor as royal treasurer would have been of doubtful benefit to the King, whilst it would have been of considerable advantage to Postumus to be in control of the receipt of taxes. The word 'virtual' indicates that Postumus was not in complete control and that he was managing the finances of the Egyptian treasury with the help of others. treasurer. cf. note on 8. 22 treasurer. The tone of the following parenthetic clause is an obvious apology for the employment of the Greek word dioecetes, which in the context of the current accusations could only have served as an embarrassment to his client. Indeed, Cicero is quick to add that the name of his title was loathsome to Postumus. Cicero freely used Greek literary allusions in his letters, but he was careful to avoid them in his speeches in case he gave an impression of intellectual superiority (S. Rosc. 46; Amic. 46; 2Ver. 2. 50; Brignoli (1957) 110–14). 1

accounts. The text of the MS, quiaretie V: qui aretie V , is corrupt and has been emended by Giardina (1967) to qui est a rationibus, a reading which was also adopted by Olechowska (1981) 62. Although this is at first sight far from the MS reading, it has some merit, because the title a rationibus was used to describe an officer dealing with accounts in the Early Empire (Weaver (1972) 244–5). The Romans used two types of account book: day books (adversaria) and ledgers (codices, tabulae, rationes; Att. 13. 47. 1, 16. 3. 5; Amic. 58; Red. Pop. 23; Barlow (1978) 1 ff.). The conjecture, qui ea regit, put forward by Madvig (1855) 668 and adopted by Clark (1909), is also economical and plausible, but, given the fact that Cicero tries to be precise as regards the title and the office of Postumus in Alexandria, Giardina's emendation qui est a rationibus would seem more appropriate. loathsome. Certainly, Postumus would have preferred to be paid by the King as soon as the expedition was over, because, however tempting further profit might be, it held many concomitant risks, as Postumus himself was to discover. 'There … powers.' Cicero here quotes the first of the three aphorisms that may be assigned to Creon in Ennius' Medea Exul (cf. note on 11. 29 'pay … death'). Poetic quotations are most frequently found in Cicero's speches in the period between his return from exile and the Civil War (Clarke (1945) 73 ff.) and are usually drawn from old Roman dramas which would have been very familiar to his audience (Cael. 18; S. Rosc. 90. 46). According to Quintilian (1. 8. 2) poetic quotations were introduced into a speech both to Page 70 of 103

please the listeners and to show the speaker's learning, since the charm of poetry provides a pleasant relief from the severity of the forum, and the sentiments of the poet can be used like witnesses to support the orator's case. 10. 29. death. This word is placed prominently for emotional effect. On tactical grounds, knowing that it could never be possible, Cicero feels that he must emphasize the virtue of honourable death. In certain circumstances, to give a life in sacrifice came to be seen by the Romans as almost a natural gesture, whether in war (cf. note on 1. 2 devotio) or in peace; and, rather than placing himself under foreign rule, a true Roman was expected to choose death (Phil. 6. 19, 10. 19; Boren (1977) 143). The extent to which such ideals were appropriate in Postumus' case is open to question, and Cicero's tactics are, perhaps, aimed at raising his client's stature through association whilst also using the issue as a rhetorical device to heighten the tension before further discussing Postumus' relationship with the King. Such melodramatic sentiments would also serve to belittle by comparison any other charges that might be made over Postumus' servile behaviour in Alexandria. dishonour. Having raised the issue of death, Cicero skilfully dismisses it on the grounds that such a gesture would be to no avail, as Postumus was already in a state of dishonour as a result of heavy unpaid debts. To die leaving behind an encumbered estate was considered a disgrace among the Romans (Thomas (1994) 91–100). 11. 29. misfortune. The orator is careful to emphasize the unfavourable circumstances rather than his client's response to them (for the same juxtaposition of the words 'misfortune' (fortunam) and 'blame' (culpa) see Pis. 43; Fam. 6. 2. 3, 9. 13. 3, 15. 15. 2; ThLL VI. 1, col. 1195). enemies. Note the contrasting description of the King in 3. 6 brigand, treaty. habits of kings. 'His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, / the attribute to awe and majesty, / wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; / But mercy is above this sceptred sway,' (Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, IV. i. 184). 'pay … death'. Scaliger (1965) 7. 9, 98–9 assigns both these quotations to Ennius' Medea Exul, identifying the first with Euripides' Medea 321: 'No, go into exile at once—no more talk. My resolve is fixed and there is no way you can remain in our midst since you are hostile to me', and the second with verses 352–4 of the same: 'But I warn you, if tomorrow's sun sees you and your children within the borders of this land, you will be put to death'. This view has been challenged by Jocelyn (1967) 349, who questions whether they are direct quotations because 'if catch … death' is an expression which could be uttered under many circumstances (Att. 7. 26. 1; Ter. Eu. 1064) and 'pay heed and obey my behest' is incomplete, needing something remarkable from the same context. Nevertheless, if Medea Exul is accepted as the source, the lines may be assigned to Creon or possibly one of the

Page 71 of 103

other monarchs in the tragedy. (Bain (1981) explores the subject of masters' giving orders to their subjects in Greek tragedy, and Dunkle (1967) 151–71 examines the employment of the Greek tyrant in Roman invective of the Late Republic). It befits … distance. Beyond entertainment, Greek tragedy also sought to confront the audience with the problems of life, encouraging them to draw meaningful conclusions (on the didactic nature of Greek tragedy see Arist. Po. 1450a). 11. 30. charge. Cicero at last, having dealt with the two important supplementary charges, the corruption of the Senate (cf. note on 3. 6 Senate) and Postumus' role in Gabinius' restoration of the King (cf. note on 8. 19 prompted), addresses the nub of the case and tackles the accusation under which Postumus was brought to trial: that whilst he was collecting money for Gabinius he pocketed 10 per cent for himself. However, rather than dealing with this in a straightforward manner, Cicero, perhaps aware of the weaknesses of the defence, attempts to cloud the issue by steadfastly ignoring the main point and, instead, concentrates his attention on the method by which Postumus sought to make his profit, rather than what actually happened to the money. This tactic leads to a rather sterile exposition on whether the alleged 10 per cent was on top of or part of the 10,000 talents promised to Gabinius (Quint. Inst. 4. 2. 10). money for Gabinius. cf. note on 8. 21 ten thousand talents, 12. 34 military purposes. Was Gabinius paid the promised 10,000 talents by the King and, if so, when? The Scholiast of Bobbio (Planc. 86 (p. 168 St.), Arch. 9 (p. 177 St.)) suggests that he must have received the money from the King in advance, and, given the risky nature of the enterprise, this would not have been surprising (Dio 39. 56. 3). 10 per cent. Having expended so much energy in attempting to separate Gabinius' trial for extortion from that of Postumus, provoked by the prosecution to confront the crux of the case—that while Postumus was collecting money for Gabinius he kept 10 per cent for himself —Cicero is finally forced to deal with the two men together. Up to this point, in discussing financial matters he has been content to state that Postumus' finances were at risk (cf. 2. 4, 3. 5–3, 9. 25, 10. 27) and that Gabinius was promised 10,000 talents (cf. 8. 21). revenue. As Egypt in the Ptolemaic period was a closed economy and only Egyptian coins circulated, presumably Gabinius was paid in Egyptian tetradrachms (Crawford (1978) 1–11; Mørkholm (1982) 298; Christiansen (1988) 11). This would have been perfectly acceptable to the Romans given the high silver content of a tetradrachm—at least 84.85 per cent purity in the period between 68 and 54 (Mørkholm (1975) 7). Walker & King (1976–8) 151 state that at this time a tetradrachm contained as much silver as three and a half denarii—but caution that this does not imply an official fixed exchange rate—and this must have made it an attractive proposition to melt it down, as was the custom in Rome with foreign coin (Crawford (1977) 52; Howgego (1990) 1–25). The collection of such a huge sum must have Page 72 of 103

taken a considerable amount of time, since, given the lack of Egyptian silver mines (Walker & King (1976–8) 157), it presumably had to be gathered from coins in everyday circulation —hence the importance of Postumus as treasurer to the project. Cicero's reference here would seem to indicate that at least part of the 'reward' was gathered, and further evidence to support this comes from the subsequent debasement of the Egyptian coinage shortly after the King's restoration. In their analysis, Walker & King (1976–8) 150 ff. found two goodquality coins dating from 54, but by the next year (presumably after the Romans had left) the silver content had declined to 64 per cent, and during the reign of Cleopatra it was to fall even further, to approximately half the level recorded in the earlier years of Ptolemy Auletes' reign (Crawford (1985) 206–7). Therefore, it seems quite plausible to suggest that the Egyptians, in trying to pay the promised bribe, were forced to mint a new, debased, coinage. Later, in 48, in order to meet Caesar's claim of seventeen and a half million denarii (cf. note on 15. 41 shouldered) from the successors of Ptolemy Auletes, the royal silver plate was melted down, and, although Plutarch (Caes. 48. 7–9) interprets this desperate measure as a ploy designed to stir up resentment against Caesar, it is quite possible that it was a real necessity. The size of the promised sum and the nature of the agreement between Gabinius and Ptolemy Auletes would make it unlikely that payment was by cheque, although these were in use already in this period (Bagnall & Bogaert (1975) 107)—and, anyway, who would have held credit for Ptolemy Auletes, by then, in Rome? 11. 30–11. 31. I am … people. Cicero, by presenting a fictitious picture of Postumus and Gabinius operating within the confines of a proper legal contract, attempts to convince the jurors that Postumus did not receive any money from Gabinius. Having set up the dilemma of whether Postumus' 10 per cent came from money gathered beyond Gabinius' 10,000 talents or from within that sum, Cicero proceeds to dismiss both. First, in a typically disingenuous line of argument he states that, if the 10 per cent was extra, the sum gathered must have been 11,000 talents, but, since the prosecution in this case accepts it was 10,000 talents Gabinius was promised, no surplus can have passed to Postumus. Cicero's innocent portrayal of the deal as between two shoppers in the market belies the more devious nature of the agreement. It masks a real conflict of interests in Egypt in which Gabinius would have been unwilling to see his payment lowered, whilst the King, conversely, would have been reluctant to see Postumus extract more than the agreed figure. Indeed, it may have been disagreement on this matter that precipitated Postumus' hurried departure from Egypt and precluded the Gabiniani from coming to his rescue. Afterwards, to dismiss the second possibility, that Postumus' payment came out of Gabinius' reward, Cicero leaves the mathematical gymnastics and, instead, appeals to any latent anti-Gabinian feelings within the jurors by reminding them of Gabinius' renowned avarice and how unlikely he would be to part with money previously promised. Cicero has to show that all allegations against his client are ill-founded, and a simple disclaimer that Postumus 'did not receive any money' or that 'it is all a lie' would be hardly credible. Therefore, he 'proves' that the prosecution's case

Page 73 of 103

is a fabrication; however, the protracted nature of the passage hints at the real weakness of Postumus' position. tax collectors. Collection of revenue and taxes in the eastern provinces was normally left in the hands of large financial companies (societates publicanorum) which contracted to pay the government in advance the tax they were going to collect on a five-year basis (Thll, s.v. 1369. 1a; cf. note on 2. 3 publicanus; Richardson (1975) 584–9; Nicolet (1994) 635–7). The coactores who gathered the taxes were also sent by auctioneers to collect money due for goods purchased at auctions—a procedure also threatened against Postumus (cf. note on 17. 45 'auctioneer'; Clu. 180; Hor. S. 1. 6. 86, where Horace refers to his father as a collector of privately owed funds; Andreau (1987) 139 ff., 162 n. 77). 1 per cent. As 1 per cent per month equals 12 per cent per year, Cicero is either indulging in rhetorical licence to underline the way the money was collected by his client, with the implication being that it was legally contracted, or giving an indication that Postumus stayed in Egypt just ten months. In the provinces, 12 per cent was usually considered the legitimate rate for borrowing money, as it was with the moneylenders of Asia (SEG, II. 104); but elsewhere Cicero implies (Att. 6. 1. 16) that the publicani normally expected more than 12 per cent on outstanding debts (Jones (1974) 116–18). by you. C. Memmius. jury. cf. note on 12. 34 jurors. sum. The damages assessed against Gabinius at his trial for extortion amounted to 10,000 talents. 11. 31. taxation. Information concerning the tax system of Ptolemaic Egypt is known to us mainly from the Revenue Laws of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of 259 and from the regulations of Ptolemy V Epiphanes of 204 (Bingen (1952) 1–36). The fiscal system of the Ptolemies was immensely intricate and all-pervasive. The poll tax and taxes on manufactured goods and agricultural products, other than corn, were demanded in coins, which would imply the existence of large quantities of coinage (Christiansen (1988) 108). Besides the taxable goods specifically covered by the Revenue Laws (such as wine, grapes, currants, other fruits, oil, flax), taxes were also applied to all kinds of property transfers (such as land, houses, slaves—whether by sale, gift, cession, or mortgage), as well as, either directly or indirectly, to a multiplicity of other areas, such as quarrying, mining, and hunting. To these returns should also be added the taxes in corn, cash, and in kind paid by cleruchs on their holdings and by the temples. Finally, the customs dues—including export dues and internal tolls from traffic passing up and down the Nile—gathered enormous totals. The great majority of tax gathering in Ptolemaic Egypt was via yearly contracts auctioned to bidders who underwrote the tax to be collected (Kaimio (1981) 281–7; Lewis (1983) 15; Turner (1984)

Page 74 of 103

151–9; Bowman (1986) 65, 113, 154 ff.). As Turner (1984) 152, suggests, 'the aim of the system was not to encourage production, not to control the economy, but to secure the highest possible returns for the king from taxation and from sales in the home market'. Ptolemy Auletes would have been extremely wary of raising taxes even further to pay off his debt to the Romans. Taxes were high enough already and, having returned to his throne so recently, the King would not have wanted to give more cause for unrest. avarice. cf. note on 8. 21 avarice. will be. cf. note on 12. 34 now. By crossing out the last 'a' of aderant and substituting a 'u' for it, the scribe emended the reading of the MS from aderant testes into aderunt testes and transferred the meaning of the sentence into the future tense. This new reading rests on the fact that the hearing of witnesses (testes) usually took place after the speeches of both defence lawyer and prosecutor. Generally, however, in a 'What has become of the money' trial it seems that there was no provision for the calling of witnesses, as Cicero explains a few lines below, but in this case, perhaps because of a legal technicality, it does seem that witnesses were due to appear (cf. note on 11. 32 standard procedure). Clark (1909), sensing that at this point of the speech Cicero is quoting a strong rebuttal, perhaps uttered by Memmius, favours the reading At erunt ('But there will be'), which was first suggested by Halm (1855) 621–64 on the basis that similar structures conveying a strong refutation appeared in the speech, such as 8.22, 'But he was appointed royal treasurer', and 14. 38. 'But he possesses …'. However, in this particular case the presence of the adversative 'but' (at) is not necessary, since the refutation re-emphasizes a point that has been already mentioned, in this case 'a further charge' (cf. 11. 30), and does not introduce a new one (Seyffert (1878) 142). As the verb adesse in its legal sense signifies the presence of a witness in a court case there is no need to change aderunt. witnesses. Under the Julian law of extortion the number of witnesses who could be summoned to appear by the prosecutor was fixed at a maximum of 120 (Val. Max. 8. 1. 10; lex rep. 32–5; Lintott (1981) 203 n. 157; Crawford (1996) I. 104), with the number of voluntary witnesses being unlimited (Dig. 22. 5. 1). Witnesses were first examined by the party who had called them before they passed to the other counsel for cross-examination (1Ver. 33; Cael. 19, 66–7; Quint. Inst. 5. 7. 1). However, much evidence was also presented in written form (Flac. 51)—especially that from cities, but also from ordinary private individuals. For written evidence the witness had to take an oath and write out the testimony in the presence of sworn witnesses, who then affixed their seals (Q. Rosc. 43–5; Cael. 55; Clu. 168; Quint. Inst. 5. 7. 32). Written evidence could be read out in the court in the course of the speeches, and so might have a more telling effect than the spoken evidence given a day or two later. Does … collector? This is a forceful statement further enhanced by three rhetorical questions which are designed to bring out the inconsistencies in the testimony of the Page 75 of 103

Alexandrian witnesses. Cicero reasons that if the Alexandrian witnesses said nothing against Gabinius when he was on trial, they could hardly be expected to say anything against Postumus who, after all, was merely the collector of Gabinius' money. In advancing this line of argument he conveniently overlooks the fact that Postumus, by being physically present in Egypt, would have been the recipient of all the abuse and anger of the Alexandrians, whereas Gabinius, who did not reside in Egypt but had left behind him a garrison instead, might have been praised out of political expediency. The exposition in this section is vigorous but Cicero's case appears weak. 11. 32. standard procedure. Cicero's argument here is that subsidiary cases tried under the 'What has become of the money' clause normally rested entirely on the testimony of the witnesses who had already appeared in the original extortion trial and were not expected to appear again (cf. 13. 36–3). It was their depositions which were read in the subsidiary trial, but in certain circumstances it seems the testimony in these written statements could be changed, perhaps to expand on a particular issue (cf. note on 13. 36 new). This insistence that broadly the same evidence was used would be quite in keeping with the general tenor of the law, which seems to have held that the same jurors should hear both cases (cf. note on 12. 34 jurors). Cicero claims to speak with authority, but, in reality, the law seems to have been open to different interpretations, perhaps because it was used so infrequently. The employment of the words 'usually' and 'normally' (cf. 13. 36) would suggest that the procedures being followed here did not conform with Cicero's understanding of the law, leaving him to deal with a 'new' provision which went against the 'principles', 'tradition', and 'precedents' (cf. 11. 31) of the court, as the witnesses who appeared at Gabinius' trial for extortion were due to reappear at Postumus' trial to give fresh testimony. prejudged. cf. note on 13. 37 their own trial; Clu. 49; Asc. Div. 12. p. 190 St. Cicero is referring to the fact that Postumus is only in court because Gabinius has been found guilty in the main trial. The difference in Postumus' case—as Cicero never ceases to point out—is that Postumus was not mentioned in Gabinius' trial for extortion and, thus, he should escape prejudgement. same witnesses. cf. note on 11. 32 standard procedure, 13. 36 fresh witnesses. After a brief digression concerning his motives for defending Gabinius (12. 32–3), Cicero once more returns to the matter of the Alexandrian witnesses (12. 34–13. 36) and spends a considerable amount of time systematically undermining their credibility. 12. 32. friend. Cicero here disarmingly begins with a conciliatory and perhaps slightly patronizing reference to his opponent—in contrast with his earlier sarcastic dismissiveness (cf. 8. 20–3). Cicero subscribed to the view that professing friendship with the prosecutor of his client was part of an orator's art (de Orat. 2. 193) and this passing reference to Memmius as a 'learned and distinguished friend' need not reflect any personal relationship between Page 76 of 103

the two, nor does it seem to have any significance to the persuasive strategies employed here (for other examples see Font. 36; Clu. 10, 118; Mur. 3, 7, 10; Sul. 2, 47; Flac. 2; Cael. 7, 25; Planc. 2 f.; Scaur. 31; Lig. 21; on the same tactics applied to adverse witnesses see Brunt (1965b) 15; Craig (1981) 31–7). Indeed, the spirit of this whole passage is defensive and apologetic, rather than offensive. motive. The prosecutor claims that both the Alexandrian witnesses and Cicero succumbed to Pompey's influence. reconciliation. Changing the object of his address (from the jury to Memmius) Cicero returns to his previous claim (cf. 8. 19–3) that he defended Gabinius only because he was reconciled with his old enemy. This, if true, must have been extremely painful for Cicero, given the fact that Gabinius, who was said to have been an associate of Catiline in his youth (Pis. 20), lent open support to Publius Clodius Pulcher's plans to bring about the orator's exile in 58 (Q.fr. 3. 4. 2; Red. Sen. 10, 31; Dom. 55, 62, 66, 70, 124; Sest. 18, 20, 24 ff.; Har. 3 ff.; Pis. 8, 11, 48, 64, 72; Fam. 11. 16. 2, 12. 29. 1; Plut. Pomp. 49. 1–14; Plut. Cic. 31. 4; Dio 38. 16. 3). Cicero came to hate Gabinius on account, particularly, of his participation in the looting of his Tusculan and Roman properties, as well as Gabinius' repeated reference to him as an 'exile' (Q.fr. 3. 2. 2; Pis. 41, 45, 48; Dio 39. 55. 5, 39. 59. 2; 39. 63. 2–5; Führmann (1990) 35, 106). What is striking here is how Cicero advances to the defence of his own behaviour rather than that of his client, and, although he approved of such techniques, as can be seen from his comments in de Oratore (2. 200 f.) about Antonius' conduct during his defence of Norbanus, it, nevertheless, is a strong indication of the vulnerability he felt over this matter. Throughout this period Cicero undertook the defence of a number of clients who only a short time before had appeared to be his mortal enemies. In many instances this seems to have been at the personal behest of Pompey, as was the case with Gabinius, and also Vatinius, whom only two years earlier Cicero had cut to ribbons at the trial of Sestius, before supporting Cato's candidacy against him for the consulship (Fam. 1. 9. 19; Q.fr. 2. 16. 3). Cicero's defence of the morality of such a volte-face is expressed in the De provinciis consularibus (42 ff.), where he justifies his rapprochement with Caesar on the basis of Caesar's value to the state, although, in reality, the actual impetus for reconciliation was far less lofty than the publicly announced cause. die. To prove his sincerity and to justify his political submission Cicero here resorts to quoting proverbial apophthegms that friendships should be everlasting and enmities transient (Amic. 32; Red. Pop. 23; Liv. 40. 46. 12; Freyburger (1986) 180). This defence is slight and rests on the idealized language used to describe political friendships at the time (note Cicero's assertion that Pompey, who had given as much offence as most men in his day, by 54 had not an enemy in the State except Publius Clodius Pulcher (Fam. 1. 9. 11; Brunt (1988) 13). Only Valerius Maximus (4. 2. 5) seems to have accepted at face value

Page 77 of 103

Cicero's protestations about Gabinius, and his hesitant voice is overwhelmed by the more substantive evidence to be found in Cicero's own writings. 12. 33. unwillingly. The arguments put forward by Cicero in this passage to excuse his defence of Gabinius for extortion are: first, that Pompey would not have coerced him to defend Gabinius nor would he have yielded his freedom of action; secondly, that he had enjoyed Pompey's friendship when Gabinius was an enemy; thirdly, that now he was reconciled with Gabinius any insincerity on his part would dishonour both Pompey and himself. These arguments, however, are weak and unconvincing, and, whatever Cicero's protestations in this speech, there is no doubt that the orator acted under pressure from Pompey. A number of different motives have been suggested for Pompey's actions, although, given the complexity and the length of the relationship between the two men, it is doubtful if any one holds the key to the question. Broadly, the relevant argument can be characterized as follows: Wiseman (1966) 109–10 n. 21 suggests that Cicero's main reason for defending Gabinius was to avoid offending Pompey and to ensure his backing for Quintus' possible bid for the consulship. Gelzer (1969) 201 states that Cicero thought that, if Pompey were offended, Clodius might be 'let loose' again. Lintott (1974) 67–8 argues that Cicero sacrificed his integrity in a desperate attempt to recover Pompey's goodwill for Milo, while Németh (1968) 49–58 suggests that Cicero, hoping to seek the consulship for a second time in 52, wanted to elicit Pompey's support for this goal. Whatever the reasons for his actions, the defence of Gabinius and other undeserving allies of Pompey, such as L. Caninius Gallus, T. Ampius Balbus, L. Scribonius Libo, and M. Livius Drusus Claudianus, cost Cicero the respect of his friends (Planc. 94; Balb. 61; Mitchell (1969) 320) and contributed to his growing disillusion with the general political scene in Rome (Att. 4. 5. 1–3; Gelzer (1969) 105–96). offend. For the political connotations of the verb 'offend' see Q.fr. 2. 3. 2, 2. 15. 1, 3. 7. 3; Phil. 11. 38; Fam. 1. 9. 5, 5. 7. 3; Att. 4. 15. 4; Hellegouarc'h (1963) 194. For … well. In this whole unit Cicero is reasoning by contraries: 'at loggerheads' vs. 'dearest', 'forgave' vs. 'no pretence', 'slighted' vs. 'favour', 'false pretences' vs. 'letting down', offering a model of climax and anti-climax in describing his relationship with the two men, Gabinius and Pompey. This statement must be considered within the general background of Pompey's amicitiae, in which both Cicero and Gabinius played a part. The individual nature of these ties meant that it was possible for Pompey to have two friends (Cicero and Gabinius) who were at the same time on bad terms with each other. Comparisons can be made with the case of Appius Claudius, who was Pompey's friend but refused assent to Cicero's return in 57 (Pis. 35), which Pompey was promoting, and in 54 also attacked both Gabinius (Q.fr. 3. 2. 3) and Scaurus (Scaur. 31), who were friends of Pompey (for other examples see Brunt (1965b) 17–18). However, the potential instability created by such conflicts within his network of friends made it desirable for Pompey to use the necessary leverage to effect a reconciliation between erstwhile enemies.

Page 78 of 103

12. 34. enough. After an emotional reaction to what seems to be a point of extreme sensitivity Cicero ostensibly returns to the defence of his client. His words seem to carry an almost apologetic tone and, indeed, the preceding performance can only have been detrimental to Postumus' case, as it has totally broken the thread of what was potentially a strong piece of argumentation based on the conflicting evidence of the Alexandrian witnesses. Alexandrians. Cicero discusses the Alexandrian witnesses in a sarcastic tone and is full of mockery and disparaging comments. It is a blatant piece of ethnic chauvinism as he panders to the prejudices of the Roman jurors in order to undermine the case of the prosecution. He used the same tactic in Pro Flacco when he asserted that Asian Greeks were willing to perjure themselves to win their point (Flac. 11; for os with the meaning of 'impudence' see 2Ver. 4. 66). However, little trust was placed in witnesses, who were seen as all too willing to shape their testimony in response to promises of huge rewards (Part. 49; Flac. 10–12; Q.fr. 1. 2. 4; cf. note on 4. 9 Servilian). What cheek … insolence. This expression seems to have been chosen to take the jurors by surprise and it is also noteworthy that the 'verdict' on the Alexandrians is delivered before any details of their 'crime'. This assertion is in the form of an occupatio, in anticipation of an objection from the prosecution. Obviously it was already a common topos that the witnesses had publicly lied at Gabinius' trial and, as the defence lawyer at that trial, Cicero could not help but be identified with their perjury. This piece of sustained invective can, thus, also be seen as an attempt by Cicero to bolster his own standing as, by distancing himself from the Alexandrians, he seeks to demonstrate to the jury his own lack of complicity in their lies (and this must explain section 12. 33, although his own behaviour in taking the case was little short of theirs). jurors. Cicero here states that the same jury who tried Gabinius' extortion case is sitting at Postumus' subsidiary trial under the clause 'What has become of the money'. Whether this was because it was legally prescribed or because it followed precedent is unknown. All that is certain is that the law stipulated that the same jurors who tried the principal case should conduct the assessment of damages in the subsidiary case (Fam. 8. 8. 3; Shackleton Bailey (1977) 398–9). Pompey's testimony. Technically, Pompey would not have been able to appear in person to give his testimony at Gabinius' trial for extortion because he held proconsular command at the time and was, therefore, forbidden from entering the city of Rome (Dio 39. 63. 4; Fam. 8. 4. 4). However, it is quite possible that he might have received a special dispensation to overrule this restriction, as he had done during Sestius' trial de vi in March 56, when Pompey was curator of the corn supplies (Fam. 1. 9. 7; Shackleton Bailey (1977) 1. 309). The testimony referred to here is usually considered to have been given in the form of a letter, but it may be that Cicero was quoting directly the words of Pompey when he addressed a Page 79 of 103

crowd outside the city boundary sometime at the close of 54 (Jolliffe (1919) 29; Fantham (1975) 440–1). Perhaps a letter had passed from the King to Pompey, but what is most striking is that Cicero, rather than producing the letter itself, chooses, instead, to recite Pompey's testimony. The whole matter seems somewhat dubious and it is far from clear whether such a letter existed or, if so, what its contents were. military purposes. Although Cicero rejects the idea that any money was given by Ptolemy Auletes to Gabinius, barring that which financed his military campaign to restore the King, this phrase could hide a multitude of sins. Not very long before, Cicero had called Gabinius' acceptance of money from Ptolemy Auletes 'the selling of the Roman army to a foreign king' (Pis. 48; Sullivan (1990) 244). now. Cicero presents a second imaginary dialogue between himself and the prosecution. The aim is to stress the absurdity of the prosecution's position which, while admitting that the Alexandrians lied in the previous trial, now wishes to present their testimony as trustworthy. Whether Greek or not, Cicero knew well the whims of witnesses in general (Cael. 22). 12. 35. staring us … in the eye. This marks the beginning of a series of references to the physical behaviour of the Greeks—a ploy which serves to underline their renowned 'theatricality' and thereby further erode their credibility (Pis. 68; Clu. 72; cf. 13. 36). Making eye contact with an interlocutor was held to signify confidence and conviction in the truth of a statement (Bremmer (1991) 22–3). Were the Alexandrian witnesses such skilful actors as to be able to put up a similar act even when they lied? look. Cicero feigns curiosity to see the gestures of the Alexandrians, who so theatrically had lied during Gabinius trial, when they tell the truth! By treating the necessity of a reappearance of the Alexandrian witnesses as a joke, Cicero provides not only his audience with a show but also his client with a stronger defence. Alexandria. It is sufficient for Cicero here to discredit the Egyptian witnesses by observing that they came from Alexandria, a city whose inhabitants provided material for the writers of the New Comedy (Fraser (1972) 621; 672–3; Balsdon (1979) 35). The 'good Greeks' were to be found chiefly in Greece, in contrast with the 'bad Greeks' of outside the mainland (Theocr. Idyll 15. 47–9; Plat. Leg. 747c; Prop. 3. 11. 33; Mart. 4. 42; Amm. Marc. 22. 16. 23; Caes. B. Alex. 7; Nicolet (1991) 149, 193). mime plays. Lascivious miniature plays originating in Alexandria which conjured up grotesque and unreal situations. Cicero is suggesting that the testimony of the Alexandrians should be given no more credit than the stories of the mimes enacted on the stage (Cael. 40, 65; for the belief that all degenerate practices originated from the Greeks see Brut. 131;

Page 80 of 103

de Orat. 2. 20; Hor. Carm. 3. 24. 54–7; Lucil. 2. 88 ff.; Sen. Ep. 15. 2 ff.; 88. 18; Polyb. 14. 11. 1–5; Dio 50. 5. 1; D. Chr. Or. 32. 2. 4; Jones (1978) 137, 171 ff.). 13. 36. eyebrows. Did the Alexandrians deny the charge by raising their eyebrows out of rudeness or out of necessity, since they, perhaps, could not speak Latin? Whatever the case, as their first response to the charge it must have left an indelible impression on the jury. As Quintilian states, it was regarded as a fault in an orator if he raised only one eyebrow (1. 11. 10), and here Cicero is playing upon the sternness and haughtiness implied by this gesture (Sest. 19, where Cicero describes Piso's eyebrows as 'guarantees of the commonwealth'; Mur. 18 ff.; Pis. 16–17; Prov. 8; Hor. Carm. 3. 1. 8). impertinence. Cicero's grandfather is credited with the observation that the better a Roman knew Greek the bigger scoundrel he was (de Orat. 2. 265). Cicero himself professed admiration for the intellectual qualities of the ancient Greeks (de Orat. 3. 197; Fam. 6. 4. 2; Att. 13. 29. 1; Guite (1962) 142–59), but had a less flattering view of the Greeks of his day, presenting them as nothing more than flighty people, lazy, self-indulgent lightweights, who were untrustworthy, irresponsible, and loquacious (cf. note on 9. 23 most sagacious; Q.fr. 1. 1. 28; Flac. 9–12, 16–20, 23–4, 61–6, 71; Font. 42–3; Sest. 141; Scaur. 3; Fam. 16. 4. 2; 2Ver. 2. 7; Petrochilos (1974) 33–53). On the rare occasions when Cicero spoke favourably of the Greeks of his day, he seems to have done so out of necessity rather than conviction, as in the Verrines (2. 2. 7), where he ascribes to them the highest character and equates them with the Romans. More typical was his assertion that the Greeks as witnesses had no notion of the standards that justice required, and in Pro Flacco (9) he warns the audience that 'this nation has never cultivated a scrupulous regard for honesty when giving evidence'. shrugged their shoulders. The shrugging of shoulders could be interpreted as indicating not only a lack of knowledge but also indifference (Quinct. 77; Shackleton Bailey (1965–70) III. 258). Perhaps the Alexandrians considered it to be a safer option than giving a verbal response, which might have laid them open to accusations of perjury. expediency. According to Cicero, the response of the Alexandrian witnesses at Gabinius' trial was determined by the needs of the moment but, now that Gabinius has been found guilty, these circumstances no longer prevail. perjured. An offender who behaved so dishonourably as to perjure himself was deemed only to be punishable by divine law and not that of man (S. Rosc. 46; Leg. 2. 22; Tac. Ann. 1. 73; Liebeschuetz (1979) 41–7). fresh witnesses. Cicero seems to show genuine concern because the word 'normally' implies the introduction of new, and potentially hostile, witnesses had been permitted. Indeed, in this case 'fresh' is almost synonymous with 'witnesses for the prosecution' (cf. note on 11. 32 same witnesses, standard procedure).

Page 81 of 103

same jurors. cf. note on 12. 34 jurors. It is possible that the same jurors were kept not because they were familiar with the case but rather because they were in a position to tell if new evidence had been introduced. new. This implies new evidence given by either old or new witnesses (cf. note on 11. 32 same witnesses). In this section (13. 37–14. 40) Cicero examines the rationale behind bringing Postumus to trial—namely, the attempt to seize Gabinius' ill-gotten gains—and, in a clever piece of rhetoric, he inverts the main charge of the prosecution in an effort to prove its absurdity. Having bamboozled the jury, Cicero returns to the well-trodden path of presenting Postumus as the victim of the circumstances and elaborates considerably on his earlier remarks concerning the material failure of the financier's Egyptian enterprise. 13. 37. 'What has become of the money'. Behind this outburst of legal terminology Cicero is in reality reinforcing Gabinius' guilt rather than defending Postumus' innocence, but he is careful to use a general outline of this clause in order to avoid a direct reference to Gabinius. their own trial. In place of the in reum facti of the MS, Giardina (1967) has suggested in rem rei facti, in an effort to underline that the scope of such trials was the recovery of money (rem) and not the excessive punishment of the defendant. However, since the point which Cicero is making here is not concerned with the recovery of money, there is little need to change the text. The argument, which is further elaborated in this whole section, is that Postumus is tried under the clause 'What has become of the money' only because of Gabinius' previous case of extortion (cf. note on 11. 32 prejudged). Therefore, it would seem better to follow Clark (1909), who shows good sense in indicating a lacuna before the formula 'What has become of the money', since some mention of the category of people liable under this law would probably be necessary. property. The state itself undertook responsibility for the liquidation of the convicted man's assets as long as his property sufficed to meet the liability. It also made the appropriate payments to the claimants out of the proceeds of the sale; what was not claimed remained in the treasury (FIRA, I. 7, ll. 57–68; Tac. Ann. 4. 20; Brunt (1961) 192 ff.; Mattingly (1970) 163; cf. note on 4. 8 full … assets; people). easy. The words are carefully chosen to lead the jurors towards the conclusions that Cicero desires (Sest. 55; Man. 38; Classen (1965) 137 n. 126). The reasonable nature of the law is presented to offer the sharpest contrast with the unfairness of Postumus' position. Beyond lies the further implication that, after all, even if the money passed out of Gabinius' hands, it went to someone else (cf. 4. 9; 13. 37) and not to the previously unmentioned Postumus.

Page 82 of 103

money. In place of the MS reading quae ad quem eorum, which is meaningless, Giardina (1967) has proposed quam ceperat on the grounds that it matches the legal terminology used to describe the offence of extorting money (FIRA, I. 7. 3 'pecuniam auferre, capere, cogere, conciliare, avertere' and 'pecunia capta'). However, such an emendation is quite different from the MS reading and the alternative suggestion quae ad aliquem reum put forward by Clark (1909) would seem to be preferable not only because it is closer to the MS but also because it fits better with the meaning of the text. reclaimed. Instead of 'not guilty' (absolvo) or 'guilty' (condemno) (lex rep. 1. 55) the verdict in a 'What has become of the money' trial was delivered in the form of 'I shall collect' (redigam) or 'I shall not collect' (non redigam) the outstanding fine (cf. note on 5. 11 voting tablet). 13. 38. The accused … apply? This is far and away the clearest exposition of the events in question during the whole trial, as, within a few succinct lines, Cicero presents to the jurors the gist of the case. Ignoring the succession of minor accusations, which have occupied his time until now, Cicero clearly gives the impression that Postumus—acting as a businessman —has done nothing wrong and that by lending money to Ptolemy Auletes he did not break the Roman law. There is here also the first indication that Ptolemy Auletes used some of the money he borrowed from Postumus to pay Gabinius—as opposed to earlier references (cf. 11. 30) that suggest that all the money was gathered by Postumus in Egypt. did not return it to him. For the first time Cicero unequivocally denies that Postumus received any money from Gabinius—and thereby, at last, rebuts the prosecution charges. The final rhetorical question of this section ties in Cicero's manner of reasoning with the point of law. It is a rhetorical summary rather than the conclusion to a reasoned argument. The fact that the King was unable to repay his 'benefactor' Postumus in hard cash and, instead, appointed him to be the treasurer of his kingdom is held up as being sufficient to deny the allegation that he had received the money. which of the two. To emend the utrum ilia quo ea pecunia sit nunc de ea? of the MS, which is both corrupt and nonsensical, various readings have been suggested, out of which Clark (1909), with utrum illi quo ea pecunia pervenerit an huic dicenda causa est?, is closest to the text and fully captures Cicero's argument. This is fashioned as a conclusive rhetorical statement which poses the following question: Now that Gabinius is convicted, who should be in this courtroom today? Postumus (huic), who lent money to the King, or Ptolemy Auletes (illi), who owed money to Postumus? The emendation put forward by Klodt (1992) 162, utrum illi de ea pecunia an huic dicenda causa est, which can be translated as 'Which of the two, Ptolemy Auletes or Postumus, should be tried about this money?' also shows good judgement (162).

Page 83 of 103

14. 38. 'But … conceals it'. Cicero now moves to dismiss the charge that Postumus possesses the money and is hiding it. It is not certain whether this was one of the allegations raised by the prosecution, and Cicero's flat tones and the vagueness of 'there are people who say so', as compared with his normal assertions when facing the charges lodged by the prosecution, might suggest otherwise. The fact that the jurors were probably cognizant of the rumours surrounding the riches Postumus was purported to have brought back from Egypt may well have prompted him to broach the issue. I ask you. This gives a feeling of both irony and protest and paves the way for more sarcasm and emotional effects. glory. The almost synonymous doublet of 'seek glory' and 'show off' is paired in an affirmation of the importance attached to display in evincing social standing (cf. 14. 39, 16. 43; Rhet. Her 4. 64; Thomas (1994) 91–100; for the use of this doublet with negative overtones see Clu. 11 and 2Ver. 3. 3). Romans could be expected to deploy all their assets in such circumstances, and in Postumus' case this would include his wealth. worked. cf. note on 2. 3 publicanus. The aristocratic ideal did not exclude the acquisition of great wealth, but such wealth had to be gained bono modo (Off. 1. 150–1; 2Ver. 5. 45; Liv. 21. 63. 3–4; Plin. Nat. 7. 140; Wiseman (1971) 65–94); for the contrary point of view see Cato Agr. praef. 1). Members of the Roman nobility adopted differing attitudes towards their inheritance (de Orat. 2. 225–6). Some showed a lofty indifference to the idea of increasing the size of their patrimony, considering such an aspiration as lacking nobilitas. On the other hand, the Elder Cato declared that it was the truly admirable and godlike man who, upon his death bed, could show that he had added to the patrimony he had inherited (Plut. Cat. Mai. 21. 8; cf. note on 16. 43 patrimony). cause. Cicero's point is obviously fallacious for, however wealthy he was, Postumus would surely not have wanted to draw attention to himself after his involvement in such a dubious affair as the restoration of the Egyptian King, especially once it became apparent that some of the leading protagonists might be tried for extortion. estates. For Postumus' inheritance see Introd., pp. 49–51. 14. 39. interest rates. Cicero employs two words for 'interest', faenus and usura. Technically, faenus indicated a payment of interest—that is the interest made—whereas usura referred to the rate of interest (RE, VI, col. 2195; Barlow (1978) 171). However, Cicero tends to use the two words interchangeably, with the adjective perpetuum or perpetua indicating simple interest (Att. 5. 21. 13, 6. 2. 7). novel. The impression is that, having been faced with the most crucial question, Cicero tries to make a brave show with a minimum of resources. His ironic delivery cannot hide the

Page 84 of 103

paucity of his argument, and here, in his second attempt to defend the charge, he resorts to little more than a repetition of his previous words. Postumus, as a good businessman, was expected to invest for the highest returns, so, if he made such an enormous amount of money, why should he hide it? tyrant. This reference to tyrannical behaviour can be taken as encompassing not only the harsh means by which Postumus extracted money from the Egyptians but also his lack of accountability in the eyes of the Senate in Rome. This whole unit abounds in poetic phrases and vivid expressions ('friends in chains', 'shadow of death', 'exposed to four winds'), and the escalation in the hyperbole is palpable, as Cicero rebuts the charges by declaring that, on the contrary, it was his client who was the victim of the worst tyranny. prison … death. If such a statement held any grain of truth, it would seem more probable that it was because of the extractive nature of Postumus' task rather than the King's whims that his life was placed in jeopardy (Introd., p. 35). It seems likely that Postumus' extortionate practices as dioecetes would have fomented some popular discontent, because taxes were already high in Egypt and a further tribute imposed by the Romans could be expected to be profoundly resented. Perhaps, in the face of this, the King, whose control over the Alexandrian mob was weak, may have been forced to restrain Postumus in some way—even if this was only by a temporary prohibition on him leaving his place of residence. Cicero, in exploiting the situation to the full for the defence, could be expected readily to resort to the language of imprisonment and abuse by presenting Postumus' treatment at the hands of the Egyptian King as being akin to martyrdom. friends. This is the first reference to the fact that Postumus had some kind of retinue of friends with him in Alexandria, although it might be expected that a man entrusted with this mission would gather such a band around him—if only to assist in the financial operation (Fam. 7. 17. 1). Judging from Cicero's statement here, they also suffered at the hands of Ptolemy Auletes. without a penny. According to Cicero's train of thought Postumus was not responsible for what happened in Alexandria and, on the contrary, he became a victim of the events. However, it is difficult to believe that an experienced Roman moneylender supported by such powerful figures could really lose out in the affair. The climate in which Postumus had to operate in Egypt was not favourable, but it must be presumed that enough money was found to pay at least a good proportion of the enormous amount promised to the Romans. This, certainly, is the inference to be drawn from the numismatic evidence, which suggests a sharp depreciation in the quality of the Egyptian coinage at the time (cf. note on 11. 31 taxation). However, apart from Cicero's allegation here that Postumus returned to Rome penniless, other evidence exists to suggest that at least some of the investors did not reap any benefits from the affair. In a letter of October 54 addressed to Trebatius, Cicero consoles him for not having made a rapid fortune, by offering the 'reassuring' news that many of Page 85 of 103

the creditors, who had gone to Alexandria in search of their money, had by then received nothing (Fam. 7. 17. 1; Plut. Caes. 48. 4). Even Gabinius may not have benefited as much as is usually presumed, because Cicero in a letter to Atticus states that P. Sulla, who applied for the prosecution of Gabinius in his de ambitu trial, harboured no doubts that he was not in a financial position to bribe a jury (Att. 4. 18. 3; Shackleton Bailey (1965–70) II. 221–2 offers a different reading of the text; Fam. 7. 17. 1, 1. 5a. 3–4; Q.fr. 3. 3. 2; Pis. 12; Plut. Caes. 48. 4). However, as is the case with Postumus, it is difficult to believe that Gabinius, who had spent almost four potentially highly lucrative years in Syria and then became the leading player in the Egyptian campaign, could have dissipated his money so rapidly, even if he had been forced to pay an exorbitant amount in bribes to secure his acquittal in his trial for treason. fled. Cicero here presents a picture of a desperate fugitive fleeing for his life, but how much this image accorded with reality must be open to question. The King was tightly tied to Gabinius, presumably for reasons of security—note the presence of Alexandrian witnesses in Gabinius' trial—but once Gabinius' money had been raised, it may be presumed that he was less tolerant of Postumus' presence in Alexandria. Moreover, if some members of the Gabiniani had left to escort money gathered for Gabinius back to Syria, then Postumus' actual physical position in Egypt may have become more exposed. It is in this context that he may have suffered some kind of imprisonment. The claim that Postumus fled Egypt—Cicero does not state how he first escaped from prison—is somewhat weakened by the subsequent revelation that he, nevertheless, managed to arrange for the loading of his ships (no matter the quality, the bulk would be the same) although the possibility certainly does exist that he arranged for the loading before his 'arrest' (Bloedow (1963) 74–9; Heinen (1966) 39 n. 2). Little is known for certain, but it seems quite possible that Cicero's exposition in this passage is embroidered for dramatic effect. After all, few would have known what really happened in Egypt—giving Cicero almost free licence to exaggerate deliberately. 14. 40. ships. We have few references to Roman ships (Hopkins (1983b) 84–109). Cicero, when ordering statuary from Athens, asked a certain Lentulus, who owned ships, to carry out the order (Att. 1. 8–9; Vitr. 2. 9. 16; Caes. B. Gal. 3. 9. 1. 5. 1. 1). Greek ships seem to have been more numerous. Cicero in 59 assumes that the merchants (negotiatores) in Asia, who recaptured the commerce of the seas after Delos' fall, use Greek ships (Att. 2. 16. 4) and when he was sailing in Asian waters in 51 he hired Rhodian boats (Att. 5. 12. 6). The Egyptians also had a sizeable fleet (D. Chr. Or. 32. 36; Plut. Cat. Min. 38. 1–4; Strabo 17. 1. 13 (798); Casson (1965) 31–9). The archaeological evidence shows that the Romans did commonly build ships in the range of 200–350 tonnes capable of seagoing voyages from the last century BC onwards (Dig. 50. 5. 3; Hopkins (1983b) 98). Indeed, the capacity of long-and middle-distance cargo ships, such as those which would have been used on the voyage from Alexandria to Puteoli, was considerable—we know of one Late Republican vessel which had a cargo of nearly 7,000 wine jars and a volume of 325–425 tonnes (Pomey (1978) 105–6)—

Page 86 of 103

and it must be presumed that Postumus returned from Egypt laden with goods. However, given the high cost of such vessels and the expense of mounting long-distance trips, it would seem unlikely that all the ships that docked in Puteoli belonged to Postumus; although, given his extensive mercantile interests and the fact that generally it was expected that at least the most successful of the publicani would own their own vessels, it seems almost certain that he did own some ships (cf. note on 2. 4 My client … kings). Probably, the other vessels belonged to fellow financiers who had taken a stake in the Egyptian business. It has also been suggested that Ptolemy Auletes might have supplied Postumus with some ships to speed his departure from Egypt, but, if some of the vessels were of Egyptian provenance, just as likely a scenario is that they constituted another form of payment in kind (Frank (1927) 304). Puteoli. This fine natural harbour on the bay of Naples was the chief port and growing commercial centre of Republican Rome (RE, XXIII. 2, cols. 2036–60; D'Arms (1970); Ferrary (1980) 38 n. 17; De Ruyt (1983) 150–8; Frederiksen (1984) 80–130). Lucilius (3. 123) called it 'little Delos'—a reference to the connection with the Aegean trade—and over the years the city is said to have taken on a semi-oriental appearance, as the traders of all the great eastern seaports established agencies; it was still the main receiving port for Alexandrian goods in Augustus' day (Strabo 7. 17. 7–8 (793); Sen. Ep. 77. 1; Casson (1991) 224). merchandise. A contrasting and complementing doublet is fashioned here on the principle that eyes are more trustworthy than ears, for the people of Puteoli not only heard rumours of the well-crafted and high-quality goods but saw them with their own eyes. Faced with a strong accusation based on eyewitness accounts Cicero does not deny it, but still tries to throw dust in the eyes of the jury by claiming that the 'expensive' merchandise was only a cheap imitation of the real thing. paper, linen, and glass. The wares carried back by Postumus were only sham goods and fake objets d'art made of simple raw materials, according to Cicero. However, it seems quite possible that he is again being economical with the truth and the goods mentioned had far greater value than he was prepared to admit (2Ver. 5. 145–6, 157), Rostovtzeff (1941) II. 917–29), as even everyday domestic items such as mats and wrapping material could be made out of valuable products such as papyri (Thphr. H. P. 4. 8. 3–4; Plin. Nat. 13. 74–83). Indeed, Egypt had no rival in the supply of papyri and, together with linen, it formed a royal monopoly under strict state control, which should have made it relatively easy for Postumus to seize large quantities in his official capacity as dioecetes (P. Theb. 703, ll. 87–117; Fraser (1972) I. 141–2, 148 n. 131; cf. note on 8. 22 treasurer). Glass was also considered a luxury item at this time (Reil (1913) 47–50). the whole … debt. Cicero here amplifies his previous argument about the poor quality of the merchandise brought back from Egypt by Postumus by stating that the worth of all these goods could never match the amount of money owed to his client by the King. As Page 87 of 103

the reading of the MS—una non potuerit parva arcata. plus—is rather nonsensical, several emendations have been put forward, almost all referring to one mysterious vessel (Guiraud (1905) 232). If the emendation cataplus made by Turnèbe (1564) 23 is accepted as correct and the punctuation moved correspondingly, then a reading closer to the MS than Clark's (1909)—naulum non potuit parari—would be una non potuerit pariare. This new emendation gives a reading entirely in keeping with the spirit of Cicero's defence at this point, as una is employed with the meaning of 'all together' (OLD, s.v., 1933, no 6; Ter. Eun. 367; 1038) and pariare with the meaning of 'to pay in full a debt' (ThLL, X. 1 (fasc. 3), 398–9; CIL, VI. 11035; CIL, XIV. 2112, I. 22; Dig. 22. 1. 33). Although this would be the only recorded use of pario in the whole Ciceronian corpus, it should be noted that two more words, appendicula (4. 8) and subinvisum (14. 40), are also used by Cicero only in this speech. fuss. Cicero refers here to the general hustle and bustle surrounding the unloading of the 'precious' and 'exotic' cargo. summer. Postumus, according to this statement, must have been back from Alexandria by summer 54. The journey from Puteoli to Alexandria could be accomplished comparatively quickly—in good weather it took only nine days (Plin. Nat. 19. 3–4). However, the reverse journey could be a long and arduous struggle against continuous foul winds. The average length of the voyage was not much under fifty or sixty days (Casson (1951) 139, 145 n. 38) and could very easily reach seventy. (Sulp. Sev. Dial. 1. 1 describes an extremely propitious journey from Alexandria to Massalia in thirty days.) Particularly in July, the (μελτέμι‎) winds could be unfavourable and troublesome (Att. 5. 12. 1–3; Cary (1949) 26 n. 1). Thus, if we take it that summer refers to the months June-August, and allow approximately two months for the duration of the voyage in reportedly heavily laden vessels, Postumus must have departed from Alexandria sometime in April/May 54. If we accept that he arrived in Egypt with the King in spring 55, then this would mean that he spent approximately one year in Egypt. Saving his trump card of the defence until last, Cicero now (15. 41–16. 44) launches into a sustained and at times highly emotional panegyric highlighting the multiple favours Caesar has shown to Postumus. This section, delivered in elaborate terms of respect and gratitude, serves as a glowing tribute to Caesar, whose greatness is proved not merely by his military exploits (15. 42) but also by the liberality he has shown the ill-starred Postumus. The orator, unconcerned that his audience may accuse him of servility to Caesar, deliberately embarks on a prolonged eulogy skilfully designed to leave the jurors in no doubt about the close friendship between Postumus and Caesar and to remind those who benefit from Caesar's friendship of their duty in this case. 15. 41. civic life. Cicero pivots his peroration on the notion of Postumus being allowed to continue to exercise his basic rights and duties as a Roman citizen, the reference here being made in relation to Postumus' recent misfortune (cf. note on 17. 48 I implore … Page 88 of 103

Forum). The choice of the word foro to denote Postumus' civic life reflects his business activities and underlines the assistance given by Caesar to permit him to continue trading as a businessman and keep his honourable place in society (cf. 17. 48). munificence. This is often contrasted with the vice of avarice, and in this case refers to the generous financial support given to Postumus by Caesar (Off. 1. 104, 1. 150, 2. 64; for the varied treatment of this word in Latin literature see Manning (1985) 73–83). Such behaviour on Caesar's part may not have been based on altruistic impulse alone but rather have been a calculated ploy to tie Postumus and his circle of financiers to his cause. The two great weapons wielded by Caesar were money and oratory (Att. 1. 17. 5, 8. 16. 2; Fam. 5. 2. 3, 5. 5. 2, 5. 7. 2; Tog. cand. ap. Asc. 85; Brut. 261; Suet. Jul. 55; Plut. Caes. 21. 4), and in 59 Cicero sarcastically wrote to Atticus that it looked as if the dynasts wanted to leave no one any further opportunity for generosity (Att. 2. 18. 1), with the gold of Gaul being lavishly used by Caesar for this purpose (Plut. Caes. 20. 2). Among the many who succumbed to these enticements were consuls and tribunes, opportunists (Fam. 8. 14. 3), needy Senators, people who required protection, bankrupts, young nobiles, and bankers (Att. 7. 3. 5, 7. 7. 6, 9. 11. 4; Fam. 7. 3. 8, 8. 4. 2; Catul. 29, 57; Phil. 2. 78; Plut. Pomp. 51. 3; Dio 40. 60. 1– 4). Indeed, so widespread were these practices that Matius, one of Caesar's confidants, alone could boast that he had not been made captive by the sweetness of money (Fam. 11. 28. 2; Syme (1939) 63–77; Taylor (1949) 147–8, 164–5; Rochlitz (1996) 26, 62–4). Cicero's fulsome tribute to Caesar is shaped largely by the practical needs of the trial, but it would also have served the purpose of cementing the new relationship between the two men established in 56 when Cicero abandoned hope of resistance to the triumvirs and lent them his public support after several years of political disagreement (Att. 4. 5. 1; Prov. 25, 40– 2, 47; Dom. 41; Planc. 86; Red. Sen. 32–3; Gruen (1969a) 106–7; Habicht (1990) 53–67; Führmann (1990) 100 ff.). Indeed, it is hard not to feel some conviction in the warmth with which Cicero speaks of Caesar in his letters both to Atticus and his brother Quintus, as he professes nurturing affection for Caesar as he would for his own child and brother (Att. 4. 15. 10, 4. 19. 2; Q.fr. 3. 1. 1 f.). Perhaps, little as he approved of the politician, he could not help liking the man (Catil. 4. 9; Att. 2. 1. 6, 2. 18. 3, 2. 19. 4–5; Prov. 41 ff.; Q.fr. 3. 6. 4). Even later, during the clash of arms of 49, he kept up a friendly correspondence with Caesar himself (Att. 16. 2. 1 ff., 9. 18. 1 ff.). Caesar. One of the most highly valued and exploited weapons of any advocate was the appeal to the gravitas and auctoritas of powerful and prestigious men (Rhet. Her. 2. 9; Mitchell (1979) 144). Cicero learnt the worth of this tactic at an early stage from his mentor M. Antonius and its use is graphically illustrated here with the careful saving of Caesar's name to provide a fitting and strong conclusion to the defence. There are two cases in the Ciceronian corpus where Caesar is formally called C. Julius (Prov. 39; Har. 43), but he is more frequently referred to as C. Caesar, and this is the form used throughout this speech, as it

Page 89 of 103

was by Caesar himself in a quotation cited by Suetonius (Suet. Jul. 30; Syme (1958) 172–88; Adams (1978) 152; for Caesar's involvement in the Egyptian affair see Introd., pp. 13 ff.). shouldered. Through a series of contrasting pairings, such as 'alone' vs. 'many', 'apportioned among many' vs. 'only Caesar', 'prospering' vs. 'low ebb', and language which reinforces the image of the suffering of his client, Cicero commends the unique support given by Caesar to Postumus. Caesar is clearly credited with personally supporting Postumus' financial partners, who must have suffered heavy losses from the Egyptian venture, but Cicero does not say exactly how he 'shouldered the burden' (Introd., pp. 72– 3.) In 48, when Caesar arrived in Alexandria in pursuit of Pompey, he presented a claim for 17,500,000 denarii to the heirs of Ptolemy Auletes for a debt owed by their father, from which Caesar waived 7,500,000, but demanded the balance of 10,000,000 for his military expenses (Plut. Caes. 48. 7–9). We have no evidence of any involvement by Caesar in Egypt post-dating Postumus' stay, so it might be tentatively suggested that this sum—equivalent to 3,000 talents—refers to Caesar's share of the unpaid loan raised by Postumus, possibly later consolidated with the financiers' other debts after his failure to gather the necessary money—although the orthodoxy among scholars is to suppose that the debt to Caesar was still outstanding from the payments made in 59 (Gelzer (1968) 247; Sullivan (1990) 244). Cicero would seem to be warning Memmius and his aristocratic supporters of their folly in bringing Postumus to trial, for it is not only Postumus but also Caesar whom they should take into account. shadowy image. In strong and poetically expressive language, often found in descriptions of people affected by extreme misfortune (Liv. 5. 18. 4), Cicero spares no pains in depicting his client's pathetic plight. Now Postumus is referred to as the empty image of his earlier dignified self, the assumption being that he possesses nothing of value and that even his equestrian status is in doubt (Sest. 110). For Cicero, equestrian status always held moral overtones of honesty and a sense of dignity and duty, and these more abstract concepts may be intimated here (cf. note on 17. 46 reputation, 17. 48 I implore … Forum). In this passage Cicero suggests that Caesar's support for Postumus extends far beyond the financial to a wider embrace within his fides. (Note also the case of a man who was condemned to death because, by not fully possessing the equestrian census, he had neither rights nor goods which could be taken from him, and only through Caesar's generosity was he granted a reprieve (Fam. 9. 13. 4; Balsdon (1960) 45).) The jury is left in no doubt about the extent of the protection afforded by Caesar to Postumus and this, in turn, may serve as an indication of the type of verdict the great man expects. Still, the whole tenor of this extended description of Postumus' poverty suggests an underlying disingenuousness. mediocre quality. Cicero begins this section with a direct challenge to the jury, verbally daring them to underestimate the calibre of Caesar by adopting a pretence of surprise that a man such as Caesar should be so concerned with one so 'insignificant' as Postumus (cf. note

Page 90 of 103

on 9. 23 modest learning). As a patrician: 'if he had been helped in defending his honour by brigands and cut-throats, he would have requited even such men in the same way' (Suet. Jul. 72). travails. On the basis that Cicero mentions first Postumus' travails and then his absence in Egypt ('foreign land') it would seem most likely that these difficulties relate to financial woes rather than the current trial. greatest of tasks. Cicero here makes reference to Caesar's many military campaigns, among which can be numbered those against the Helvetii and the Germans in 58, the Belgae and the Nervii in 57, the Veneti of Brittany and the Morini in 56, together with the campaign on the Rhine in 55 and the two expeditions to Britain in 55–54. 15. 42. know. In 59 Cicero himself was a recipient of Caesar's liberality when he tried to woo the orator by tempting him with a prospective place alongside Crassus and Pompey in the inner political circle (Att. 2. 3. 3; Prov. 41; Pis. 79). However, Caesar's offers of a seat on his agrarian board, a legateship in Gaul, and a permit to travel abroad with the status of an ambassador, libera legatio, were all firmly rejected by Cicero (Att. 2. 18. 3, 2. 19. 4–5; Prov. 42). It was only after Caesar had consented to Cicero's return from exile that the two men came together (note the glowing panegyric on Caesar's achievements in De provinciis consularibus), and by 54 Cicero was appreciatively speaking of Caesar's bounteous generosity and kindness of spirit to both him and his brother (Fam. 1. 9. 18–21, 7. 6. 1–2; Q.fr. 2. 12–15, 3. 1. 1 ff.). to select … great. There is something grand and emphatic about this list of achievements which is enumerated for rhetorical impact as much as it is to glorify Caesar (on Caesar's unique qualities see Dio 38. 2. 1–2, 4–6; App. B. C. 2. 10; Suet. Jul. 72–3; Sall. B. Cat. 54. 1f.). The whole section, with its striking clausulae and structure, is a deliberative piece of high-flown political oratory lauding Caesar's near supernatural qualities. The same powerful diction can be traced in Plutarch's account of Caesar's phenomenal military ability (Plut. Caes. 15. 2–3), and Caesar himself was also not beyond such hyperbole (B. Hisp. 42. 7). winter. Cicero's general statement about Caesar's extraordinary achievements led Clark (1909) to suggest hiemumque instead of the hiememque of the MS. However, syntactically, the preceding demonstrative pronoun hanc, which corresponds with the relative quam just three words below, would seem to suggest contemporaneity, and therefore hiememque should stand (K-St (1912) I. 621; ThLL, VI. 2, 3, 2733, 10). If the MS reading is kept, then this would seem to indicate that Postumus' trial must have taken place in the middle of a harsh winter—either in December 54 or January 53 (cf. note on 16. 44 these days; Introd., pp. 73–81). Throughout his life Caesar's physical endurance was phenomenal; for the cold conditions in Gaul see Caes. B. Gal. 1. 16. 2, 4. 20. 1, 5. 12. 6, 6. 3. 1.

Page 91 of 103

rich rewards. As well as material rewards great deeds were seen as conveying status, glory (cf. 1. 2), and immortality—the latter being the highest of Roman rewards (Sall. Jug. 4. 5–6; Verg. A. 10. 467–9; Plumpe (1941) 282–4; Lind (1979) 16–19, 57–8; Dupont (1992) 23–5). 16. 43. glory. In the midst of his encomium to Caesar, Cicero reaches the rhetorical heights of suggesting that even the poets cannot find words to describe his deeds—note the significant choice of the word laus, instead of gloria, which in its general sense underlines the honour bestowed by others for an exceptional person's achievements (Marc. 26; Arch. 24; Thomas (1994) 93, 97). In fact, at this time Cicero was writing a poem praising Caesar's successes in response to Caesar's dedication to Cicero of a philological treatise (Q.fr. 3. 1. 11). wise. After his earlier suggestion that wisdom is the greatest attribute of a juror (cf. note on 5. 11 discretion and wisdom), Cicero is here paying his audience a compliment in suggesting that, if they are wise, they will recognize Caesar's greatness. staunch … admirer. The epithets employed here are not just hyperbole, they describe a long-standing and close relationship. Although little evidence survives of this from before the trial, there can be little doubt of it after that date, since Postumus was upgraded to the Senate at Caesar's instigation (Att. 9. 5. 1), sided with Caesar during his campaign against Pompey in 48 (App. B. C. 2. 56–9), and played an active role in Caesar's North African campaign in 46 (Caes. B. Afr. 86, 93; see Introd., pp. 58–65). patrimony. cf. note on 14. 38 estates. The pleading here is presented in such a way as to disarm any criticism that Postumus may have acquired his fortune in an un-Roman way. Fully cognizant of the impact the depiction of his client's character could make on the jurors, Cicero, after a long break (cf. 2. 3–3), returns to the argument that Postumus' behaviour in striving to augment what was handed down to him by his fathers was typically Roman, since to dissipate one's estates was the ultimate 'evil' in Roman society (Plut. Cat. Mai. 21. 8; Catul. 29. 17; D'Arms (1981) 1–19, 62 ff.). In describing the wholehearted support and protection shown by Caesar ('with his money, fortune and name') to Postumus, Cicero risks running out of words, as one almost synonymous expression follows another, such as: 'took under his wing', 'spared no effort', 'sustained', 'supported', 'saves', and 'does not let'. break his fall. If it is viewed as inhuman to push further those who are falling (cf. note on 1. 2 It is bad … falling), then it is Caesar's humanity—above his heroic exploits—which is celebrated here. 16. 44. unaccustomed benevolence. In stressing that Caesar's kindness is truly exceptional Cicero is here acknowledging a widely held popular belief about the qualities of men in power. Indeed, the tone of his diction is almost conspiratorial, especially at the beginning of the section where he acknowledges that there are people who might not share

Page 92 of 103

his viewpoint and towards the end where he suggests that some people try to undermine Caesar's position. these days. Presumably, the period of Postumus' trial (cf. note on 15. 42 winter). Ever since the early days of his consulship, in 59, Caesar's authority and actions had been challenged by his enemies, especially the members of the Catonian faction. If Cicero's point is to be taken literally, then it might be the consular elections of 53 which are alluded to here. At that time Caesar felt extremely vulnerable because he was unable to exert any influence during the selection of the candidates for the consulship, while two of his most bitter enemies, Gaius Memmius and Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus, were being supported by Pompey. This, combined with rumours of Pompey's dictatorship, was sufficient to shake Caesar's reputation and, perhaps, threaten his political control in Rome (Q.fr. 2. 14. 4, 3. 1. 16, 8. 3. 9; Att. 4. 17. 2–3; Dio 40. 45. 1; App. B. C. 2.69–71; for a different evaluation of this statement see Klodt (1992) 47–51 who, favouring a date of March 52 for Postumus' trial, suggests that Cicero's statement here reflects either the time of Pompey's sole consulship or the opposition of the Catonian faction to the plebiscite of early 52). Cicero begins his epilogue (17. 45–8) with a sentimental evocation of Postumus' 'ethos' suffused with rich shades of pathos. Setting out to satisfy even the most suspicious members of the jury, the defence depicts with mordant overtones the woeful picture of a Roman knight who is willing to suffer even injustice as long as he can keep his equestrian status intact. Drawing upon his own personal experience of his client's well-meaning and generous character, Cicero offers testimony to a man with unique virtues 'whose better has never lived' (cf. 17. 48). Finally, through a highly emotional appeal designed to melt the coldest of hearts, Cicero decides openly to play his final trump card by pointedly reminding the jurors not only that Postumus does not possess the money required of him but also that it is Caesar alone who has been so far his financial saviour—a none-too-subtle hint as to the folly of finding Postumus guilty, a man with such powerful friends! 17. 45. free from prejudice. Cicero now, at the conclusion of his speech, turns once more to the jurors, paying what are largely formal compliments to their sense of justice and lack of prejudice (lex rep. ll. 35–8, 43–5; Clu. 160, 202). His real views on the subject can be found in a letter to his brother of October 54—just before Postumus' trial—in which he bemoans the fact that impartial jurors can no longer be found in Rome (Q.fr. 3. 2. 2; Classen (1978) 613– 19). anyone's. Although the prosecutor may be implied here (Quinct. 97; S. Rosc. 46, 150; Sul. 90; Lig. 13), this generic word is, in fact, most probably concealing those jurors who still remained unconvinced of Postumus' innocence (cf. note 1. 1 anyone). The string of compelling and biting words that follows—'suspicion', 'malevolence', and 'vindictiveness'— serves as a carefully constructed psychological ploy aimed at winning them to the cause

Page 93 of 103

of the defence, because no juror would wish to be thought of as acting on the basis of such dark emotions. hiding. What could the jury have made of this startling restatement of the prosecution's chief accusation (cf. note on 14. 38 But … conceals it)? By its very boldness it invites even the most jaundiced members of the audience to pay the closest attention to Cicero's words, and this may well, indeed, have been his primary goal. At first sight, this hypothetical acceptance of the charge, no matter under what circumstances it was made, would seem to amount to his almost throwing away his carefully laid out arguments, leaving him, instead, nothing more than an impassioned plea to the jurors' sense of honour with which to win his client's acquittal. However, taken in conjunction with the unanswered rhetorical question which follows over who would wish to buy Postumus' property, this mock admittance of guilt can be seen as a further tactic aimed at discrediting completely any allegations about the continued existence of ill-gotten gains. populace. In his rhetorical excess Cicero would seem unduly to discount the existence of a number of potentially aggrieved creditors, who would have wished to see Postumus' assets sold so that they might be refunded or, at least, take revenge for the wrongs that had befallen them. Money gathered from the sale of Postumus' estate would have been distributed to all the creditors because the damages were awarded in the name of anyone affected (cf. note on 4. 8 full … assets; people, 17. 46 all … compensated; lex rep. ll. 61–4). Since Gabinius had not only taken a bribe but had also illegally employed a part of the Roman army in his restoration of the Egyptian King to his throne, it must be presumed that foremost among the creditors was the State (cf. note on 8. 20 pirates; 8. 21 10,000 talents). The others can be broadly divided into two categories. First, they were those who had lent money to Ptolemy Auletes in the expectation that Lentulus would lead an expedition to Egypt (cf. note on 8. 21 P. Lentulus). Among these men were Q. Selicius (Fam. 1. 5a. 3–4) and the bankers Axius and Cosilius (Att. 1. 12. 1), and, as they lacked connections with the Pompeian group, it may be presumed that they had found it difficult to recoup their money. The second group included those who were linked with Pompey and the financing of Gabinius' restoration of the King, but, as 'partners' of Postumus, they may have been less willing to press any claim for recompense, since they were all associated with an illegal venture. Gaius Rabirius Postumus. The employment of all three names can only be found in highly formal circumstances, such as here at the conclusion of the speech, where it confers added gravitas on Cicero's words (Fam. 8. 8. 5). It is also quite possible that such a use hints at the language of the formal notice putting a man's estate up for sale. property to pass. Under the Julian law of extortion, if Postumus were to be found guilty and had been unable to give adequate securities, his property (goods and assets) would have been sold, so that his creditors could be paid (cf. note on 4. 8 full … assets, 13. 37 Page 94 of 103

reclaimed, 17. 46 all … compensated). In a criminal case such as Postumus' the sale of holdings would normally be conducted through the agency of the quaestor, who was put in possession of the property by the praetor. The quaestor auctioned it off for a lump sum to the highest bidder, who came to be known as a sector, although it is not clear when exactly this was adopted as the official term (2Ver. 1. 52; S. Rosc. 99, 102; Quinct. 76). It was then the bidder's responsibility to acquire back through separate sales (sectio bonorum) at least the amount he had paid, even if he did make a profit; this procedure served as a prototype for the similar processes of sectio bonorum and venditio bonorum which were adopted in civil trials (Solazzi (1937–8) 1.5 ff.; Wenger (1940) 232–40; Lintott (1974) 76– 8). However, if Postumus were to be found guilty, his estate would have been encumbered with such enormous debts that it is highly unlikely that any buyers would have been willing to come forward (Rawson (1976) 87). In these circumstances any auction would have been nothing but a farce, and here what Cicero is doing is no more than making a mock plea for volunteers to step forward and save his client's property through a fictitious sale, although he still plays out the imagery of the auction for the maximum emotional impact (cf. note on 17. 45 single sesterce; Festus De verb. p. 137; Pl. Poen. 1. 1. 57; 2Ver. 1. 137; Q. Rosc. 41; Pis. 35; for fictitious sales see Gaius Inst. 1. 211 Plin. Nat. 9. 58. 117–18; Berger (1953) 574, 602). Whilst the broad outlines of the auction process are known, in fact information as to how the sale of a property was to be conducted and how the money acquired from it was to reach the creditors is gallingly not extant, if it was ever provided in the text of the law (lex rep. ll. 56–8; see Lintott (1992) 146–7; Crawford (1996) 107); and, unfortunately, Cicero's statement here is not expansive enough to add to our knowledge of the process, since he was addressing an audience whom he, naturally, expected to be well apprised of the appropriate technicalities. single sesterce. The sesterce, which was worth four asses, became the basic unit of accounts from around 140 onwards. It was minted irregularly in silver (1. 125 gr.) between 211 and 44 and, thereafter, until the later 3rd century AD, was struck in bronze as a coin of little value (Caes. B. Alex. 48, 52; Petr. Satyr. 30; Plin. Nat. 7. 130, 33. 118, 34. 4; Tac. Ann. 2. 42, 13. 10; Hist. 1. 66; Jones (1990) 287). It is employed here by Cicero to represent the nominal sum required to make a sale legally binding, since nobody would bid more than a 'single penny' for an estate so heavily encumbered by debts as Postumus' (Varr. L. 6. 61; Hor. S. 2. 5. 109; Liv. Per. 55; Val. Max. 5. 2. 10; Vitr. 1. 4. 12; Suet. Jul. 50; Gaius Inst. 2. 252). these words. The auctioning of a convicted man's estate was an act of last resort and, by dwelling upon such a possibility, Cicero is deliberately heightening the emotional tension in the courtroom in the hope of eliciting the sympathy of the jurors. The reiterative emphasis on the worthlessness of Postumus' estate also serves to underline his earlier assertions that his client made no profit from the Egyptian venture. Now, having secured the compassion of the jurors, Cicero proceeds to launch a further emotional attack (cf. 17. 46).

Page 95 of 103

For you … sister? This rhetorical question marks the beginning of the encomium to a clients' ancestors which is traditionally found in an exordium. For the first time Cicero addresses Postumus personally ('you'), as, in a series of rhetorical questions, he continues to dwell upon his client's misfortunes and his impending impoverishment. discretion and goodwill. These words, indicio and voluntate, on the basis that they are often found in the language employed in wills and testaments (2Ver. 1. 44. 114; Dig. 29. 1. 1, 29. 4. 1), have frequently been taken at face value and interpreted as evidence of the fact that Postumus might have been adopted by his uncle through a legal testament (Dessau (1911) 615; Rosendorfer (1990) 11). Traditionally there were two types of adoption, the testamentary and the 'genuine', the distinction between the two being that those adopted by the testamentary procedure, although they took their adoptive father's praenomen and nomen and often the cognomen together with other names too, did not change their status and, instead, retained their original filiation and tribe. Indeed, during the empire such adoptions were viewed as not really being adoptions at all, because they brought no change of status—as in the case of Pliny the Younger who called himself L. f. even after his adoption by C. Plinius Secundus (Salomies (1992) 27). However, it has been suggested that in Republican times such testamentary adoptions may have, in fact, been equivalent to 'genuine' adoptions and brought a change in status, as the newly adopted person was introduced into the agnatic family of the adoptive father (Weinrib (1968a) 254 ff.). This supposition, however, has been largely disproved by more recent research which has confirmed the view that such adoptions were primarily concerned with passing estates to an heir providing he took the testator's name (Konrad (1996) 124–5; Linderski (1996) 149). Cicero's words here suggest that Postumus' adoption followed this testamentary procedure, as he took his adoptive father's praenomen and nomen but apparently not his status, since at the time of his trial he was still an eques, even after the death of Gaius Rabirius, who had been a Senator. However, here, in the peroration of his speech, it is unlikely that Cicero would have been overly concerned with legal nuances of this nature. Instead, by first invoking the name of Postumus' natural father and then emphasizing the eagerness of his uncle to adopt his nephew, presumably on account of his many virtues, Cicero offers to the jury a strong reminder of his client's respectable social status, so as to offset his previous intimation of impending bankruptcy and its attendant disgrace. Gaius Rabirius. The adoptive father of Postumus (see Introd.). personal gratification. Magnanimity of spirit and generosity to one's kin were considered qualities which reflected positively on a defendant (cf. note on 2. 3 whose … philanthropy, 2. 4 he … practices, 16. 43 f.; Quinct. 92 f.; S. Rosc. 143; Cael. 44; Clu. 169; Quint. Inst. 6. 1. 22). 'auctioneer'. By identifying himself as the effective auctioneer of Postumus' property, and by associating himself with a group of individuals who seem to have been held in low Page 96 of 103

public regard, Cicero skilfully plays upon the feelings of his audience with the intention of arousing their indignation (Quinct. 49–50, 95–7; Sest. 65; Agr. 1. 7; Deiot. 25; Off. 1. 22, 92; 2. 64, 87; 3. 63; Fam. 7. 4. 21; 15. 19. 3; S. Rosc. 99 ff.; Phil. 2. 64 ff.; Mart. 1. 85; Juv. 6. 433). Normally, when a proper auction was conducted, it was the quaestor who acted as the auctioneer of a convicted man's possessions (cf. note on 17. 45 property to pass; lex rep. ll. 57–8; Quinct. 60; Quint. Inst. 11. 3. 172). He was expected publicly to advertize the sale of goods and property at the busiest intersection of the city, draw a detailed inventory of the items to be auctioned, as well as to establish a guide price and publish the conditions of the sale with a list of outstanding debts. Cicero was well aware that the fate of Postumus' estates and, above all, his honour lay in his ability to secure his acquittal. He would never have been the actual auctioneer of Postumus' property, but this metaphor not only highlights his client's plight but also allows him theatrically to present himself as the 'executioner' of Postumus' public image and reputation (Rauh (1989) 455–76). A mere expression of sorrow would not have been sufficient to evoke the depths of public humiliation and degradation which had befallen a man whose name was unnecessarily tarnished by facing public prosecution. 17. 46. all … compensated. cf. notes on 4. 8 full … assets; people, 17. 45 populace. It has been suggested that Cicero here intimates that Postumus could have faced additional proceedings in a separate civil trial under a clause 'Property may be sold so that all can be fully compensated' (Axer (1978) 227–30). This suggestion is based on the belief that under the 'What has become of the money' clause only the State would have benefited from the payment of Postumus' fine, whereas if he were tried under the aforesaid civil clause his creditors would be the actual recipients. This view has also been recently endorsed by Klodt (1992) 178–9 on the grounds that Cicero's words here sound formal enough to imply a legal clause. However, such a suggestion would seem to be groundless not only because there is no extant evidence of a clause 'Property may be sold so that all can be fully compensated' but also because such a reading of the text fails completely to acknowledge Cicero's persuasive devices and misinterprets both the content and the scope of the Julian law of extortion. The extortion law of the tabula Bembina—from which the Julian law of extortion was derived—decreed that anyone was entitled to damages as long as his claim had been proved valid (lex rep. 11. 6–8, 58–61; Crawford (1996) 21–4, 76 n. 77, 91, 97). The money acquired from the sale of a culprit's property was placed in the civic treasury (lex rep. 11. 59–61) so that each claimant could be reimbursed, and only when money was left uncollected for more than five years did it actually pass to the State (lex rep. ll. 66–7; Henderson (1951) 79–81). If Cicero was really alluding to a civil trial here, how would such a trial be related to the clause 'What has become of the money' and why does the orator address this jury panel asking them to convict his client when he knew that a civil trial would almost certainly have a totally different set of jurors? Anyhow, Cicero is effectively calling the jurors' bluff, because if Postumus' estate has to be sold so that everybody can be refunded, then, by inference, he cannot have in his possession the money for which he

Page 97 of 103

is on trial! What Cicero emphasizes here, in a rather convoluted way, is not only Postumus' impoverishment but also his sense of honour, for, according to Cicero, he would rather see his assets sold than suffer the stigma of bad debts. In this regard, note the paradoxical use of the word 'desires' at this point (cf. note on 10. 29 dishonour). reputation. Cicero, here, is playing on the uses of the word 'reputation', which had connotations of both 'good financial credit' and 'good name and honour' (Catil. 2. 18; Sul. 58; Att. 11. 2. 1, 16. 2. 2). However, if Postumus were to have been found guilty, it would have been highly questionable whether his reputation could have been salvaged even by the repayment of his creditors, especially since the praetor, according to the law, would have had to display a record of his debts together with the names of the unpaid claimants publicly in the forum during and after the distribution of damages (lex rep. ll. 64–6; Sest. 18)! It is not purely coincidental that this whole unit is loaded with variants of the word 'ill-fated' (miser), such as 'wretched' (miserum), 'distressful' (miserum), and 'sympathy' (misericordia). All constitute an integral part of Cicero's oratorical manoeuvres to arouse the compassion of his audience and secure their goodwill, especially now, at the end of the trial. nor … clement. Aside from reiterating his point about Postumus' impoverishment Cicero is here also exerting an oblique moral pressure on the jurors, as he suggests that they will be viewed as inclement and merciless if they condemn an innocent man whose own money has not been refunded in the first place (cf. 15. 41 'former dignity'; S. Rosc. 144–7; Sul. 90). adventitious money. The general consensus among scholars has been that Cicero refers here to the money paid by Ptolemy Auletes as a bribe to Gabinius, part of which had then, allegedly, passed to Postumus (Watts (1931) 411; Boulanger (1978) 43; Führmann (1970– 82) VI. 315: Klodt (1992) 180). Although at first sight this would appear most probable, on a closer inspection this interpretation seems unlikely, as it runs counter to the orator's main line of persuasion, which has been to distance the two cases. Indeed, rather than dissociating Postumus from Gabinius, this mention of adventitious money, if it is taken as referring to a part of Gabinius' bribe which passed to Postumus, would only associate the two men—albeit in a rather negative way. Moreover, if he really meant this money, then Cicero is not only effectively accepting his client's guilt but also prejudging the final outcome of the trial, because only if Postumus were convicted would he be liable to pay it back. Furthermore, if the orator was bold enough to risk a reference to Gabinius' money, now at the conclusion of his speech, he might have been tempted to employ an adjective of a different nature than 'adventitious', perhaps more appropriate to the size of the monetary demands. The answer to the riddle of what sort of money Cicero implies here in fact lies with the travails of Postumus. The money is adventitious solely because Postumus never expected to be put on trial in the first place, and in describing it as such Cicero is really only making a plea for the innocence of his client, as he continues to portray him as the victim of circumstances in the hope of steering his audience's reactions towards forbearance and

Page 98 of 103

judicial clemency. The apt juxtaposition of 'adventitious money' with Postumus' own losses which were never defrayed underlines this point, as does the following sentence in which Cicero asserts that Postumus is the innocent victim of 'hatred' (invidia) (cf. note on 7. 18 feuds … gossips, 17. 48 envy). The exact source of this hostility is not revealed, perhaps because it was self—evident to all present at the time, but it seems probable that Cicero was referring to the many embittered investors who had participated with high hopes in the Egyptian venture only to see their own money forfeited (Fam. 7. 17. 1). 17. 47. loyalty. Presumably, this refers to Cicero's promise to defend Postumus (cf. 8. 19; 12. 33; Freyburger (1986) 163–4). This passage provides Cicero with the opportunity for an eloquent autobiographical digression on his own personal experiences of Postumus' virtues, with the facts being presented as a series of highly emotional and vivid scenes, all of which are designed to achieve a favourable disposition within the jury. misfortune. This term is far less emotive and lighter than the world 'exile' which is usually employed by Cicero to describe the arduous period in 58/57 when he was forced to leave Italy (Dom. 72; Q.fr. 3. 2. 2; May (1988) 89). The subject of exile is dominant in this unit, and the orator, by associating himself with his client—for still clients were defended not merely on the strength of their own character but also by their affinity to the defence counsel, who, of course, in this case was of consular rank—obliquely hints at the bitter taste such a state of being could leave in one's life. you. We have no evidence of any assistance given by Postumus to Cicero at the time of his exile, except for this reference. Here he states that Postumus mobilized his friends and resources to make his departure easier, but if his role was as great as is credited, then the absence of his name from Cicero's correspondence is difficult to explain—especially when it is compared with the copious references to other friends who gave aid at this time of need, such as Sallustius (Div. 1. 59), Laenius Flaccus (Fam. 14. 4. 2), Cn. Plancius (Fam. 14. 1. 3), M. Terentius Varro (Att. 3. 8. 3, 15. 1, 18. 1, 4. 2. 5), Milo (Fam. 2. 6. 5), and, above all, Atticus, who took charge of Cicero's business and looked after his family during his banishment (Att. 3. 6. 1; see also the speech Post Reditum in Senatu, in which he praises all the people who helped him). However, granted that Cicero himself had said that if he had enumerated all his benefactors the screed of names would have been endless (Fam. 1. 9. 23), it is just possible to consider Postumus among all those 'unnamed heroes' who assisted the orator morally and financially. Besides, the considerable warmth that spiced the relationship between the two men after the trial seems to indicate that this eulogy is not entirely manufactured for the occasion (Fam. 13. 4. 1 ff., 13. 5. 1 ff., 13. 69. 1). gold. During his exile Cicero must have needed a substantial amount of money, and Postumus was able to provide him with gold, perhaps in the form of bars, which were often used instead of carrying large amounts of silver coin (Clu. 179; Nicolet (1994) 631).

Page 99 of 103

departure. After leaving Rome, Cicero headed for Brindisi via the southern coast of Italy before sailing on the last day of April 58 for Greece, where he spent most of his time in Thessalonica (Att. 3. 8. 1 ff.). I can … charge. In a criminal trial it seems to have been expected that the defendant's entire life and character would be subject to examination, so Cicero, in search of more indicia of his client's great generosity, chooses to dwell on the financial help offered by Postumus to exiles such as himself. In fact, Postumus may have been particularly sensitive to the cause of exiles, since his own natural father C. Curtius may have been one of them (if the C. Curtius mentioned in Cicero's letter to Valerius Orca in 46–44 (Fam. 13. 5. 1 f.) is taken to be Postumus' father—as it is argued in the Introd., pp. 42–5). The destiny of this C. Curtius seems to have been set when his own father, the famous Roman lawyer Curtius, was decapitated during the Sullan massacres. As the descendant of a proscribed man, C. Curtius suffered confiscation of his property, deprivation of his civil rights, and was forced into exile. Eventually, alongside others who had fled at that time, he was allowed to return to Rome and regain his citizenship, probably through the lex Antonia of 49 (Dio 41. 18. 2; Plut. Caes. 37. 1–2; Hinard (1985) 217–19, 347–8). Cicero's letter to Orca (Fam. 13. 5. 2) informs us that 'those who had suffered a similar injustice [to that of Curtius]',—presumably proscription—were permitted to return to their country 'by universal consent' (voluntate omnium). In the same letter Cicero also reveals that he himself had worked to secure C. Curtius' rehabilitation. The exact nature of this help is not specified, but it may be presumed that, if it did not involve him deploying his juridical expertise in court, then, it might have taken some other form such as financial assistance or private lobbying (Crawford (1984) 258). indeed. Notwithstanding the obvious problem caused by the earlier statement that Postumus had never laid eyes on his father (cf. note on 2. 4 although … father), Madvig suggested that the MS cui id, which is nonsensical here, should be emended to Curtio, and this reading has since been adopted by most scholars (Madvig (1856) 1458). Taking into account this apparent inconsistency, Klodt (1992) 181–2 concludes that the father referred to in the text must be C. Rabirius, Postumus' adoptive father, because his natural father was dead, and, in keeping with this, she suggests that the cui id of the MS should be replaced by C. Rabirio. However, aside from the absence of any evidence that C. Rabirius was ever brought to trial on a capital charge, such an emendation also shows little respect for the words present in the MS. If it is accepted that Postumus' natural father C. Curtius was still alive at this time, as is argued above, then it might seem sensible to hold to Madvig's original emendation. However, it remains rather puzzling why Cicero should repeat the name of his client's natural father, which he had only mentioned a short while earlier (cf. 17. 45 offspring of Gaius Curtius). Instead, a more suitable emendation for the cui id of the MS might be the qualitative particle quidem, employed to emphasize the notion that even

Page 100 of 103

Postumus' father had benefited from his client's generosity (OLD, s.v. 1552, no 5; K-St (1955) I. 802. 1). capital charge. After his rehabilitation, C. Curtius moved to Volaterrae, a well-known anti-Sullan shelter for those who had been proscribed, where he settled and bought some property (Fam. 13. 5. 1–2). However, his move to Volaterrae does not seem to have gone smoothly, as it only appears to have resulted in his being brought to court on 'iudicio capitis'. This expression has often been translated as 'on trial for his life' (Boulanger (1978) 43), but there is no evidence of this, and a more apt translation would seem to be 'tried on a capital charge'. Although the nature of his 'crime' and the law under which he was tried are not known, it would seem plausible to suggest that C. Curtius' civil rights were once again at stake (Clu. 148, 192; S. Rosc. 30; Har. 13; Planc. 31; Fam. 7. 30. 3; Sherwin-White (1949) 9 nn. 36, 37, 38). Indeed, he would have been in a particularly vulnerable position given the fact that he was the son of a proscribed man and a rehabilitated resident of Volaterrae with no previous local roots. The sensitivity of the inhabitants of Volaterrae at this time to the legitimacy of their right to hold full Roman citizenship can be seen from the case of A. Caecina. When, during a trial over the inheritance of his wife's property, his civil rights were brought into question on the grounds that, as a resident of Volaterrae, he was not a full Roman citizen, Caecina preferred to concede the case rather than have his civil rights publicly contested and cast in doubt (Caec. 17–18). The date of C. Curtius' trial is unknown, but Cicero was still working for the rehabilitation of those who had suffered under the Sullan proscriptions as late as 63 (Fam. 13. 4. 1). Given Cicero's efforts to rehabilitate C. Curtius, and their long-standing friendship, it is tempting to suppose that he might have acted as the defence counsel during this trial, but the lack of any reference to this here, where it might be expected, and the indirect way in which the praise of Postumus is offered ('I heard') would suggest that this was not the case. Thus, Cicero's statement may be not just a rhetorical ploy to underline his client's good natured—as has often been averred—but real testimony to past events. 17. 48. envy. Cicero's tone here is rather alarmist, but more sorrowful than angry. He had long protested in the courts that malicious feuds and sheer hatred had brought innocent people like his client to trial, and now he warns the jurors against the destructive force of such feelings (cf. note on 7. 18 feuds … gossips, 17. 46). In this passage Cicero seems to imply that Postumus' partiality has been great enough in the past to provoke the envy of others, including some of the jurors. dear. This reference to Postumus' generosity of spirit is given added weight because it lies in stark contrast to the previous statement about the envy of his enemies. There is a tug-ofwar here between the positive image of the client's family and relatives and the malicious forces that wish to see him humbled. Although this passage is full of rhetorical devices, it is, nevertheless, possible to believe that the long-standing familial ties between the two men

Page 101 of 103

cause Cicero to experience real grief and a sense of loss at the plight of his friend—feelings which would not be so alien to one who himself had fallen foul of political chicanery not long before. I implore … forum. Cicero was fully cognizant of the fact that the beginning and the end of a defence speech provide particularly favourable conditions for the arousing of the emotions —although an orator should make use of this most effective instrument throughout his speech (de Orat. 2. 310–12; Quint. 4. 1. 46). In this neat and effective digression his sole aim is to instil in the jurors a disposition to acquit—whether they should so vote because the charges against his client are to be dismissed as irrelevant (cf. 3. 7–5. 12), disproved as false (cf. 8. 20, 12. 35), or excused as a cover for his actions in Alexandria (cf. 2. 4–3. 6; 8. 22–9. 26). Through this poignant plea, couched in handsome lyrical language, the orator denounces the possible stripping of his client's civic rights and equestrian identity. Postumus' public image as a respectable member of a family of good social standing, as a businessman of international acclaim, as a public figure, and as a Roman citizen who enjoys full rights in the city is at stake. Scholars have often treated this unit as a source of evidence for the penalties imposed under the Julian law of extortion and, more specifically, the clause 'What has become of the money'. However, this law was, foremost, recuperatory and, in his assertions that nothing can be now removed from his client bar his reputation, Cicero would seem to be alluding to the infamy Postumus would suffer if he were convicted (cf. note on 15. 41 shadowy image, 17. 46 reputation). How could his client walk in the forum holding his head high (rectis oculis) if his name was not clear from allegations of corruption and extortion? Conviction would have delivered a shameful blow to Postumus' public profile and civil status, as his title of an eques Romanus would be removed from him (cf. notes on 5. 11 banish from the city; the only eques Romanus; Liv. 6. 14. 7, 25. 4. 9; Dom. 85; App. B. C. 1. 31; and, for the great importance of individual status to the Romans, see Crook (1967) 41). Indeed, the stigma of condemnation was so difficult to bear that in some cases death by suicide was seen as preferable, as in the cases of D. Iunius Silanus Manlianus in 140, C. Papirius Carbo in 119, and C. Licinius Macer in 66 (Alexander (1990) nos. 7, 30, 195). This ethically based encomium, in which the orator dwells on his client's excellent character, is a typical Ciceronian tactic and was, no doubt, highly effective, given the Romans' belief in the affinity of ethos and pathos (Quint. Inst. 4. 1. 46; Mil. 94–8; Cael. 77; Flac. 101–5; Sest. 144; Mur. 87–90). fate. Cicero, in this closing paragraph, returns to a motif introduced at the beginning of the speech (cf. note on 1. 2 Fortune; Top. 63), the implication being that fortune alone had punished his client enough, so that any other punishment would amount to sheer cruelty. single friend. If Cicero's direct appeal for clemency on the part of the jurors was not enough, this concluding reference to Caesar would have been sufficient to make them mull over the complex political forces which lay behind the trial, before they—without retiring to

Page 102 of 103

coldly deliberate on the evidence—cast their ballots for the verdict (Inv. 1. 106–9; Part. 55– 7).

Page 103 of 103

Oxford Scholarly Editions Online COMMENTARY

Mary Siani-Davies (ed.), Clarendon Ancient History Series: Marcus Tullius Cicero: Pro Rabirio Postumo Published in print:

2001

Published online:

January 2017

........................................................................................................................... PG 110

COMMENTARY

'To err is human' is the age-old tenet on which Cicero decides to rest the beginning of his defence (1. 1–3. 5), as he boldly admits that even Postumus in hindsight considers his behaviour to have been foolhardy and ill-advised. However, before they come to an instant judgement, Cicero subtly reminds his audience that the defendant is not the only one to have fallen for the wiles of the King of Egypt, because at the time all of Rome had fallen under the charm of this capricious monarch. Invoking the virtues of his client, Cicero presents Postumus not as a parvenu merchant but as a respectable 'eques' from a good family who, after dedicating his life to upholding the true Roman values of the 'mos maiorum', had fallen on hard times only because of unfortunate circumstances. In a measured passage of rhetoric Cicero appeals to the jurors' innate sense of justice by asking them to spare his client from any further suffering. 1. 1. If. About one in four of Cicero's orations begins with a conditional clause (Caec., Cael., Rab. Perd., Arch., Red. Sen., Sest., Vat., Prov., Balb., Mil., Phil.). The hypothetical 'if' is not used here to cast doubts in the minds of the jurors but, instead, forms part of a dramatic announcement intended to win their confidence. By openly acknowledging Postumus to be culpable of entrusting money to the King of Egypt, Cicero is engaging in a calculated ploy to forestall objection. anyone. A generic term encompassing everyone present in the court, including both the prosecution and defence (cf. note on 17. 45 anyone's). gentlemen of the jury. Out of respect as well as to attract their attention Cicero immediately addresses the jurors hearing the case. Postumus was put on trial under the Julian law of extortion, and, more specifically, under the clause 'What has become of the money.' Under previous laws of extortion, such as the law of the tabula Bembina (123/122) and the Cornelian law (81), juries had been drawn from a pool of between 450 and 400 (Att. 1. 14. 5). The size of the jury panel under the Julian law is unknown, but in 51 Cicero states

Page 1 of 96

that there were 300 eligible jurors of senatorial rank alone and, when the jurors of the other two orders, the equites and tribuni aerarii (cf. note on 6. 13 Senators), are added, it can be ........................................................................................................................... pg 111 supposed that the total was at least double that number (Fam. 8. 8. 5; Att. 8. 16. 2; Strachan-Davidson (1912) 75; Greenidge (1971) 445). The number of jurors who actually sat to hear Postumus' case is also unknown, but if Gabinius' trial for treason, which took place not long before, and the outcome of which was decided by thirty-eight votes for acquittal against thirty-two for condemnation, is any guide, then it might be suggested that around seventy jurors may have been present (Att. 4. 18. 1). Some support for this estimate also comes from the fact that at the trial of M. Aemilius Scaurus, who was accused of extortion under the Julian law in September of the same year, the case was decided by a similar number of jurors, with twenty-two Senators, twenty-three equites, and twenty-five tribuni aerarii casting their vote (Asc. Sc. 25 (Clark 1907)). In this particular instance the three orders do not seem to have been equally represented, but at other times, such as in the case of L. Valerius Flaccus, who was accused of extortion in 56, the jury was based on an equal representation of twenty-five jurors drawn from each order, giving a total of seventyfive (Flac. 4). C. Rabirius. Gaius Rabirius Postumus was the natural son of C. Curtius and the adoptive son of his maternal uncle C. Rabirius (see Introd.). In typical Ciceronian fashion, at the opening of the speech the defendant is addressed formally using both his praenomen and nomen. During the remainder of the speech the more familiar and intimate appellation, Postumus, is used twenty other times until the very end, when Cicero returns to the more official C. Rabirius Postumus (cf. note on 17. 45 Gaius Rabirius Postumus; Adams (1978) 146). fortune. The similarity between the vocabulary used here and that in the opening lines of Cicero's defence speech for Postumus' uncle C. Rabirius, delivered in 63, is striking, implying that Postumus' family was of exceptional wealth (Rab. Perd. 1; 38 ff.). royalty. Ptolemy XII Theos Philopator Philadelphos Neos Dionysos, nicknamed Ptolemy Auletes (the flute player), the King of Egypt, who ruled, save for an interlude of a few years, for more than a quarter of a century from September 80 to spring/summer 51 (see Introd.). What is interesting here is that Cicero prefers not to mention the King by name but, instead, employs the more generic term 'royalty'. Indeed, throughout the whole speech, apart from once when he is called 'Ptolemy' (cf. 2. 4), and once when he is 'the ........................................................................................................................... pg 112 King of Alexandria' (cf. 2. 4)—the term Cicero generally preferred to use in his correspondence (Fam. 1. 1. 2, 1. 7. 4, 2. 16. 2, 8. 4. 5)—he is consistently referred to as 'the King' (1. 1, 3. 5, 3. 6, 8. 19, 8. 22, 9. 24–6, 10. 28, 11. 29, 11. 31, 12. 34, 13. 38, 17. 45).

Page 2 of 96

This may simply have been because to most Romans Ptolemy Auletes was the 'King' and any further identification was unnecessary. His name had been a commonplace in Rome since the 80s (2Ver. 2. 76), after it had become entangled in a succession of contentious political issues including Ptolemy Auletes' quest for official recognition from the Roman Senate, a 'mooted' Roman annexation of Egypt (Agr. 2. 41–2; Thompson (1994), 319), and, finally, the restoration which was eventually to lead to the trials of both Gabinius and Postumus. Indeed, in not referring to the King by name Cicero may have been adopting a deliberate ploy, in an attempt to distance Postumus from Ptolemy Auletes and his nefarious activities (on Cicero's common tactic of avoiding the use of names with embarrassing connotations see Adams (1978) 163–4). After all, kings to the Romans were whimsical and tyrannical creatures who only indulged in pleasure (cf. note on 11. 29 habits of kings). judgement. Legal metaphor employed to encompass the jurors' opinion (iudicium) both as ordinary citizens and in their capacity to deliver justice. To express his opinion, together with that of his client, Cicero normally uses the term sententia, which in classical texts never means legal judgement but rather the opinion of a member of the jury on which the presiding magistrate bases his judgement (in that respect it is synonymous with iudicium; Phil. 3. 20). It is … foresight. cf. 2. 5; Hom. Il. 17. 32: 'After the event, even a fool is wise.'; Pis. 98; Dem. Olynth. 1. 11. trustworthy. Cicero refers here to the 'faith' of the Romans, and more specifically Postumus' faith, that Ptolemy Auletes would eventually repay their loans (cf. note on 2. 4 he … practices; for a fanciful etymology of the word fides see Rep. 4. 7; Off. 1. 23). betrayed. This highly emotional word is amplified later in the speech, where Cicero explicitly states that not only did the King not pay his debt to Postumus but that he, instead, passed the money to Gabinius, the Roman proconsul of Syria who restored him to his throne (cf. note on 13. 38 did not return it to him). ........................................................................................................................... pg 113 guesswork. An ironical comment on the advantages of hindsight (Ter. Hec. 696; Planc. 46). 1. 2. unfounded … recklessness. Highly charged words which are formed into a descending pattern to highlight the extent of Postumus' admitted folly. beg. By begging as a suppliant Cicero seeks to win the favour of the jurors, who have to weigh juridical principles against ethical reasoning (see below 'barbaric'; cf. note on 5. 11–5. 12 you ought … extended to him; Dom. 113; Janssen (1981) 361–6). Here, the real point is not to establish whether Postumus is to blame, but to ensure that he is not incriminated further. Page 3 of 96

plight. This term contrasts with 'fortune' and 'riches' (cf. 1. 1). Cicero's words paint a graphic picture of Postumus' impoverishment—a line of argument which is further elaborated later in the speech (cf. 15. 41 ff.). Fortune. Cicero refused to credit a blind force to Fortuna (Ac. Post. 1. 7. 29; Pis. 5), and here the usage is formalistic, merely serving to underline Postumus' misfortune (cf. note on 8. 19 predicament, 17. 48 fortune). A belief in blind fortune, whether conceived as a deity or not, although already popular in the Hellenistic world, only gained ground in Rome after Caesar's death, reaching a peak during the first century AD, as exemplified by the well-known passage of the elder Pliny (Plin. Nat. 2. 22: 'Everywhere in the whole world at every hour by all men's voices Fortune alone is invoked and named, alone accused, alone impeached, alone pondered, alone applauded, alone rebuked and visited with reproaches'; RE, VII. 1, cols. 12–42). Here, Cicero's references to the abstract nature of divine will and his emphasis on the vis fatalis permit him to present Postumus as a victim of unfortunate circumstances, not the perpetrator of a crime, and his actions as only those that could be expected of a mere mortal (for more information on Cicero's conception of 'Fortune' see Heibges (1969) 833–49; Paolella (1989) 33–48). It is bad … falling. cf. note on 16. 43 break his fall; Shak. Henry VIII, V. iii. 83: ''Tis a cruelty, to load a falling man.' Cicero may have been mindful of his own experiences while in exile—note the use of 'surely', which adds a subjective colouring to the sentence (K-St (1955) II. 799–802); the language he used to ........................................................................................................................... pg 114 describe his own misfortune a few years before was strikingly similar 'but had not even protected me as I lay on the ground' (Sest. 64, tr. Shackleton Bailey (1991b); Att. 3. 13. 2). barbaric. The emotive and highly charged epithet (inhumanum) serves not only to demonstrate the orator's own humane understanding of the imperfections of man's nature but also to highlight the un-Roman nature of such behaviour (Off. 2. 16 ff.; Büchner (1961) 636 ff.; Moritz (1962); Astin (1967) 302–6). This latter meaning is further amplified in the argument which follows, where the humanitas displayed by a man in sparing another's downfall is viewed as a particularly Roman virtue (Romanitas), precious enough to be handed down to one's descendants. The words humanitas and humanus figure strongly in Cicero's writings, where they are often used not only to indicate a contrast with what is supernatural, immoral, or animal, but also to embrace many or even all the qualities proper to the ideal civilized man (Fam. 3. 2. 1 and Att. 1. 17. 4, where humanitas means helpfulness and kindness, Q.fr. 1. 1. 25 and Fam. 13. 15. 1, where it is paired with the idea of clemency and refinement, and de Orat. 1. 32, where it implies tolerance, social grace, and is considered to be a requisite for the ideal orator).

Page 4 of 96

distinction. Pride in the heroic exploits of their ancestors led the Romans to make their deeds the basis of a moral tradition (Sall. Jug. 85. 23; Off. 1. 115–16; Earl (1960) 237 ff.; Achard (1973) 207–21; Lind (1979) 7–58; Bonnefond-Coudry (1989) 374–86). An appeal to the deeds of one's illustrious ancestors would have constituted an effective argument to the jurors who based their judgement on precedent. Cicero is reminding them of the glories of the past and the distinctiveness of Roman culture, asking them to judge Postumus, who, through the exploits of his ancestors, embraces the same values in the same honourable spirit; for the semantic difference between the words 'distinction' (laus) and 'glory' (gloria) see Sest. 60, 139; Thomas (1994) 93. For example … father. In earlier times the viri gloriosi came almost exclusively from the great families, such as the Aelii, Aemilii, Caecilii, Cassii, Claudii, Cornelii, Fabii, Horatii, Licinii, Manlii, Sempronii, and Valerii, as sons typically emulated their fathers. Cicero's cast, in the following lines, are all men of action, renowned warriors, statesmen, and men of intellect, with the mos maiorum being used as a preceptor of civic wisdom and virtue as well as a guide ........................................................................................................................... pg 115 out of present difficulties. Almost any Ciceronian speech will provide examples of his use of history (Clarke (1945) 76), as Cicero believed that historical knowledge gave authority and credibility to an oration (de Orat. 1. 18, 201, 256). In this speech he digs deep into history for his analogies (cf. 9. 23 ff.), but when addressing the general public he would employ fewer and more recent and obvious examples, since he did not expect many members of a popular audience to have the same level of historical awareness as jurors (Thompson (1978) 84). military prowess. To die fighting for one's country was the preeminent way of winning glory (Off. 2. 1, 9, 18, 31, 45; Vict. vir. ill. 32), ensuring constant public veneration (Earl (1960) 240; idem (1970–1) 143–62; Lind (1979) 16–19; Thomas (1994) 91–100). Scipio. P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (Africanus minor), the natural son of Aemilius Paullus (Off. 1. 121), served under his father in Macedonia. Later, he was adopted into the Cornelian family by the elder son of Scipio Africanus (MRR, 1. 459) and the family's name and reputation were such as to secure Scipio's election to the consulship in 147, before he was legally eligible. During his first consulship he brought to an end the Third Punic War and in 134, when he was elected consul for the second time, he triumphed over the Numantines. Scipio was often praised as a paragon of military virtue by Cicero and other writers, and in his de Republica (9. 14, 11. 17, 12. 18 ff.) Cicero uses Scipio's voice as a medium to lend gravitas to his own ideas (Astin (1967) 18 ff.). Maximus. Quintus Fabius Maximus, the brother of Scipio (Amic. 69).

Page 5 of 96

Paulus. Lucius Aemilius Paullus, the consul of 182 and 168 (RE, I. 1, s.v. Aemilius, no. 114), won a military victory in Spain, and in 181 celebrated a triumph over the Ligurians. Later, a second and more splendid triumph was awarded to him on account of his success in the war against Perseus, the last King of Macedonia, who was defeated at Pydna in 168 (Plut. Life of Aemilius Paullus). devotio. An act of self-sacrifice by a commander-in-chief at the moment when defeat seemed imminent, consecrating himself, together with the enemy troops, to the gods of the underworld (RE, V. 277–80). Fowler (1922) 206 also stresses the magical nature of the act when he writes: 'By the act of self-sacrifice, which is ........................................................................................................................... pg 116 the potent element in the spell, Decius (see below) exercises magical power over the legions of the enemy, and devotes them with himself to death' (on the formula and the details of the ritual see Liv. 8. 10. 11–14; on the devotio of P. Decius Mus see Janssen (1981) 357–81; Guittard (1984) 581–600; Leigh (1995) 195–212). Decius. Among the many Romans who defended their country and ancestors, the Decii, father, son, and, according to some (Stievano (1951) 3), even grandson, owe their chief fame to the manner of their death. Publius Decius Mus (1), consul in 340 (MRR, I. 135), gained renown through his act of self-sacrifice for the success of the Roman armies against the Latins at Veseris in Campania (Liv. 8. 6–11; Sest. 48; Val. Max. 1. 7. 3). His son Publius Decius Mus (2), consul in 312, 308, 297, and 295 (RE, IV. 2, cols. 2281–4), in 295, together with Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus (his colleague in the last three consulships), defeated the Gauls and their allies at Sentinum (Liv. 10. 26–30; Polyb. 2. 19. 6). Although the Romans owed their victory to the tactical genius of Fabius Rullianus (Liv. 10. 39. 3), the popular hero of the battle was the fallen Decius Mus, whose death was portrayed as a deliberate act of devotio (Salmon (1967) 267). Into these stories of individual courage, patriotism, and selfsacrifice the Romans poured their deepest feelings of admiration, and by introducing them into his speech Cicero is seeking to emphasize the principal psychological as well as moral traits of his client, whilst also adding weight to the point he is making. 2. 3. small examples. Cicero now presses home his point through a series of somewhat far-fetched parallels in which he tries to persuade the jurors that Postumus' efforts to live up to his natural father's reputation can be equated with the actions of these great men (for similar parallels see Verg. Ecl. 1.23; Orat. 14; Brut. 213; Thucyd. 4. 36. 3). young. Cicero seems to have become acquainted with Postumus' natural father at an early stage of his life, presumably when the young orator moved to Rome in 96 at the age of ten (Leg. 1. 13; Brut. 303). From the wording here it seems clear that at that point Curtius was already an eminent leader of the equestrian order, suggesting that he was at least ten years Cicero's senior and that he was born around 116, if not before. In his correspondence (Fam. Page 6 of 96

13. 5. 2) Cicero also speaks warmly of Curtius, suggesting that they really were acquainted and that his statement here is not just for rhetorical ........................................................................................................................... pg 117 effect. The orator also knew the family of Postumus' mother, since he had defended Postumus' maternal uncle and adoptive father C. Rabirius in 63, when the latter was accused of treason (see Introd., pp. oo ff.). C. Curtius. For a full prosopographical account of Postumus' natural father see Introd., pp. 48–9. publicanus. cf. note on 6. 13 goodwill … in question, 6. 15 You … embraced you, 7. 17 unassuming life, 14. 38 worked. The publicani originated from the equestrian order, but within their ranks there were also some municipal aristocrats who had close relationships with the senatorial order. Organizing themselves into financial companies, the publicani engaged in a wide range of economic activities, including taking government contracts for public works and tax farming (especially the grain tax). As the owners of merchant fleets, they had extensive trading interests, including the task of carrying to Rome the large quantities of grain necessary for provisioning the city and the army, as well as providing the ships to transport military forces overseas when required (for an evocative enumeration of Postumus' own activities as a successful publicanus cf. note on 2. 4 My client … kings and for the publicani in general see Badian (1972) 66–81; Nicolet (1966–74) 357–63; Gabba (1980) 91–102; D'Arms (1981) 24–31; Andreau (1982) 299–302; Demougin (1988) 19–129; Garnsey (1988) 118–30, esp. 121–2; Harlan (1995); Welch (1996) 450–71). That Cicero favoured this group is borne out by his frequent references to them as homines honestissimi, and by his actions in Cilicia, where he was careful to curry the favour of the tax farmers (Man. 17–18; Har. 60; Agr. 1. 22–7, 2. 1–16, 2. 102; Att. 6. 1. 16, 6. 3. 3). In return, they were in the habit of requiting his services with loans or legacies (see, for example, Att. 11. 14. 3, where it is attested that Fufidius, an eques Romanus ornatissimus, left money to Cicero; for more details on their relations with the orator see Syme (1939) 14; Strasburger (1956) 46 ff.; Gelzer (1969) 98; Mitchell (1979) 98–106; D'Arms (1981) 27–8 n. 44, 30 n. 55, 80). whose … philanthropy. This section serves as a character reference for Postumus' father, who is portrayed as a successful and popular businessman whose enterprises and profits had been large enough to earn him a dignitas of his own. Traditionally, 'generosity' (magnitudo animi) was an exclusively aristocratic trait and the virtue ........................................................................................................................... pg 118 was conferred only upon the great families who had displayed the highest valour in defending Rome. Cicero, in claiming such qualities for an equestrian leader such as Curtius, would at first sight appear to be attributing virtues to him that were above his station

Page 7 of 96

(cf. note on 2. 4 he … practices). However, the claim is cleverly tied into a description of the virtues of an ordinary publicanus, allowing it to be interpreted in terms of a sound judgement. generosity. Within his orations from 63 to 54 Cicero displays a relatively free use of this term, coupling it with at least twelve other prominent Roman ideas, such as 'authority' (Sest. 139), 'well-being' (Sul. 14), 'resolution' (Sest. 26), 'loyalty' (Sest. 26), gravitas (Planc. 50), 'honesty' (Mur. 60), 'integrity' (Sest. 60), 'justice' (Mur. 60), 'charity' (Har. 43), 'temperance' (Mur. 60), 'frankness' (Sul. 14), and 'virtue' (Prov. 27); Knoche (1935) 1–88; Lind (1979) 19–22. 'Generosity' is often contrasted with the vice of 'avarice' (Off. 1. 104, 1. 150, 2. 64); for the varied treatment of this word in Latin literature see the informative article by Manning (1985) 73–83. avarice. Cicero had an unfavourable view of avarice, considering it to be one of the greatest vices and the commonest cause of political wrongdoing (Mitchell (1979) 28). In this direct denial that Curtius was motivated by avarice, Cicero would hope not only to associate his client's father, and, thus, by inference Postumus himself, with these honourable virtues of the past, but to establish a favourable impression of Postumus as a non-avaricious man, before his subsequent discussion of the financial complexities surrounding the Egyptian expedition (cf. 11. 31 ff.). 2. 4. although … father. This statement is usually interpreted as an indication that Postumus' father died before the birth of his son, a circumstance that led to him being named 'Postumus'. However, it is striking that Cicero's carefully chosen words state that the young Postumus had never laid eyes on his father, instead of openly declaring that the latter had died. This subtle nuance is further accentuated by the rare employment of quamvis with the indicative viderat in the MS reading—quamvis patrem numquam viderat—according a degree of subjectivity in Cicero's statement which would not otherwise be present if the more emphatically objective quamquam with indicative had been employed (Clark (1909) replaced quamvis with quamquam; for other examples of this rather unusual construction see K-St (1955) II. 439, 443; for a detailed ........................................................................................................................... pg 119 analysis of this point see Serra Zanetti (1956–7) 151–2 n. 14; Pasoli (1966) 71–5). The supposition that C. Curtius was still alive and had spent time in exile is given further credence through a reference made by Cicero at the end of the speech, where he praises Postumus for being helpful and generous to exiles and, particularly, his father. Cicero does not expand this further at this point of the speech, presumably because he was wary of touching upon a subject as sensitive as exile at the opening of the defence (cf. note on 17. 47 capital charge). Moreover, if Postumus' father had really died, out of pure rhetorical

Page 8 of 96

expediency Cicero would have been expected now to make a prolix and emotional plea visà-vis his client's misfortune. nature. Cicero here refers to the traits which Postumus both inherited and gained through emulation of his natural father. The effectiveness of character as a source of 'proof' led Roman orators to present the facts of the case as reflections of the litigant's personality rather than as a basis for logical argument (Off. 1. 121). Indeed, in all his speeches the single factor that remains ever constant is Cicero's use of ethos, and here he uses it not only to portray his client as an honest and gifted man, in keeping with the mos maiorum, but also to present him as heir to his father's virtues. recollections. The servants' references to C. Curtius' ways; the term sermones may also carry an implication of informality, for, generally, in the plural it means gossip. My client … kings. This list of activities gives a taste of what the busy life of a successful publicanus encompassed (cf. note on 7. 17 unassuming life, 14. 38 worked). In Rome the traditional senatorial view was that engagement in any form of trade was undignified, and if it was of a retail nature then it was particularly contemptible (2Ver. 2. 122, 5. 45; Parad. 43 f.; Liv. 21. 63. 4, 22. 25 f.; Val. Max. 3. 4. 4; Wiseman (1976) 21–2). Cicero seems to have held a similar opinion, with the words 'merchant' and 'trader' appearing in his works almost as terms of abuse (Rep. 4. 7. 7; Off. 1. 151; Brut. 232; Pis. fr. 2; Earl (1967) 30–1; D'Arms (1980) 77–8). Conscious of his audience's prejudices, Cicero here seems to take particular care to choose the right terms, so as to depict Postumus' transactions in an honourable light. For example, although the verbs 'accomplished' (gerere) and 'had shares in public contracts' (contrahere) are normally used in a general sense, here they are also employed in a legal sense to indicate legally binding transactions ........................................................................................................................... pg 120 (Off. 2. 18; Berger (1953) 411, 482; Nicolet (1966–74) II. 1000–1, no. 297 n. 3). The mention of Postumus' activities as a contractor would also seem to be an attempt by Cicero to emphasize the public spirit of his client's works rather than the private gain from them; a point reinforced by his assertion that Postumus was no passive shareholder but an active member of these corporations. We have no evidence of Postumus' dealings with other kings and the use of the plural in this case may well fall within the conventions of rhetoric, although, given the scale of his operations, such activities would not be impossible. Ptolemy Auletes was not the only king who was in debt to Roman financiers at this time, with the sources referring to Nicomedes IV of Bithynia (App. Mith. 11. 36–7), Ariobarzanes of Cappadocia (Att. 6. 1. 3–4), Brogitarus, the Gallatian leader who was said to have paid Clodius for his recognition in 58 (Har. 28), and Herod, who promised Antony money for his support in 40 (Joseph. A. J. 14. 382). By stressing the scale of Postumus' business interests, both their extent throughout the Roman world and the high status of many of his

Page 9 of 96

clients, Cicero is attempting to dispel any doubts the jurors may harbour about Postumus' respectability. previous occasion. Dio tells us that the King borrowed money from the Romans in 59 in order to secure the Senate's decree, by which he was officially recognized as a 'friend and ally' of Rome, as well as to provide some of the money needed for the payment due to Caesar and Pompey, and it seems quite possible that Postumus lent the King money on this occasion (Dio 39. 12. 1; Suet. Jul. 54; Introd., p. 13). The information provided here, which is repeated three times within the same section (cf. note on 2. 4 afar, 3. 5 already lent), would seem to support Dio's account and the subsequent accusation that some Senators were bribed (cf. note on 3. 6 Senate). King of Alexandria. Ptolemy Auletes is normally so called by Cicero (cf. note on 1. 1 royalty). The Ptolemies were considered to be kings of mythical wealth, and so the fact that Ptolemy Auletes turned to Postumus for money would indicate not only Postumus' high social standing but also the scale of his wealth. he … practices. With his fulsome tribute to Postumus' qualities of generosity and trustworthiness towards his friends, Cicero seems to be once more building his client's ethos. However, at the same ........................................................................................................................... pg 121 time he is also preparing the jury for later reference to the involvement of Postumus' friends in his moneylending activities, as he states that when the King left his debts unpaid Postumus felt personally responsible for the loss encountered and made concerted efforts to retrieve, at least, their money (cf. note on 2. 5 over-extended, 10. 29 dishonour, 15. 41 shouldered). good name. The concept of fides was deeply rooted in Roman history and formed the basis for a complex network of mutually advantageous relationships which permeated all levels of society from the ruling élite down to the mass of voters (Off. 1. 92; Badian (1958); Freyburger (1986) 300–1; Wallace-Hadrill (1989) 63–87). It could be expressed in a variety of forms ranging from common political patronage to legal representation in court (patrocinium), or through certain financial services, such as the granting of credit to clients or guaranteeing them credit through one's name. Fides with the sense of 'trust, confidence' only came into general use in post-Republican Latin (Fraenkel (1916) 193 ff.; Heinze (1929) 153; Gelzer (1969) 65–9; Freyburger (1986)). expulsion. Ptolemy Auletes' departure from his kingdom sometime in August 58 (Introd., pp. 14 ff.).

Page 10 of 96

Sibyl. The Sibylline books were preserved in the Capitoline temple. The priests authorized to consult the books were among the chief officials of the Roman religion, hardly less distinguished than the pontifices and the augurs (Taylor (1949) 85–90). Here, Cicero states that the Sibylline books had foretold the plotting against Ptolemy Auletes which resulted in his overthrow. This reference is a good indication of popular awareness of the Sibylline oracle, as Cicero assumes the jurors are familiar with its prophecies and also, by implication, the King's case (Luc. 8. 823–6; Parke (1988) 208). In January 56, during the debate over who was to restore Ptolemy Auletes to his throne, the Sybilline prophecies were used by Gaius Porcius Cato against his political opponents (Q.fr. 1. 2. 15, 2. 2. 3–4, 2. 3. 2; Fam. 1. 1. 1, 1. 4. 2, 1. 7. 4; Har. 1–7, 17; Dio 39. 15. 2; Introd., p. 25). Cicero himself did not doubt that the oracle was a fraud (Fam. 1. 4. 2, 1. 7. 4). indigent and mendicant. A paradoxical use of adjectives to describe a king of fabulous wealth such as Ptolemy Auletes, cf. note on 3. 5 suppliant. ........................................................................................................................... pg 122 afar. This must allude to the first period of borrowing by the King from the Romans, in 59 (cf. note on 2. 4 previous occasion). It also indicates that the King may not have travelled to Rome in person to receive his title as a 'friend and ally' of Rome (Plut. Cat. Min. 35. 1– 7; Luc. 8. 518 ff.; Dio 39. 12. 1; Seager (1979) 87). What Cicero seems to intimate here is that if Postumus was unable to refuse to lend money to the King without having made his acquaintance, it would have been even more difficult to do so when the latter was present in Rome and pleading in person for help. at risk. In 57, when Ptolemy Auletes found himself in need of more money, it must have been clear to any who might have lent it to him that the King would only be able to repay his debts if and when he could regain his kingdom. The risks for potential investors were great, but so also were the prospective profits, and the temptation was such that bankers and speculators were attracted to support his schemes of restoration. in doubt. Here, Cicero attempts to bring the weight of public opinion to Postumus' aid as he states that nobody should be surprised at his actions, since everybody, including the Senate, believed the King would be restored and able to pay back his debts from the great wealth of Egypt. Besides bankers and moneylenders, such as Postumus, and people of consular rank, such as Hortensius and Lucullus, Ptolemy Auletes' major creditors included Caesar and Pompey, who were also expected to support the King's restoration in order to regain their money (Fam. 1. 1. 3, 1. 5a. 3–4; Att. 1. 12. 1; cf. 15. 41 ff.). Still, the confidence of Cicero's assertion here is somewhat undermined by the fact that there was widespread hostility towards Ptolemy Auletes in Rome (Dio 39. 56. 4).

Page 11 of 96

2. 5. overextended. We have very little knowledge of the identity of Postumus' banking friends who were involved in financing the loans to the King. There was a group of investors who, counting on Lentulus Spinther being authorized by the Senate to restore the King, invested in the enterprise, believing that he would ensure they were repaid (Fam. 1. 7. 6). Out of these moneylenders only one can be identified, Q. Selicius, a known investor and a close friend of Lentulus, who in Cicero's correspondence is mentioned in the company of two Senators who might have invested too, Axius and Considius (Fam. 1. 5a. 3–4; Att. 1. 12. 1; MRR, II. 475). In a letter to Trebatius dated October 54 Cicero mentions that some creditors ........................................................................................................................... pg 123 travelled to Alexandria in person to recoup their money with no success (Fam. 7. 17. 1; Shatzman (1971) 367–8), but whether these were connected with Selicius is unknown. Even less is known about the other group of financiers, who participated as friends and associates of Postumus and his mentors Caesar and Pompey, aside from the fact that their existence is mentioned in this speech (cf. note on 15. 41 shouldered). pursue. Vague and a little cryptic, this would seem to anticipate the later charge that Postumus travelled to Alexandria as the King's chief financial treasurer (cf. note on 3. 5 However … withdraw, 8. 22 treasurer). 3. 5. suppliant. A strong rhetorical and stylistic contrast is made by juxtaposing the terms 'suppliant' and 'King'. Despite the general low regard in which the King was held, such a breathtakingly open declaration that Ptolemy Auletes was nothing more than a petitioner must have caught the jury unawares. Ptolemy Auletes was not the first Egyptian king to arrive in straitened circumstances in Rome. He was merely following in the footsteps of Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy VII Euergetes II (Diod. 31. 18. 1–2; Val. Max. 5. 1. 1 ff.; Liv. 44. 19. 6–14; Gruen (1984) 672–719). asking. It is possible that Ptolemy Auletes borrowed such a large sum of money in order to give his creditors a vested interest in restoring him to his throne (Dio 39. 12. 1; Maehler (1983) 3). However, once he returned to Alexandria, it soon became clear that the contents of the treasury would not be sufficient to cover his debts (Fam. 7. 17. 1), and it is within this context that Postumus came to act as the chief royal treasurer in Egypt (cf. note on 8. 22 treasurer). already lent. This presumably refers to the King's borrowings at the time when he was recognized as a 'friend and ally' of Rome, in 59 (cf. note on 2. 4 previous occasion; afar). However … withdraw. Cicero here hints at some of the reasons underlying the association between Postumus (hoc) and Ptolemy Auletes (illo), although, aware of the negative view of Ptolemy Auletes prevailing in Rome at that time (Dio 39. 56. 4), he addresses the issue sotto voce. Page 12 of 96

Cicero now begins the narration (3. 6–16. 44) which forms the backbone of the speech. Traditionally, the narration served both to provide the facts and explain the issues to the jurors, so as to furnish a base for the arguments of the defence. ........................................................................................................................... pg 124 Here, Cicero deals with the first charge against Postumus, that his money was used by Ptolemy Auletes to corrupt the Senate, and dismisses it on the grounds that Postumus had lent the money in good faith and that a man cannot be held responsible for the use of his money once it passes out of his hands. This section also introduces Pompey and Gabinius to the narrative. 3. 6. first charge. Instead of offering a detailed refutation of all the allegations one by one, the defence commonly adopted the strategy of dwelling on the more insubstantial and unjust of the charges in the hope of making the jurors forget those which were more incriminating. Here, Cicero deals with the first allegation against Postumus: that he supplied the money by which the King and his men bribed Senators. Senate. From 58 till the end of 57 Ptolemy Auletes resided in Rome at Pompey's villa in the Alban hills, busily working to gain official support for his restoration to the throne of Egypt. To aid his cause he resorted to bribery, using members of his retinue, such as Ammonius, to lure members of the Senate (Dio 39. 12–15; Fam. 1. 1. 1; Weinrib (1970) 419–34; Griffin (1973a) 116–20; David (1992) 251 n. 79). It is not surprising that Ptolemy Auletes should have resorted to bribery, considering its historical precedent as a means by which princes and kings attempted to influence the decisions of the Senate. Timarchus, who travelled to Rome in 162 as Demetrius' ambassador, came well provided with money, with which 'he did much harm to the Senate', the poorer members especially falling victims to his wiles (Diod. 30–40. 13). However, setting out to bribe the Senate could also be a dangerous road to take, as P. Scipio recognized when he took the youthful Jugurtha aside after the fall of Numantia and advised him to cultivate the friendship of the Roman people by services to the State rather than by trafficking with individuals (Sall. Jug. 8. 2). By the time of Ptolemy Auletes' arrival in Rome such scruples had long been abandoned and he found a society rife with bribery and corruption—a simple indication of this being the fact that the consular elections of 53 were postponed to the spring of the following year after all the candidates were accused of corruption (Att. 4. 15. 7; Q.fr. 2. 14. 4; Taylor (1949) 69 ff.; Seager (1979) 81 n. 59; Nicolet (1980) 298). Here, in a move of rhetorical aggression rather than defence, Cicero cunningly allies himself with the Senators by launching a dismissive attack on Memmius for daring to doubt their integrity. If Postumus is found guilty ........................................................................................................................... pg 125 and Memmius' charges are vindicated, Cicero is suggesting that it could only give validity to wider accusations concerning the corruption of the Senate—although he is careful to

Page 13 of 96

deal with the matter diplomatically; no doubt, because he was aware that some Senators had indeed succumbed to bribery. It is an obvious ploy for Cicero directly to link his client's propriety with that of the Senators and later (cf. 6. 15) he will try to do the same with the equestrian members of the jury. Heavens above! The exclamation paves the way for the barrage of rhetorical questions which follows. Cicero's plea to the gods takes the form frequently found in his speeches and correspondence. It is a highly conventionalized exclamation used without much conscious thought to underline a rhetorical point, rather than a direct appeal for divine assistance. (Note the absence of any reference to the gods in Cicero's anguish over the death of his daughter Tullia.) gravitas. A technical term which, in this context, is used to call attention to duty (2Ver. 5. 45). who corrupt us. According to the code of practice of Roman law, the dispensing of inducements was acceptable; it was only the taking of bribes which was illegal (cf. note on 7. 16 new measure). What is noticeable here is the indirect means by which Postumus and his fellow creditors influenced political decisions: by lending the money they themselves did not bribe anyone but their loans made bribery possible (Bonnefond-Coudry (1989) 342). obliged. This is another attempt by Cicero to win the Senate to his side. From his youth Cicero's ambitions had directed him towards senatorial office (Att. 1. 17. 5) and, although he was not a member of the dominant nobility by birth, his earliest associations had been with influential members of that group, including L. Crassus, the Metelli, and the Scaevolas. They had been instrumental in shaping his political thinking at the outset of his career and supported his bid for the consulship of 63, despite any doubts they may have harboured over his equestrian background, his support for Pompey, and some long-standing fears that there was a popularis streak hidden beneath his belief in law and order (Mitchell (1979) 1– 51). Notwithstanding his influential friends, Cicero, realizing that the nobility wished to keep its circle ........................................................................................................................... pg 126 closed, had continued during his senatorial career to identify himself with the equites as well (2Ver. 5. 180–2; Agr. 2. 100; Att. 4. 8a. 2; cf. note on 6. 15 You … embraced you). This was a political balancing act which took practical shape in his concordia ordinum programme, through which he sought to build a coalition of a majority of the Senate and the equestrian order against both the extreme oligarchs in the Senate and the exponents of political domination based on populist politics. His attempt, however, to find a via media was ultimately to leave him isolated (Att. 1. 18. 1; Strasburger (1956); Stockton (1971) 50, 143– 75; Mitchell (1979) 201–3, 235–8).

Page 14 of 96

matter. That the Senators have been corrupted. related. Before entering upon the main body of his argument—the analysis of the legal implications of Postumus' case—Cicero includes a preliminary refutation designed to rebut the charges made by the prosecution and pave the way for a stronger and more emphatic statement that Gabinius' and Postumus' cases were totally unrelated. money was provided. Cicero is quite categorical here in stating that Postumus' money was not used to bribe the Senators but, instead, was spent on practical needs, such as the financing of the King's travels, that would take him back to Egypt, and his upkeep, together with that of his retinue, during their residence in Rome. The orator is suggesting that his client thought he was engaging in a reputable financial transaction, and any indication to the contrary is deflected by the simple, but unconvincing, aphorism that the 'person who gives money does not have to ask the person who receives it how it is spent'. written contracts. In criminal trials, as in civil procedures, account books, ledgers, and public records (codices, tabulae accepti et expensi) could play an important role in the evidence presented before the court (Quint. Inst. 5. 2. 5; Greenidge (1971) 121 n. 1, 126, 488–9, 493). The Greek form of contract, syngrapha, whose main characteristic was that one of the two parties involved had to be a foreigner or a provincial (Phil. 2. 95–6), had been adopted by the Romans for business transactions in the East (Barlow (1978) 174), and it is quite possible that if any contracts were signed, they may have been of this type. These may or may not have been presented at either of Gabinius' trials or at that of Postumus. ........................................................................................................................... pg 127 Pompey's Alban villa. The choice of Pompey's Alban villa for such contract-signing has great significance, in that it shows how deeply implicated the Roman general had become in the Egyptian venture (for Pompey's involvement see Introd. pp. 11–14, 26– 9). Cicero had spoken freely in urging Pompey to shun the infamy that association with Ptolemy Auletes must bring (Fam. 1. 1. 2) and he thought his words had had some effect, because in February 56 he wrote that Pompey had lost interest in the Egyptian question and dropped the matter of the restoration (Fam. 1. 1. 3, 1. 2. 3, 1. 5b. 1; Q.fr. 2. 2. 3). However, the general's own ambitions with regard to the command were always slightly obscure even to Cicero and, whatever Pompey's public protestations, this passage would suggest otherwise. With the King lodged in his villa Pompey must have been aware of Ptolemy Auletes' many intrigues and both Strabo 17. 1. 11 (796) and Dio 39. 13–14 go so far as to imply that Pompey actually connived in the poisoning of the King's opponent, the Academic philosopher Dio, and in the slaying of the Alexandrian envoys, who had come to Rome in order to obstruct the monarch's plans, as well as in the related violence that erupted in Puteoli—although it is notable that Cicero makes no mention of this in Cael. 23–4, 51. For a

Page 15 of 96

description of the site of Pompey's famous estate at Albano Laziale near the Alban Lake see Att. 7. 5. 3; Lugli (1946) 60–83; Coarelli (1985) 66–9. owner. In the past it has been suggested that the word ille in the text might refer to either Ptolemy Auletes or Postumus, but, in fact, it seems more probable that it alludes to Pompey. If this is so, then Cicero would seem to be suggesting that the exchange of contracts took place when Pompey was absent from Rome, perhaps referring to the time, between December 57 and April 56, when he was visiting the grain-growing provinces of Sicily, Sardinia, and Africa (Plut. Pomp. 50. 1f; Dio 39. 14. 3–4; Strabo 17. 11. 1 (796); Fam. 1. 9. 9, 7. 17. 1; Q.fr. 2. 6. 3). In the past, both Boulanger (1978) and Führmann (1970–82) have taken the view that it refers to the King's departure from Rome to Ephesus in 56 (Dio 29. 16. 3, 39. 16. 3, 39. 55. 1; Fam. 1. 1. 1; Att. 15. 15. 2; Har. 28). However, this would seem unlikely, because it would have been only natural for the King to be present in Rome during the actual negotiations over the loans. Besides, of what possible use could the information that ........................................................................................................................... pg 128 Ptolemy Auletes was absent from Rome be for the defence at this point in the speech? Cicero's duty in the court was neither to defend the King nor to impart additional information. The suggestion that it might refer to Postumus was based on an erroneous interpretation of Cicero's statement that Postumus' departure from Rome was hasty and his position was defined in relation to Lentulus and not Gabinius (cf. 8. 21). This led Fantham (1975) 430 to suggest that Postumus must have left sometime in winter 57, when the Senate authorized Lentulus to restore the King. However, not only was Lentulus' commission to restore the King not certain (note Cicero's continuous letters encouraging the proconsul to persevere with the Egyptian command as late as January 56) but also it seems highly likely that Postumus, in his position as one of the main financial agents, would have had a vested interest in being present at the signing of the contracts (cf. note on 8. 21 P. Lentulus). It is not Cicero's intention to distance Postumus from these transactions, as—just one sentence later—in an elaborate metaphor he effectively identifies Postumus as the lender and Ptolemy Auletes as the borrower. lender. Cicero's argument here is framed within a general statement concerning the responsibility of investors. For, Postumus (the lender) is not to blame for not daring to question Ptolemy Auletes, a King (the borrower), about how he disposes of the money (cf. 7. 18–3). brigand. Originally, the word latro meant 'mercenary soldier', that is 'one serving for pay', and it was often used in this sense by Plautus (Pl. Mil. 949); later, it came to mean 'brigand' or 'plunderer' (Phil. 2. 5). Cicero's tone here varies from the plain expository to the sarcastic—'brigand' is a very rude and provocative word—and his striving for both stylistic

Page 16 of 96

impressiveness and emotional appeal is apparent in the following strong and contrasting doublets: 'brigand' vs. 'king', 'king hostile' vs. 'entrusted', and 'a king … Empire' vs. 'one with whom … Capitol'. consul. P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (cf. note on 8. 21 P. Lentulus). empire. Could this be a hint at Pompey, who was the 'glory and the light of the empire' (Phil. 2. 54)? For Pompey equating his personal relations with kings with those of Rome see ........................................................................................................................... pg 129 App. B. C. 2. 8. 51; for Ptolemy Auletes' early connections with the Romans see Introd. pp. 44 ff. treaty. The recognition of a king as a 'friend and ally' of Rome was usually conferred by the Senate, as it was in Ptolemy Auletes' case (Dio 39. 12. 1; Caes. B. Civ. 3. 107. 2; Sest. 57; Braund (1984) 23, 56–60, 134–7). Rome claimed the right to interfere in all cases of disputed succession in neighbouring states and, by virtue of its power, became the kingmaker of the ancient world (Dio 39. 56. 2; Joseph. A. J. 14. 55). The eastern kings recognized the strength of Rome and sometimes welcomed such interference, as it helped guarantee dynastic stability. Capitol. The Capitol, and especially the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, was often used for the signing of decrees and agreements involving kings (Joseph. A. J. 14. 388). 3. 7. But if … citizen. In this passage Cicero exaggerates by analogy, imparting a vividness that must have seized the attention of the listeners (Lanham (1968) 7). Metaphor, which was in common use among both educated and uneducated speakers, was seen as being particularly suitable for low-style oratory (Orat. 81–6). By linking the lender with the arms dealer and the murderer with the unscrupulous spender in this bold and imaginative pairing Cicero makes an emotive plea for Postumus' innocence (for the employment of the same metaphor elsewhere see Top. 64; Sest. 19; S. Rosc. 56–7). C. Memmius. C. Memmius, the tribune of 54 and a staunch supporter of the nobility, has been identified by Münzer as Pompey's nephew, son of his sister Pompeia and the quaestor C. Memmius, by a marriage first attested in 81 (RE, XV. 1, s.v., cols. 616–18 n. 9). Memmius' father died in Spain in 75 and sometime afterwards, while Memmius was still a child, his mother married again, this time to P. Sulla, a match which was to place the young Memmius at the heart of Roman political life (Q.fr. 3. 3. 2; Fantham (1975) 437 dates the marriage to Sulla before 70; for P. Sulla see RE, XV. 1, s.v., cols. 608–9 n. 7; and for details of the Memmii family see Wiseman (1967) 164–7; Crawford (1974) I. 69, 315, 451). In 54, when his second cousin C. Memmius Gemellus was a candidate for the consulship, Memmius became

Page 17 of 96

a tribune. On 11 October 54, the day Memmius' own stepfather P. Sulla launched a formal indictment against Gabinius for electoral corruption, Memmius ........................................................................................................................... pg 130 also addressed a public meeting accusing him of treason (Q.fr. 3. 2. 1, 3. 3. 2; Val. Max. 8. 1. 3). This was probably a device to provoke public indignation against Gabinius and support Memmius' claim to be his prosecutor, although in this he was to be disappointed, as L. Lentulus, the son of the flamen martialis L. Lentulus, who had been a rival of Gabinius for the consulship of 58, was chosen to act as plaintiff in Gabinius' trial for treason (Fantham (1975) 433–4). Following Lentulus' incompetence and subsequent failure to secure a conviction in this trial, Memmius was to have more success in the competition to sue Gabinius for extortion when, after a divinatio, he beat both Lentulus and Ti. Nero for the job (Q.fr. 3. 1. 15, 3. 2. 1). Subsequently, he mounted a successful prosecution, with Gabinius being found guilty and fined 10,000 talents. After Gabinius' flight into exile Postumus was brought to trial under the clause 'What has become of the money', with Memmius and Cicero again appearing for the prosecution and defence respectively. Following these two trials nothing further is known for certain of Memmius' career. He may have been the Memmius who 2

was consul in 34 (CIL, I , 66), and it has also been suggested (MRR, II. 223) that he was responsible for prosecuting Domitius Calvinus for bribery in October 54 (Att. 4. 17. 5; Q.fr. 3. 2. 3; for a different view see Shackleton Bailey (1965–70) II. 218). Here, by stressing Memmius' high senatorial background, Cicero is virtually accusing him of bringing his class into disrepute. authority. In the ideal Republic power lay with the people and authority with the Senate (Leg. 3. 28), although the history of the Late Republic showed that the Senate had little apart from auctoritas to cloak its constitutional weakness. whatever. It is not surprising that Cicero, who has argued so convincingly, if rather deviously, on the basis of the ethos of the Senators, concludes this paragraph with a statement tinged with irony. 3. 8. unrelated. Regaining from Postumus what Gabinius could not pay was one of the main aims in launching the subsidiary case under the clause 'What has become of the money' (cf. note on 3. 6 related). However, Cicero's line of argument is that the two cases are not linked and that Postumus is effectively being charged under the main Julian law for extortion, in which case this trial should be struck out, because, as an eques, he is not liable. ........................................................................................................................... pg 131 Cicero, now, in an attempt to influence his audience through a combination of emotional and intellectual appeals, launches a rather prolix but at the same time trenchant legal argument centred on the question of whether Postumus is eligible for trial under the clause

Page 18 of 96

'What has become of the money'. Emphasizing the threat that the precedent of Postumus being found guilty could pose to equestrian rights, the orator, proud of his expertise in the field of delivering justice, seeks to win the jurors of that order to his side by issuing a forewarning: If Postumus were to be found guilty, they could soon find themselves weighed down with all the responsibilities already appertaining to the senatorial class but without its compensations. 4. 8. 'What has become of the money'. When Gabinius had been found guilty and was unable to pay the fine assessed against him, it was supposed—on the basis of their alleged collabotarion in restoring Ptolemy Auletes to his throne—that some of the ill-gained money had found its way into the pockets of Postumus. In such circumstances the Julian law of extortion allowed, under its special formula, 'What has become of the money', for the retrieval of the illegally exacted money from the person to whom the money had passed (Introd., pp. 90–1). little appendix. This constitutes the only recorded use of the term appendicula by Cicero, suggesting that it was chosen with care in place of the more standard 'paragraph' (caput) employed below (cf. 4. 9). Perhaps, the diminutive form is used as a deliberate ploy to downplay the importance of the clause and, consequently, the link binding Postumus' trial to that of Gabinius. case. Gabinius' extortion trial, which took place in October 54. Damages were assessed. When a defendant in an extortion trial was convicted and either guarantees had been given for the payment of any fines or property had been seized in lieu of such assurances, the jurors, together with the praetor in charge of the extortion court, proceeded to assess the damages due to the injured parties (lex rep. ll. 32–5, 58–9; Clu. 116; Balb. 11; de Orat. 2. 281; Flac. 1; Q. Rosc. 3; Greenidge (1971) 502; Jones (1972) 75–6; Lintott (1992) 31). Although any decision, regarding the validity of individual claims, reached at this time was based on the original proceedings, the actual procedure of allocating damages was clearly distinct and constituted a separate stage of the trial. The claims for recompense were recorded one by one in a list and, since they ........................................................................................................................... pg 132 might come from many different quarters, the assessment could be a long and complex affair. Moreover, the procedure was not solely concerned with the assessment of damages. Consideration was also given to the penalty inflicted, the question of levelling additional charges, and the possible involvement of other persons apart from the defendant in the same case (Clu. 116; 1Ver. 38–9; 2Ver. 1. 95; Mur. 42; [Pseud.-Asc.] 1Ver. 39 (p. 219 St.); Fam. 8. 8. 2). In Gabinius' case the amount of damages assessed reached the astronomical sum of 10,000 talents; for the identity of the injured party see below.

Page 19 of 96

A. Gabinius. At the time of the speech Aulus Gabinius, the man who had successfully restored Ptolemy Auletes to his throne and then been placed on trial for his efforts, was the most conspicuous amicus of Pompey, an ex-Consul, ex-Governor of Syria, and exile. Gabinius, who was of senatorial stock and whose family originally hailed from Capua, first appears in the sources as Sulla's legate at Chaeronea during his campaign against Greece in 86 (App. Mith. 12. 66; Man. 8; Badian (1959a) 88–9; Shackleton Bailey (1960) 263 n. 10; Hind (1994) 156). His name is associated with a considerable amount of legislation, the majority of which was probably passed during his tenure as a plebeian tribune in Rome, in 67, and anticipated that sponsored later by Pompey and Crassus during their joint consulship of 55. The most famous act which was passed in the teeth of senatorial opposition was the 'piracy law', which gave Pompey sweeping powers to deal with this threat (Rowland (1966) 220–1). Other laws probably also date from the same period, such as the stipulation that the month of February should be reserved for the hearing of foreign embassies, with the right of postponement being transferred from the Consul to the Senate (Niccolini (1934) 256–8; Sanford (1939) 13; Griffin (1973b) 209; Gruen (1974) 252 n. 162), and the law which forbade Roman citizens, under the penalty of a fine, from lending money to representatives of provincial communities in Rome (Att. 5. 21. 12, 6. 2. 7; Niccolini (1934) 256–8; Barlow (1978) 185; that this law also applied to all loans from Romans to provincials is not proven (Shackleton Bailey (1965–70) III. 237). Later, during his joint consulship with L. Piso, in 58, Gabinius was also to be responsible for a piece of legislation which exempted Delos from custom dues (CIL, I. 2500, 1. 4; Nisbet (1961) 189, nn. 3, 4, 5). During the Mithridatic war ........................................................................................................................... pg 133 Gabinius served as Pompey's legate, gaining valuable military and diplomatic experience as well as knowledge of the terrain and peoples of the new provinces (Man. 57–8; Sanford (1939) 71). Following his successes in the East, he was hailed imperator and approached the Senate for an official celebration of his victories, but this was resoundingly rejected, a rebuff never previously administered (Prov. 14–15; Pis. 17, 41 ff.; Fantham (1975) 429). Gabinius' elevation to the consulship, in 58, was clearly as Pompey's candidate in a division of the spoils between the triumvirs, his fellow consul being Caesar's father-in-law L. Piso (MRR, II. 193–4; Pis. 3; Plut. Pomp. 48. 4; Cat. Min. 33. 7; Dio 38. 9. 1–4; but see also App. B. C. 2. 14, where Gabinius' election is attributed to the influence of Caesar). Cicero publicly attacked the means by which Gabinius had won the consulship, and C. Cato tried to prosecute him for electoral corruption, but political machinations intervened, with the praetor in charge obstructing a hearing (Q.fr. 1. 2. 15–16, 3. 1. 15; Att. 2. 19. 3, 2. 21. 5; Sest. 18; Vat. 25). The consulship proceeded as it had begun, with constant political intrigues, and in an unflattering passage Cicero likened the new consul to a comic character who is 'reeking with perfume, his hair fresh from the curling tongs, scorning his accomplices in vice and the ancient troublers of his youthful bloom' Sest. 18 tr. Shackleton Bailey (1991b) 145; Red. Sen. 11–13; Dom. 60; Sest. 93; Prov. 9–10; Pis. 41; Q.fr. 2. 11. 2, 3. 2. 2; Schürer (1973– 87) I. 267–9; May (1988) 92–6, 103–5). Upon the completion of his consulship, Gabinius Page 20 of 96

was originally rewarded with the proconsulship of the province of Cilicia under the law Clodia de provinciis (Dom. 23; Sest. 55), but this was later changed to Syria, where his governorship spanned the mid-fifties (Seager (1979) 103 n. 5; MRR, II. 203; Sherwin-White (1984) 271–9). His rule was marked by both military successes in suppressing revolts in Judaea and Nabatene and a vigorous domestic administration, but, as he moved to check business exploitation in the province, probably also acting in the interests of his own pocket (as Roman governors in the East regularly did), he seems to have upset the publicani who were operating—among other things—as tax farmers (cf. note on 8. 19 animosity). The most striking event of Gabinius' governorship of Syria was his campaign in Egypt and the restoration of Ptolemy Auletes to his throne, after which he was arraigned for electoral corruption, treason, and extortion—although only the last two came to trial. Found guilty of extortion, ........................................................................................................................... pg 134 he was forced to flee into exile and nothing more is heard of him for several years until, at the beginning of the Civil War, he was summoned by Caesar to command Illyricum. Forced to retire to the loyal sea port of Salonae, Gabinius was besieged by Octavian, with the town only falling when Gabinius died of disease at the beginning of 47 (Dio 42. 11. 1–5; Caes. B. Afr. 42–3). Perhaps, it can best be said of Gabinius that he lacked political insight. It was sheer folly to make enemies of both the Senators and the equites at the same time. His stubborn reliance on Pompey for protection was also ill-fated and misjudged, because Pompey appears to have deserted him in times of crisis—a factor that, no doubt, accounts in part for his support of Caesar during the Civil War. securities. Upon the defendant being found guilty it was the praetor's responsibility to see that the quaestor (quaestor aerarii) secured personal guarantees from the defendant, to cover the fine which had been decided by the jurors through a majority vote. The extortion law of the tabula Bembina (lex rep. ll. 56–8, 66–7) stipulated that this procedure should take place before the assessment of damages, but here Cicero gives the distinct impression that, in fact, the securities were not demanded until after the assessment of damages had taken place. Evidence from later trials, however, indicates that the original procedure was still in force (CIL, I. 1863, no. 198; Greenidge (1971) 282, 505; Sherwin-White (1982) 26; Lintott (1992) 143–4; Crawford (1996) 107). full … assets. If sufficient securities were not forthcoming, then the praetor proceeded to confiscate the culprit's property. Indeed, the threat of such an action must have prompted most of those found guilty of extortion to produce the required securities with alacrity, if they were in a position to do so. The seized estate or goods were then sold by public auction, with the money raised being handed to the quaestor for the payment of individual claimants (lex rep. ll. 57–8). According to the law of the tabula Bembina this auction also occurred after the conviction of the defendant and before the assessment of damages. If the pledged

Page 21 of 96

securities or the property seized failed to cover the fine imposed, the praetor normally devised a schedule of proportional repayment, called tributum (lex rep. ll. 62–4). In Gabinius' case it seems that he fled into exile without providing sufficient guarantee for his debts and before his property was seized. ........................................................................................................................... pg 135 people. The word 'people' can here be taken as implying primarily the State, although it may also include some of the investors in the Egyptian venture who had lost their money and, subsequently, filed claims for compensation (cf. notes on 13. 37 property, 17. 45 populace, and 17. 46 all … compensated; lex rep. ll. 6–8, 59–61, 66–8). The Julian … guilty. Introd., pp. 84–9. innovation. Cicero strategically echoes this emphatic word at the end of the sentence ('new judicial procedure') so as to leave the jurors in no doubt about the absurdity of bringing Postumus to trial. Indeed, 'innovation' in this case would almost seem to be synonymous with 'illegality', as Postumus had been brought to trial under the clause 'What has become of the money' even though, according to Cicero, he was not named during the assessment of damages in Gabinius' trial for extortion. more strictly and severely. At first sight Cicero here seems to be giving the impression that the Julian law was much stricter than its predecessors. However, the real implication of these adverbs is far from clear. Henderson has suggested that the law did introduce stricter penalties such as capital punishment (Off. 2. 75; Tul. 8; Suet. Jul. 42; Henderson (1951) 77 ff.), whilst Sherwin-White has argued that in this case 'strictness', as such, did not stem from the increase in penalties but rather from the wider range of offences which fell within the ambit of the law (Pis. 90; Sherwin-White (1949) 13 ff.). Indeed, according to Sherwin-White, various procedural changes could even have accounted for this epithet. An analogous case is the lex Acilia (probably the law of the tabula Bembina) which is described as 'milder' than the Servilian law of extortion purely because the latter introduced tighter procedures, such as the 'compulsory adjournment' of the hearing (2Ver. 1. 26). Indeed, rather than referring specifically to the Julian law, it may be that Cicero's words, which are chosen carefully for rhetorical effect, reflect a general trend at the time. The use of 'by all means' (sane) often carries more than a hint of irony, and here this is combined with exaggeration to great effect, as he drives home to the jury the irrationality of the prosecution's actions. 4. 9. word for word. The nonsensical sit of the MS was emended to sin by Manuzio (1541), and this reading has since been widely ........................................................................................................................... pg 136

Page 22 of 96

accepted (Clark (1909), Olechowska (1981), Klodt (1992)). In the past, Cicero's statement here has often been taken as an indication that the clause 'What has become of the money' had been transferred verbatim from the Cornelian and Servilian extortion laws (Lintott (1981) 190 nn. 106, 107, 198). However, the hypothetical overtones conveyed by 'if' (sin) cast his words in a more ambiguous light, suggesting that the clause may not have been transferred word for word from the previous laws, and that Cicero, being well aware of this, inserted the conditional 'if' to protect his legal standing. Cornelian. The lex Cornelia for extortion, promulgated in 81 during the dictatorship of Sulla, provided the framework for Caesar's subsequent legislation. Apart from the incorporation of a new senatorial jury (App. B. C. 1. 100), it largely retained the innovations of the earlier Servilian law of 101. Servilian. Providing that Cicero is being comprehensive in his chronology of the laws, the general ascription of the clause 'What has become of the money' to C. Servilius Glaucia's legislation on extortion and not to Q. Servilius Caepio's would seem to be supported by the choice of the singular rather than a plural here (cf. note on 6. 14 Glaucia; App. B. C. 1. 28; Val. Max. 7. 1. 8; Rab. Perd. 20; Brut. 224). Apart from the introduction of the clause 'What has become of the money' (Crawford (1996) 185–7), the Servilian law also introduced the innovation of 'compulsory adjournment' (2Ver. 1. 26), which, in effect, divided an extortion trial into two stages—a procedure which can be seen in the trials of Verres in 70 and Fonteius in 69, under the Cornelian law, and in those of Flaccus in 59 and Scaurus in 54, under the Julian law. It is not clear whether the procedure of divinatio, by which the prosecutor was selected by a panel of lawyers and was not necessarily the person chosen by the plaintiff, was introduced by Caepio's or Glaucia's law (Caec. 63; Lintott (1981) 189–93; Crawford (1996) 209–19). Both laws kept the clause of the law of the tabula Bembina which offered the reward of citizenship and exemption from military service and other public duties to any non-citizen plaintiff who was successful in their prosecution (Balb. 54; Rhet. Her. 1. 20; lex rep. ll. 76 ff.; Sherwin-White (1972) 96–7; Griffin (1973a) 108–26; Lintott (1976) 78; Ferrary (1983) 70–7; Alexander (1985) 29–30). However, it is unclear whether this reward was still on offer at the time of Cicero (Scaur. 36; Phil. 3. 7). ........................................................................................................................... pg 137 whatever are we doing? Logical and legal arguments, even when favourable, can become complicated, and facts and figures confusing. Therefore, Cicero gives a break to his listeners with this rhetorical question, the tone of which is more oratorical than righteous, as with sarcasm he once more labours the point that the prosecution is adapting the laws to suit its own needs.

Page 23 of 96

State. Cicero seems most typically to employ the term res publica, as he does here, when he wishes to emphasize the idea of common interest and the responsibility of the State to the People. Certainly … familiar. Note the two sets of comparison in operation in this unit 'well known' vs. 'most familiar' and 'to you all' vs. 'to me of all people'. These make the statement even more forceful. At first sight, Cicero's assertions about his knowledge of legal matters might appear merely boastful, but in a Ciceronian speech little is wasted in egotistic selfindulgence and, in establishing his credentials as a lawyer, he is seeking to emphasize the validity of his legal analysis. By building up his persona he hopes to persuade the jurors, who, being non-specialists, might not appreciate the finer nuances of the law, to accept his argument on trust (Beard & Crawford (1985) 57–9). Indeed, this passage of heightened emotional vigour may also, typically, have offered Cicero the opportunity to raise his tone and gesticulate by pointing first at the jurors and then at himself (Quint. Inst. 11. 3. 65–8). if practical … guide. For the employment of the same expression see de Orat. 1. 15; Caes. B. Civ. 2. 8. 3. I have … trials. Verres', in 70, is the only known extortion case where Cicero acted for the prosecution. I have … cases. Given both his social standing and legal expertise, Cicero was likely to have served on jury panels in many extortion trials but this is not attested in any of the available sources. praetor. As praetor, in 66, Cicero was in charge of the court of extortion (Clu. 147). Among the cases that came before him were those of C. Licinius Macer (Att. 1. 4. 2; Val. Max. 9. 12. 7; Plut. Cic. 9. 1 ff.) and of C. Manilius, the People's tribune. After his period of office ended at the close of the year, Manilius was instantly accused of extortion, but the trial never took place and in the following year, when he faced similar allegations, Cicero, freed from the responsibilities of the praetorship, was urged to act ........................................................................................................................... pg 138 in Manilius' defence (Dio 36. 44. 1; Plut. Cic. 9. 4; Asc. Corn. 53, Clark, 1907). defence counsel. By the time he defended Postumus for extortion, Cicero had good reasons to make this claim; among those he is known to have defended against such charges are M. Fonteius, in 69, C. Calpurnius Piso, in 63, L. Valerius Flaccus, in 59, M. Aemilius Scaurus, in 54, and, in the same year, Gabinius (Alexander (1990) nos. 186, 225, 247, 295, 303). It is also generally accepted that he defended P. Oppius in 69 and C. Antonius Hybrida in 59 against charges of extortion (Alexander (1990) nos. 187, 241). However, given the rarity with which, apparently, the clause 'What has become of the

Page 24 of 96

money' was employed, it may be presumed that even Cicero was not fully cognizant with the finer points of this law. knowledge. Few would have dared challenge Cicero's claim to legal knowledge, based both on practical experience and his earlier studies under Q. Mucins Scaevola the augur, from c. 90 until his death in 88, and, later, with his cousin Scaevola the pontifex, killed in 82, (Amic. 1; Leg. 1. 13, 2. 47–9; Brut. 306; Phil. 8. 31; Bürge (1974) 31–45; Neuhausen (1979) 76–87). Despite the convention which prevailed in Cicero's time that one should not speak about oneself in court and that an apology should be issued if such etiquette was breached, this rule is apparently totally ignored here as he presses home his argument, although the orator must have been aware of the standard of conduct expected (Caec. 64; Mur. 29; Phil. 7. 8; Balb. 1; Planc. 24; Sest. 31; Allen (1954) 121–44). named. Cicero here comes to the crux of his argument, that Postumus' trial is highly irregular and without precedent, as his client was not named during the assessment of damages in Gabinius' extortion case (cf. note on 4. 9 word for word). The term appellabatur employed here does not appear to refer to a formal court order summoning a person to attend a trial, because a few moments later Cicero indicates that those who suspected they might be named attended the courts voluntarily. Instead, the process seems to have involved nothing more than the mentioning of a person's name within the proceedings of the primary trial or the evidence gathered for that trial. If a person was publicly named in this fashion during the trial, he then had the right to interrupt the proceedings to rebut any accusations. The constant reiteration of ........................................................................................................................... pg 139 this point throughout the speech is intended not only to hammer home a critical legal point either neglected or deliberately bypassed by the prosecution but also gradually to persuade the jurors of the veracity of his previous syllogism. testimony. Cicero confirms that during the assessment of damages in Gabinius' trial Postumus' name was absent from both the testimony of witnesses and any other form of written evidence, such as private or public accounts, presented to the court. The precision with which Cicero mentions the places where naming could occur suggests that at this point he is directly stating the stipulation laid down in the law, although, out of mere rhetorical expediency, he will later amplify his statement to encompass the whole of Gabinius' trial (cf. note on 5. 10 prosecutor). Normally, testimony given in person was taken immediately after the pleadings (cf. 12. 35; 1Ver. 55), whilst any written evidence was read out to the court during the speeches (Quint. Inst. 5. 7. 2; Cael. 55). This type of evidence was produced either from compulsory witnesses who were not able to appear, or from voluntary ones, who were usually unwilling to take the trouble to attend (Greenidge (1971) 488; Jones (1972) 71–2, 114). The prosecutor was required to deposit any documents which he proposed to

Page 25 of 96

produce in evidence during the course of the trial beforehand with the praetor, who secured them with the jurors' seal (lex rep. l. 34; Flac. 21). However, given the highly irregular nature of the Egyptian venture, which seems to have largely functioned on a 'cash-in-hand' basis, it is quite understandable that Postumus' name did not appear in any such documents. 4. 10. As … cases. By listing the alternative courses of action open to a named person, Cicero stresses the uniqueness of his client's case. Because he was not named during Gabinius' trial, not only can Postumus not be considered as an accomplice but he has also been deprived of the possibility of defending himself by rebutting any charges levelled against him and, thereby, lost his chance of preparing himself legally for the current trial —the vital importance of forewarning being underlined by the following statement, which suggests that it allowed many defendants to win their cases. response. For the legal meaning of 'response' as 'answering a summons to appear' see Att. 7. 14. 2; RE, VI, s.v., col. 713. ........................................................................................................................... pg 140 5. 10. without precedent. cf. note on 4. 8 innovation. Disputes over legal technicalities could arise in many ways, such as when the prosecutor attempted to bend the law to his own advantage, when there was a discrepancy between the spirit and the letter of the law, or when the defence considered that the law under which the case was brought was not applicable to the case on trial (Top. 92, 96). It is the last point that Cicero chooses to emphasize here, alleging blatant injustice as a prelude to the outburst of rhetoric which follows (cf. 5. 11). 5. 10–5. 11. During … to him. The structure of this passage is such as to require it to be treated as a single unit. Not only is the wording strikingly repetitive but so also are the general manner of exposition and the analytical categories used. In fact, rhetorically, Cicero's general attitude in this paragraph is reminiscent of the old vaudeville skit in which a man is found on his hands and knees under a lamp-post. He tells a passer-by who offers assistance that he is searching for a coin he has dropped. 'Where did you drop it?' the passer-by asks. 'Over there', says the man, pointing to a dark corner of the stage. 'Then, why are you looking here?' 'Because the light is better'. Cicero, like any other lawyer, looks for his defence strategies where the light of persuasion is best, not necessarily where the facts are clearest. Through a barrage of rhetorical questions—a strategic stylistic device intended to be unanswerable (Quint. Inst. 9. 2. 6–15; Orat. 67; Rhet. Her. 4. 22)—and an artfully developed network of recurring themes, such as 'damages', 'witnesses', 'defendant', 'prosecutor', and 'ledgers', the defence plays to the full the allegation that Postumus had not been named in the previous trial, so as to cast even wider aspersions on the very legality of the current trial (cf. note on 3. 8 unrelated).

Page 26 of 96

yourselves. Cicero takes advantage of the fact that a subsidiary trial, such as Postumus', was heard by the same jury as in the principal case, in order to draw them personally into the argument (cf. note on 11. 32 standard procedure). Reminding them that they themselves did not hear Postumus named at Gabinius' trial, on the basis of this, for him, indisputable truth Cicero now proceeds cleverly to construct the outline of what will be his next argument: Since his client was not named in the previous trial, he cannot be tried under the clause 'What has become of the money' and, so, instead, he must stand before the court charged under the wider ........................................................................................................................... pg 141 Julian law of extortion; but, as members of the equestrian order were not liable to this law, then Postumus is falsely accused—and how could the jurors of that very order stand as mute testimony to this miscarriage of justice? Witness do I say? Cicero's argument, based on the complete absence of Postumus' name from Gabinius' trial, is technical and casuistic. It would have been in the best interests of the prosecution to minimize the scale of the affair by not drawing attention to any accomplices. It is also noticeable that Cicero, in his defence of Postumus, sticks to the bare essentials and makes no reference to anyone else involved in the venture. prosecutor. Earlier (cf. note on 4. 9 testimony) Cicero suggested that in order to be considered named in an assessment of damages an accomplice and prospective defendant had to be named in the statement of witnesses, the ledgers of private individuals, or the official civic accounts. No suggestion was made that he could be named by the prosecutor in his speech. Thus, this would seem to be little more than a rhetorical prelude to the next statement, where, in a sweeping gesture designed to underline the strength of his point, Cicero suddenly widens the scope of his argument from the assessment of damages to the whole of Gabinius' trial for extortion. 5. 11. the only eques Romanus. Cicero has a number of reasons for introducing the term 'eques Romanus' into his argument—a dominant leitmotif of the speech which is repeated eleven times (cf. 11–16, 18, 22, 41, 43, 48). First, it forms part of an obvious ploy to evoke a sense of camaraderie among the equestrian jurors towards a fellow member of their class. In this, it follows the pattern of Cicero's earlier attempt to enlist the support of the senatorial jurors (cf. 3. 6). Secondly, it forms part of the concerted effort made throughout the speech to distance the case of Postumus, an eques, from that of Gabinius, a magistrate. Thirdly, Cicero is also seeking to cast further doubts on Postumus' liability under the Julian law. Whilst there can be no doubt that elected and appointed magistrates were liable under the law, the picture is not so clear as regards others, particularly lesser officials of whatever order serving within their retinues, who may or may not have been exempted. The use of the

Page 27 of 96

term 'only' in this case has the dual purpose of underlining the fact that Postumus was not part of Gabinius' retinue ........................................................................................................................... pg 142 (cf. note on 8. 21 partner) and that, as a member of an order generally held to be excluded from the rules of the extortion law, he was not liable to stand trial as a principal defendant. On the basis … to him. In an artful conversational style Cicero now makes a bold attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the jurors. The wording of the questions may be similar to that above, but, following Cicero's brazen assumption that, through his argument regarding the absence of Postumus' name, he has successfully decoupled the two cases, the line of argument shifts. For, if Postumus' case was not connected with Gabinius', then where was the fresh evidence coming from to begin this new trial? Stylistically, the passage is couched in terms of amazement interlaced with moral indignation. Maximum impact is achieved through a series of staccato phrases delivered in varying tones—the whole pattern strongly reinforced by a succession of negations such as 'not read', 'never mentioned', 'does not apply'. All is intended to point to a single conclusion: There is no case left to answer. law. The true answer is given below (cf. 5. 12 'the Julian law of extortion'), but in his rhetorical answer Cicero raises his argument a notch higher, as he bluntly declares that his client is brought to trial under the wrong law (Craig (1993) 135 n. 27). Since the conditions for prosecuting Postumus as a secondary defendant under the 'What has become of the money' clause of the Julian law of extortion have not been met, Cicero argues that his client is, effectively, being prosecuted as a primary defendant for plain extortion under the Julian law, a law under which he is not liable. discretion and wisdom. Now Cicero cleverly begins to shift his line of argument. The urging of the jury to do what is fitting (Clu. 159; Fam. 7. 6–17) rather than follow the letter of the law can be seen as part of his previous discussion on the applicability of the law to Postumus' case but, in fact, it is also linked to the question of penalties, raised below. Indeed, the general shift of emphasis to legal morality at this stage is rather ironic given Cicero's previous punctilious scrutiny of legal minutiae, and it might even be seen as a partial retreat from his position. 5. 11–5. 12. you ought … extended to him. In a neatly balanced structure, Cicero sets forth three contrasting notions which a juror ought to take into account before making his final ........................................................................................................................... pg 143 judgement: (i) 'what it is fitting for you to do' vs. 'what the law allows you to do', (ii) 'what is in his power to do' vs. 'what he ought to do', and (iii) 'how much power he is permitted' vs.

Page 28 of 96

'within what limits it has been extended to him'. The jurors are repetitively reminded of their moral obligation to consider the spirit as well as the letter of the law. This was a tactic well developed by the rhetoricians because by contrasting the two the actual law tended to be undermined (de Orat. 2. 116; Classen (1978) 618). The rather patronizing attitude adopted towards the jurors, who are bombarded with a series of synonymous expressions redolent of learning by rote, even if it is cloaked by a thin veneer of flattery, may, at least in part, be justified by the fact that few of them would have had sufficient legal training readily to grasp the intricacies of the law, thus leaving them open to the wiles of skilful rhetoricians like Cicero (Barbu (1964) 211–28). banish from the city. Following his urging of the jury to show wisdom rather than adherence to the letter of the law, Cicero, in this statement, may be merely making a general observation about the powers vested in jurors, although it can also be taken as a specific reference to the provisions of the Julian law of extortion. However, it seems unlikely that a defendant, convicted under the clause 'What has become of the money', would have been condemned to exile, even if he failed to disgorge any money, because enforced exile was a penalty only in Cicero's own Tullian law of 63 on corrupt practices in elections, which specified a period of banishment of up to ten years without any loss of citizenship (Caec. 100; Dio 37. 29. 1; Nicolet (1958) 266–9). Exile appears otherwise to have been a largely self-inflicted punishment, although it seems to have been linked to 'interdiction from water and fire' (aquae et ignis interdictio)—the author of Rhet. Her. 2. 45 clearly identifies the idea of exile with this measure (Balb. 28; Tusc. 5. 108; Rab. Perd. 1, 5; Greenidge (1971) 513 ff.; Jones (1972) 74; Lintott (1981) 202–7; Cloud (1988) 580 n. 2; Bauman (1996) 27 n. 24). The exact legal standing of 'interdiction from water and fire' is far from certain, but in time it seems to have evolved from being a precautionary measure to something akin to a legal penalty, as it was associated with the loss of civil life and possibly confiscation of property. Whether it was actually part of the penalty or merely the way in which the loss ο‎f caput was interpreted is unclear, but in both cases the consequence was that ........................................................................................................................... pg 144 the condemned defendant was forced to leave Rome. Reference to 'interdiction from water and fire' can be found in a number of post-Sullan criminal courts, including those concerned with electoral corruption, treason, murder, and embezzlement (Sul. 89; Sest. 146; Phil. 1. 23). It has been suggested that it might also have been introduced into the extortion court, probably by Sulla, or if not by him then by Caesar, to deal with cases in which more than the loss of property was at stake, and, in particular, where extortion was associated with violence, as, for instance, when a magistrate received money for executing a provincial who was innocent (Clu. 115–16; Lintott (1981) 198–202; Cloud (1994) 513; Bauman (1996) 26– 9). However, even if this was the case, because Postumus' trial was concerned with financial misconduct and not extortion with violence, it is difficult to see how it could be applicable in his case. It, therefore, seems safer to interpret Cicero's statement here as pointing to

Page 29 of 96

voluntary exile, which was generally considered an escape from punishment and not a punishment per se. Usually, such a course of action was chosen by a defendant prior to the completion of a trial, as was the case with Gabinius, but examples also exist of defendants withdrawing into voluntary exile, for a multiplicity of reasons, immediately after their trial had ended (lex rep. l. 29; Dom. 77–8; Caec. 100; Balb. 28–9; Sherwin-White (1949) 11–12). C. Porcius Cato fled immediately after the assessment of damages for his trial, which had taken place in 113 (2Ver. 3. 184, 4. 22; Vell. 2. 8. 1; Gruen (1968) 127), T. Albucius (the Epicurean) resided in Athens after his conviction in 103 (Scaur. 40; Gruen (1968) 172 n. 74), L. Licinius Lucullus withdrew to Heraclea after condemnation in 102 (Arch. 8; Drumann & Groebe (1899–1929) IV. 214 n. 4; Gruen (1968) 176–7), C. Servilius went into exile in 101 (Diod. 36. 9. 1; Gruen (1968) 177–8), P. Rutilius Rufus took refuge in Asia (Mytilene and Smyrna) after his conviction in 92 (cf. note on 10. 27 P. Rutilius Rufus; Vell. 2. 13. 2; Dio 28 fr. 97; Gruen (1968) 205 ff.), and C. Claudius Pulcher either went into exile or committed suicide after his trial in 51 (Fam. 8. 8. 2; Alexander (1990) no. 336). All these cases point to the fact that exile was frequently preferred as an alternative to conviction, although such a course of action was based upon the decision of the defendant rather than upon any decree of the jurors. However, in Postumus' case even voluntary exile may have been out of the question, if we take Cicero at his word and accept that his client really was so impoverished as ........................................................................................................................... pg 145 to be only solvent through the generosity of Caesar (cf. 41–4). Usually, exiles took the precaution of transferring their capital abroad before they fled (as in the case of Verres before he fled to Massilia), but by what means could Postumus support himself if he followed the fateful path of an absconder? A further indication that Cicero is making a general statement here comes from the line that follows, in which he clearly indicates that the means by which the jurors in an extortion trial could procure the banishment of a citizen from Rome is through their vote; that is, simply by pronouncing the defendant guilty. Taken in conjunction with the contents of paragraphs 15. 41, 17. 46, and 17. 48, this statement would seem to indicate that the orator is implying here that his client could suffer infamia— not a legal penalty but an inevitable consequence of condemnation (cf. note on 17. 48 I implore … forum). Both his public conviction for extortion and subsequent pauperization would undoubtedly deliver an irreversible blow to the reputation of a man of Postumus' stature (cf. 15. 41 shell of his former dignity), and it is this unbearable stigma that will, perhaps, ultimately drive him into exile away from the city of Rome and her body politic (cf. 17. 48 the enjoyment of public life; Sall. Cat. 51). Since it is the jurors, perceived as the traditional centre of the Roman political élite, who hold the powers to deprive any citizen they wish of his civil rights (Sest. 42; Dom. 44; S. Rosc. 3; Mil. 81; Mur. 45), it is also they who can save him (de Orat. 2. 194; 2Ver. 2. 76). Thus, Cicero, through reminding them of the seriousness of their task and the extreme powers vested in them, seems to be suggesting that they should use their authority cautiously. Page 30 of 96

voting tablet. When the time was right for the final verdict to be reached, each juror received a tablet marked on one side 'A' or 'L' for 'acquit' (absolvo or libero) and on the other side 'C' or 'D' for 'condemn' (condemno or damno). By rubbing out one or the other, or even erasing both sides, before placing the tablet in an urn, the jury passed their judgement, with the majority of the votes deciding the verdict (Fam. 8. 8. 3; Flac. 4; Mur. 2). Normally, equally divided votes would constitute acquittal (Clu. 74), but this was not the case in the Julian law for extortion. If there was a tied vote, it decreed that the trial had to begin afresh, with the accused arraigned again on the same charge. This was a highly unusual stipulation and was confusing enough to make the praetor M. Juventius Laterensis, in ........................................................................................................................... pg 146 the extortion trial of M. Servilius, erroneously pronounce him 'not guilty' when the votes cast were evenly split (Fam. 8. 8. 2; Jones (1972) 22, 73; Shackleton Bailey (1977) I. 399–400). Under Sulla's Cornelian law of extortion the defendant, and perhaps also the prosecution, could demand that the vote be open, although Cicero speaks of this as being no longer the rule in 66, it having been abolished by the Aurelian law of 70 (Clu. 55, 75; Greenidge (1971) 497–8). Although the jurors were not responsible for the penalties laid down by the law, Cicero in his rhetoric still plays upon their authority (Sul. 60, 63; Henderson (1951) 83 n. 81; Sherwin-White (1952) 49–52). misuse. A series of shocking scandals arising from the acquittal of men in high public office accused of extortion, on account of undue leniency on the part of senatorial jurors (by now constituting only one third of the jury, cf. note on 6. 13 Senators) towards the fellow members of their own class, had merely served to confirm how venal and corrupt the courts were at this time (App. B. C. 1. 22; 2Ver. 2. 82; Att. 7. 9. 4; Balb. 60; Sall. Jug. 31. 7; Liv. 3. 9. 5). Despite his earlier protestations about the impossibility of senatorial impropriety (cf. note on 3. 6 Senate), Cicero attempts to tackle the thorny problem of a politically corrupt jury, although his convoluted word structure is designed to avoid any direct confrontation. Whilst expressly acknowledging that voting rights could be misused, he refrains from specifically alluding to the current improper practices, being content instead to settle for a more general moral lecture, suggesting that those who retain the honourable values to be expected of members of the senatorial class will vote for the correct verdict. 5.12. exempt. Displaying all his rhetorical skills, as he chooses to reason through questions and answers, Cicero draws the strands of his argument together as he returns, once more, to the question of whether an eques can be charged under the Julian law of extortion and, thus, brings the order as a whole into his argument (cf. note on 7. 18 men). convicted. Q.fr. 3. 7. 1; Introd., pp. 67–9.

Page 31 of 96

'But I hear it now.' The adverb of time 'now' lends strength to this pithy statement, as it contrasts with the previous reference to silence. Despite acknowledging that Postumus' is a fresh trial under ........................................................................................................................... pg 147 the Julian law of extortion, Cicero cannot forbear from pointing out its false basis and invalidity, in that knights cannot be tried under this law. defendant. Cicero's rhetorical question and its answer amount to a thinly veiled accusation that justice is about to be sacrificed in the interests of recovering money (cf. note on 13. 38 which of the two). free and exempt. Behind Cicero's emphatic use of these two almost synonymous adjectives (Planc. 72; 2Ver. 2. 185) lies the orator's intention of reminding the members of the equestrian class of their previous struggles to increase their security within the judicial system. If Postumus were to be found guilty, he warns them that the whole order would be open to the 'clutches' of the Julian law of extortion (cf. note on 6. 15 on your guard). It is in this spirit that Cicero is spinning a fine web of legal technicalities calculatedly arranged so as to disguise the real facts at issue. 6. 13. undermined. Having expended considerable time, effort, and rhetoric steering the jurors to his line of argument based on legal technicalities, Cicero now sets out bluntly to warn the equestrian members of the jury of the direct threat a guilty verdict in Postumus' case could pose to their legal rights. However, once he has awakened the equites' alarm, they are left on tenterhooks, as he skilfully turns, once more, to address, in a rather conciliatory tone, the senatorial jurors, so as to be assured of their full attention (cf. 6. 13–7. 19). Senators. As a consequence of a bill passed by L. Aurelius Cotta in 70 the jury panels in every standing court, including that of extortion, were mixed in composition to include members of all three orders, Senators, equites, and tribuni aerarii (for the history of changes in the composition of jury panels trying extortion cases see Lintott (1981) 162– 212; for Aurelius Cotta see Asc. Corn. p. 59 Clark (1907); Clu. 121; 2Ver. 2. 174). Conflicting statements, which seem to suggest that the courts were given lock, stock, and barrel to the equites (Liv. Per. 97; Plut. Pomp. 22. 5–9; Tac. Ann. 11. 22; Laffi (1967) 195–7) or were shared between them and the Senators (Vell. 2. 32. 3) seem to have arisen in part because of confusion between Cotta's original proposals and his final measures and in part because of a tendency among the literary sources to fail to ........................................................................................................................... pg 148

Page 32 of 96

distinguish between the equites and the third order, the tribuni aerarii. The Bobbian Scholiast (Schol. Bob. Flac. 4 (p. 94 St.)) speaks of equites and tribuni aerarii as 'men of the same class', and Cicero, as he does here, normally addresses the non-senatorial members of the jury collectively as equites Romani (Flac. 4). Indeed, the exact identity of the tribuni aerarii at this time is difficult to determine. Although in earlier times they were collectors of the tributum given by Roman citizens in order to pay the army (Varr. L. 5. 181; Gell. 6. 10. 2), by 70 they had long ceased to perform this function. Still, during the Ciceronian age they continue to appear as a distinct class in contexts other than the legal (Rab. Perd. 27; Planc. 21; Att. 1. 16. 3; Dio 43. 25. 2; Asc. Pis. 15 (Clark 1907); for their relationship with the equites see Strachan-Davidson (1912) II. 92–106; Hill (1952) 155–6, 212–14; Henderson (1963) 61–72; Nicolet (1966–74) I. 593–613; Wiseman (1970a) 67–83). goodwill … in question. Appealing to the concepts of trust and good intentions Cicero displays a standard forensic technique. Through a series of emotional triggers, such as rhetorical questions and uncompleted syllogisms, he encourages the audience to make its own judgements and draw its own conclusions—a practice which he was later to abandon in favour of a more direct interpretation of the evidence, as, for instance, in Pro Ligario. Here, in calling upon the Senators' goodwill—added intensity is lent to the word by placing it in the text prominently after the verb (Gotoff (1979) 69 n. 90)—Cicero is not playing upon their higher altruistic sentiments but subtly reminding them that they can ill afford to alienate a class on which they have come to rely for the everyday running of their own business affairs. Livy states that: 'Every form of profit seeking was thought unsuitable for Senators' (Liv. 21. 63. 4), and this position was sometimes laid down in law, as with the Claudian plebiscite of 219–218 which stipulated that no Senator or Senator's son might own a trading ship of a capacity of more than 300 jars (Rotondi (1912) 249; Yavetz (1962) 325–44; Garnsey (1983) 129; Gruen (1984) 300–1, 307). This law was no mere temporary measure, as Cicero indicates that it was—technically speaking—still in force in 70 (2Ver. 5. 45), with its terms being restated in Caesar's Julian law of extortion in 59. In order to bypass measures of this type many Senators chose to engage equites to act as their financial and commercial agents (Vat. 29). Brutus, who ........................................................................................................................... pg 149 attempted to conceal his involvement in the loan to the Salaminians of Cyprus, employed agents who were, almost certainly, equites, as was the representative of Torquatus in Cilicia (Att. 5. 21. 10–13, 6. 1. 5–7). The Senator P. Cornelius Sulla, the nephew of the dictator, was also a patron of the eques P. Sittius (Fam. 5. 17. 2; Sul. 55–9). However, not all Senators resorted to such subterfuge and some engaged openly in business. The Elder Cato is the first Senator known to have been engaged both in lending money and taking shares in loans, although he was not personally connected with any shipping ventures, preferring his freedman Quintio to represent his interests as agent (Plut. Cat. Mai. 21. 5–7, 25. 1; for his contemporary M. Aemilius Lepidus, who undertook similar activities, see Liv. 40. 51. 2). The

Page 33 of 96

Senators C. Sempronius Rufus and P. Sestius also engaged in trade (D'Arms (1981) 48–55). Indeed, by the first century BC the two classes were increasingly intertwined and mutually supporting, and examples even exist of Senators lending money to equites. Cicero (Att. 1. 1. 3) relates that both the consul Lucullus and his rich friend Caecilius, Atticus' uncle, were involved in a loan to one P. Varius (Nep. Att. 5. 1; Horsfall (1989) 67; for more cases and details on the subject see Badian (1968) 76–92; Gelzer (1969) 62–9, 110–23; Shatzman (1975) 177–210). present case. Here, Cicero is possibly making a general statement in anticipation that the senatorial members of the jury will cast their vote in favour of the eques Postumus, either out of a feeling of respect for his order as a whole, or, more probably, because of specific financial links they may have forged with the defendant. It might be, however, that the orator is dropping an early hint of the support that has been given to Postumus by Caesar, a theme which will dominate the latter part of the speech (cf. 15. 41 ff.). As neither assertion without proof or persuasive methods nor truth simply asserted without support can win over an audience (Brut. 114), Cicero, now returning to his previous line of argument, amplifies his statement with a series of concrete examples (cf. note on 6. 13 raised … Senate, 6. 14 Glaucia, and 7. 16 M. Drusus). consul Pompey. Cicero refers here to the second consulship, of 55, in the usual rich flowing prose which can leave no doubt of the respect he accorded Pompey (Pis. 34; Mil. 66; Phil. 13. 8; Fam. 1. 8. 2; cf. note on 12. 33 For … well, 12. 34 Pompey's testimony). ........................................................................................................................... pg 150 Pompey did not use his father's cognomen Strabo and was known formally in the Senate as Cn. Pompeius. raised … Senate. This is the only historical evidence of a bill drafted by Pompey during his consulship of 55, in which he attempted to broaden the remit of the extortion laws to include the members of a magistrate's retinue, such as military tribunes, prefects, scribes, and others. The bill seems to have met fierce resistance from the combined forces of the Senators and equites. It has been suggested that this bill was part of the general legislative programme, lex Pompeia judiciaria, by which Pompey tried to modify the extortion law so as to combat bribery, by adjusting the composition of the juries. However, whilst the wider motion was passed, this particular measure appears to have been resoundingly quashed (Pis. 94–7; Asc. Pis. 15 Clark (1907), 16–17; Greenidge (1971) 448 n. 2; Nisbet (1961) 166). The notion that the bill was intended to be a response to the bribery practised by Ptolemy Auletes seems unlikely, since Pompey and his friends were at the very heart of the Egyptian question and, presumably, financial beneficiaries of the King's largesse (L. Fascione (1974) 340–52; Venturini (1979) 466).

Page 34 of 96

military … law. Offices of this type were often encountered together in legal documents (lex rep. l. 2, 8–9; Clu. 148; 2Ver. 1. 73; Plin. Ep. 3. 9. 6; Sherwin-White (1966) 232). Military tribunes were senior officers in the Republican army. Usually from the equestrian order, although in exceptional cases they could even be of senatorial or consular rank, they were sometimes used for special duties (Suolahti (1955) 43 ff.; Keppie (1984) 39–40). Prefects were junior officers appointed by a general to his own staff. Some were commanders of detachments of foreign cavalry, but the great majority were employed without any specific duties and often had little connection with the army (Suolahti (1955) 200 ff.). 'Scribe' was a title given to the clerk, or rather secretary, usually of equestrian background, who assisted a Roman magistrate in both the accounting and the judicial side of his work (Jones (1960) 153 ff.; Shackleton Bailey (1965–70) III. 194–5). A Roman magistrate's retinue comprised many officers, such as doctors (medici), surveyors (architecti), soothsayers (haruspices), messengers (viatores), heralds (praecones), and lictors (lictores), many of whom were of equestrian rank (Catul. Poems 10, 28, 46; Jones (1960) 154). your very selves. The senatorial members of the jury. ........................................................................................................................... pg 151 full house. For the attendance recorded in the Senate at the time of Cicero see BonnefondCoudry (1989) 358, 433. situation. Cicero here paints a graphic picture of the turmoil engulfing Rome at the time Pompey promulgated his bill. In fact, most, if not all, the bills of the triumvirate met in the Senate with a general spirit of obstructionism. The triumvirs then resorted to violence to push their measures through the assembly, in the process increasing their unpopularity (Dio 39. 33–9; Plut. Cat. Min. 43. 7; Liv. Per. 105; Vell. 2. 46. 1; Lintott (1968); idem (1974) 62– 78; Beard & Crawford (1985) 70). By praising the Senators for their admirable behaviour in defending the interests of the equites—whilst at the same time pointedly reminding them of the time when even innocents could not walk abroad safely—Cicero would seem to be offering a none-too-subtle lesson in the benefits to public order to be drawn from the maintenance of harmonious senatorial—equestrian relations. Therein also lies an implicit warning to the Senators: do not rekindle the same bonfire by undermining the equites through prosecuting Postumus. conflagration. The metaphor of fire is striking and is employed figuratively to imply the likely consequences of any change in the law (Liv. 10. 24. 13; 21. 3. 6). Here, Cicero seems to be maximizing to the full the emotional impact of the words 'innocents', 'hatred', and 'fire'. 6. 14. Such … Senate. A succinct and pithy statement which serves both as a direct conclusion to Cicero's elaborate exaltation of senatorial loyalty and as the opening gambit

Page 35 of 96

of a prolix admonition to the equites about the care they ought to take in order to safeguard the rights handed down to them by their ancestors. But you … act? Now, as intimated at the beginning of this section (cf. 6. 13), Cicero turns to the equites, attracting their attention with this rhetorical question, which is reinforced by the repetition of 'you' and the use of the emphatic 'I ask you' (tandem). This searching question has a tone of impatience, as if to shake the equestrian jurors out of their complacency and instil in them a sense of personal shame at the idea of failing to secure his client's acquittal. Although Cicero addresses the equestrian order as a whole, and the implication is that they should display a 'class solidarity' with one of their own, in reality the order was far from homogeneous. ........................................................................................................................... pg 152 Their vote could be split, as it was in the case of Marius. When he was accused of electoral corruption in 116, despite the large equestrian majority in the court he escaped conviction only by a very narrow margin (Val. Max. 6. 9. 14; Plut. Mar. 5. 1–7; Jones (1972) 52). The same is equally true for the senatorial jurors, and in Gabinius' extortion trial it is probable that many of his peers voted for his conviction (Q.fr. 1. 2. 15, 2. 6. 1, 2. 12. 3, 3. 1. 15, 3. 1. 24, 3. 2. 2, 3. 3. 2). Within the ranks of the equestrian jurors, there were often many publicani (cf. note on 2. 3 publicanus), perhaps because it was natural for them to have a place of residence in Rome (FIRA, I. 7, I. 13; Shatzman (1975) 180), and they, at least, might have been expected to vote for one of their own kind. Glaucia. The language with which C. Servilius Glaucia, the author of the Servilian law of extortion (cf. note on 4. 9 Servilian), is 'graced' here is sharp and direct. Indeed, 'loathsome' is a very strong term of abuse (Att. 9. 12. 2), although its effect is somewhat mitigated by its being wittily contrasted with 'shrewd'. Cicero pours out the same mixed emotions of deep dislike tinged with a recognition of cunning in Brut. 224, although in de Orat. 3. 164 Glaucia is dispatched as nothing more than 'an excrement of the Senate' (Douglas (1966) 166, where Glaucia is likened to the Athenian Hyperbolus, a political trickster who was ostracized in 416). Details of Glaucia's career are obscure (RE, II. A2, s.v. Servilius, no. 65), but it is known that he was a member of the Senate in 102, when the censor Metellus Numidicus tried unsuccessfully to have him expelled from that body (App. B. C. 1. 28). In 101 Glaucia became a tribune (Liv. Per. 69; Val. Max. 9. 7. 3) and in the following year he held a praetorship (Catil. 1. 4; MRR, I. 575)—a career progression which is rather unusual but was not illegal, given the fact that being a tribune was outside the cursus honorum. Towards the end of the same year, according to Appian (App. B. C. 1. 32–3), Glaucia, who was counting on the political support of L. Appuleius Saturninus, stood as a candidate for the consular elections, together with M. Antonius, the praetor who had undertaken the campaign against the pirates in 102, and C. Memmius, the tribune of 111. On the very day of the elections Glaucia's candidature was rejected on the basis that he could not stand for the consulship

Page 36 of 96

immediately after a period of office as praetor, since this violated the lex annalis (Balb. 48; Har. 51; Crawford (1992) 126; Lintott (1994) 101). ........................................................................................................................... pg 153 Mayhem ensued and the elections were marked by such riots and violence that a senatus consultum ultimum had to be issued authorizing Marius, the consul, to restore order. It was during this turbulent period that Glaucia perished (App. B. C. 1. 33; Rab. Perd. 20; Vict. vir. ill. 73), although the exact date of his death, together with that of Saturninus and many others, which according to Appian occurred on 10 December, the very day the new tribunes entered office, has become a matter of controversy (an earlier date has been suggested by Badian (1984) 101–47; see also Seager (1967) 9–10). If … measure. A law beginning with 'Dictator …' only applied to magistrates and officers of senatorial rank (lex rep. ll. 1–3), whilst one beginning with 'Whoever …' could apply to all citizens and therefore to the equites too. There are two points of interest here. First, that, according to Cicero, in Glaucia's time, a hundred years since the last dictator and master of horse, these two obsolete magistracies still appeared among the high offices of state (Clu. 148). And, secondly, the way legislation was explained to the Roman people, with some politicians meticulously examining a law clause by clause, just as Pompey did in the case of the agrarian law of Caesar in 59 (Dio 38. 5. 3), whilst others only skimmed it superficially. 6. 15. on your guard. This short and unadorned sentence, by its very position, commands careful consideration. Having spent some effort (cf. 6. 13–3) working on the feelings of the senatorial jurors, Cicero now turns to address the equites. Mining a strong rhetorical vein, he skilfully fashions a lengthy argument warning them about the dangers of setting a legal precedent by convicting Postumus under the Julian law of extortion and, more specifically, the clause 'What has become of the money'. You … embraced you. This unit is a tour de force of rhetoric which functions as 'emotional blackmail' to the equestrian members of the jury, as Cicero suggests that they have a legal and moral duty to support Postumus since, by doing so, they will safeguard the privileges of their class as a whole (Serv. A. 1. 13). Cicero's own father was an eques, who had derived his wealth, in the traditional way, from estates and agricultural activities at Arpinum (Agr. 1. 27; Mur. 16; Cael. 4; Pis. 2; Planc. 59; Lacey (1978) 2–3, 22–3). In keeping with his background, Cicero was always an eloquent speaker in defence of equestrian rights. In 69, in the speech Pro Fonteio, ........................................................................................................................... pg 154 he claimed to be a spokesman for the order as whole, and in Pro Caecina spoke for the equestrians of Etruria whose interests had been abused by Sulla. Indicative of this sense of identification are, also, the references made in his letters to Atticus of December 61 and

Page 37 of 96

January 60, where, in the context of the growing split between the Senate and the equites brought about by an attempt to subject the latter to the law against taking bribes, Cicero describes the order as equites nostri (Att. 1. 17. 8; 2Ver. 2. 181). He frequently defended in the courts both prominent members of equestrian background who had entered on a senatorial career, such as Fonteius and Plancius in 54, and ordinary members of the equestrian class, as in the cases of Cluentius, in 66, and Caelius, in 56; he had scores of equestrian friends and connections and sent numerous letters of recommendation to leading Senators in Rome or governors in the provinces on their behalf (Wiseman (1971); Shatzman (1975) 178–85). However, throughout his career Cicero's equestrian background remained something of a double-edged sword because, whilst, as here, he was undoubtedly proud of his origins, they nevertheless clashed with his senatorial aspirations. unresolved. In a dramatic appeal addressed to the gods as well as his audience in court Cicero forcefully urges the equestrian jurors to hold fast to their threatened privileges. The judicial power of the equites had fluctuated widely over the previous century, reaching its nadir under Sulla as recently as 80. harsher. The liability of the equites, and, more specifically, members of a magistrate's retinue, to the Julian law of extortion. plague. In marked contrast to his previous declamatory tone Cicero now abruptly drops to the personal level. With a conversational 'believe me', loaded with prophetic overtones, he draws the audience into his confidence before, with a final flourish, evoking the threat of an insidious plague. This is not mere sabre-rattling. For, if the equestrian position were to be breached in this case, how long would it be before the rest of their legal rights crumbled? 7. 16. M. Drusus. M. Livius Drusus, the homonymous son of Gaius Gracchus' great rival, came from a distinguished and wealthy family and was considered to be a true conservative champion of the Senate (Mil. 16; Dom. 50; de Orat. 1. 24–5; Diod. 37. 10. 1; RE, XIII. 1, s.v. Livius, col. 868, no. 18; Badian (1957) 325; ........................................................................................................................... pg 155 2

Gruen (1968) 206; Shatzman (1975) 276 ff.). As tribune in 91 (CIL, I . 1, 199) Drusus proposed legislation which would have introduced Senators into the jury panels in all courts. Prior to this legislation the panels were composed entirely of equites, and some sources suggest that Drusus would have merely transferred the courts from equestrian to senatorial control (Vell. 2. 13. 2; Strachan-Davidson (1912) 78 ff.). However, others paint a more complicated picture, suggesting that, after 300 equites were enrolled in the Senate, Drusus' legislation provided for the creation of mixed juries drawn from both those of senatorial and of equestrian origins in the new enlarged body (App. B. C. 1. 35; Vict. vir. ill. 66; Hardy (1912) 218–20; idem (1913) 261–3). In fact, it can be inferred from the proposed clause

Page 38 of 96

discussed below that his legislation would have provided for the formation of a mixed panel of Senators and equites (Liv. Per. 71; Diod. 37. 101; Gruen (1968) 208; Weinrib (1970) 414 ff.; Hands (1972) 268–74). new measure. Drusus' judiciary law of 91 contained a provision which threatened the equestrian members of a jury with prosecution for accepting bribes while they were delivering justice (Clu. 153; App. B. C. 1. 35; Diod. 37. 10; Griffin (1973a) 108–26; Lintott (1981) 195–7; David (1992) 250 n. 75). Such proposals to curtail judicial corruption had their roots in the quaestio of 141, when L. Hostilius Tubulus was accused of accepting bribes while serving as a praetor in a murder case (inter sicarios). As there was no standing court to deal with a crime of this nature, Tubulus was, instead, threatened with a special commission established by the People (Fin. 2. 16, 54; 4. 28, 77; 5. 22, 62; N. D. 1. 23, 63, 3. 30, 74; Att. 12. 5. 3; Weinrib (1970) 419–34; Griffin (1973a) 116–20). Prior to Drusus, Gaius Gracchus had promulgated legislation ('ne quis iudicio circumveniatur'), which was principally aimed at curtailing judicial murder. Within its clauses it allowed for the punishment of senatorial jury members who had secured a 'guilty' verdict against an innocent defendant in a capital trial in return for bribes given by presiding magistrates or others. (On the composition of the jury in criminal courts at the time see Brunt (1988) 194.) However, whether this piece of legislation ever constituted a separate law per se and whether it was later incorporated into the Sullan law on murder (lex de sicariis) remains unclear (Gruen (1968) 84–6; David (1992) 248 n. 69). Similarly, Drusus' proposed legislation, which seems to have ........................................................................................................................... pg 156 specifically targeted jurors who accepted bribes, sought to extend the remit of the law to cover equestrian jury members. Indeed, it was partly the immunity of the latter from punishment for such a crime that had allowed them to reverse the balance of power in the courts. Naturally, Drusus' proposed law triggered ferocious opposition from members of the equestrian order and, like all his projects, it was soon abandoned. It has been suggested that Drusus' law was aimed not just at the bribery of equestrian jurors but at all forms of judicial corruption members of this order might be involved in, including false testimony, conspiracy, and general judicial misconduct (Gabba (1956) 369 ff.). However, the evidence from the two Ciceronian speeches which are the principal source for this law, Pro Rabirio Postumo and Pro Cluentio, indicates that it was exclusively concerned with extending liability to those members of the equestrian order serving as jurors (Clu. 153; Weinrib (1970) 422– 3). Indeed, the law was solely concerned with those who received bribes. They were seen as incapable of fulfilling their judicial duty of delivering justice, whilst those who had corrupted them escaped prosecution, as they were seen as merely following their best intentions in offering assistance to a friend. Until the end of the Republic, liability of equestrian jurors to the bribery laws was not modified even under the Julian law. Several attempts were made to amend the legislation but none of these was successful. Particularly in 66 during his prosecution of A. Cluentius for murder, T. Accius sought to argue that the Gracchan law,

Page 39 of 96

('ne quis iudicio circumveniatur'), which might have been incorporated in the Cornelian law for murder and which explicitly made Senators liable for judicial murder, should be made retrospectively applicable to all orders, including the equestrian (Clu. 9, 30, 37, 79, 83, 90, 104–8, 131, 150–60, esp. 156; Sherwin-White (1952) 46; Jones (1972) 80–1; Venturini (1979) 363–9, 433 n. 67, 437–8; David (1992) 248–9 nn. 70, 73, 251). The scandal over the acquittal of Clodius in 61/60 raised the matter again and prompted the issuing of a senatorial decree which sought to sanction the investigation of any case of bribery which involved equestrian jurors (Att. 1. 17. 8; Nicolet (1966–74) I. 615–16; Moreau (1982) 239– 48). Among those who appear to have viewed this decree favourably was M. Cato, but its actual instigator remains unknown, and, anyway, it did not lead to any legislation (Att. 2. 1. 8; Miners (1958) 241 ff.; Ewins (1960) 94 ff.; Jones (1960) 39–42). As in the previous lines (cf. note on 6. 13 raised … Senate), where ........................................................................................................................... pg 157 he dealt with Pompey's attempts to make the equites liable under the law of extortion, Cicero here hammers home his point through analogy. However, in contrast to that passage, having once more played upon their fears, Cicero is now content to allow the threat to hang in the air, without further sustained rhetoric. 'if … verdict'. The reading found in the MS is 'ob rem iudicatam', 'to have passed a judgement', but the expression 'ob rem iudicandam', 'to pass a judgement', would seem to be more likely here, on the basis of its regular use in the Ciceronian texts referring to judicial bribery (Clu. 98, 103, 113, 150–4; 1Ver. 38–9; 2Ver. 2. 78; Fin. 2. 54; Att. 1. 17. 8, 1. 18. 3, 2. 1. 8; N. D. 3. 74; Dig. 48. 11. 3, 6). This emendation is significant because, based on the MS reading, it has been suggested that Drusus' proposed legislation had a retroactive component which would have made jurors who had received money in the past liable to prosecution (Clu. 153: 'qui rem iudicassent'; App. B. C. 1. 35; see Mommsen (1887–8) III. 532 n. 1; idem (1905–13) III. 341 n. 4; Gruen (1968) 209). It has even been proposed that this feature of the law might have been shaped specifically to punish those judges who convicted Drusus' uncle Rutilius Rufus for extortion a year before. In fact, it seems that the jurors, rather than being bribed, had acted out of revenge for Rufus' persecutions of tax farmers in Asia. This interpretation of the scope of Drusus' proposed legislation has been robustly challenged by a number of scholars not only on the basis of the difficulty it presents for the understanding of the clause but also for syntactical and grammatical reasons (Seymour (1914) 421; Gabba (1956) 368 n. 5; Ewins (1960) 105; Nicolet (1966–74) I. 561–2). What matters here is the actual practice of bribery and not the precise time when money was offered. openly objected. As a historical precedent Cicero reminds the jury of the staunch resistance shown by the equestrian order to Drusus' law. Indeed, the prominent use of the word 'openly' could suggest not only the forceful nature of their defiance but also its

Page 40 of 96

unanimity. Twelve years earlier he had employed the same historical example in the defence of A. Cluentius Habitus (Clu. 152–3; Florus 2. 5. 17; Meier (1966) 211–12). money acquired. Cicero refers here to money received as a bribe by a juror for selling his vote before the delivery of the final verdict ........................................................................................................................... pg 158 (Clu. 153). The employment of the antithetical bipartite structure 'not only … but also', together with the postponement of the more forceful 'immoral' until after 'discreditable', a device which breaks down the absolute parallelism, serves to emphasize the moral probity of the 'beleaguered' equestrian order and evoke the maximum empathy for their plight. (Note the emphatic 'By no means'.) 'The highest … on you'. It is not by means of stylistic ingenuity (i.e. the conversational style adopted in 5. 10 and 7. 17) so much as by his inventive capacity that Cicero here succeeds in stirring up the equestrian jurors, by deftly enumerating the rewards available to members of the senatorial order. The thrust of Cicero's argument in contrasting the juristic role of the two orders is that those who have contented themselves with the quiet life of an eques should not be exposed to the same dangers and commitments as those who have chosen to pursue senatorial honours (Phil. 1. 29; Sest. 102). Cicero had employed a similar defence when he successfully represented Cluentius (Clu. 153–6), but even he was aware that it was a rather specious argument. Not long before, in 61, he had confided in his friend Atticus that the equestrian case in this matter rested on shaky ground (Att. 1. 17. 11, infirma), although their immunity from charges of judicial corruption still remained a muchprized privilege (Att. 2. 1. 8). curule chair. An ivory seat which originally served as the seat of justice (Gell. 3. 18. 4; Wanscher (1980) 122) but later became the attribute of higher magistrates while in office, such as a consul, praetor, dictator, magister equitum, curule aedile, praefectus urbi, or quaestor, as well as those holding consular or praetorian powers, such as decemvirs, proconsuls, and consular tribunes, and various others including the interrex, censors, the flamen dialis, and the vestal virgins (Hor. Ep. 16. 58; Liv. 1. 20. 2; Mommsen (1887–8) I. 399– 408, III. 863 n. 1; Wanscher (1980) 124; Schäfer (1989) 24–196). Within the Senate, those who had held a curule magistracy formed a pre-eminent group whose opinions were sought first (2Ver. 5. 36). fasces. Bundles of rods which were carried by lictors in front of all Roman high officials as insignia of rank and tenure of office. The single fascis consisted of twelve to sixteen uniform rods bound together by red bands in a cross fashion around a thicker stick. The standard number to which consuls were entitled was twelve. Axes ...........................................................................................................................

Page 41 of 96

pg 159 would often be attached to the fasces as a symbol of the physical and judicial power exercised by the holders (Rep. 2. 55; Clu. 154; Sest. 17; Mart. 8. 66; Hor. Carm. 3. 2. 19; see RE, VI, cols. 2002–6; Staveley (1963) 458 ff.; Wanscher (1980) 127–8; Marshall (1984) 130; Schäfer (1989) 196–232). military commands. The essential notion behind imperium was the unfettered power magistrates could exercise in their capacity as governors and military commanders abroad, with the aim of imperial expansion (Polyb. 3. 4. 2–3, 16. 27. 2–3; Lintott (1993) 22, 97). provincial governorships. For the Romans of the ruling class the promise of a province—of which a magistrate or a promagistrate with imperium was in charge—was considered to be among the highest of rewards, and debts were frequently run up in anticipation of such an office (Lintott (1993) 25–32). priesthoods. In the first century the office of priesthood had increasingly become a political one and was awarded as a form of patronage (Agr. 2. 18; Dom. 1; Dio 37. 37. 1–3; Hahm (1963) 82 n. 30). The chief priesthoods (flamines and Salii) were still reserved for the members of aristocratic families (Dom. 38), but the three great colleges of the pontifices, augurs, and decemviri had been thrown open to the lower orders (Beard (1990) 17–48). triumphs. The intensity of the ambition to be granted a triumph and its importance for a public career can be gauged from the lengthy period a prospective triumphator was prepared to wait before he received his honour. For instance, Lentulus Spinther, governor of Cilicia from 56–53, had to bide his time for three years before he was allowed to celebrate his triumph (Att. 5. 21. 4), and even a general of the standing of Pompey had to wait for a whole year before he was granted his third triumph, in September 61. The pride with which triumphal insignia were depicted on family tombs is further evidence of the lasting prestige a triumph conferred (2Ver. 5. 77; Liv. 30. 15. 12; Versnel (1970); Richardson (1975) 50– 63; Marshall (1984) 124). Even Cicero, obviously not a military person, was not immune to such allurements, as he repeatedly petitioned for a triumph in Rome after his successful governorship of Cilicia in 51 (Fam. 11. 1. 1). images. A privilege highly valued by curule Senators was the right of the sons of a deceased magistrate to exhibit his wax death ........................................................................................................................... pg 160 mask in the forecourt of his house and to carry it in the funeral procession along with his fasces and axes in a proud record of his personal attainments and a graphic display of family history. Illustrious ancestors could carry considerable kudos, particularly beneficial at the time of magisterial elections, when, as Cicero remarks, the nobles were recommended by their forebears and their smoked-stained ancestral images (2Ver. 5. 36; Sest. 21; Pis. Page 42 of 96

1; Planc. 18, 67; Hor. Ep. 8. 11; Polyb. 6. 53. 8; Hopkins (1983a) 31 ff.; for an exhaustive treatment of the subject see Flower (1996)). 7. 17. responsibility … reverence. In a moralistic vein suggesting personal conviction, Cicero here seems to be drafting the equestrian jurors' reply in defence of their juristic rights. This statement forms a continuation of the theme outlined above: that, in return for the privileges of office, Senators should show the respect due to both the laws and courtrooms. How dire the state of the courts was at this time can be gauged by the feelings of despair expressed by the orator in a letter to his brother in 54: 'It wrings my heart to think that we have no commonwealth, no courts of justice' (Q.fr. 3. 5. 4; 2. 15. 1 ff; Att. 4. 18. 3; Fam. 1. 8. 4; Gabba (1956) 369 ff.). 'We never … anxiety'. Any jurors who had heard Cluentius' case in 66 must have felt a strong sense of déjà vu as Cicero recapitulated much of the same argument (Clu. 153). However, in contrast to the earlier speech, Cicero here chooses to keep his argument brief and to the point by inserting an imaginary dialogue between an eques and a Senator. This interchange has been the subject of debate, with some scholars suggesting that, because this dispute between the senatorial and the equestrian jurors does not appear in Pro Cluentio (154–8), the events under discussion do not refer to the times of Drusus but to the period of 54–53 (Gabba (1956) 371 n. 2; Nicolet (1966–74) I. 563). This argument, however, would seem to be less than conclusive, and the general context of this passage indicates that Cicero continues to draw on the historic events of 91, whilst using full artistic licence to elaborate his point. unassuming life. cf. note on 2. 3 publicanus and 2. 4 My client … kings. The prerogative of members of the equestrian order to lead an unpretentious and quiet life was seen as being as socially acceptable as the right of the senatorial order to seek glory and high political office (Sest. 6, 96–8). Instead of politics, equites ........................................................................................................................... pg 161 usually devoted their efforts to acquisitive activities such as commerce, finance, and manufacture, although literary pursuits could also prove attractive (Off. 1. 92; Att. 7. 7. 5; Sen. 49; Sil. 12. 27–32; Sall. Hist. 1. 55. 9; Wirszubski (1954) 4 ff. nn. 30, 31; André (1966) 135–201). Cicero, a Senator, wrote in restrained politeness that his own ambition had led him to pursue honours, whereas his friend Atticus, an eques, had chosen to live without ties of public office (Att. 1. 17. 5). However, the divisions were not cast in iron. The careers of Cicero and his fellow citizen from Arpinum, Marius, exemplify this, as both started their careers as equites before they rose to the senatorial rank (Brunt (1965a) 120 nn. 2, 3; Welch (1996) 450–71; on equites' aspirations for a political career for their sons see Planc. 24). Indeed, the weakness of Cicero's argument is evident from the very fact that Postumus is facing trial over his participation in a complex and far-reaching affair which had embroiled

Page 43 of 96

the most senior statesmen of both Rome and Egypt. The demarcation lines between quiet profit and political glory had become increasingly blurred and Cicero is once again stressing an ideal rather than the reality. 'you are … I am'. This fictitious colloquy between a senatorial and an equestrian interlocutor lends immediacy to the issue under discussion. The repartee is structurally short and simple but somewhat complex in form. Although the text is corrupt, it is clear that the topic under discussion is still the liability of the equites to prosecution for acts committed while serving as jurors (Weinrib (1970) 426). thrust upon me. Cicero appears to have shifted his argument here to address the question of jury selection. However, after contrasting the differing procedures adopted by the two orders to choose jurors, he once again reaches the same conclusion that the equites ought not to be amenable to the same penalties as those who voluntarily pursue public office. The general jury panel was compiled by the praetor, and any eques summoned for service could not refuse, his attendance being obligatory, whereas it was held that such compulsion would be unseemly for Senators, who were expected to perform their judicial duties willingly (Clu. 120–1; Planc. 79; lex rep. ll. 12–18; Staveley (1953) 201–13; Nicolet (1966–74) I. 562– 3; Sherwin-White (1982) 28). A slight modification to the process of jury selection appears to have been introduced by Pompey in 55, when he limited the arbitrary selection powers of ........................................................................................................................... pg 162 magistrates and sought to enforce the census qualification (Pis. 94), but the overall effectiveness of this measure must be doubted, since Velleius Paterculus (2. 76) states that his grandfather has been chosen by Pompey himself to serve as a juror. 7. 18. surrender. An emotive word which suggests inertia and apathy. The equestrian status in criminal law is imperilled if the equites do not take swift action to mend their dilatory ways and safeguard their rights. this right. The legal right that rendered equestrian jurors immune from prosecution for judicial corruption in the standing courts. men. This word is employed in a deliberately ambiguous fashion, as it is not clear whether it refers to the equestrian jurors or members of the equestrian class in general. Granted that Postumus himself was not an equestrian juror—although he might have served in this capacity at some other time—Cicero seems to be deliberately obfuscating the issue, so as to both avoid the direct linking of any equestrian jurors to accusations of bribery and highlight the dangers that would befall members of the equestrian class as a whole.

Page 44 of 96

feuds … gossips. The emphasis here is placed by the orator on the danger of personal vendettas sullying the principles of justice if innocent people, like Postumus, are convicted on unfair charges (cf. 14. 40, 17. 46 adventitious money; Q.fr. 1. 1. 17). If … rostra. Cicero's syllogism here is couched in suppositious terms, as Postumus' personal predicament is equated with that of the equestrian class as a whole. If the equites were specifically threatened by legal action in the Senate, they would naturally protest. The pointed contrast here is with the rather underhand way that they might be brought under the law, through precedent, if Postumus were convicted. The sentences in this section are rendered brief but powerful by repeated logical contrasts such as 'free' vs. 'obliged' and 'in a state of liberty' vs. 'in fetters'. rostra. The speaker's platform in the Roman forum (Liv. 8. 14. 12; Coarelli (1985) I. 141–6, 150–2, II. 184–7, 240–5. free. Cicero here reinforces his argument by stressing that both of the highest bodies of the Roman Republic support the principle of equestrian immunity. By this time the Senate had ceased to promulgate legislation—although some senatus consulta led to ........................................................................................................................... pg 163 leges—which could only be passed by the People in the form of laws and plebiscites. 7. 19. For if … cases? This rhetorical question marks Cicero's last recapitulation of his argument that Postumus acted in Egypt as an individual eques, independent of Gabinius' retinue. This section may also indicate that something similar to Pompey's bill of 55 (cf. note on 6. 13 raised … Senate; 8. 21 partner) may have subsequently entered the general law of extortion. If this was so, then, the only possible defence for equestrian members of a provincial magistrate's entourage was the claim that the ultimate responsibility lay with the governor who was in charge of the province (2Ver. 2. 26). Another interesting point about this list of offices is that they indicate title or rank (for example, Comes ex Italia was used to describe Catullus in Bithynia; Q.fr. 2. 14. 3; Fam. 7. 8. 1). Following the familiar pattern of prefiguring the contents of the next section, Cicero now launches into a swingeing attempt to distance Postumus from Gabinius. friend. A careful choice of word (familiaris), selected out of oratorical expediency and designed to forestall any possible attack from the prosecution. Whenever Cicero wishes to express true feelings of friendship he tends to proclaim amicitia rather than familiaritas (cf. 16. 43, 17. 48; Craig (1981) 31–7). 8. 19. prompted. Cicero, in this section, rebuts the second major allegation levelled by the prosecution, that Postumus personally induced Gabinius, the proconsul of Syria, to restore the King to his throne (Joseph. A. J. 14. 98, 103; B. J. 1. 175, 178; Strabo 12. 3. 34 (558)).

Page 45 of 96

Gabinius was preparing an invasion of Parthia at the time, and the majority of our sources agree that it was the temptation of the huge bribe of 10,000 talents promised to him by Ptolemy Auletes that led him to change his plan and march on Egypt (cf. note on 8. 21 ten thousand talents; Pis. 49; App. Syr. 51; Dio 39. 55. 3; Plut. Ant. 3. 2–5). Plutarch suggests that Gabinius was initially reluctant to embark on the venture and only did so under the direct influence of Antony, his praefectus equitum. However, Dio, sensing the involvement of greater men, suggests that Gabinius only acted on the direct orders of Pompey—therefore reviving the successful partnership already tested against the pirates in 67—adding that it was Ptolemy Auletes himself who bore the letter to Gabinius which contained Pompey's orders (Dio 39. 56. ........................................................................................................................... pg 164 2–3. Williams (1978) 205 ff. examines Pompey's influence over Gabinius in terms of amicitia). In his account, Dio is careful to distinguish between the motives of Pompey and those of Gabinius, ascribing the former's actions to friendship with the King but the latter's to pure avarice (Dio 39. 57. 2–3; cf. note on 8. 21 avarice). None of the sources mentions Postumus but, as Ptolemy Auletes was residing in Ephesus at that time, it is just possible that Pompey's confidential message was delivered to the King by Postumus—the securing of a trustworthy courier for such a delicate errand being of vital importance (Dio 29. 16. 3, 39. 16. 3, 39. 55. 1; Fam. 1. 1. 1; Att. 15. 15. 2; Har. 28; Williams (1978) 207 n. 53). Even if this was so and Postumus did play such a role, it is doubtful if he alone could have persuaded Gabinius to act. Both Pompey and Ptolemy Auletes had much at stake, but, well aware of the political sensitivities of the case, Cicero is here content to avoid such difficult issues and state that whatever the motives behind Gabinius' actions, they were his own. disposition. Cicero's 'legal obligation' towards his previous client Gabinius, whom he had defended in his extortion trial. At first sight, it is rather surprising that instead of defending Postumus Cicero launches into a passionate exoneration of his own actions in defending Gabinius (cf. 12. 33; Clu. 139), but, then, his honour was at stake (cf. note on 8. 19 zealously … defence). predicament. Being exiled. animosity. Gabinius was widely known to be one of the most unpopular men in Rome and among his many enemies was Cicero, with whom he had a long-running and bitter feud (cf. note on 12. 32 reconciliation). In part, Gabinius provoked so much hostility because of his political alliances, especially his close ties with Clodius and, later, with Pompey (cf. note on 4. 8 Gabinius). This largely explains the public outcry at the time of his consulship and why, at least according to Cicero, among the most fervent of his opponents was Crassus, although, like Cicero, Crassus under pressure from Pompey was to come to support Gabinius at the time of his trials (Fam. 1. 9. 20; Dio 39. 60. 1). However, there also seems to have

Page 46 of 96

been a personal quality in much of the hostility towards Gabinius, and this is evident not only in his feud with Cicero but also in the desire of Ti. Claudius Nero, as the representative of the family of Archelaus of Egypt, whom Gabinius had killed at the battle of Pelusium, to be appointed the prosecutor at his trial ........................................................................................................................... pg 165 (Q.fr. 3. 2. 1; Fantham (1975) 435). It may be that Gabinius had a particularly arrogant and abrasive character; some support for this notion comes from the fact that during his period in Syria he managed to alienate completely the publicani of that province, who bitterly complained about his heavy-handed rule (Q.fr. 2. 13. 2; Prov. 10–11; Sanford (1939) 92). zealously … defence. cf. note on 12. 32 reconciliation, 12. 33 unwillingly. This is the only contemporary evidence for Cicero's defence of Gabinius for extortion, his Pro Aulo Gabinio not being extant (later references can be found in Val. Max. 4. 2. 4; Quint. Inst. 11. 1. 73; Dio 39. 63. 2–5; the possibility, as suggested by Crawford (1984) 263–4, that Cicero might have also delivered a speech in defence of Gabinius in 64/62 is very slim). authority of Pompey. cf. note on 12. 33 unwillingly. 8.20. accusation. The orator brazenly ridicules Memmius, who first stated that Gabinius was lured solely by financial reward and now claims that Postumus had to persuade him to restore Ptolemy Auletes, a contradictory stance that could be interpreted as questioning the propriety of the jurors. State. Cicero here stresses that Gabinius' Egyptian adventure to restore Ptolemy Auletes was in the interest of the State, as it was designed to protect Syria and its vital grain supplies from the ravages of Archelaus' pirate fleets. Indeed, this must have formed the crux of Gabinius' defence in his trial for treason, and enough of the jury had reason to support him for the argument to be successful, despite its obvious flimsiness given the bribe of the 10,000 talents promised by the King (Q.fr. 3. 4. 1). The exact nature of Gabinius' dealings with Archelaus is far from clear. Archelaus had been with Gabinius in Syria, hoping to share the profits of the Parthian campaign, when he suddenly left for Alexandria, tempted by the offer of kingship. According to Strabo 17. 1. 11 (796) he did so without telling Gabinius of his intentions, but Dio 39. 56–8 suggests that the proconsul knew and that he even participated in a complex plot designed to extract a larger payment from the King. According to Dio, Gabinius, in return for a substantial bribe, allowed Archelaus, whom Gabinius himself had 'imprisoned', to 'escape' in order to take up his Egyptian throne and increase the depredations of the pirates, thereby necessitating the mounting of a larger and more ........................................................................................................................... pg 166

Page 47 of 96

costly military expedition—a complicated imbroglio which might be considered to be a little far-fetched even by Gabinius' standards. Archelaus. Archelaus, by falsely claiming royal descent as son of Mithridates VI Eupator, the King of Pontus, succeeded in marrying Berenice IV, Ptolemy Auletes' daughter, in April 56. In fact, he was the son of Archelaus who had fought with Mithridates against Rome before defecting to Sulla (Dio 39. 57. 2). pirates. Piracy was a constant problem in the Mediterranean during the last century of the Roman Republic, with their depredations being so great that Pompey's achievements against them won him considerable praise (Man. 44; Flac. 28; Florus 1. 41. 15; Garnsey (1988) 215). Despite Pompey's efforts, the sea still festered with pirates, with the Syrians complaining repeatedly of attacks, especially during Gabinius' proconsulship (Dio 39. 56. 1–5, 39. 59. 1–2; Joseph. B. J. 1. 176; A. J. 14. 101–4; MRR, II. 218; Seager (1979) 32 ff.). Whether Archelaus was in league with the pirates, perhaps employing them as mercenaries against the Romans, is not known (Williams (1985–6) 25–32). Barring Gabinus' reported statement here that Archelaus was encouraging piracy, no further evidence of such collaboration exists, and it seems most likely to have been concocted as a sufficiently plausible excuse for his intervention in Egypt. The word 'pirate' would have conveyed menacing overtones of a threat to Roman peace, prestige, and supplies, and, by its nature, must have played a significant role in securing Gabinius' acquittal during his first trial. law. This might be a specific reference either to the provisions of Sulla's Cornelian law for treason (lex Cornelia de maiestate) of 81, or to the Julian law of extortion of 59, both of which drew upon the Porcian law of 101, which is mentioned in the Cnidos text of the socalled 'Piracy law' (for the Cornelian law see 2Ver. 1. 12, 1. 72–3, 5. 50; Pis. 50; Clu. 97, 99; Fam. 1. 9. 25, 3. 6. 3; Vat. 12; Zumpt (1865–9) II. 1. 376–92; for the Cnidos text (III, ll. 4 f.) see Hassall et al. (1974) 202, 207, 210; Williams (1985–6) 25–38). These laws prohibited a provincial governor from waging war or entering the kingdom of an ally without the sanction of the Senate or the people, except in cases of emergency, when the interests of the Roman state were threatened (Lintott (1981) 202 n. 153). Cicero reveals that once Gabinius was appointed as the governor of Syria it was widely feared that he would feel free to attack the non-Roman ........................................................................................................................... pg 167 lands to the east or south (esp. Dom. 23, 55, 60, 124)—as Crassus had attacked Parthia in 53 (Nisbet (1961) 189; Shackleton Bailey (1991b) 65 n. 98)—but on what legal basis the proconsul would claim the right to take this action is not explained. Gabinius was appointed as governor of Syria by the lex Clodia de provinciis of 58. Did this law free him from the territorial restrictions normally imposed upon proconsuls, as later happened in the cases of Brutus and Cassius in 43 (Plut. Brut. 27. 2; Vell. 2. 62. 2; Fam. 12. 1. 1), or was Gabinius

Page 48 of 96

given some special dispensation by the Senate, perhaps an imperium infinitum, as was given to M. Antonius in 74 (1 Ver. 8; 213), or an imperium aequum, as was given to Pompey in 67 against the pirates (Vell. 2. 31. 2; Seager (1979) 42)? We have no evidence that the Clodian bill contained such a provision and, given the reluctance of the Senate to grant such powers (Phil. 11. 17), it seems highly unlikely that his command was 'unlimited'. When Cicero refers to these powers he is probably exaggerating, because under the constitution such commands had to be legally defined and limited (Jameson (1970) 542; Marshall (1976) 140; Ridley (1981) 295; Crawford (1984) 189 n. 4). Here, he is more likely to be implying either the Julian law of extortion or the Cornelian law for treason, which allowed for military action if the Roman state was in danger—an argument that Gabinius' lawyer must have voiced with conviction, given Gabinius' acquittal in his trial for treason. ill-disposed. cf. note on 3. 7 C. Memmius. The stinging sarcasm which Cicero employs in his systematic demolition of Memmius' credibility—even going so far as to suggest that he does not respect the decision of the court—perhaps carries within it a trace of personal vindictiveness, given Memmius' recent success against him in Gabinius' trial for extortion. decision. The verdict passed in Gabinius' trial for extortion, which found him guilty and liable to a fine of 10,000 talents. 8. 21. return. Having successfully rehashed the main lines of the defence from Gabinius' trial for treason, Cicero now returns to the previous allegation, that Postumus was responsible for persuading Gabinius to restore the King to his throne. He chooses to rebut it by (a) pleading that an additional persuader (Postumus) is hardly required if 10,000 talents are on the table and (b) claiming that Postumus travelled on the authority of Lentulus and not of Gabinius. ........................................................................................................................... pg 168 10,000 talents. The talent was a monetary unit equivalent to 6,000 denarii or drachmae. The sheer enormity of the amount of money promised by the King to Gabinius becomes apparent when it is compared with the 7,000 talents collected in two years (58–56) by Cato from the royal treasury and the personal possessions of the King of Cyprus, although it is possible these might have been undervalued because of their forced sale (Schol. Bob. Arch. 9 (p. 177 St.), Planc. 86 (p. 168 St.); Dio 39. 56. 3; Plut. Ant. 3. 2; App. Syr. 51; Joseph. A. J. 14. 98–9; B. J. 1. 175; Pis. 48 ff.; Fam. 7. 17. 1; cf. note on 11. 30 money for Gabinius). One source suggests that the bribe was equal to twice the King's annual income of 6,000 talents (Diod. 17. 52. 6–7), and, even by Cicero's calculations, as recorded by Strabo 17. 1. 13 (798), it amounted to five-sixths of the annual income of the Egyptian treasury, which he estimated to be around 12,500 talents. It must be doubtful whether Gabinius ever received all his money, and some scholars have even suggested that the figure was largely symbolic (cf. 11. 31, 12. 34; Ciaceri (1918) 209–10, 217; Williams (1978) 207 n. 55).

Page 49 of 96

avarice. Gabinius' reputation for greed was common knowledge and it may date from Pompey's campaign against Mithridates in 66, from which he was said to have profited to the tune of several million sesterces (App. Mith. 15. 104; Plut. Pomp. 33. 4–5). When, later in 61, with Scaurus he took over the negotiations with the Jews, he was alleged to have used the opportunity to secure as much booty as possible, and, according to the sources, it was not Pompey but Gabinius who received a bribe of 300 talents from Aristobulus, brother and rival claimant of Hyrcanus in Judaea, in order to mediate in his favour (Joseph. B. J. 1. 160–74; A. J. 14. 37, 14. 82–97). Some of the profits from Gabinius' enterprises were invested in a house in Rome (Pis. 51; Shatzman (1975) 342–3; Fantham (1975) 429) and a villa and estate at Tusculum, which was then enlarged and beautified from money made during his consulship and proconsulship in Syria (Dom. 62, 113, 124; Sest. 93; Pis. 48; cf. note on 8. 20 State). 240 million sesterces. The 10,000 talents, in terms of Roman coinage, is 240,000,000 sestertii. Besides the obvious point, that presenting the figure in Roman currency would make it more intelligible to a Roman audience, Cicero here would also seem to be playing for dramatic effect to underline the huge scale of the bribe. ........................................................................................................................... pg 169 his own. For the purposes of the defence Cicero chooses to present a picture of Gabinius acting on his own responsibility motivated only by personal considerations of glory or monetary gain (cf. below 'his alone' and 'for himself'; and note the subjective colouring and the certainty which the word 'unquestionably' (certe) adds to the sentence (K-St (1955) I. 799–802; Panayotou (1984) 359). Undoubtedly this is less than the whole truth, and the most reasonable explanation is that Gabinius was acting in the interests of Pompey, because otherwise it would be difficult to explain Pompey's later efforts to protect Gabinius. Cicero, aware of the political sensitivities of the case, was not above throwing dust in the jury's eyes by describing the Egyptian expedition as a private affair (Pis. 49; Quint. Inst. 2. 17. 21). had hurried. The pluperfect tense here suggests that Postumus had left Rome well before news of Gabinius' march into Egypt had reached the city, whilst 'hurried' suggests that it was on the basis of unexpected news, which caught even Cicero unawares, perhaps in direct response to the news of Archelaus' accession to the throne in Alexandria in March/ April 56 (cf. note on 8. 20 Archelaus; for the itinerary the Romans followed on their way to Alexandria see Introd., pp. 28–30). firm plan. The plan was that Postumus would act as the financial treasurer of the King in Alexandria. However, it is not in Cicero's interest to clarify the circumstances under which this plan would have been executed. Lentulus was chosen for the restoration of the King by the Senate, and Postumus was appointed as treasurer in Egypt, but the orator is putting together these two discrete and unrelated truths to obfuscate rather than illuminate the point here.

Page 50 of 96

partner. To emphasize this point Cicero employs the same form of words as before (cf. 6. 13, 7. 19). P. Lentulus. P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther—Cicero never uses the second surname, as it derived from Lentulus' resemblance to an actor and is highly uncomplimentary (RE, IV, s.v., col. 1393). Appointed as a praetor in 60, he became the governor of Spain in the following year (Val. Max. 2. 4. 6; Plin. Nat. 9. 23; Fam. 1. 9. 13). He shared his consulship in 57 with Q. 2

Caecilius Metellus Nepos and afterwards served as proconsul in Cilicia from 56–54 (CIL, I . 757; MRR, II. 183, 199–200). During his consulship he had ........................................................................................................................... pg 170 secured a senatorial decree that authorized him, as the future proconsul of Cilicia, to restore Ptolemy Auletes to the throne of Egypt through a military operation in the following year (Fam. 1. 7. 4; Pis. 50; Dio 39. 12. 3; 39. 13. 15). However, Lentulus' authorization was generally disputed by both Pompey's and Crassus' henchmen, who wanted to see the mission transferred to someone else, as well as by opponents among the aristocracy who invoked the Sybilline oracle to try and prevent military force from being used to restore the King. These disputes caused the reopening of a heated debate in the Roman Senate early in 56 (Dio 39. 13. 15; Marshall (1976) 124). Pompey was anxious to secure the mission for himself, but did not publicly voice his dissent, preferring his claims to be pressed by friends such as L. Tullus Volcacius, L. Afranius (Fam. 1. 13. 1, 1, 2. 3), L. Caninius Gallus (Fam. 1. 4. 1; Q.fr. 2. 2. 3), and P. Rutilius Lupus (Fam. 1. 1. 3), as well as the two tribunes of 56, P. Plautius Hypsaeus and L. Scribonius Libo (Fam. 1. 1. 3, 1. 2. 3). The preference of many others, including Cicero, Q. Hortensius Hortalus, and L. Licinius Lucullus, remained for Lentulus to lead the campaign, and there is evidence that in 56 Cicero delivered two speeches in the Senate in favour of Lentulus' candidature (Dio 39. 15. 1 f.; Fam. 1. 1. 1, 1. 2. 1, 1. 4. 2). The reasons for his support may in part be traced to the wholehearted efforts Lentulus had made to secure his return from exile and to recover his house immediately after his return (Att. 3. 23. 1; Red. Sen. 8, 27; Har. 13). However, for Cicero, who himself had once, in April 59, expected to be offered a commission as a legate to Ptolemy Auletes (Att. 2. 5. 1, 2. 7. 3), the whole matter remained both delicate and complicated—his correspondence at the time reveals the extra care he took to keep both Pompey and Lentulus happy (Q.fr. 2. 4. 5; Fam. 1. 1. 1, 1. 2. 1, 1. 4. 1, 1. 5a. 1, 1. 5b. 1, 1. 6. 1, 1. 7. 1; Shackleton Bailey (1965–70) II. 158; Wiseman (1966) 111). Up until midsummer in 56 Cicero kept reassuring Lentulus that there was no senatus consultum prohibiting him from restoring the King and that the proposal to forbid it was not ratified because of a veto (Fam. 1. 7. 4). However, events in Rome were to be overtaken by decisions made elsewhere, especially after the reconciliation of Pompey and Crassus by Caesar at Luca in April 56, which led to Gabinius, the triumvirs' own man, undertaking the task. In this passage Cicero is, as usual, being economical with the truth and, by associating his client with Lentulus, who, indeed, had been officially authorized in 57 by the Senate Page 51 of 96

........................................................................................................................... pg 171 to undertake the restoration of the King, he tries to 'prove' to the jurors that Postumus' actions are legal and, therefore, completely independent of Gabinius' illegal transactions. Cicero, in the following paragraphs (8. 22–11. 29), outlines the events surrounding the arrival of Postumus in Egypt and his appointment as chief financial treasurer, focusing on the foolishness of his actions both in going to Alexandria in the first place and in his subsequent stupid behaviour in wearing Greek clothes once there. The argumentation behind these points is supported by references to wise people who had previously served kings, and Romans who had adopted Greek habit. 8. 22. treasurer. cf. 10. 28, 13. 39; Dio 39. 60. 4; Introd., pp. 32–5. By the first century BC the civil office of dioecetes had risen to be among the highest in Egypt, although we have no clear knowledge of there ever being a fixed hierarchy of such posts. It is not clear who occupied the post immediately prior to Postumus' appointment. In 60 the office seems to have been held by Hephaestion (PP (1950), I, no. 31; Mooren (1975) 96, 111, 138–9, 242), but after 57 he disappears from the historical record, perhaps because of changes in the political scene in Egypt when Berenice IV began to rule alone or in conjunction with Archelaus (BGU, VIII. 1772, 1756, 1757, 1758; Sullivan (1990) 422 n. 60). Cicero says here that Postumus was appointed to the office of royal treasurer, a statement that gives some credence to the premises that there was one dioecetes in Egypt in the first century BC. This idea has been put forward by Druffel (1920) 30–3 and Thomas (1978) 189–91, who have argued that, although there was a period of decentralization of the office in the middle of the second century BC, which led to the appearance of many dioecetai, responsible for different regions of the country, during the first century BC the government reverted to the practice prevalent in the third century BC of appointing one single dioecetes and abolishing the other posts. However, elsewhere, Cicero (cf. 10. 28) expands his argument and states that Postumus undertook the 'management and virtual running of the Royal Exchequer'. This qualification implies that Postumus was working alongside others and at first sight this supposition is further corroborated by the newly discovered papyrus (P. Med. Inv. 68. 53; Balconi (1993) 1–20), which is highly likely to refer to this time, where it is stated that Postumus tried to replace the dioecetai (note the plural), who were in key positions, with others, perhaps his own ........................................................................................................................... pg 172 men. Whether these dioecetai held the office of dioecetes or were really sub-dioecetai, however, is not clear, and confusion between the two offices has often been encountered in other documents (Wilcken (1920) 148 n. 1; Browne (1966) 85). However, in this case the dioecetai mentioned in this papyrus are obviously inferior to the chief royal treasurer, Postumus, who is in a position to demote them or replace them. It would have been tactless in the extreme for the newly reinstated Ptolemy Auletes, at the time struggling to rePage 52 of 96

establish his position in Alexandria, to nominate a Roman alone to such a high office, and so, alongside Postumus, it seems quite likely that there were native officials whose task would have been not only to placate the Alexandrians and deal with the normal outgoings (army, customs, etc.) but also to act as mediators between Postumus and the bloated and creaking Egyptian bureaucracy (cf. note on 10. 28 management; Bloedow (1963) 77 suggests that Postumus was appointed as a kind of economic manager (Wirtschaftskommissariat); Heinen (1966) 39; Van't Dack (1988) 181; Heinen (1990) 664). Cicero's description of Postumus as royal treasurer in Alexandria, apart from being an admission of reality, serves to underline the notion that Postumus, as an employee of the King, was not free to act as he would have wished, an argument which will be amplified just a few lines below (a similar tactic is employed in Pro Cluentio; Quint. Inst. 2. 17. 21). imprisoned. Cicero's assertion is not corroborated in any other sources. His plea is clearly intended to elicit the jurors' sympathy and pity by presenting Postumus' treatment at the hands of the Egyptian King as akin to martyrdom, but in reality it is just as likely that Postumus' life was in danger because of his rapacious behaviour towards the Alexandrians as because of the monarch's whims—although the departure of his leading creditor would not have been mourned by the King. With a sizeable Roman garrison still stationed in Alexandria, the Gabiniani, it is difficult to see how Postumus, who after all was gathering money for Gabinius, could have been imprisoned for long against his will. Indeed, it is noticeable that at this point Cicero desists from advancing the argument further (perhaps on the following lines: 'How could a royal treasurer such as Postumus receive money from Gabinius, which could well have been at least in part paid out through his hands from the royal treasury in the first place?'). Instead, he chooses to hammer home ........................................................................................................................... pg 173 with a string of repetitions the simpler argument that Postumus was nothing but a 'pawn' of the King or, more equivocally, a victim of the circumstances. endure. The verb perferro is often used to indicate a prolonged period of suffering (2Ver. 2. 9). criticism. Cicero suggests here that there is only one justified criticism to be levelled at Postumus: the fact that he went to Alexandria and placed himself under the King's power. For … others? With this rhetorical question Cicero shifts the line of argument from trying to distance Postumus from Gabinius to justifying Postumus' behaviour in Alexandria, by indulging in a rather sonorous, melodramatic, and patriotic digression on the rights and privileges of a Roman eques as a citizen in the Late Republican period (Nicolet (1980) 318–41). Here, ostensibly, Cicero is merely restating the strong sense of devotion that he undoubtedly felt towards the Republic—one might note that in the same year as the defence of Postumus he started composing the de Republica—but beneath the rhetorical Page 53 of 96

facade, consisting of contrasting pairings such as 'liberty' and 'subservience', adjectives such as 'obedient' and 'subservient', constant repetition of the word 'foolishness' (cf. 9. 24), and historical examples (cf. 9. 23), lies Cicero's intention to show not only the extent of Postumus' folly but, more importantly, the force of necessity. For, by conceding Postumus' misjudgement, and by stressing his foolishness—which is a forgivable 'crime'—Cicero hopes to clear him of criminal intent—punishable by law. 9. 23. modest learning. This at first sight rather uncomplimentary reference to Postumus' intellectual accomplishments, made by means of comparison with men much more highly educated than him, who had found themselves in similar situations, is skilfully later transformed to the advantage of the defence (Top. 43–5). Roman businessmen like Postumus were usually only moderately cultivated, caring more for money than culture (Q.fr. 1. 1. 15; Part. 90; Eyer (1963) 47–59; Rawson (1985) 12–13). most sagacious. Almost any speech of Cicero's contains historical exempla drawn from not only the Roman past but frequently the Greek world, since 'one should know the history of the other peoples beside one's own' (Orat. 120; 2Ver. 1. 48; Balb. 12; Scaur. 3). ........................................................................................................................... pg 174 The historical analogies drawn here are primarily intended to demonstrate to the jury how easy it is for even the wisest of men to fall into the same predicament as Postumus (Molière, Les Femmes Savantes, IV. iii. 1296: 'Qu'un sot savant est sot plus qu'un sot ignorant'). The use of characters from classical Greek antiquity is indicative not only of the learning of the jurors and the audience who attended the case, but also of the high esteem in which such Greeks continued to be held—in sharp contrast to the low opinion held of the Greeks of Cicero's own day (cf. 12. 35–3). Although at first sight it might seem faintly amusing for Postumus, an equestrian businessman, to be compared with such luminaries, only through such exempla could Cicero hope to make his argument plausible to his audience. Plato. Cicero firstly refers to the harsh treatment, including imprisonment, which Plato suffered at the hands of Dionysius II, the tyrant of Syracuse. Plato details his experiences in his seventh letter (Lett. 7. 328 B ff.), which was a reply, or pretended to be a reply, to a letter from the friends and followers of Dion of Syracuse, ostensibly to urge moderation and the following of constitutional procedures, but, in reality, to explain and justify Plato's behaviour (Tusc. 5. 57; Friedländer (1954) 238; Seyffert & Müller (1965) 33; Klosko (1986) 186–7). Callisthenes. Callisthenes was Alexander the Great's official historiographer, who in 327 fell victim to his master's wrath over his refusal to follow the Persian custom of showing obedience to a king by physical prostration (προσχύνησις‎), a gesture which a Macedonian or a Greek would only perform to a god. Callisthenes' reaction aroused such ire that it led to him being falsely accused of involvement in a murder conspiracy against Alexander, Page 54 of 96

who ordered his immediate death (Walbank (1992) 38–9). The author of a history of Greece from 387–357, Callisthenes also wrote monographs on the 'Sacred War' and the 'Deeds of Alexander' (Strabo 17. 1. 43 (814)). Demetrius. Known as 'Demetrius of Phalerum', he was an Athenian Peripatetic philosopher who, with Cassander's support, became tyrant of the city and its legislator from 317 to 307. Although he secured peace in Athens, it was ultimately at the price of the independence of the city, which was to fall under Macedonian control after Demetrius had been expelled by ........................................................................................................................... pg 175 Demetrius I Poliorcetes. Demetrius first fled to Boeotia and then to Alexandria, where he was a librarian, before dying from the bite of an asp in 297 during the rule of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (D. L. 5. 78–9; on Cicero's admiration for Demetrius see Brut. 37–8; de Orat. 2. 95; Orat. 92). The example of Demetrius is carefully selected to underline the barbarity of alien practices in Alexandria. 9. 24. preposterous. The emphasis on the notion that Postumus' actions were foolhardy indicates the importance Cicero attached to this line of argument within the defence (cf. 8. 22 'absurdly'; 9. 24 'act of folly', 'nonsensical behaviour', 'stupidity'; 9. 25 'madness'). freedom. The effect produced by this politically charged word varied greatly depending on the circumstances in which it was used and the advocate's motives, but any invocation of the liberties enjoyed by a Roman citizen of the Republic would have elicited a strong response from the Roman jurors, and, indeed, Cicero employs it here primarily for emotive reasons (Hellegouarc'h (1963) 550 n. 10; Nicolet (1980) 322). act of wisdom. In an artful piece of rhetorical footwork Cicero proceeds to prove that two wrongs can, indeed, make a right. After freely admitting that nothing could have been more foolish than Postumus' entry into the King's service—and, thus, presumably agreeing with the prosecution's charge—in an abrupt volte-face Cicero suddenly switches to argue that, after all, Postumus was acting wisely because, once he had foolishly placed his fortune at risk—and most importantly that of his friends—he was prepared to sacrifice all and go to any lengths to defend his and, by extension, their probity. since … stupidity. For its proverbial use see Fest. 343 M: 'Sero sapiunt Phryges'. 9. 25. abiding. Shakespeare, Macbeth, V. i. 62: 'What's done cannot be undone'. Once the money was lent, Postumus had to be prepared to compromise himself in order to secure its return. This is a strong concluding statement—emphatically reinforced by repeated synonymous expressions such as 'cannot be moved or changed', 'remain fixed and abiding'—which serves as a final dismissal of the prosecution's accusation and forms an objective ending to an extremely subjective interpretation.

Page 55 of 96

........................................................................................................................... pg 176 impartial … prejudiced. In an obvious rhetorical ploy Cicero suggests that all those who consider themselves impartial, by which he implies the jurors (cf. note on 17. 45 free from prejudice), cannot but believe his argument that Postumus acted from the best of intentions, whilst only those who are prejudiced could believe otherwise and, thus, accept the prosecution's argument. friends. In spite of so brazenly admitting Postumus' 'foolishness', Cicero still manages to underline his client's basic virtues by reminding the jury of Postumus' commitment to his friends (cf. 2. 5, 15. 41; Quint. Inst. 9. 2. 17). Indeed, Cicero gives a moral dimension to his client's actions on the grounds that seeking to recoup the loans of one's friends constitutes in itself honourable behaviour. Interestingly, Cicero does not develop this line of argument further, nor are any of the friends named—probably for sound political reasons. contracts. cf. note on 3. 6 written contracts. reproach. The reader of a Ciceronian speech normally deduces the charges and arguments put forward by the other counsel only through what Cicero himself argues about them. A diligent prosecutor had every incentive, if not duty, to include all the charges he could come up with in order to increase the likelihood that at least one would be accepted as true by the jurors. In turn, it was equally within the defence's rights to deliberately ignore the strong points of their opponent's case and furnish strong rebuttals to the weak ones (de Orat. 2. 291 f.). Having acquainted the jurors with Postumus' 'folly', Cicero now takes the relatively minor accusation that his client wore Greek dress whilst in Alexandria and plays it to the full. By doing so, he not only presents himself with a chance to mount an easy and rhetorically stylish defence, thereby deflecting the case away from the question of money, but also reinforces the picture of Postumus as a foolish man. Greek cloak. The pallium was a rectangular Greek mantle which was wrapped loosely around the body, exposing or concealing one or both of the shoulders. References to it in Latin literature first occur in the works of Plautus and Terence, and initially it was worn only by philosophers, teachers, and intellectuals, before being later adopted by ordinary citizens (RE, XVIII. 3, cols. 249–53). The Latin equivalent, the toga, worn by both the Etruscans and the Romans, was the formal and official dress of the Roman citizen, ........................................................................................................................... pg 177 and so distinctive were these items of clothing held to be among the Romans that a Greek was sometimes spoken of as a palliatus and a Roman as a togatus (Phil. 5. 14; Suet. Aug. 40. 5; Liv. 1. 8. 3; Tert. Pall. 1; Serv. A. 2. 781; Dionys. 3. 61; Ov. Rem. 150; Rep. 1. 36; Wilson (1924); Richardson (1953) 77–124; Granger-Taylor (1982), 3–25; Heskel (1994) 133–45). Occasionally a Roman could wear the pallium, but only as an outer cloak on top of the toga,

Page 56 of 96

for, if he discarded the toga entirely and wore the Greek cloak in its stead he was liable to face heavy criticism (Liv. 29. 19. 12; Suet. Tib. 13; Wilson (1924); idem (1938) 78–84). befitting. To conservative Romans of the Late Republic the dress code was an important signifier of social status which was legally regulated by decrees. Any deviation from the norm constituted a serious breach of social conventions and could be interpreted as a political act (Heskel (1994) 133–45). High-ranking Roman officials abroad tended to wear Roman dress to distinguish themselves from their subjects, and, more importantly, because the Romans at home expected them to do so. If they did not comply, it was considered to be an affront to the 'dignity' of Rome, because they were required to be not only rerum dominos but also gentemque togatam (Verg. A. 1. 282). Attacks on styles of dress were effective means of undermining political foes, with those who exchanged the revered toga for Greek dress being particularly prone to criticism (de Orat. 2. 266; Pis. 92; Marshall (1984) 121). However, by the time of Postumus' trial fashions were changing, and even Cato, that most conservative of Romans, who at one stage had acted to exclude Greeks from the city, in his later years learned their language and even wore the pallium (Tert. Pall. 3). It seems that invective against the pallium or other inappropriate dress was spurred by their association with immoral behaviour (cf. 10. 27 'free of criticism'; see also Cicero's attacks on Verres in 2Ver. 5. 137). A loose toga could be regarded as a sign of moral turpitude (Suet. Jul. 45; Aug. 73. 1) and magistrates, including Cicero, were mocked for wearing their praetexta toga too long (Clu. 40. 111; 2Ver. 5. 86; Liv. 29. 19. 11; Dio 46. 18. 2). 9. 26. amended. By directly linking the question of Postumus' need to retain his wealth with his retention of an honourable status in Rome, Cicero once again justifies Postumus' foolish actions as being driven by necessity. This line of argument might be credible, but it still transcended the received orthodoxy of Roman society ........................................................................................................................... pg 178 to such an extent that after this brief parry Cicero drops it and, instead, resorts to a lengthy list of examples to persuade the jury that Postumus' actions had sound historical precedent. 10. 26. pleasure and self-indulgence. 'Deliciae' implies light enjoyment but often suggests moral decadence (Brut. 18), while 'voluptas', which lends a malicious twist to Cicero's diction, intimates wantonness (Süss (1910) 253). Roman citizens. Cicero, here proceeding from the general to the particular, struggles to find examples to back up his argument. The city of Naples had long had a Greek identity and the famous individuals mentioned here, known to have worn Greek attire, had all won acclaim in the East (Sulla, Scipio, Rutilius Rufus).

Page 57 of 96

young men. Cicero seeks here to give an impression that wearing Greek clothing was widely practised among the higher circles, from the fashion-conscious youth to the most respectable of Senators relaxing in the seclusion of their villas. Senators. Certain Romans became philhellenes, such as Titus Flamininus, who proclaimed the freedom of Greece in 196, Aulus Postumius Albinus, consul in 151, who was described as a lover of Greece by Polybius, and Titus Albucius, praetor in 104, who turned himself into a Greek at Athens (Lucil. 2.91–98; Tert. Pall. 5), whereas others remained suspicious of the East. By the second century BC a conflict had arisen between the Hellenizers and the anti-Hellenizers (Astin (1967) 15 ff.; 294–6; idem (1978) 157–81; Ferrary (1988) 505), and, although some embraced Greek practices, in general there remained a prejudice against the Greeks and their culture, with the notable exceptions of art and literature (Tusc. 1. 1–3). The typical attitude of the Roman nobility was to combine an interest in Greek culture with strict adherence to traditional Roman values and standards. Foreign influences and importations were admissible only if they remained matters of private interest (Earl (1967) 41). Greek attire. As the text here is corrupt, the nonsensical maeciappella has been emended to tunica pulla, a term found in 2Ver. 4. 54, 5. 40 to indicate a dark grey, woollen Greek garment, normally worn by artisans, slaves, and people of lower classes (Calp. Ecl. 7. 26, 7. 81). This certainly would have been inappropriate for a Roman Senator! ........................................................................................................................... pg 179 gardens or country villas. The term hortus indicates a villa in the country, usually with spacious grounds (Plin. Nat. 19. 50; 2Ver. 2. 87; Grimal (1943); Shackleton Bailey (1976) 209; idem (1980) 208–9, where he notices the varied meanings of the word and points out that, when used by Martial (5. 62), it applied to the dining room in a villa). Suburbana indicate residential villas near the capital (Att. 4. 2. 7). Naples. Cicero here gives an indication of the high standing in which the city of Naples was held both as a fashionable seaside resort and as a thriving commercial centre (Att. 2. 8. 8; D'Arms (1970)). Long settled by Greeks, who since the fourth century BC had enjoyed a foedus aequum with the Romans, it had managed to preserve a strong Greek cultural identity (Liv. 8. 26; Balb. 21). Within this milieu, and in the relaxed surroundings appertaining to the Roman riviera, social distinctions, including those indicated by clothing, would have seemed less important than in hierarchy-conscious Rome. L. Sulla. The depiction of Lucius Sulla sporting a Greek cape must belong to the period after his return from his eastern campaigns and, indeed, after his dictatorship, when he retired to Campania, an area with a large Greek population, which was, according to Cicero, more suitable for soothing men's passions than for rekindling animosities (Sul. 17; Val. Max. 3. 6. 3; App. B. C. 1. 94).

Page 58 of 96

Greek cape. Chlamys, the brooch-fastened short Greek cloak, had by the first century AD come to mean specifically a semicircular cloak. It originated from either Macedonia or Thessaly and was commonly worn by hunters and young aristocratic horsemen, but in the Hellenistic period it came to be worn by soldiers in particular (Wilson (1938) 100–4; Losfeld (1991) 171–83). 10. 27. L. Scipio. Lucius Cornelius Scipio, the consul of 190, who received the command against Antiochus III on the understanding that his brother Scipio Africanus would serve as legate and be effectively in charge (Mur. 32; Liv. 38. 12 ff.), was the first to lead a Roman army into Asia, and won a triumph, together with the appellation 'Asiagenes', for his decisive victory over the King of the Seleucid Empire Antiochus III at Magnesia (Mur. 31; RE, IV. 1, cols. 1471–83 n. 337; Scullard (1970) 200 ff.). Both Lucius Cornelius Scipio and Scipio Africanus were noted philhellenes (Boren (1977) 72–3), and ........................................................................................................................... pg 180 the enthusiasm of the latter for Greek attire led Livy (29. 19. 12) to disparagingly describe him as 'not only un-Roman but unsoldierly', for it was said that when Scipio Africanus was in Sicily he walked about the gymnasium in Greek cloak and sandals. It is worth noting here that, instead of alluding to Scipio's personal clothing, Cicero chooses to refer to his statue on the Capitol, which stood as a constant reminder of the great man's affiliations (Val. Max. 3. 6. 2; Hiesinger (1973) 805–25 ascribes the use of Greek garments on this statue to the heavy influence of Hellenistic portraiture at this time). Greek sandals. These would be thin and very unsuitable for a consul, but seemly for a philhellene. A 'kρηπίς‎' was of simple construction, consisting of a sole attached by straps to the feet. Worn by Greeks, they were usually regarded as an affectation when adopted by Romans. Cicero's acceptance of the wearing of Greek attire here sharply contrasts with the opprobrium he poured on Piso in 55 for wearing similar dress (Pis. 93). P. Rutilius Rufus. The consul of 105. As Scaevola's legate in Asia (probably in 97/96) he offended the publicani and was eventually condemned for extortion under the Servilian law of Glaucia in 92 (Kallet-Marx (1989) 305–12; Alexander (1990) no. 94). He spent his exile among his alleged victims in the province of Asia, shedding the toga and taking up Greek dress in order to escape execution by Mithridates (Balb. 11, 28; Dio 28. 97. 3–4; Liv. Per. 70; Vell. 2. 13. 2; Alexander (1990) no. 94). Rutilius Rufus, who became a citizen of Smyrna and was visited there by Cicero in 78 (Rep. 1. 13; Brut. 22, 85–9), was considered an eminent figure whose wide intellectual learning, political conservatism, and moral integrity put him on a par with Scipio Aemilianus (RE, I. A1, cols. 1269–80 n. 34; de Orat. 1. 229; Hendrickson (1933) 153–75; Badian (1956) 104–23). His reputation was fostered by his own memoirs and by the many references to him in Cicero, especially after the orator's own exile. Cicero, in comparing Postumus to Rutilius Rufus, intimates that, like Rutilius Rufus, his client possessed

Page 59 of 96

all the Roman virtues and was a model of courage, honour, and wisdom, whose very survival depended entirely on his choice of apparel. Mithridates. Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysus (120–63), the King of Pontus, who occupied most of Asia Minor together with the islands of the Aegean except Rhodes and, with Athenian help, much of Greece (Rubinsohn (1993) 5–54). ........................................................................................................................... pg 181 Greek shoes. The Greek shoe or slipper, most commonly seen worn by women, was considered highly unseemly attire for a Roman man (Plin. Nat. 37. 17; Ep. 9. 7. 3; Hor. Ars. 80. 90; de Orat. 3. 127). circumstances. In a deliberate analogy to the circumstances of Rutilius Rufus' case, Cicero implicitly asks the jurors to view Postumus' actions in Alexandria as being similarly inevitable (Clu. 80). In fact, Cicero's argument is (as often) specious, for Rutilius Rufus would have been held in no less honour if he had retained Roman dress. charge. By shedding the toga Postumus could be seen as symbolically renouncing Roman citizenship (Kidd (1972) F. 253, 78–84, p. 223; idem (1988) 874–5). However, the thought that he could be 'charged' with wearing Greek clothes is theatrical—as we have no evidence of any legislation forbidding such a thing. hope. In support of his argument Cicero poses this rhetorical question, which serves to restate his thesis more expansively. Whilst Rutilius Rufus took to wearing Greek clothing, when he had no hope of returning to Rome, Postumus did the exact opposite. He only donned the pallium in order to return to Rome—and, by implication, to avoid the need to wear it again. His conduct, therefore, was less blameworthy than that of the renowned Rufus. Cicero has sought to make what seems a trivial point sound ridiculous; but behind the comic façade lies the charge that Postumus betrayed Roman values, and, by inference, the interests of Rome, by entering the King's service. And it is to this fact that Cicero now returns. 10. 28. management. Having his chief creditor as royal treasurer would have been of doubtful benefit to the King, whilst it would have been of considerable advantage to Postumus to be in control of the receipt of taxes. The word 'virtual' indicates that Postumus was not in complete control and that he was managing the finances of the Egyptian treasury with the help of others. treasurer. cf. note on 8. 22 treasurer. The tone of the following parenthetic clause is an obvious apology for the employment of the Greek word dioecetes, which in the context of the current accusations could only have served as an embarrassment to his client. Indeed,

Page 60 of 96

Cicero is quick to add that the name of his title was loathsome to Postumus. Cicero freely used Greek literary allusions in his ........................................................................................................................... pg 182 letters, but he was careful to avoid them in his speeches in case he gave an impression of intellectual superiority (S. Rosc. 46; Amic. 46; 2Ver. 2. 50; Brignoli (1957) 110–14). 1

accounts. The text of the MS, quiaretie V: qui aretie V , is corrupt and has been emended by Giardina (1967) to qui est a rationibus, a reading which was also adopted by Olechowska (1981) 62. Although this is at first sight far from the MS reading, it has some merit, because the title a rationibus was used to describe an officer dealing with accounts in the Early Empire (Weaver (1972) 244–5). The Romans used two types of account book: day books (adversaria) and ledgers (codices, tabulae, rationes; Att. 13. 47. 1, 16. 3. 5; Amic. 58; Red. Pop. 23; Barlow (1978) 1 ff.). The conjecture, qui ea regit, put forward by Madvig (1855) 668 and adopted by Clark (1909), is also economical and plausible, but, given the fact that Cicero tries to be precise as regards the title and the office of Postumus in Alexandria, Giardina's emendation qui est a rationibus would seem more appropriate. loathsome. Certainly, Postumus would have preferred to be paid by the King as soon as the expedition was over, because, however tempting further profit might be, it held many concomitant risks, as Postumus himself was to discover. 'There … powers.' Cicero here quotes the first of the three aphorisms that may be assigned to Creon in Ennius' Medea Exul (cf. note on 11. 29 'pay … death'). Poetic quotations are most frequently found in Cicero's speches in the period between his return from exile and the Civil War (Clarke (1945) 73 ff.) and are usually drawn from old Roman dramas which would have been very familiar to his audience (Cael. 18; S. Rosc. 90. 46). According to Quintilian (1. 8. 2) poetic quotations were introduced into a speech both to please the listeners and to show the speaker's learning, since the charm of poetry provides a pleasant relief from the severity of the forum, and the sentiments of the poet can be used like witnesses to support the orator's case. 10. 29. death. This word is placed prominently for emotional effect. On tactical grounds, knowing that it could never be possible, Cicero feels that he must emphasize the virtue of honourable death. In certain circumstances, to give a life in sacrifice came to be seen by the Romans as almost a natural gesture, whether in ........................................................................................................................... pg 183 war (cf. note on 1. 2 devotio) or in peace; and, rather than placing himself under foreign rule, a true Roman was expected to choose death (Phil. 6. 19, 10. 19; Boren (1977) 143). The extent to which such ideals were appropriate in Postumus' case is open to question, and

Page 61 of 96

Cicero's tactics are, perhaps, aimed at raising his client's stature through association whilst also using the issue as a rhetorical device to heighten the tension before further discussing Postumus' relationship with the King. Such melodramatic sentiments would also serve to belittle by comparison any other charges that might be made over Postumus' servile behaviour in Alexandria. dishonour. Having raised the issue of death, Cicero skilfully dismisses it on the grounds that such a gesture would be to no avail, as Postumus was already in a state of dishonour as a result of heavy unpaid debts. To die leaving behind an encumbered estate was considered a disgrace among the Romans (Thomas (1994) 91–100). 11. 29. misfortune. The orator is careful to emphasize the unfavourable circumstances rather than his client's response to them (for the same juxtaposition of the words 'misfortune' (fortunam) and 'blame' (culpa) see Pis. 43; Fam. 6. 2. 3, 9. 13. 3, 15. 15. 2; ThLL VI. 1, col. 1195). enemies. Note the contrasting description of the King in 3. 6 brigand, treaty. habits of kings. 'His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, / the attribute to awe and majesty, / wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; / But mercy is above this sceptred sway,' (Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, IV. i. 184). 'pay … death'. Scaliger (1965) 7. 9, 98–9 assigns both these quotations to Ennius' Medea Exul, identifying the first with Euripides' Medea 321: 'No, go into exile at once—no more talk. My resolve is fixed and there is no way you can remain in our midst since you are hostile to me', and the second with verses 352–4 of the same: 'But I warn you, if tomorrow's sun sees you and your children within the borders of this land, you will be put to death'. This view has been challenged by Jocelyn (1967) 349, who questions whether they are direct quotations because 'if catch … death' is an expression which could be uttered under many circumstances (Att. 7. 26. 1; Ter. Eu. 1064) and 'pay heed and obey my behest' is incomplete, needing something remarkable from the same context. Nevertheless, ........................................................................................................................... pg 184 if Medea Exul is accepted as the source, the lines may be assigned to Creon or possibly one of the other monarchs in the tragedy. (Bain (1981) explores the subject of masters' giving orders to their subjects in Greek tragedy, and Dunkle (1967) 151–71 examines the employment of the Greek tyrant in Roman invective of the Late Republic). It befits … distance. Beyond entertainment, Greek tragedy also sought to confront the audience with the problems of life, encouraging them to draw meaningful conclusions (on the didactic nature of Greek tragedy see Arist. Po. 1450a).

Page 62 of 96

11. 30. charge. Cicero at last, having dealt with the two important supplementary charges, the corruption of the Senate (cf. note on 3. 6 Senate) and Postumus' role in Gabinius' restoration of the King (cf. note on 8. 19 prompted), addresses the nub of the case and tackles the accusation under which Postumus was brought to trial: that whilst he was collecting money for Gabinius he pocketed 10 per cent for himself. However, rather than dealing with this in a straightforward manner, Cicero, perhaps aware of the weaknesses of the defence, attempts to cloud the issue by steadfastly ignoring the main point and, instead, concentrates his attention on the method by which Postumus sought to make his profit, rather than what actually happened to the money. This tactic leads to a rather sterile exposition on whether the alleged 10 per cent was on top of or part of the 10,000 talents promised to Gabinius (Quint. Inst. 4. 2. 10). money for Gabinius. cf. note on 8. 21 ten thousand talents, 12. 34 military purposes. Was Gabinius paid the promised 10,000 talents by the King and, if so, when? The Scholiast of Bobbio (Planc. 86 (p. 168 St.), Arch. 9 (p. 177 St.)) suggests that he must have received the money from the King in advance, and, given the risky nature of the enterprise, this would not have been surprising (Dio 39. 56. 3). 10 per cent. Having expended so much energy in attempting to separate Gabinius' trial for extortion from that of Postumus, provoked by the prosecution to confront the crux of the case—that while Postumus was collecting money for Gabinius he kept 10 per cent for himself —Cicero is finally forced to deal with the two men together. Up to this point, in discussing financial matters ........................................................................................................................... pg 185 he has been content to state that Postumus' finances were at risk (cf. 2. 4, 3. 5–3, 9. 25, 10. 27) and that Gabinius was promised 10,000 talents (cf. 8. 21). revenue. As Egypt in the Ptolemaic period was a closed economy and only Egyptian coins circulated, presumably Gabinius was paid in Egyptian tetradrachms (Crawford (1978) 1–11; Mørkholm (1982) 298; Christiansen (1988) 11). This would have been perfectly acceptable to the Romans given the high silver content of a tetradrachm—at least 84.85 per cent purity in the period between 68 and 54 (Mørkholm (1975) 7). Walker & King (1976–8) 151 state that at this time a tetradrachm contained as much silver as three and a half denarii—but caution that this does not imply an official fixed exchange rate—and this must have made it an attractive proposition to melt it down, as was the custom in Rome with foreign coin (Crawford (1977) 52; Howgego (1990) 1–25). The collection of such a huge sum must have taken a considerable amount of time, since, given the lack of Egyptian silver mines (Walker & King (1976–8) 157), it presumably had to be gathered from coins in everyday circulation —hence the importance of Postumus as treasurer to the project. Cicero's reference here would seem to indicate that at least part of the 'reward' was gathered, and further evidence

Page 63 of 96

to support this comes from the subsequent debasement of the Egyptian coinage shortly after the King's restoration. In their analysis, Walker & King (1976–8) 150 ff. found two goodquality coins dating from 54, but by the next year (presumably after the Romans had left) the silver content had declined to 64 per cent, and during the reign of Cleopatra it was to fall even further, to approximately half the level recorded in the earlier years of Ptolemy Auletes' reign (Crawford (1985) 206–7). Therefore, it seems quite plausible to suggest that the Egyptians, in trying to pay the promised bribe, were forced to mint a new, debased, coinage. Later, in 48, in order to meet Caesar's claim of seventeen and a half million denarii (cf. note on 15. 41 shouldered) from the successors of Ptolemy Auletes, the royal silver plate was melted down, and, although Plutarch (Caes. 48. 7–9) interprets this desperate measure as a ploy designed to stir up resentment against Caesar, it is quite possible that it was a real necessity. The size of the promised sum and the nature of the agreement between Gabinius and Ptolemy Auletes would make it unlikely that ........................................................................................................................... pg 186 payment was by cheque, although these were in use already in this period (Bagnall & Bogaert (1975) 107)—and, anyway, who would have held credit for Ptolemy Auletes, by then, in Rome? 11. 30–11. 31. I am … people. Cicero, by presenting a fictitious picture of Postumus and Gabinius operating within the confines of a proper legal contract, attempts to convince the jurors that Postumus did not receive any money from Gabinius. Having set up the dilemma of whether Postumus' 10 per cent came from money gathered beyond Gabinius' 10,000 talents or from within that sum, Cicero proceeds to dismiss both. First, in a typically disingenuous line of argument he states that, if the 10 per cent was extra, the sum gathered must have been 11,000 talents, but, since the prosecution in this case accepts it was 10,000 talents Gabinius was promised, no surplus can have passed to Postumus. Cicero's innocent portrayal of the deal as between two shoppers in the market belies the more devious nature of the agreement. It masks a real conflict of interests in Egypt in which Gabinius would have been unwilling to see his payment lowered, whilst the King, conversely, would have been reluctant to see Postumus extract more than the agreed figure. Indeed, it may have been disagreement on this matter that precipitated Postumus' hurried departure from Egypt and precluded the Gabiniani from coming to his rescue. Afterwards, to dismiss the second possibility, that Postumus' payment came out of Gabinius' reward, Cicero leaves the mathematical gymnastics and, instead, appeals to any latent anti-Gabinian feelings within the jurors by reminding them of Gabinius' renowned avarice and how unlikely he would be to part with money previously promised. Cicero has to show that all allegations against his client are ill-founded, and a simple disclaimer that Postumus 'did not receive any money' or that 'it is all a lie' would be hardly credible. Therefore, he 'proves' that the prosecution's case is a fabrication; however, the protracted nature of the passage hints at the real weakness of Postumus' position.

Page 64 of 96

tax collectors. Collection of revenue and taxes in the eastern provinces was normally left in the hands of large financial companies (societates publicanorum) which contracted to pay the government in advance the tax they were going to collect on a five-year basis (Thll, s.v. 1369. 1a; cf. note on 2. 3 publicanus; Richardson (1975) 584–9; Nicolet (1994) 635–7). The coactores who gathered the taxes were also sent by auctioneers to collect money due for ........................................................................................................................... pg 187 goods purchased at auctions—a procedure also threatened against Postumus (cf. note on 17. 45 'auctioneer'; Clu. 180; Hor. S. 1. 6. 86, where Horace refers to his father as a collector of privately owed funds; Andreau (1987) 139 ff., 162 n. 77). 1 per cent. As 1 per cent per month equals 12 per cent per year, Cicero is either indulging in rhetorical licence to underline the way the money was collected by his client, with the implication being that it was legally contracted, or giving an indication that Postumus stayed in Egypt just ten months. In the provinces, 12 per cent was usually considered the legitimate rate for borrowing money, as it was with the moneylenders of Asia (SEG, II. 104); but elsewhere Cicero implies (Att. 6. 1. 16) that the publicani normally expected more than 12 per cent on outstanding debts (Jones (1974) 116–18). by you. C. Memmius. jury. cf. note on 12. 34 jurors. sum. The damages assessed against Gabinius at his trial for extortion amounted to 10,000 talents. 11. 31. taxation. Information concerning the tax system of Ptolemaic Egypt is known to us mainly from the Revenue Laws of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of 259 and from the regulations of Ptolemy V Epiphanes of 204 (Bingen (1952) 1–36). The fiscal system of the Ptolemies was immensely intricate and all-pervasive. The poll tax and taxes on manufactured goods and agricultural products, other than corn, were demanded in coins, which would imply the existence of large quantities of coinage (Christiansen (1988) 108). Besides the taxable goods specifically covered by the Revenue Laws (such as wine, grapes, currants, other fruits, oil, flax), taxes were also applied to all kinds of property transfers (such as land, houses, slaves —whether by sale, gift, cession, or mortgage), as well as, either directly or indirectly, to a multiplicity of other areas, such as quarrying, mining, and hunting. To these returns should also be added the taxes in corn, cash, and in kind paid by cleruchs on their holdings and by the temples. Finally, the customs dues—including export dues and internal tolls from traffic passing up and down the Nile—gathered enormous totals. The great majority of tax gathering in Ptolemaic Egypt was via yearly contracts auctioned to bidders who underwrote the tax to be collected (Kaimio (1981) 281–7; Lewis (1983) 15; Turner (1984) 151–9; ........................................................................................................................... Page 65 of 96

pg 188 Bowman (1986) 65, 113, 154 ff.). As Turner (1984) 152, suggests, 'the aim of the system was not to encourage production, not to control the economy, but to secure the highest possible returns for the king from taxation and from sales in the home market'. Ptolemy Auletes would have been extremely wary of raising taxes even further to pay off his debt to the Romans. Taxes were high enough already and, having returned to his throne so recently, the King would not have wanted to give more cause for unrest. avarice. cf. note on 8. 21 avarice. will be. cf. note on 12. 34 now. By crossing out the last 'a' of aderant and substituting a 'u' for it, the scribe emended the reading of the MS from aderant testes into aderunt testes and transferred the meaning of the sentence into the future tense. This new reading rests on the fact that the hearing of witnesses (testes) usually took place after the speeches of both defence lawyer and prosecutor. Generally, however, in a 'What has become of the money' trial it seems that there was no provision for the calling of witnesses, as Cicero explains a few lines below, but in this case, perhaps because of a legal technicality, it does seem that witnesses were due to appear (cf. note on 11. 32 standard procedure). Clark (1909), sensing that at this point of the speech Cicero is quoting a strong rebuttal, perhaps uttered by Memmius, favours the reading At erunt ('But there will be'), which was first suggested by Halm (1855) 621–64 on the basis that similar structures conveying a strong refutation appeared in the speech, such as 8.22, 'But he was appointed royal treasurer', and 14. 38. 'But he possesses …'. However, in this particular case the presence of the adversative 'but' (at) is not necessary, since the refutation re-emphasizes a point that has been already mentioned, in this case 'a further charge' (cf. 11. 30), and does not introduce a new one (Seyffert (1878) 142). As the verb adesse in its legal sense signifies the presence of a witness in a court case there is no need to change aderunt. witnesses. Under the Julian law of extortion the number of witnesses who could be summoned to appear by the prosecutor was fixed at a maximum of 120 (Val. Max. 8. 1. 10; lex rep. 32–5; Lintott (1981) 203 n. 157; Crawford (1996) I. 104), with the number of voluntary witnesses being unlimited (Dig. 22. 5. 1). Witnesses were first examined by the party who had called them before they passed to the other counsel for cross-examination (1Ver. 33; Cael. 19, 66–7; ........................................................................................................................... pg 189 Quint. Inst. 5. 7. 1). However, much evidence was also presented in written form (Flac. 51) —especially that from cities, but also from ordinary private individuals. For written evidence the witness had to take an oath and write out the testimony in the presence of sworn witnesses, who then affixed their seals (Q. Rosc. 43–5; Cael. 55; Clu. 168; Quint. Inst. 5. 7.

Page 66 of 96

32). Written evidence could be read out in the court in the course of the speeches, and so might have a more telling effect than the spoken evidence given a day or two later. Does … collector? This is a forceful statement further enhanced by three rhetorical questions which are designed to bring out the inconsistencies in the testimony of the Alexandrian witnesses. Cicero reasons that if the Alexandrian witnesses said nothing against Gabinius when he was on trial, they could hardly be expected to say anything against Postumus who, after all, was merely the collector of Gabinius' money. In advancing this line of argument he conveniently overlooks the fact that Postumus, by being physically present in Egypt, would have been the recipient of all the abuse and anger of the Alexandrians, whereas Gabinius, who did not reside in Egypt but had left behind him a garrison instead, might have been praised out of political expediency. The exposition in this section is vigorous but Cicero's case appears weak. 11. 32. standard procedure. Cicero's argument here is that subsidiary cases tried under the 'What has become of the money' clause normally rested entirely on the testimony of the witnesses who had already appeared in the original extortion trial and were not expected to appear again (cf. 13. 36–3). It was their depositions which were read in the subsidiary trial, but in certain circumstances it seems the testimony in these written statements could be changed, perhaps to expand on a particular issue (cf. note on 13. 36 new). This insistence that broadly the same evidence was used would be quite in keeping with the general tenor of the law, which seems to have held that the same jurors should hear both cases (cf. note on 12. 34 jurors). Cicero claims to speak with authority, but, in reality, the law seems to have been open to different interpretations, perhaps because it was used so infrequently. The employment of the words 'usually' and 'normally' (cf. 13. 36) would suggest that the procedures being followed here did not conform with Cicero's understanding of the law, leaving him to deal with a 'new' provision which went against the 'principles', 'tradition', and 'precedents' ........................................................................................................................... pg 190 (cf. 11. 31) of the court, as the witnesses who appeared at Gabinius' trial for extortion were due to reappear at Postumus' trial to give fresh testimony. prejudged. cf. note on 13. 37 their own trial; Clu. 49; Asc. Div. 12. p. 190 St. Cicero is referring to the fact that Postumus is only in court because Gabinius has been found guilty in the main trial. The difference in Postumus' case—as Cicero never ceases to point out—is that Postumus was not mentioned in Gabinius' trial for extortion and, thus, he should escape prejudgement. same witnesses. cf. note on 11. 32 standard procedure, 13. 36 fresh witnesses.

Page 67 of 96

After a brief digression concerning his motives for defending Gabinius (12. 32–3), Cicero once more returns to the matter of the Alexandrian witnesses (12. 34–13. 36) and spends a considerable amount of time systematically undermining their credibility. 12. 32. friend. Cicero here disarmingly begins with a conciliatory and perhaps slightly patronizing reference to his opponent—in contrast with his earlier sarcastic dismissiveness (cf. 8. 20–3). Cicero subscribed to the view that professing friendship with the prosecutor of his client was part of an orator's art (de Orat. 2. 193) and this passing reference to Memmius as a 'learned and distinguished friend' need not reflect any personal relationship between the two, nor does it seem to have any significance to the persuasive strategies employed here (for other examples see Font. 36; Clu. 10, 118; Mur. 3, 7, 10; Sul. 2, 47; Flac. 2; Cael. 7, 25; Planc. 2 f.; Scaur. 31; Lig. 21; on the same tactics applied to adverse witnesses see Brunt (1965b) 15; Craig (1981) 31–7). Indeed, the spirit of this whole passage is defensive and apologetic, rather than offensive. motive. The prosecutor claims that both the Alexandrian witnesses and Cicero succumbed to Pompey's influence. reconciliation. Changing the object of his address (from the jury to Memmius) Cicero returns to his previous claim (cf. 8. 19–3) that he defended Gabinius only because he was reconciled with his old enemy. This, if true, must have been extremely painful for Cicero, given the fact that Gabinius, who was said to have been an associate of Catiline in his youth (Pis. 20), lent open support to Publius Clodius Pulcher's plans to bring about the orator's exile in 58 (Q.fr. 3. 4. 2; Red. Sen. 10, 31; Dom. 55, 62, 66, 70, 124; ........................................................................................................................... pg 191 Sest. 18, 20, 24 ff.; Har. 3 ff.; Pis. 8, 11, 48, 64, 72; Fam. 11. 16. 2, 12. 29. 1; Plut. Pomp. 49. 1–14; Plut. Cic. 31. 4; Dio 38. 16. 3). Cicero came to hate Gabinius on account, particularly, of his participation in the looting of his Tusculan and Roman properties, as well as Gabinius' repeated reference to him as an 'exile' (Q.fr. 3. 2. 2; Pis. 41, 45, 48; Dio 39. 55. 5, 39. 59. 2; 39. 63. 2–5; Führmann (1990) 35, 106). What is striking here is how Cicero advances to the defence of his own behaviour rather than that of his client, and, although he approved of such techniques, as can be seen from his comments in de Oratore (2. 200 f.) about Antonius' conduct during his defence of Norbanus, it, nevertheless, is a strong indication of the vulnerability he felt over this matter. Throughout this period Cicero undertook the defence of a number of clients who only a short time before had appeared to be his mortal enemies. In many instances this seems to have been at the personal behest of Pompey, as was the case with Gabinius, and also Vatinius, whom only two years earlier Cicero had cut to ribbons at the trial of Sestius, before supporting Cato's candidacy against him for the consulship (Fam. 1. 9. 19; Q.fr. 2. 16. 3). Cicero's defence of the morality of such a volte-face is expressed in the De provinciis consularibus (42 ff.), where he justifies his rapprochement

Page 68 of 96

with Caesar on the basis of Caesar's value to the state, although, in reality, the actual impetus for reconciliation was far less lofty than the publicly announced cause. die. To prove his sincerity and to justify his political submission Cicero here resorts to quoting proverbial apophthegms that friendships should be everlasting and enmities transient (Amic. 32; Red. Pop. 23; Liv. 40. 46. 12; Freyburger (1986) 180). This defence is slight and rests on the idealized language used to describe political friendships at the time (note Cicero's assertion that Pompey, who had given as much offence as most men in his day, by 54 had not an enemy in the State except Publius Clodius Pulcher (Fam. 1. 9. 11; Brunt (1988) 13). Only Valerius Maximus (4. 2. 5) seems to have accepted at face value Cicero's protestations about Gabinius, and his hesitant voice is overwhelmed by the more substantive evidence to be found in Cicero's own writings. 12. 33. unwillingly. The arguments put forward by Cicero in this passage to excuse his defence of Gabinius for extortion are: first, that Pompey would not have coerced him to defend Gabinius nor would he have yielded his freedom of action; secondly, that he ........................................................................................................................... pg 192 had enjoyed Pompey's friendship when Gabinius was an enemy; thirdly, that now he was reconciled with Gabinius any insincerity on his part would dishonour both Pompey and himself. These arguments, however, are weak and unconvincing, and, whatever Cicero's protestations in this speech, there is no doubt that the orator acted under pressure from Pompey. A number of different motives have been suggested for Pompey's actions, although, given the complexity and the length of the relationship between the two men, it is doubtful if any one holds the key to the question. Broadly, the relevant argument can be characterized as follows: Wiseman (1966) 109–10 n. 21 suggests that Cicero's main reason for defending Gabinius was to avoid offending Pompey and to ensure his backing for Quintus' possible bid for the consulship. Gelzer (1969) 201 states that Cicero thought that, if Pompey were offended, Clodius might be 'let loose' again. Lintott (1974) 67–8 argues that Cicero sacrificed his integrity in a desperate attempt to recover Pompey's goodwill for Milo, while Németh (1968) 49–58 suggests that Cicero, hoping to seek the consulship for a second time in 52, wanted to elicit Pompey's support for this goal. Whatever the reasons for his actions, the defence of Gabinius and other undeserving allies of Pompey, such as L. Caninius Gallus, T. Ampius Balbus, L. Scribonius Libo, and M. Livius Drusus Claudianus, cost Cicero the respect of his friends (Planc. 94; Balb. 61; Mitchell (1969) 320) and contributed to his growing disillusion with the general political scene in Rome (Att. 4. 5. 1–3; Gelzer (1969) 105–96). offend. For the political connotations of the verb 'offend' see Q.fr. 2. 3. 2, 2. 15. 1, 3. 7. 3; Phil. 11. 38; Fam. 1. 9. 5, 5. 7. 3; Att. 4. 15. 4; Hellegouarc'h (1963) 194. For … well. In this whole unit Cicero is reasoning by contraries: 'at loggerheads' vs. 'dearest', 'forgave' vs. 'no pretence', 'slighted' vs. 'favour', 'false pretences' vs. 'letting Page 69 of 96

down', offering a model of climax and anti-climax in describing his relationship with the two men, Gabinius and Pompey. This statement must be considered within the general background of Pompey's amicitiae, in which both Cicero and Gabinius played a part. The individual nature of these ties meant that it was possible for Pompey to have two friends (Cicero and Gabinius) who were at the same time on bad terms with each other. Comparisons can be made with the case of Appius ........................................................................................................................... pg 193 Claudius, who was Pompey's friend but refused assent to Cicero's return in 57 (Pis. 35), which Pompey was promoting, and in 54 also attacked both Gabinius (Q.fr. 3. 2. 3) and Scaurus (Scaur. 31), who were friends of Pompey (for other examples see Brunt (1965b) 17–18). However, the potential instability created by such conflicts within his network of friends made it desirable for Pompey to use the necessary leverage to effect a reconciliation between erstwhile enemies. 12. 34. enough. After an emotional reaction to what seems to be a point of extreme sensitivity Cicero ostensibly returns to the defence of his client. His words seem to carry an almost apologetic tone and, indeed, the preceding performance can only have been detrimental to Postumus' case, as it has totally broken the thread of what was potentially a strong piece of argumentation based on the conflicting evidence of the Alexandrian witnesses. Alexandrians. Cicero discusses the Alexandrian witnesses in a sarcastic tone and is full of mockery and disparaging comments. It is a blatant piece of ethnic chauvinism as he panders to the prejudices of the Roman jurors in order to undermine the case of the prosecution. He used the same tactic in Pro Flacco when he asserted that Asian Greeks were willing to perjure themselves to win their point (Flac. 11; for os with the meaning of 'impudence' see 2Ver. 4. 66). However, little trust was placed in witnesses, who were seen as all too willing to shape their testimony in response to promises of huge rewards (Part. 49; Flac. 10–12; Q.fr. 1. 2. 4; cf. note on 4. 9 Servilian). What cheek … insolence. This expression seems to have been chosen to take the jurors by surprise and it is also noteworthy that the 'verdict' on the Alexandrians is delivered before any details of their 'crime'. This assertion is in the form of an occupatio, in anticipation of an objection from the prosecution. Obviously it was already a common topos that the witnesses had publicly lied at Gabinius' trial and, as the defence lawyer at that trial, Cicero could not help but be identified with their perjury. This piece of sustained invective can, thus, also be seen as an attempt by Cicero to bolster his own standing as, by distancing himself from the Alexandrians, he seeks to demonstrate to the jury his own lack of complicity in their lies (and this must explain section 12. 33, although his own behaviour in taking the case was little short of theirs).

Page 70 of 96

........................................................................................................................... pg 194 jurors. Cicero here states that the same jury who tried Gabinius' extortion case is sitting at Postumus' subsidiary trial under the clause 'What has become of the money'. Whether this was because it was legally prescribed or because it followed precedent is unknown. All that is certain is that the law stipulated that the same jurors who tried the principal case should conduct the assessment of damages in the subsidiary case (Fam. 8. 8. 3; Shackleton Bailey (1977) 398–9). Pompey's testimony. Technically, Pompey would not have been able to appear in person to give his testimony at Gabinius' trial for extortion because he held proconsular command at the time and was, therefore, forbidden from entering the city of Rome (Dio 39. 63. 4; Fam. 8. 4. 4). However, it is quite possible that he might have received a special dispensation to overrule this restriction, as he had done during Sestius' trial de vi in March 56, when Pompey was curator of the corn supplies (Fam. 1. 9. 7; Shackleton Bailey (1977) 1. 309). The testimony referred to here is usually considered to have been given in the form of a letter, but it may be that Cicero was quoting directly the words of Pompey when he addressed a crowd outside the city boundary sometime at the close of 54 (Jolliffe (1919) 29; Fantham (1975) 440–1). Perhaps a letter had passed from the King to Pompey, but what is most striking is that Cicero, rather than producing the letter itself, chooses, instead, to recite Pompey's testimony. The whole matter seems somewhat dubious and it is far from clear whether such a letter existed or, if so, what its contents were. military purposes. Although Cicero rejects the idea that any money was given by Ptolemy Auletes to Gabinius, barring that which financed his military campaign to restore the King, this phrase could hide a multitude of sins. Not very long before, Cicero had called Gabinius' acceptance of money from Ptolemy Auletes 'the selling of the Roman army to a foreign king' (Pis. 48; Sullivan (1990) 244). now. Cicero presents a second imaginary dialogue between himself and the prosecution. The aim is to stress the absurdity of the prosecution's position which, while admitting that the Alexandrians lied in the previous trial, now wishes to present their testimony as trustworthy. Whether Greek or not, Cicero knew well the whims of witnesses in general (Cael. 22). ........................................................................................................................... pg 195 12. 35. staring us … in the eye. This marks the beginning of a series of references to the physical behaviour of the Greeks—a ploy which serves to underline their renowned 'theatricality' and thereby further erode their credibility (Pis. 68; Clu. 72; cf. 13. 36). Making eye contact with an interlocutor was held to signify confidence and conviction in the truth of a statement (Bremmer (1991) 22–3). Were the Alexandrian witnesses such skilful actors as to be able to put up a similar act even when they lied? Page 71 of 96

look. Cicero feigns curiosity to see the gestures of the Alexandrians, who so theatrically had lied during Gabinius trial, when they tell the truth! By treating the necessity of a reappearance of the Alexandrian witnesses as a joke, Cicero provides not only his audience with a show but also his client with a stronger defence. Alexandria. It is sufficient for Cicero here to discredit the Egyptian witnesses by observing that they came from Alexandria, a city whose inhabitants provided material for the writers of the New Comedy (Fraser (1972) 621; 672–3; Balsdon (1979) 35). The 'good Greeks' were to be found chiefly in Greece, in contrast with the 'bad Greeks' of outside the mainland (Theocr. Idyll 15. 47–9; Plat. Leg. 747c; Prop. 3. 11. 33; Mart. 4. 42; Amm. Marc. 22. 16. 23; Caes. B. Alex. 7; Nicolet (1991) 149, 193). mime plays. Lascivious miniature plays originating in Alexandria which conjured up grotesque and unreal situations. Cicero is suggesting that the testimony of the Alexandrians should be given no more credit than the stories of the mimes enacted on the stage (Cael. 40, 65; for the belief that all degenerate practices originated from the Greeks see Brut. 131; de Orat. 2. 20; Hor. Carm. 3. 24. 54–7; Lucil. 2. 88 ff.; Sen. Ep. 15. 2 ff.; 88. 18; Polyb. 14. 11. 1–5; Dio 50. 5. 1; D. Chr. Or. 32. 2. 4; Jones (1978) 137, 171 ff.). 13. 36. eyebrows. Did the Alexandrians deny the charge by raising their eyebrows out of rudeness or out of necessity, since they, perhaps, could not speak Latin? Whatever the case, as their first response to the charge it must have left an indelible impression on the jury. As Quintilian states, it was regarded as a fault in an orator if he raised only one eyebrow (1. 11. 10), and here Cicero is playing upon the sternness and haughtiness implied by this gesture (Sest. 19, where Cicero describes Piso's eyebrows as ........................................................................................................................... pg 196 'guarantees of the commonwealth'; Mur. 18 ff.; Pis. 16–17; Prov. 8; Hor. Carm. 3. 1. 8). impertinence. Cicero's grandfather is credited with the observation that the better a Roman knew Greek the bigger scoundrel he was (de Orat. 2. 265). Cicero himself professed admiration for the intellectual qualities of the ancient Greeks (de Orat. 3. 197; Fam. 6. 4. 2; Att. 13. 29. 1; Guite (1962) 142–59), but had a less flattering view of the Greeks of his day, presenting them as nothing more than flighty people, lazy, self-indulgent lightweights, who were untrustworthy, irresponsible, and loquacious (cf. note on 9. 23 most sagacious; Q.fr. 1. 1. 28; Flac. 9–12, 16–20, 23–4, 61–6, 71; Font. 42–3; Sest. 141; Scaur. 3; Fam. 16. 4. 2; 2Ver. 2. 7; Petrochilos (1974) 33–53). On the rare occasions when Cicero spoke favourably of the Greeks of his day, he seems to have done so out of necessity rather than conviction, as in the Verrines (2. 2. 7), where he ascribes to them the highest character and equates them with the Romans. More typical was his assertion that the Greeks as witnesses had no notion of the standards that justice required, and in Pro Flacco (9) he warns the audience that 'this nation has never cultivated a scrupulous regard for honesty when giving evidence'. Page 72 of 96

shrugged their shoulders. The shrugging of shoulders could be interpreted as indicating not only a lack of knowledge but also indifference (Quinct. 77; Shackleton Bailey (1965–70) III. 258). Perhaps the Alexandrians considered it to be a safer option than giving a verbal response, which might have laid them open to accusations of perjury. expediency. According to Cicero, the response of the Alexandrian witnesses at Gabinius' trial was determined by the needs of the moment but, now that Gabinius has been found guilty, these circumstances no longer prevail. perjured. An offender who behaved so dishonourably as to perjure himself was deemed only to be punishable by divine law and not that of man (S. Rosc. 46; Leg. 2. 22; Tac. Ann. 1. 73; Liebeschuetz (1979) 41–7). fresh witnesses. Cicero seems to show genuine concern because the word 'normally' implies the introduction of new, and potentially hostile, witnesses had been permitted. Indeed, in this case ........................................................................................................................... pg 197 'fresh' is almost synonymous with 'witnesses for the prosecution' (cf. note on 11. 32 same witnesses, standard procedure). same jurors. cf. note on 12. 34 jurors. It is possible that the same jurors were kept not because they were familiar with the case but rather because they were in a position to tell if new evidence had been introduced. new. This implies new evidence given by either old or new witnesses (cf. note on 11. 32 same witnesses). In this section (13. 37–14. 40) Cicero examines the rationale behind bringing Postumus to trial—namely, the attempt to seize Gabinius' ill-gotten gains—and, in a clever piece of rhetoric, he inverts the main charge of the prosecution in an effort to prove its absurdity. Having bamboozled the jury, Cicero returns to the well-trodden path of presenting Postumus as the victim of the circumstances and elaborates considerably on his earlier remarks concerning the material failure of the financier's Egyptian enterprise. 13. 37. 'What has become of the money'. Behind this outburst of legal terminology Cicero is in reality reinforcing Gabinius' guilt rather than defending Postumus' innocence, but he is careful to use a general outline of this clause in order to avoid a direct reference to Gabinius. their own trial. In place of the in reum facti of the MS, Giardina (1967) has suggested in rem rei facti, in an effort to underline that the scope of such trials was the recovery of

Page 73 of 96

money (rem) and not the excessive punishment of the defendant. However, since the point which Cicero is making here is not concerned with the recovery of money, there is little need to change the text. The argument, which is further elaborated in this whole section, is that Postumus is tried under the clause 'What has become of the money' only because of Gabinius' previous case of extortion (cf. note on 11. 32 prejudged). Therefore, it would seem better to follow Clark (1909), who shows good sense in indicating a lacuna before the formula 'What has become of the money', since some mention of the category of people liable under this law would probably be necessary. property. The state itself undertook responsibility for the liquidation of the convicted man's assets as long as his property sufficed to meet the liability. It also made the appropriate payments to the claimants out of the proceeds of the sale; what was not claimed remained in the treasury (FIRA, I. 7, ll. 57–68; ........................................................................................................................... pg 198 Tac. Ann. 4. 20; Brunt (1961) 192 ff.; Mattingly (1970) 163; cf. note on 4. 8 full … assets; people). easy. The words are carefully chosen to lead the jurors towards the conclusions that Cicero desires (Sest. 55; Man. 38; Classen (1965) 137 n. 126). The reasonable nature of the law is presented to offer the sharpest contrast with the unfairness of Postumus' position. Beyond lies the further implication that, after all, even if the money passed out of Gabinius' hands, it went to someone else (cf. 4. 9; 13. 37) and not to the previously unmentioned Postumus. money. In place of the MS reading quae ad quem eorum, which is meaningless, Giardina (1967) has proposed quam ceperat on the grounds that it matches the legal terminology used to describe the offence of extorting money (FIRA, I. 7. 3 'pecuniam auferre, capere, cogere, conciliare, avertere' and 'pecunia capta'). However, such an emendation is quite different from the MS reading and the alternative suggestion quae ad aliquem reum put forward by Clark (1909) would seem to be preferable not only because it is closer to the MS but also because it fits better with the meaning of the text. reclaimed. Instead of 'not guilty' (absolvo) or 'guilty' (condemno) (lex rep. 1. 55) the verdict in a 'What has become of the money' trial was delivered in the form of 'I shall collect' (redigam) or 'I shall not collect' (non redigam) the outstanding fine (cf. note on 5. 11 voting tablet). 13. 38. The accused … apply? This is far and away the clearest exposition of the events in question during the whole trial, as, within a few succinct lines, Cicero presents to the jurors the gist of the case. Ignoring the succession of minor accusations, which have occupied his time until now, Cicero clearly gives the impression that Postumus—acting as a businessman —has done nothing wrong and that by lending money to Ptolemy Auletes he did not break Page 74 of 96

the Roman law. There is here also the first indication that Ptolemy Auletes used some of the money he borrowed from Postumus to pay Gabinius—as opposed to earlier references (cf. 11. 30) that suggest that all the money was gathered by Postumus in Egypt. did not return it to him. For the first time Cicero unequivocally denies that Postumus received any money from Gabinius—and thereby, at last, rebuts the prosecution charges. The final rhetorical question of this section ties in Cicero's manner of reasoning with the point of law. It is a rhetorical summary rather than the conclusion ........................................................................................................................... pg 199 to a reasoned argument. The fact that the King was unable to repay his 'benefactor' Postumus in hard cash and, instead, appointed him to be the treasurer of his kingdom is held up as being sufficient to deny the allegation that he had received the money. which of the two. To emend the utrum ilia quo ea pecunia sit nunc de ea? of the MS, which is both corrupt and nonsensical, various readings have been suggested, out of which Clark (1909), with utrum illi quo ea pecunia pervenerit an huic dicenda causa est?, is closest to the text and fully captures Cicero's argument. This is fashioned as a conclusive rhetorical statement which poses the following question: Now that Gabinius is convicted, who should be in this courtroom today? Postumus (huic), who lent money to the King, or Ptolemy Auletes (illi), who owed money to Postumus? The emendation put forward by Klodt (1992) 162, utrum illi de ea pecunia an huic dicenda causa est, which can be translated as 'Which of the two, Ptolemy Auletes or Postumus, should be tried about this money?' also shows good judgement (162). 14. 38. 'But … conceals it'. Cicero now moves to dismiss the charge that Postumus possesses the money and is hiding it. It is not certain whether this was one of the allegations raised by the prosecution, and Cicero's flat tones and the vagueness of 'there are people who say so', as compared with his normal assertions when facing the charges lodged by the prosecution, might suggest otherwise. The fact that the jurors were probably cognizant of the rumours surrounding the riches Postumus was purported to have brought back from Egypt may well have prompted him to broach the issue. I ask you. This gives a feeling of both irony and protest and paves the way for more sarcasm and emotional effects. glory. The almost synonymous doublet of 'seek glory' and 'show off' is paired in an affirmation of the importance attached to display in evincing social standing (cf. 14. 39, 16. 43; Rhet. Her 4. 64; Thomas (1994) 91–100; for the use of this doublet with negative overtones see Clu. 11 and 2Ver. 3. 3). Romans could be expected to deploy all their assets in such circumstances, and in Postumus' case this would include his wealth.

Page 75 of 96

worked. cf. note on 2. 3 publicanus. The aristocratic ideal did not exclude the acquisition of great wealth, but such wealth had to ........................................................................................................................... pg 200 be gained bono modo (Off. 1. 150–1; 2Ver. 5. 45; Liv. 21. 63. 3–4; Plin. Nat. 7. 140; Wiseman (1971) 65–94); for the contrary point of view see Cato Agr. praef. 1). Members of the Roman nobility adopted differing attitudes towards their inheritance (de Orat. 2. 225–6). Some showed a lofty indifference to the idea of increasing the size of their patrimony, considering such an aspiration as lacking nobilitas. On the other hand, the Elder Cato declared that it was the truly admirable and godlike man who, upon his death bed, could show that he had added to the patrimony he had inherited (Plut. Cat. Mai. 21. 8; cf. note on 16. 43 patrimony). cause. Cicero's point is obviously fallacious for, however wealthy he was, Postumus would surely not have wanted to draw attention to himself after his involvement in such a dubious affair as the restoration of the Egyptian King, especially once it became apparent that some of the leading protagonists might be tried for extortion. estates. For Postumus' inheritance see Introd., pp. 49–51. 14. 39. interest rates. Cicero employs two words for 'interest', faenus and usura. Technically, faenus indicated a payment of interest—that is the interest made—whereas usura referred to the rate of interest (RE, VI, col. 2195; Barlow (1978) 171). However, Cicero tends to use the two words interchangeably, with the adjective perpetuum or perpetua indicating simple interest (Att. 5. 21. 13, 6. 2. 7). novel. The impression is that, having been faced with the most crucial question, Cicero tries to make a brave show with a minimum of resources. His ironic delivery cannot hide the paucity of his argument, and here, in his second attempt to defend the charge, he resorts to little more than a repetition of his previous words. Postumus, as a good businessman, was expected to invest for the highest returns, so, if he made such an enormous amount of money, why should he hide it? tyrant. This reference to tyrannical behaviour can be taken as encompassing not only the harsh means by which Postumus extracted money from the Egyptians but also his lack of accountability in the eyes of the Senate in Rome. This whole unit abounds in poetic phrases and vivid expressions ('friends in chains', 'shadow of death', 'exposed to four winds'), and the escalation in the ........................................................................................................................... pg 201 hyperbole is palpable, as Cicero rebuts the charges by declaring that, on the contrary, it was his client who was the victim of the worst tyranny. Page 76 of 96

prison … death. If such a statement held any grain of truth, it would seem more probable that it was because of the extractive nature of Postumus' task rather than the King's whims that his life was placed in jeopardy (Introd., p. 35). It seems likely that Postumus' extortionate practices as dioecetes would have fomented some popular discontent, because taxes were already high in Egypt and a further tribute imposed by the Romans could be expected to be profoundly resented. Perhaps, in the face of this, the King, whose control over the Alexandrian mob was weak, may have been forced to restrain Postumus in some way—even if this was only by a temporary prohibition on him leaving his place of residence. Cicero, in exploiting the situation to the full for the defence, could be expected readily to resort to the language of imprisonment and abuse by presenting Postumus' treatment at the hands of the Egyptian King as being akin to martyrdom. friends. This is the first reference to the fact that Postumus had some kind of retinue of friends with him in Alexandria, although it might be expected that a man entrusted with this mission would gather such a band around him—if only to assist in the financial operation (Fam. 7. 17. 1). Judging from Cicero's statement here, they also suffered at the hands of Ptolemy Auletes. without a penny. According to Cicero's train of thought Postumus was not responsible for what happened in Alexandria and, on the contrary, he became a victim of the events. However, it is difficult to believe that an experienced Roman moneylender supported by such powerful figures could really lose out in the affair. The climate in which Postumus had to operate in Egypt was not favourable, but it must be presumed that enough money was found to pay at least a good proportion of the enormous amount promised to the Romans. This, certainly, is the inference to be drawn from the numismatic evidence, which suggests a sharp depreciation in the quality of the Egyptian coinage at the time (cf. note on 11. 31 taxation). However, apart from Cicero's allegation here that Postumus returned to Rome penniless, other evidence exists to suggest that at least some of the investors did not reap any benefits from the affair. In a letter of October 54 addressed ........................................................................................................................... pg 202 to Trebatius, Cicero consoles him for not having made a rapid fortune, by offering the 'reassuring' news that many of the creditors, who had gone to Alexandria in search of their money, had by then received nothing (Fam. 7. 17. 1; Plut. Caes. 48. 4). Even Gabinius may not have benefited as much as is usually presumed, because Cicero in a letter to Atticus states that P. Sulla, who applied for the prosecution of Gabinius in his de ambitu trial, harboured no doubts that he was not in a financial position to bribe a jury (Att. 4. 18. 3; Shackleton Bailey (1965–70) II. 221–2 offers a different reading of the text; Fam. 7. 17. 1, 1. 5a. 3–4; Q.fr. 3. 3. 2; Pis. 12; Plut. Caes. 48. 4). However, as is the case with Postumus, it is difficult to believe that Gabinius, who had spent almost four potentially highly lucrative years in Syria and then became the leading player in the Egyptian campaign, could have

Page 77 of 96

dissipated his money so rapidly, even if he had been forced to pay an exorbitant amount in bribes to secure his acquittal in his trial for treason. fled. Cicero here presents a picture of a desperate fugitive fleeing for his life, but how much this image accorded with reality must be open to question. The King was tightly tied to Gabinius, presumably for reasons of security—note the presence of Alexandrian witnesses in Gabinius' trial—but once Gabinius' money had been raised, it may be presumed that he was less tolerant of Postumus' presence in Alexandria. Moreover, if some members of the Gabiniani had left to escort money gathered for Gabinius back to Syria, then Postumus' actual physical position in Egypt may have become more exposed. It is in this context that he may have suffered some kind of imprisonment. The claim that Postumus fled Egypt—Cicero does not state how he first escaped from prison—is somewhat weakened by the subsequent revelation that he, nevertheless, managed to arrange for the loading of his ships (no matter the quality, the bulk would be the same) although the possibility certainly does exist that he arranged for the loading before his 'arrest' (Bloedow (1963) 74–9; Heinen (1966) 39 n. 2). Little is known for certain, but it seems quite possible that Cicero's exposition in this passage is embroidered for dramatic effect. After all, few would have known what really happened in Egypt—giving Cicero almost free licence to exaggerate deliberately. 14. 40. ships. We have few references to Roman ships (Hopkins (1983b) 84–109). Cicero, when ordering statuary from Athens, ........................................................................................................................... pg 203 asked a certain Lentulus, who owned ships, to carry out the order (Att. 1. 8–9; Vitr. 2. 9. 16; Caes. B. Gal. 3. 9. 1. 5. 1. 1). Greek ships seem to have been more numerous. Cicero in 59 assumes that the merchants (negotiatores) in Asia, who recaptured the commerce of the seas after Delos' fall, use Greek ships (Att. 2. 16. 4) and when he was sailing in Asian waters in 51 he hired Rhodian boats (Att. 5. 12. 6). The Egyptians also had a sizeable fleet (D. Chr. Or. 32. 36; Plut. Cat. Min. 38. 1–4; Strabo 17. 1. 13 (798); Casson (1965) 31–9). The archaeological evidence shows that the Romans did commonly build ships in the range of 200–350 tonnes capable of seagoing voyages from the last century BC onwards (Dig. 50. 5. 3; Hopkins (1983b) 98). Indeed, the capacity of long-and middle-distance cargo ships, such as those which would have been used on the voyage from Alexandria to Puteoli, was considerable—we know of one Late Republican vessel which had a cargo of nearly 7,000 wine jars and a volume of 325–425 tonnes (Pomey (1978) 105–6)—and it must be presumed that Postumus returned from Egypt laden with goods. However, given the high cost of such vessels and the expense of mounting long-distance trips, it would seem unlikely that all the ships that docked in Puteoli belonged to Postumus; although, given his extensive mercantile interests and the fact that generally it was expected that at least the most successful of the publicani would own their own vessels, it seems almost certain that he did own some

Page 78 of 96

ships (cf. note on 2. 4 My client … kings). Probably, the other vessels belonged to fellow financiers who had taken a stake in the Egyptian business. It has also been suggested that Ptolemy Auletes might have supplied Postumus with some ships to speed his departure from Egypt, but, if some of the vessels were of Egyptian provenance, just as likely a scenario is that they constituted another form of payment in kind (Frank (1927) 304). Puteoli. This fine natural harbour on the bay of Naples was the chief port and growing commercial centre of Republican Rome (RE, XXIII. 2, cols. 2036–60; D'Arms (1970); Ferrary (1980) 38 n. 17; De Ruyt (1983) 150–8; Frederiksen (1984) 80–130). Lucilius (3. 123) called it 'little Delos'—a reference to the connection with the Aegean trade—and over the years the city is said to have taken on a semi-oriental appearance, as the traders of all the great eastern seaports established agencies; it was still the main receiving port ........................................................................................................................... pg 204 for Alexandrian goods in Augustus' day (Strabo 7. 17. 7–8 (793); Sen. Ep. 77. 1; Casson (1991) 224). merchandise. A contrasting and complementing doublet is fashioned here on the principle that eyes are more trustworthy than ears, for the people of Puteoli not only heard rumours of the well-crafted and high-quality goods but saw them with their own eyes. Faced with a strong accusation based on eyewitness accounts Cicero does not deny it, but still tries to throw dust in the eyes of the jury by claiming that the 'expensive' merchandise was only a cheap imitation of the real thing. paper, linen, and glass. The wares carried back by Postumus were only sham goods and fake objets d'art made of simple raw materials, according to Cicero. However, it seems quite possible that he is again being economical with the truth and the goods mentioned had far greater value than he was prepared to admit (2Ver. 5. 145–6, 157), Rostovtzeff (1941) II. 917–29), as even everyday domestic items such as mats and wrapping material could be made out of valuable products such as papyri (Thphr. H. P. 4. 8. 3–4; Plin. Nat. 13. 74–83). Indeed, Egypt had no rival in the supply of papyri and, together with linen, it formed a royal monopoly under strict state control, which should have made it relatively easy for Postumus to seize large quantities in his official capacity as dioecetes (P. Theb. 703, ll. 87–117; Fraser (1972) I. 141–2, 148 n. 131; cf. note on 8. 22 treasurer). Glass was also considered a luxury item at this time (Reil (1913) 47–50). the whole … debt. Cicero here amplifies his previous argument about the poor quality of the merchandise brought back from Egypt by Postumus by stating that the worth of all these goods could never match the amount of money owed to his client by the King. As the reading of the MS—una non potuerit parva arcata. plus—is rather nonsensical, several emendations have been put forward, almost all referring to one mysterious vessel (Guiraud (1905) 232). If the emendation cataplus made by Turnèbe (1564) 23 is accepted as correct Page 79 of 96

and the punctuation moved correspondingly, then a reading closer to the MS than Clark's (1909)—naulum non potuit parari—would be una non potuerit pariare. This new emendation gives a reading entirely in keeping with the spirit of Cicero's defence at this point, as una is employed with the meaning of 'all together' (OLD, s.v., 1933, no 6; Ter. Eun. 367; 1038) and pariare with the meaning of 'to pay ........................................................................................................................... pg 205 in full a debt' (ThLL, X. 1 (fasc. 3), 398–9; CIL, VI. 11035; CIL, XIV. 2112, I. 22; Dig. 22. 1. 33). Although this would be the only recorded use of pario in the whole Ciceronian corpus, it should be noted that two more words, appendicula (4. 8) and subinvisum (14. 40), are also used by Cicero only in this speech. fuss. Cicero refers here to the general hustle and bustle surrounding the unloading of the 'precious' and 'exotic' cargo. summer. Postumus, according to this statement, must have been back from Alexandria by summer 54. The journey from Puteoli to Alexandria could be accomplished comparatively quickly—in good weather it took only nine days (Plin. Nat. 19. 3–4). However, the reverse journey could be a long and arduous struggle against continuous foul winds. The average length of the voyage was not much under fifty or sixty days (Casson (1951) 139, 145 n. 38) and could very easily reach seventy. (Sulp. Sev. Dial. 1. 1 describes an extremely propitious journey from Alexandria to Massalia in thirty days.) Particularly in July, the (μελτέμι‎) winds could be unfavourable and troublesome (Att. 5. 12. 1–3; Cary (1949) 26 n. 1). Thus, if we take it that summer refers to the months June-August, and allow approximately two months for the duration of the voyage in reportedly heavily laden vessels, Postumus must have departed from Alexandria sometime in April/May 54. If we accept that he arrived in Egypt with the King in spring 55, then this would mean that he spent approximately one year in Egypt. Saving his trump card of the defence until last, Cicero now (15. 41–16. 44) launches into a sustained and at times highly emotional panegyric highlighting the multiple favours Caesar has shown to Postumus. This section, delivered in elaborate terms of respect and gratitude, serves as a glowing tribute to Caesar, whose greatness is proved not merely by his military exploits (15. 42) but also by the liberality he has shown the ill-starred Postumus. The orator, unconcerned that his audience may accuse him of servility to Caesar, deliberately embarks on a prolonged eulogy skilfully designed to leave the jurors in no doubt about the close friendship between Postumus and Caesar and to remind those who benefit from Caesar's friendship of their duty in this case. 15. 41. civic life. Cicero pivots his peroration on the notion of Postumus being allowed to continue to exercise his basic rights and duties as a Roman citizen, the reference here being made in relation to Postumus' recent misfortune (cf. note on 17. 48 Page 80 of 96

........................................................................................................................... pg 206 I implore … Forum). The choice of the word foro to denote Postumus' civic life reflects his business activities and underlines the assistance given by Caesar to permit him to continue trading as a businessman and keep his honourable place in society (cf. 17. 48). munificence. This is often contrasted with the vice of avarice, and in this case refers to the generous financial support given to Postumus by Caesar (Off. 1. 104, 1. 150, 2. 64; for the varied treatment of this word in Latin literature see Manning (1985) 73–83). Such behaviour on Caesar's part may not have been based on altruistic impulse alone but rather have been a calculated ploy to tie Postumus and his circle of financiers to his cause. The two great weapons wielded by Caesar were money and oratory (Att. 1. 17. 5, 8. 16. 2; Fam. 5. 2. 3, 5. 5. 2, 5. 7. 2; Tog. cand. ap. Asc. 85; Brut. 261; Suet. Jul. 55; Plut. Caes. 21. 4), and in 59 Cicero sarcastically wrote to Atticus that it looked as if the dynasts wanted to leave no one any further opportunity for generosity (Att. 2. 18. 1), with the gold of Gaul being lavishly used by Caesar for this purpose (Plut. Caes. 20. 2). Among the many who succumbed to these enticements were consuls and tribunes, opportunists (Fam. 8. 14. 3), needy Senators, people who required protection, bankrupts, young nobiles, and bankers (Att. 7. 3. 5, 7. 7. 6, 9. 11. 4; Fam. 7. 3. 8, 8. 4. 2; Catul. 29, 57; Phil. 2. 78; Plut. Pomp. 51. 3; Dio 40. 60. 1– 4). Indeed, so widespread were these practices that Matius, one of Caesar's confidants, alone could boast that he had not been made captive by the sweetness of money (Fam. 11. 28. 2; Syme (1939) 63–77; Taylor (1949) 147–8, 164–5; Rochlitz (1996) 26, 62–4). Cicero's fulsome tribute to Caesar is shaped largely by the practical needs of the trial, but it would also have served the purpose of cementing the new relationship between the two men established in 56 when Cicero abandoned hope of resistance to the triumvirs and lent them his public support after several years of political disagreement (Att. 4. 5. 1; Prov. 25, 40– 2, 47; Dom. 41; Planc. 86; Red. Sen. 32–3; Gruen (1969a) 106–7; Habicht (1990) 53–67; Führmann (1990) 100 ff.). Indeed, it is hard not to feel some conviction in the warmth with which Cicero speaks of Caesar in his letters both to Atticus and his brother Quintus, as he professes nurturing affection for Caesar as he would for his own child and brother (Att. 4. 15. 10, 4. 19. 2; Q.fr. 3. 1. 1 f.). Perhaps, little as he approved of the politician, he could not help ........................................................................................................................... pg 207 liking the man (Catil. 4. 9; Att. 2. 1. 6, 2. 18. 3, 2. 19. 4–5; Prov. 41 ff.; Q.fr. 3. 6. 4). Even later, during the clash of arms of 49, he kept up a friendly correspondence with Caesar himself (Att. 16. 2. 1 ff., 9. 18. 1 ff.). Caesar. One of the most highly valued and exploited weapons of any advocate was the appeal to the gravitas and auctoritas of powerful and prestigious men (Rhet. Her. 2. 9; Mitchell (1979) 144). Cicero learnt the worth of this tactic at an early stage from his mentor M. Antonius and its use is graphically illustrated here with the careful saving of Caesar's name to provide a fitting and strong conclusion to the defence. There are two cases in the Page 81 of 96

Ciceronian corpus where Caesar is formally called C. Julius (Prov. 39; Har. 43), but he is more frequently referred to as C. Caesar, and this is the form used throughout this speech, as it was by Caesar himself in a quotation cited by Suetonius (Suet. Jul. 30; Syme (1958) 172–88; Adams (1978) 152; for Caesar's involvement in the Egyptian affair see Introd., pp. 13 ff.). shouldered. Through a series of contrasting pairings, such as 'alone' vs. 'many', 'apportioned among many' vs. 'only Caesar', 'prospering' vs. 'low ebb', and language which reinforces the image of the suffering of his client, Cicero commends the unique support given by Caesar to Postumus. Caesar is clearly credited with personally supporting Postumus' financial partners, who must have suffered heavy losses from the Egyptian venture, but Cicero does not say exactly how he 'shouldered the burden' (Introd., pp. 72– 3.) In 48, when Caesar arrived in Alexandria in pursuit of Pompey, he presented a claim for 17,500,000 denarii to the heirs of Ptolemy Auletes for a debt owed by their father, from which Caesar waived 7,500,000, but demanded the balance of 10,000,000 for his military expenses (Plut. Caes. 48. 7–9). We have no evidence of any involvement by Caesar in Egypt post-dating Postumus' stay, so it might be tentatively suggested that this sum—equivalent to 3,000 talents—refers to Caesar's share of the unpaid loan raised by Postumus, possibly later consolidated with the financiers' other debts after his failure to gather the necessary money—although the orthodoxy among scholars is to suppose that the debt to Caesar was still outstanding from the payments made in 59 (Gelzer (1968) 247; Sullivan (1990) 244). Cicero would seem to be warning Memmius and his aristocratic supporters of their folly in bringing Postumus to ........................................................................................................................... pg 208 trial, for it is not only Postumus but also Caesar whom they should take into account. shadowy image. In strong and poetically expressive language, often found in descriptions of people affected by extreme misfortune (Liv. 5. 18. 4), Cicero spares no pains in depicting his client's pathetic plight. Now Postumus is referred to as the empty image of his earlier dignified self, the assumption being that he possesses nothing of value and that even his equestrian status is in doubt (Sest. 110). For Cicero, equestrian status always held moral overtones of honesty and a sense of dignity and duty, and these more abstract concepts may be intimated here (cf. note on 17. 46 reputation, 17. 48 I implore … Forum). In this passage Cicero suggests that Caesar's support for Postumus extends far beyond the financial to a wider embrace within his fides. (Note also the case of a man who was condemned to death because, by not fully possessing the equestrian census, he had neither rights nor goods which could be taken from him, and only through Caesar's generosity was he granted a reprieve (Fam. 9. 13. 4; Balsdon (1960) 45).) The jury is left in no doubt about the extent of the protection afforded by Caesar to Postumus and this, in turn, may serve as an indication of the type of verdict the great man expects. Still, the whole tenor of this extended description of Postumus' poverty suggests an underlying disingenuousness.

Page 82 of 96

mediocre quality. Cicero begins this section with a direct challenge to the jury, verbally daring them to underestimate the calibre of Caesar by adopting a pretence of surprise that a man such as Caesar should be so concerned with one so 'insignificant' as Postumus (cf. note on 9. 23 modest learning). As a patrician: 'if he had been helped in defending his honour by brigands and cut-throats, he would have requited even such men in the same way' (Suet. Jul. 72). travails. On the basis that Cicero mentions first Postumus' travails and then his absence in Egypt ('foreign land') it would seem most likely that these difficulties relate to financial woes rather than the current trial. greatest of tasks. Cicero here makes reference to Caesar's many military campaigns, among which can be numbered those against the Helvetii and the Germans in 58, the Belgae and the Nervii in ........................................................................................................................... pg 209 57, the Veneti of Brittany and the Morini in 56, together with the campaign on the Rhine in 55 and the two expeditions to Britain in 55–54. 15. 42. know. In 59 Cicero himself was a recipient of Caesar's liberality when he tried to woo the orator by tempting him with a prospective place alongside Crassus and Pompey in the inner political circle (Att. 2. 3. 3; Prov. 41; Pis. 79). However, Caesar's offers of a seat on his agrarian board, a legateship in Gaul, and a permit to travel abroad with the status of an ambassador, libera legatio, were all firmly rejected by Cicero (Att. 2. 18. 3, 2. 19. 4–5; Prov. 42). It was only after Caesar had consented to Cicero's return from exile that the two men came together (note the glowing panegyric on Caesar's achievements in De provinciis consularibus), and by 54 Cicero was appreciatively speaking of Caesar's bounteous generosity and kindness of spirit to both him and his brother (Fam. 1. 9. 18–21, 7. 6. 1–2; Q.fr. 2. 12–15, 3. 1. 1 ff.). to select … great. There is something grand and emphatic about this list of achievements which is enumerated for rhetorical impact as much as it is to glorify Caesar (on Caesar's unique qualities see Dio 38. 2. 1–2, 4–6; App. B. C. 2. 10; Suet. Jul. 72–3; Sall. B. Cat. 54. 1f.). The whole section, with its striking clausulae and structure, is a deliberative piece of high-flown political oratory lauding Caesar's near supernatural qualities. The same powerful diction can be traced in Plutarch's account of Caesar's phenomenal military ability (Plut. Caes. 15. 2–3), and Caesar himself was also not beyond such hyperbole (B. Hisp. 42. 7). winter. Cicero's general statement about Caesar's extraordinary achievements led Clark (1909) to suggest hiemumque instead of the hiememque of the MS. However, syntactically, the preceding demonstrative pronoun hanc, which corresponds with the relative quam just three words below, would seem to suggest contemporaneity, and therefore hiememque Page 83 of 96

should stand (K-St (1912) I. 621; ThLL, VI. 2, 3, 2733, 10). If the MS reading is kept, then this would seem to indicate that Postumus' trial must have taken place in the middle of a harsh winter—either in December 54 or January 53 (cf. note on 16. 44 these days; Introd., pp. 73–81). Throughout his life Caesar's physical endurance was phenomenal; for the cold conditions in Gaul see Caes. B. Gal. 1. 16. 2, 4. 20. 1, 5. 12. 6, 6. 3. 1. ........................................................................................................................... pg 210 rich rewards. As well as material rewards great deeds were seen as conveying status, glory (cf. 1. 2), and immortality—the latter being the highest of Roman rewards (Sall. Jug. 4. 5–6; Verg. A. 10. 467–9; Plumpe (1941) 282–4; Lind (1979) 16–19, 57–8; Dupont (1992) 23–5). 16. 43. glory. In the midst of his encomium to Caesar, Cicero reaches the rhetorical heights of suggesting that even the poets cannot find words to describe his deeds—note the significant choice of the word laus, instead of gloria, which in its general sense underlines the honour bestowed by others for an exceptional person's achievements (Marc. 26; Arch. 24; Thomas (1994) 93, 97). In fact, at this time Cicero was writing a poem praising Caesar's successes in response to Caesar's dedication to Cicero of a philological treatise (Q.fr. 3. 1. 11). wise. After his earlier suggestion that wisdom is the greatest attribute of a juror (cf. note on 5. 11 discretion and wisdom), Cicero is here paying his audience a compliment in suggesting that, if they are wise, they will recognize Caesar's greatness. staunch … admirer. The epithets employed here are not just hyperbole, they describe a long-standing and close relationship. Although little evidence survives of this from before the trial, there can be little doubt of it after that date, since Postumus was upgraded to the Senate at Caesar's instigation (Att. 9. 5. 1), sided with Caesar during his campaign against Pompey in 48 (App. B. C. 2. 56–9), and played an active role in Caesar's North African campaign in 46 (Caes. B. Afr. 86, 93; see Introd., pp. 58–65). patrimony. cf. note on 14. 38 estates. The pleading here is presented in such a way as to disarm any criticism that Postumus may have acquired his fortune in an un-Roman way. Fully cognizant of the impact the depiction of his client's character could make on the jurors, Cicero, after a long break (cf. 2. 3–3), returns to the argument that Postumus' behaviour in striving to augment what was handed down to him by his fathers was typically Roman, since to dissipate one's estates was the ultimate 'evil' in Roman society (Plut. Cat. Mai. 21. 8; Catul. 29. 17; D'Arms (1981) 1–19, 62 ff.). In describing the wholehearted support and protection shown by Caesar ('with his money, fortune and name') to Postumus, Cicero risks running out of words, as one almost ........................................................................................................................... pg 211

Page 84 of 96

synonymous expression follows another, such as: 'took under his wing', 'spared no effort', 'sustained', 'supported', 'saves', and 'does not let'. break his fall. If it is viewed as inhuman to push further those who are falling (cf. note on 1. 2 It is bad … falling), then it is Caesar's humanity—above his heroic exploits—which is celebrated here. 16. 44. unaccustomed benevolence. In stressing that Caesar's kindness is truly exceptional Cicero is here acknowledging a widely held popular belief about the qualities of men in power. Indeed, the tone of his diction is almost conspiratorial, especially at the beginning of the section where he acknowledges that there are people who might not share his viewpoint and towards the end where he suggests that some people try to undermine Caesar's position. these days. Presumably, the period of Postumus' trial (cf. note on 15. 42 winter). Ever since the early days of his consulship, in 59, Caesar's authority and actions had been challenged by his enemies, especially the members of the Catonian faction. If Cicero's point is to be taken literally, then it might be the consular elections of 53 which are alluded to here. At that time Caesar felt extremely vulnerable because he was unable to exert any influence during the selection of the candidates for the consulship, while two of his most bitter enemies, Gaius Memmius and Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus, were being supported by Pompey. This, combined with rumours of Pompey's dictatorship, was sufficient to shake Caesar's reputation and, perhaps, threaten his political control in Rome (Q.fr. 2. 14. 4, 3. 1. 16, 8. 3. 9; Att. 4. 17. 2–3; Dio 40. 45. 1; App. B. C. 2.69–71; for a different evaluation of this statement see Klodt (1992) 47–51 who, favouring a date of March 52 for Postumus' trial, suggests that Cicero's statement here reflects either the time of Pompey's sole consulship or the opposition of the Catonian faction to the plebiscite of early 52). Cicero begins his epilogue (17. 45–8) with a sentimental evocation of Postumus' 'ethos' suffused with rich shades of pathos. Setting out to satisfy even the most suspicious members of the jury, the defence depicts with mordant overtones the woeful picture of a Roman knight who is willing to suffer even injustice as long as he can keep his equestrian status intact. Drawing upon his own personal experience of his client's well-meaning and generous character, Cicero offers testimony to a man with unique virtues 'whose better has never lived' (cf. 17. 48). Finally, ........................................................................................................................... pg 212 through a highly emotional appeal designed to melt the coldest of hearts, Cicero decides openly to play his final trump card by pointedly reminding the jurors not only that Postumus does not possess the money required of him but also that it is Caesar alone who has been so far his financial saviour—a none-too-subtle hint as to the folly of finding Postumus guilty, a man with such powerful friends! Page 85 of 96

17. 45. free from prejudice. Cicero now, at the conclusion of his speech, turns once more to the jurors, paying what are largely formal compliments to their sense of justice and lack of prejudice (lex rep. ll. 35–8, 43–5; Clu. 160, 202). His real views on the subject can be found in a letter to his brother of October 54—just before Postumus' trial—in which he bemoans the fact that impartial jurors can no longer be found in Rome (Q.fr. 3. 2. 2; Classen (1978) 613– 19). anyone's. Although the prosecutor may be implied here (Quinct. 97; S. Rosc. 46, 150; Sul. 90; Lig. 13), this generic word is, in fact, most probably concealing those jurors who still remained unconvinced of Postumus' innocence (cf. note 1. 1 anyone). The string of compelling and biting words that follows—'suspicion', 'malevolence', and 'vindictiveness'— serves as a carefully constructed psychological ploy aimed at winning them to the cause of the defence, because no juror would wish to be thought of as acting on the basis of such dark emotions. hiding. What could the jury have made of this startling restatement of the prosecution's chief accusation (cf. note on 14. 38 But … conceals it)? By its very boldness it invites even the most jaundiced members of the audience to pay the closest attention to Cicero's words, and this may well, indeed, have been his primary goal. At first sight, this hypothetical acceptance of the charge, no matter under what circumstances it was made, would seem to amount to his almost throwing away his carefully laid out arguments, leaving him, instead, nothing more than an impassioned plea to the jurors' sense of honour with which to win his client's acquittal. However, taken in conjunction with the unanswered rhetorical question which follows over who would wish to buy Postumus' property, this mock admittance of guilt can be seen as a further tactic aimed at discrediting completely any allegations about the continued existence of ill-gotten gains. ........................................................................................................................... pg 213 populace. In his rhetorical excess Cicero would seem unduly to discount the existence of a number of potentially aggrieved creditors, who would have wished to see Postumus' assets sold so that they might be refunded or, at least, take revenge for the wrongs that had befallen them. Money gathered from the sale of Postumus' estate would have been distributed to all the creditors because the damages were awarded in the name of anyone affected (cf. note on 4. 8 full … assets; people, 17. 46 all … compensated; lex rep. ll. 61–4). Since Gabinius had not only taken a bribe but had also illegally employed a part of the Roman army in his restoration of the Egyptian King to his throne, it must be presumed that foremost among the creditors was the State (cf. note on 8. 20 pirates; 8. 21 10,000 talents). The others can be broadly divided into two categories. First, they were those who had lent money to Ptolemy Auletes in the expectation that Lentulus would lead an expedition to Egypt (cf. note on 8. 21 P. Lentulus). Among these men were Q. Selicius (Fam. 1. 5a. 3–4) and the bankers Axius and Cosilius (Att. 1. 12. 1), and, as they lacked

Page 86 of 96

connections with the Pompeian group, it may be presumed that they had found it difficult to recoup their money. The second group included those who were linked with Pompey and the financing of Gabinius' restoration of the King, but, as 'partners' of Postumus, they may have been less willing to press any claim for recompense, since they were all associated with an illegal venture. Gaius Rabirius Postumus. The employment of all three names can only be found in highly formal circumstances, such as here at the conclusion of the speech, where it confers added gravitas on Cicero's words (Fam. 8. 8. 5). It is also quite possible that such a use hints at the language of the formal notice putting a man's estate up for sale. property to pass. Under the Julian law of extortion, if Postumus were to be found guilty and had been unable to give adequate securities, his property (goods and assets) would have been sold, so that his creditors could be paid (cf. note on 4. 8 full … assets, 13. 37 reclaimed, 17. 46 all … compensated). In a criminal case such as Postumus' the sale of holdings would normally be conducted through the agency of the quaestor, who was put in possession of the property by the praetor. The quaestor auctioned it off for a lump sum to the highest bidder, who came to be known ........................................................................................................................... pg 214 as a sector, although it is not clear when exactly this was adopted as the official term (2Ver. 1. 52; S. Rosc. 99, 102; Quinct. 76). It was then the bidder's responsibility to acquire back through separate sales (sectio bonorum) at least the amount he had paid, even if he did make a profit; this procedure served as a prototype for the similar processes of sectio bonorum and venditio bonorum which were adopted in civil trials (Solazzi (1937–8) 1.5 ff.; Wenger (1940) 232–40; Lintott (1974) 76–8). However, if Postumus were to be found guilty, his estate would have been encumbered with such enormous debts that it is highly unlikely that any buyers would have been willing to come forward (Rawson (1976) 87). In these circumstances any auction would have been nothing but a farce, and here what Cicero is doing is no more than making a mock plea for volunteers to step forward and save his client's property through a fictitious sale, although he still plays out the imagery of the auction for the maximum emotional impact (cf. note on 17. 45 single sesterce; Festus De verb. p. 137; Pl. Poen. 1. 1. 57; 2Ver. 1. 137; Q. Rosc. 41; Pis. 35; for fictitious sales see Gaius Inst. 1. 211 Plin. Nat. 9. 58. 117–18; Berger (1953) 574, 602). Whilst the broad outlines of the auction process are known, in fact information as to how the sale of a property was to be conducted and how the money acquired from it was to reach the creditors is gallingly not extant, if it was ever provided in the text of the law (lex rep. ll. 56–8; see Lintott (1992) 146–7; Crawford (1996) 107); and, unfortunately, Cicero's statement here is not expansive enough to add to our knowledge of the process, since he was addressing an audience whom he, naturally, expected to be well apprised of the appropriate technicalities.

Page 87 of 96

single sesterce. The sesterce, which was worth four asses, became the basic unit of accounts from around 140 onwards. It was minted irregularly in silver (1. 125 gr.) between 211 and 44 and, thereafter, until the later 3rd century AD, was struck in bronze as a coin of little value (Caes. B. Alex. 48, 52; Petr. Satyr. 30; Plin. Nat. 7. 130, 33. 118, 34. 4; Tac. Ann. 2. 42, 13. 10; Hist. 1. 66; Jones (1990) 287). It is employed here by Cicero to represent the nominal sum required to make a sale legally binding, since nobody would bid more than a 'single penny' for an estate so heavily encumbered by debts as Postumus' (Varr. L. 6. 61; Hor. S. 2. 5. 109; Liv. Per. 55; Val. Max. 5. 2. 10; Vitr. 1. 4. 12; Suet. Jul. 50; Gaius Inst. 2. 252). ........................................................................................................................... pg 215 these words. The auctioning of a convicted man's estate was an act of last resort and, by dwelling upon such a possibility, Cicero is deliberately heightening the emotional tension in the courtroom in the hope of eliciting the sympathy of the jurors. The reiterative emphasis on the worthlessness of Postumus' estate also serves to underline his earlier assertions that his client made no profit from the Egyptian venture. Now, having secured the compassion of the jurors, Cicero proceeds to launch a further emotional attack (cf. 17. 46). For you … sister? This rhetorical question marks the beginning of the encomium to a clients' ancestors which is traditionally found in an exordium. For the first time Cicero addresses Postumus personally ('you'), as, in a series of rhetorical questions, he continues to dwell upon his client's misfortunes and his impending impoverishment. discretion and goodwill. These words, indicio and voluntate, on the basis that they are often found in the language employed in wills and testaments (2Ver. 1. 44. 114; Dig. 29. 1. 1, 29. 4. 1), have frequently been taken at face value and interpreted as evidence of the fact that Postumus might have been adopted by his uncle through a legal testament (Dessau (1911) 615; Rosendorfer (1990) 11). Traditionally there were two types of adoption, the testamentary and the 'genuine', the distinction between the two being that those adopted by the testamentary procedure, although they took their adoptive father's praenomen and nomen and often the cognomen together with other names too, did not change their status and, instead, retained their original filiation and tribe. Indeed, during the empire such adoptions were viewed as not really being adoptions at all, because they brought no change of status—as in the case of Pliny the Younger who called himself L. f. even after his adoption by C. Plinius Secundus (Salomies (1992) 27). However, it has been suggested that in Republican times such testamentary adoptions may have, in fact, been equivalent to 'genuine' adoptions and brought a change in status, as the newly adopted person was introduced into the agnatic family of the adoptive father (Weinrib (1968a) 254 ff.). This supposition, however, has been largely disproved by more recent research which has confirmed the view that such adoptions were primarily concerned with passing estates to an heir providing he took the testator's name (Konrad (1996) 124–5;

Page 88 of 96

........................................................................................................................... pg 216 Linderski (1996) 149). Cicero's words here suggest that Postumus' adoption followed this testamentary procedure, as he took his adoptive father's praenomen and nomen but apparently not his status, since at the time of his trial he was still an eques, even after the death of Gaius Rabirius, who had been a Senator. However, here, in the peroration of his speech, it is unlikely that Cicero would have been overly concerned with legal nuances of this nature. Instead, by first invoking the name of Postumus' natural father and then emphasizing the eagerness of his uncle to adopt his nephew, presumably on account of his many virtues, Cicero offers to the jury a strong reminder of his client's respectable social status, so as to offset his previous intimation of impending bankruptcy and its attendant disgrace. Gaius Rabirius. The adoptive father of Postumus (see Introd.). personal gratification. Magnanimity of spirit and generosity to one's kin were considered qualities which reflected positively on a defendant (cf. note on 2. 3 whose … philanthropy, 2. 4 he … practices, 16. 43 f.; Quinct. 92 f.; S. Rosc. 143; Cael. 44; Clu. 169; Quint. Inst. 6. 1. 22). 'auctioneer'. By identifying himself as the effective auctioneer of Postumus' property, and by associating himself with a group of individuals who seem to have been held in low public regard, Cicero skilfully plays upon the feelings of his audience with the intention of arousing their indignation (Quinct. 49–50, 95–7; Sest. 65; Agr. 1. 7; Deiot. 25; Off. 1. 22, 92; 2. 64, 87; 3. 63; Fam. 7. 4. 21; 15. 19. 3; S. Rosc. 99 ff.; Phil. 2. 64 ff.; Mart. 1. 85; Juv. 6. 433). Normally, when a proper auction was conducted, it was the quaestor who acted as the auctioneer of a convicted man's possessions (cf. note on 17. 45 property to pass; lex rep. ll. 57–8; Quinct. 60; Quint. Inst. 11. 3. 172). He was expected publicly to advertize the sale of goods and property at the busiest intersection of the city, draw a detailed inventory of the items to be auctioned, as well as to establish a guide price and publish the conditions of the sale with a list of outstanding debts. Cicero was well aware that the fate of Postumus' estates and, above all, his honour lay in his ability to secure his acquittal. He would never have been the actual auctioneer of Postumus' property, but this metaphor not only highlights his client's plight but also allows him theatrically ........................................................................................................................... pg 217 to present himself as the 'executioner' of Postumus' public image and reputation (Rauh (1989) 455–76). A mere expression of sorrow would not have been sufficient to evoke the depths of public humiliation and degradation which had befallen a man whose name was unnecessarily tarnished by facing public prosecution.

Page 89 of 96

17. 46. all … compensated. cf. notes on 4. 8 full … assets; people, 17. 45 populace. It has been suggested that Cicero here intimates that Postumus could have faced additional proceedings in a separate civil trial under a clause 'Property may be sold so that all can be fully compensated' (Axer (1978) 227–30). This suggestion is based on the belief that under the 'What has become of the money' clause only the State would have benefited from the payment of Postumus' fine, whereas if he were tried under the aforesaid civil clause his creditors would be the actual recipients. This view has also been recently endorsed by Klodt (1992) 178–9 on the grounds that Cicero's words here sound formal enough to imply a legal clause. However, such a suggestion would seem to be groundless not only because there is no extant evidence of a clause 'Property may be sold so that all can be fully compensated' but also because such a reading of the text fails completely to acknowledge Cicero's persuasive devices and misinterprets both the content and the scope of the Julian law of extortion. The extortion law of the tabula Bembina—from which the Julian law of extortion was derived—decreed that anyone was entitled to damages as long as his claim had been proved valid (lex rep. 11. 6–8, 58–61; Crawford (1996) 21–4, 76 n. 77, 91, 97). The money acquired from the sale of a culprit's property was placed in the civic treasury (lex rep. 11. 59–61) so that each claimant could be reimbursed, and only when money was left uncollected for more than five years did it actually pass to the State (lex rep. ll. 66–7; Henderson (1951) 79–81). If Cicero was really alluding to a civil trial here, how would such a trial be related to the clause 'What has become of the money' and why does the orator address this jury panel asking them to convict his client when he knew that a civil trial would almost certainly have a totally different set of jurors? Anyhow, Cicero is effectively calling the jurors' bluff, because if Postumus' estate has to be sold so that everybody can be refunded, then, by inference, he cannot have in his possession the money for which he is on trial! What Cicero emphasizes here, in a rather ........................................................................................................................... pg 218 convoluted way, is not only Postumus' impoverishment but also his sense of honour, for, according to Cicero, he would rather see his assets sold than suffer the stigma of bad debts. In this regard, note the paradoxical use of the word 'desires' at this point (cf. note on 10. 29 dishonour). reputation. Cicero, here, is playing on the uses of the word 'reputation', which had connotations of both 'good financial credit' and 'good name and honour' (Catil. 2. 18; Sul. 58; Att. 11. 2. 1, 16. 2. 2). However, if Postumus were to have been found guilty, it would have been highly questionable whether his reputation could have been salvaged even by the repayment of his creditors, especially since the praetor, according to the law, would have had to display a record of his debts together with the names of the unpaid claimants publicly in the forum during and after the distribution of damages (lex rep. ll. 64–6; Sest. 18)! It is not purely coincidental that this whole unit is loaded with variants of the word 'ill-fated' (miser), such as 'wretched' (miserum), 'distressful' (miserum), and 'sympathy' (misericordia). All

Page 90 of 96

constitute an integral part of Cicero's oratorical manoeuvres to arouse the compassion of his audience and secure their goodwill, especially now, at the end of the trial. nor … clement. Aside from reiterating his point about Postumus' impoverishment Cicero is here also exerting an oblique moral pressure on the jurors, as he suggests that they will be viewed as inclement and merciless if they condemn an innocent man whose own money has not been refunded in the first place (cf. 15. 41 'former dignity'; S. Rosc. 144–7; Sul. 90). adventitious money. The general consensus among scholars has been that Cicero refers here to the money paid by Ptolemy Auletes as a bribe to Gabinius, part of which had then, allegedly, passed to Postumus (Watts (1931) 411; Boulanger (1978) 43; Führmann (1970– 82) VI. 315: Klodt (1992) 180). Although at first sight this would appear most probable, on a closer inspection this interpretation seems unlikely, as it runs counter to the orator's main line of persuasion, which has been to distance the two cases. Indeed, rather than dissociating Postumus from Gabinius, this mention of adventitious money, if it is taken as referring to a part of Gabinius' bribe which passed to Postumus, would only associate the two men—albeit in a rather negative way. Moreover, if he really meant this money, then Cicero is not only effectively accepting his client's ........................................................................................................................... pg 219 guilt but also prejudging the final outcome of the trial, because only if Postumus were convicted would he be liable to pay it back. Furthermore, if the orator was bold enough to risk a reference to Gabinius' money, now at the conclusion of his speech, he might have been tempted to employ an adjective of a different nature than 'adventitious', perhaps more appropriate to the size of the monetary demands. The answer to the riddle of what sort of money Cicero implies here in fact lies with the travails of Postumus. The money is adventitious solely because Postumus never expected to be put on trial in the first place, and in describing it as such Cicero is really only making a plea for the innocence of his client, as he continues to portray him as the victim of circumstances in the hope of steering his audience's reactions towards forbearance and judicial clemency. The apt juxtaposition of 'adventitious money' with Postumus' own losses which were never defrayed underlines this point, as does the following sentence in which Cicero asserts that Postumus is the innocent victim of 'hatred' (invidia) (cf. note on 7. 18 feuds … gossips, 17. 48 envy). The exact source of this hostility is not revealed, perhaps because it was self—evident to all present at the time, but it seems probable that Cicero was referring to the many embittered investors who had participated with high hopes in the Egyptian venture only to see their own money forfeited (Fam. 7. 17. 1). 17. 47. loyalty. Presumably, this refers to Cicero's promise to defend Postumus (cf. 8. 19; 12. 33; Freyburger (1986) 163–4). This passage provides Cicero with the opportunity for an eloquent autobiographical digression on his own personal experiences of Postumus' virtues,

Page 91 of 96

with the facts being presented as a series of highly emotional and vivid scenes, all of which are designed to achieve a favourable disposition within the jury. misfortune. This term is far less emotive and lighter than the world 'exile' which is usually employed by Cicero to describe the arduous period in 58/57 when he was forced to leave Italy (Dom. 72; Q.fr. 3. 2. 2; May (1988) 89). The subject of exile is dominant in this unit, and the orator, by associating himself with his client—for still clients were defended not merely on the strength of their own character but also by their affinity to the defence counsel, who, of course, in this case was of consular rank—obliquely hints at the bitter taste such a state of being could leave in one's life. ........................................................................................................................... pg 220 you. We have no evidence of any assistance given by Postumus to Cicero at the time of his exile, except for this reference. Here he states that Postumus mobilized his friends and resources to make his departure easier, but if his role was as great as is credited, then the absence of his name from Cicero's correspondence is difficult to explain—especially when it is compared with the copious references to other friends who gave aid at this time of need, such as Sallustius (Div. 1. 59), Laenius Flaccus (Fam. 14. 4. 2), Cn. Plancius (Fam. 14. 1. 3), M. Terentius Varro (Att. 3. 8. 3, 15. 1, 18. 1, 4. 2. 5), Milo (Fam. 2. 6. 5), and, above all, Atticus, who took charge of Cicero's business and looked after his family during his banishment (Att. 3. 6. 1; see also the speech Post Reditum in Senatu, in which he praises all the people who helped him). However, granted that Cicero himself had said that if he had enumerated all his benefactors the screed of names would have been endless (Fam. 1. 9. 23), it is just possible to consider Postumus among all those 'unnamed heroes' who assisted the orator morally and financially. Besides, the considerable warmth that spiced the relationship between the two men after the trial seems to indicate that this eulogy is not entirely manufactured for the occasion (Fam. 13. 4. 1 ff., 13. 5. 1 ff., 13. 69. 1). gold. During his exile Cicero must have needed a substantial amount of money, and Postumus was able to provide him with gold, perhaps in the form of bars, which were often used instead of carrying large amounts of silver coin (Clu. 179; Nicolet (1994) 631). departure. After leaving Rome, Cicero headed for Brindisi via the southern coast of Italy before sailing on the last day of April 58 for Greece, where he spent most of his time in Thessalonica (Att. 3. 8. 1 ff.). I can … charge. In a criminal trial it seems to have been expected that the defendant's entire life and character would be subject to examination, so Cicero, in search of more indicia of his client's great generosity, chooses to dwell on the financial help offered by Postumus to exiles such as himself. In fact, Postumus may have been particularly sensitive to the cause of exiles, since his own natural father C. Curtius may have been one of them

Page 92 of 96

(if the C. Curtius mentioned in Cicero's letter to Valerius Orca in 46–44 (Fam. 13. 5. 1 f.) is taken to be Postumus' father—as it is argued in the Introd., pp. 42–5). The destiny of this C. Curtius seems to have been set when his own father, the famous Roman lawyer Curtius, was decapitated ........................................................................................................................... pg 221 during the Sullan massacres. As the descendant of a proscribed man, C. Curtius suffered confiscation of his property, deprivation of his civil rights, and was forced into exile. Eventually, alongside others who had fled at that time, he was allowed to return to Rome and regain his citizenship, probably through the lex Antonia of 49 (Dio 41. 18. 2; Plut. Caes. 37. 1–2; Hinard (1985) 217–19, 347–8). Cicero's letter to Orca (Fam. 13. 5. 2) informs us that 'those who had suffered a similar injustice [to that of Curtius]',—presumably proscription —were permitted to return to their country 'by universal consent' (voluntate omnium). In the same letter Cicero also reveals that he himself had worked to secure C. Curtius' rehabilitation. The exact nature of this help is not specified, but it may be presumed that, if it did not involve him deploying his juridical expertise in court, then, it might have taken some other form such as financial assistance or private lobbying (Crawford (1984) 258). indeed. Notwithstanding the obvious problem caused by the earlier statement that Postumus had never laid eyes on his father (cf. note on 2. 4 although … father), Madvig suggested that the MS cui id, which is nonsensical here, should be emended to Curtio, and this reading has since been adopted by most scholars (Madvig (1856) 1458). Taking into account this apparent inconsistency, Klodt (1992) 181–2 concludes that the father referred to in the text must be C. Rabirius, Postumus' adoptive father, because his natural father was dead, and, in keeping with this, she suggests that the cui id of the MS should be replaced by C. Rabirio. However, aside from the absence of any evidence that C. Rabirius was ever brought to trial on a capital charge, such an emendation also shows little respect for the words present in the MS. If it is accepted that Postumus' natural father C. Curtius was still alive at this time, as is argued above, then it might seem sensible to hold to Madvig's original emendation. However, it remains rather puzzling why Cicero should repeat the name of his client's natural father, which he had only mentioned a short while earlier (cf. 17. 45 offspring of Gaius Curtius). Instead, a more suitable emendation for the cui id of the MS might be the qualitative particle quidem, employed to emphasize the notion that even Postumus' father had benefited from his client's generosity (OLD, s.v. 1552, no 5; K-St (1955) I. 802. 1). capital charge. After his rehabilitation, C. Curtius moved to Volaterrae, a well-known antiSullan shelter for those who had ........................................................................................................................... pg 222

Page 93 of 96

been proscribed, where he settled and bought some property (Fam. 13. 5. 1–2). However, his move to Volaterrae does not seem to have gone smoothly, as it only appears to have resulted in his being brought to court on 'iudicio capitis'. This expression has often been translated as 'on trial for his life' (Boulanger (1978) 43), but there is no evidence of this, and a more apt translation would seem to be 'tried on a capital charge'. Although the nature of his 'crime' and the law under which he was tried are not known, it would seem plausible to suggest that C. Curtius' civil rights were once again at stake (Clu. 148, 192; S. Rosc. 30; Har. 13; Planc. 31; Fam. 7. 30. 3; Sherwin-White (1949) 9 nn. 36, 37, 38). Indeed, he would have been in a particularly vulnerable position given the fact that he was the son of a proscribed man and a rehabilitated resident of Volaterrae with no previous local roots. The sensitivity of the inhabitants of Volaterrae at this time to the legitimacy of their right to hold full Roman citizenship can be seen from the case of A. Caecina. When, during a trial over the inheritance of his wife's property, his civil rights were brought into question on the grounds that, as a resident of Volaterrae, he was not a full Roman citizen, Caecina preferred to concede the case rather than have his civil rights publicly contested and cast in doubt (Caec. 17–18). The date of C. Curtius' trial is unknown, but Cicero was still working for the rehabilitation of those who had suffered under the Sullan proscriptions as late as 63 (Fam. 13. 4. 1). Given Cicero's efforts to rehabilitate C. Curtius, and their long-standing friendship, it is tempting to suppose that he might have acted as the defence counsel during this trial, but the lack of any reference to this here, where it might be expected, and the indirect way in which the praise of Postumus is offered ('I heard') would suggest that this was not the case. Thus, Cicero's statement may be not just a rhetorical ploy to underline his client's good natured—as has often been averred—but real testimony to past events. 17. 48. envy. Cicero's tone here is rather alarmist, but more sorrowful than angry. He had long protested in the courts that malicious feuds and sheer hatred had brought innocent people like his client to trial, and now he warns the jurors against the destructive force of such feelings (cf. note on 7. 18 feuds … gossips, 17. 46). In this passage Cicero seems to imply that Postumus' partiality has been great enough in the past to provoke the envy of others, including some of the jurors. ........................................................................................................................... pg 223 dear. This reference to Postumus' generosity of spirit is given added weight because it lies in stark contrast to the previous statement about the envy of his enemies. There is a tug-ofwar here between the positive image of the client's family and relatives and the malicious forces that wish to see him humbled. Although this passage is full of rhetorical devices, it is, nevertheless, possible to believe that the long-standing familial ties between the two men cause Cicero to experience real grief and a sense of loss at the plight of his friend—feelings which would not be so alien to one who himself had fallen foul of political chicanery not long before.

Page 94 of 96

I implore … forum. Cicero was fully cognizant of the fact that the beginning and the end of a defence speech provide particularly favourable conditions for the arousing of the emotions —although an orator should make use of this most effective instrument throughout his speech (de Orat. 2. 310–12; Quint. 4. 1. 46). In this neat and effective digression his sole aim is to instil in the jurors a disposition to acquit—whether they should so vote because the charges against his client are to be dismissed as irrelevant (cf. 3. 7–5. 12), disproved as false (cf. 8. 20, 12. 35), or excused as a cover for his actions in Alexandria (cf. 2. 4–3. 6; 8. 22–9. 26). Through this poignant plea, couched in handsome lyrical language, the orator denounces the possible stripping of his client's civic rights and equestrian identity. Postumus' public image as a respectable member of a family of good social standing, as a businessman of international acclaim, as a public figure, and as a Roman citizen who enjoys full rights in the city is at stake. Scholars have often treated this unit as a source of evidence for the penalties imposed under the Julian law of extortion and, more specifically, the clause 'What has become of the money'. However, this law was, foremost, recuperatory and, in his assertions that nothing can be now removed from his client bar his reputation, Cicero would seem to be alluding to the infamy Postumus would suffer if he were convicted (cf. note on 15. 41 shadowy image, 17. 46 reputation). How could his client walk in the forum holding his head high (rectis oculis) if his name was not clear from allegations of corruption and extortion? Conviction would have delivered a shameful blow to Postumus' public profile and civil status, as his title of an eques Romanus would be removed from him (cf. notes on 5. 11 banish from the city; the only eques Romanus; Liv. 6. 14. 7, 25. 4. 9; Dom. 85; App. B. C. 1. 31; and, for the great importance ........................................................................................................................... pg 224 of individual status to the Romans, see Crook (1967) 41). Indeed, the stigma of condemnation was so difficult to bear that in some cases death by suicide was seen as preferable, as in the cases of D. Iunius Silanus Manlianus in 140, C. Papirius Carbo in 119, and C. Licinius Macer in 66 (Alexander (1990) nos. 7, 30, 195). This ethically based encomium, in which the orator dwells on his client's excellent character, is a typical Ciceronian tactic and was, no doubt, highly effective, given the Romans' belief in the affinity of ethos and pathos (Quint. Inst. 4. 1. 46; Mil. 94–8; Cael. 77; Flac. 101–5; Sest. 144; Mur. 87–90). fate. Cicero, in this closing paragraph, returns to a motif introduced at the beginning of the speech (cf. note on 1. 2 Fortune; Top. 63), the implication being that fortune alone had punished his client enough, so that any other punishment would amount to sheer cruelty. single friend. If Cicero's direct appeal for clemency on the part of the jurors was not enough, this concluding reference to Caesar would have been sufficient to make them mull over the complex political forces which lay behind the trial, before they—without retiring to

Page 95 of 96

coldly deliberate on the evidence—cast their ballots for the verdict (Inv. 1. 106–9; Part. 55– 7).

Page 96 of 96

Oxford Scholarly Editions Online CHRONOLOGY

Mary Siani-Davies (ed.), Clarendon Ancient History Series: Marcus Tullius Cicero: Pro Rabirio Postumo Published in print:

2001

Published online:

January 2017

........................................................................................................................... PG 225

CHRONOLOGY

123/122

The law of the tabula Bembina is passed as part of Gaius Gracchus' legislation

110s

Approximate date for the birth of Postumus' father C. Curtius

101

The Servilian law for extortion

91

Drusus' judiciary law

89

C. Rabirius, Postumus' uncle, and Cicero probably met while serving in Cn. Pompeius Strabo's army

80s

Approximate date for the birth of Postumus

81

The Cornelian law for extortion

Sept. 80

Ptolemy Auletes ascends to the Egyptian throne

75

Annexation of Cyrene by the Romans

67

Pompey and Ptolemy Auletes may have met in Egypt

67

Pompey launches a campaign against the pirates under the Gabinian law on piracy

65

Crassus attempts to annex Egypt

Prior to 63

C. Curtius, Postumus' father, is tried for embezzlement

Page 1 of 4

63

Egypt is threatened with annexation through Rullus' agrarian bill

63

C. Rabirius, Postumus' uncle, is tried for treason

63–54

During this period Postumus is adopted by his uncle, C. Rabirius

59

The Julian law for extortion

59

Ptolemy Auletes is recognized as 'friend and ally' of Rome

58

Roman annexation of Cyprus

Aug. 58

Ptolemy Auletes is expelled from Egypt

Autumn 58

Ptolemy Auletes arrives in Rome

58–57

Ptolemy Auletes resides in Pompey's Alban villa

58–57

Cleopatra V Tryphaena and Berenice IV on the throne of Egypt

58

Gabinius is consul in Rome with L. Piso

58

Cicero goes into exile

57

Gabinius becomes governor of Syria

57

Cicero returns from exile

57

Lentulus is commissioned by the Senate to restore Ptolemy Auletes to the Egyptian throne

......................................................................................................................... pg 226

Winter 57

Archelaus leaves Syria for Egypt

56

Ptolemy Auletes goes to Ephesus

Jan. 56

The Sybilline prophecies are used by Cato and others in Rome to prevent the restoration of Ptolemy Auletes by a Roman army

Page 2 of 4

56

Cicero delivers two speeches in favour of Lentulus' candidature for the restoration of Ptolemy Auletes

April 56

Archelaus marries Berenice IV, Ptolemy Auletes' daughter

April 56

Conference at Luca

Spring 56

Gabinius marches on Parthia

Early summer 56

Gabinius changes his plans and marches on Egypt to restore Ptolemy Auletes

Oct. 56

Battle of Pelusium, and death of Archelaus

56

Lentulus becomes governor of Cilicia

Jan.–June 55

Ptolemy Auletes is restored, and Postumus becomes royal treasurer in Alexandria

55

Pompey drafts bill designed to broaden the remit of the extortion laws

Summer 54

Postumus returns from Alexandria

October 54

Gabinius is tried for treason

Dec. 54

Gabinius is tried for extortion and, after being found guilty, flees into exile

Dec. 54/Jan. 53

Postumus is tried for extortion under 'What has become of the money'

Jan. 53–March 49

During this period Postumus becomes a Senator

March/April 51

Joint rule of Ptolemy Auletes, Cleopatra VII Philopator, and Ptolemy XIII begins

Spring–summer 51

Death of Ptolemy Auletes

Jan. 49

Caesar crosses the Rubicon, beginning the Civil War

48

Postumus is on Caesar's side during the Civil War

Page 3 of 4

48

Pompey arrives in Egypt and makes it his field of operations, before being murdered on 28 Sept.

48

Caesar arrives in Alexandria and presents a claim of 17,500,000 denarii to Ptolemy Auletes' heirs for debts owed by their father

Beginning 47

Gabinius dies at Salonae

June 47

Caesar leaves Egypt

July/Aug. 47

Postumus probably became the proconsul of Asia

46

Postumus joins Caesar's North African campaign

44

Death of Caesar

43

Death of Cicero

Page 4 of 4

Oxford Scholarly Editions Online BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mary Siani-Davies (ed.), Clarendon Ancient History Series: Marcus Tullius Cicero: Pro Rabirio Postumo Published in print:

2001

Published online:

January 2017

........................................................................................................................... pg 227 BIBLIOGRAPHY ACHARD, G. (1973). 'L' emploi de boni, boni viri, boni cives et de leurs formes superlative dans

l'action politique de Cicéron', Les études classiques, 41: 207–21.

ADAMS, J. N. (1978). 'Conventions of Naming in Cicero', Classical Quarterly, NS 28: 145–66. ALEXANDER, M. C. (1982). 'Repetion of Prosecution, and the Scope of Prosecutions, in the

Standing Criminal Courts of the Late Republic', Classical Antiquity, 1: 141–66.

——(1985). 'Praemia in the Quaestiones of the Late Republic', Classical Philology, 80: 20–32. ——(1990). Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC to 50 BC (Toronto). ALFÖLDI, A. (1976). Oktavians Aufstieg zur Macht (Antiquitas 25; Bonn). ALLEN, W. J. (1954). 'Cicero's Conceit', Transactions of the American Philological Association,

85: 121–44.

ANDRÉ, J.-M. (1966). L' Otium dans la vie morale et intellectuelle romaine (Paris). ANDREAU, J. (1982). 'Styles de vie et finances privées à la fin de la République', Quaderni di

storia, 16: 299–302.

——(1987). La Vie financière dans le monde romain: les métiers de manieurs d'argent (IVe siècle av. J.-C.—IIIe siècle ap. J.-C.) (Paris). APPLEBAUM, S. (1979). Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene (Leiden). ARCHI, G. G. (1956). 'I nuovi frammenti e il diritto criminale romano', in G. G. Archi, M. David,

et al. (eds.), Pauli Sententiarum: Fragmentum Leidense, (Leiden), 81–111. ——(1981). Scritti di diritto romano III (Milan).

Page 1 of 28

ARMSTRONG, D. (1989). Horace (New Haven, Conn.). ASTIN, A. E. (1967). Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford).

——(1978). Cato the Censor (Oxford). AUSTIN, M. M. (1981). The Hellenistic World from Alexander to the Roman Conquest

(Cambridge).

AXER, J. (1978). 'A Comment on M. T. Ciceronis Pro Rabirio Postumo', Eos, 66: 227–30. AXTELL, H. L. (1915). 'Men's Names in the Writings of Cicero', Classical Philology, 10: 386–404. BADIAN, E. (1956). 'Q. Mucius Scaevola and the Province of Asia', Athenaeum, 34: 104–23.

——(1957). 'Caepio and Norbanus', Historia, 6: 318–46. ——(1958). Foreign Clientelae (264–70 BC) (Oxford). ——(1959a). 'The Early Career of A. Gabinius (Cos. 58 B.C.)', Philologus, 103: 87–99. ........................................................................................................................... pg 228 BADIAN, E. (1959b). 'Caesar's Cursus and the Intervals between Offices', Journal of Roman

Studies, 49: 140–56.

——(1965). 'M. Porcius Cato and the Annexation and Early Administration of Cyprus', Journal of Roman Studies, 55: 110–21. ——(1967). 'The Testament of Ptolemy Alexander', Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 110: 178–92. ——(1968). Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic, 2nd edn. (Oxford). ——(1972). Publicans and Sinners (Oxford). ——(1984). 'The Death of Saturninus. Studies in Chronology and Prosopography'. Chiron, 14: 101–47. BAGNALL, R. S. (1972). 'Stolos the Admiral', Phoenix, 26: 358–68.

——(1976). The Administration of the Ptolemaic Possessions outside Egypt (Leiden).

Page 2 of 28

——(1984). 'The Origins of Ptolemaic Cleruchs', Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists, 21: 7–20. ——and BOGAERT, R. (1975). 'Orders for Payment from a Banker's Archive: Papyri in the Collection of Florida State University', Ancient Society, 6: 79–108. BAIN, D. (1981). Masters, Servants and Orders in Greek Tragedy (Manchester). BALCONI, C. (1993). 'Rabirio Postumo dioeketes d'Egitto in P. Med. inv. 68.53?', Aegyptus, 73:

1–20.

BALSDON, J. P. V. D. (1960), 'Auctoritas, Dignitas, Otium', Classical Quarterly, NS 10: 43–50.

——(1966). 'Crackpot Caesar', Classical Review, NS 16: 217–20. ——(1979). Romans and Aliens (London). BARBU, N. I. (1964). 'L'Attitude de Cicéron à l'égard des cours de justice', Helikon, 4: 211–28. BARLOW, C. T. (1978). 'Bankers, Moneylenders, and Interest Rates in the Roman

Republic' (Chapel Hill, NC, Ph.D. thesis).

——(1980). 'The Roman Government and the Roman Economy 92–80 BC', American Journal of Philology, 101: 202–19. BARNS, J. W. B. (1978). Egyptians and Greeks (Papyrologica Bruxellensia 14; Brussels). BAUMAN, R. A. (1996). Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome (London). BEARD, M. (1990). 'Priesthoods in the Roman Republic', in M. Beard and J. North (eds.), Pagan

Priests, Religion and Power in the Ancient World (London), 17–48.

——and CRAWFORD, M. (1985). Rome in the Late Republic (London). BENNET, R. (1971). The Prefects of Roman Egypt: 30 B.C–A.D 69 (Ann Arbor, Mich.). BENOIT, F. (1956). 'Epaves de la côte de Provence typologie des amphores', Gallia, 14: 23–34. BERGER, A. (1953). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Transactions of the American

Philosophical Society, NS 43: pt. 2) (Philadelphia).

........................................................................................................................... pg 229 BERNAND, É. (1975). Recueil des inscriptions grecques du Fayoum, I, La 'méris' d' Hérakleidès (Leiden). Page 3 of 28

BEVAN, E. R. (1927). A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty (London). BINGEN, J. (1952). Papyrus 'Revenue Laws' (Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Agypten,

I; Göttingen).

BLOEDOW, E. (1963). 'Beiträge zur Geschichte des Ptolemaios XII', (Würzburg, Ph.D. thesis). BONNEFOND-COUDRY, M. (1989). Le Sénat de la République romaine de la guerre d'Hannibal à

Auguste: pratiques délibératives et prise de décision (Rome).

BOREN, H. C. (1977). Roman Society: A Social, Economic and Cultural History (Lexington). BOUCHÉ-LECLERQ, A. (1903–7). Histoire des Lagides (Paris).

——(1913). Histoire des Séleucides (323–64 avant J.C.) (Paris). BOULANGER, A. (1978). Cicéron, Discours (Paris). BOWMAN, A. K. (1986). Egypt after the Pharaohs (London). BRAUND, D. C. (1983a). 'Gabinius, Caesar, and the Publicani of Judaea', Klio, 65: 241–4.

——(1983b). 'Royal Wills and Rome', Papers of the British School at Rome, 51: 16–57. ——(1984). Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of the Client Kingship (London). BRAUND, S. H. (1989). 'Juvenal and the East: Satire as an Historical Source', in D. H. French and

C. S. Light foot (eds.), The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire (Ankara), 45–52. ——(1992). Lucan, Civil War (Oxford).

BRECCIA, E. (1921). Rapport sur la marche du service du Musée pendant l'exercise 1919–1920

(Alexandria).

BREMMER, J. (1991). 'Walking, Standing, and Sitting in Ancient Greek Culture', in J. Bremmer

(ed.), A Cultural History of Gesture: From Antiquity to the Present Day (Oxford). BRIGNOLI, F. M. (1957). Studi Ciceroniani (Naples).

BROWNE, G. M. (1966). 'P. HIBEH 133: A Reconsideration', Bulletin of the American Society of

Papyrologists, 3: 85–7.

BRUNEAU, P. (1970). Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l' époque hellénistique et à l'

époque impériale (Paris).

Page 4 of 28

BRUNS, C. G. (1909). Fontes Juris Romani Antiqui (Tübingen). BRUNT, P. A. (1961). 'Charges of Provincial Maladministration under the Early Principate',

Historia, 10: 189–227.

——(1965a). 'The Equites in the Late Republic', in Trade and Politics in the Ancient World (2nd International Conference of Economic History; Paris), 117–49. ——(1965b). 'Amicitia in the Late Roman Republic', Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, NS 2: 1–20. ——(1971). Italian Manpower, 225 B. C.–A.D. 14 (Oxford). ........................................................................................................................... pg 230 BRUNT, P. A. (1981). 'Iudicia Sublata (58–57 B.C.)', Liverpool Classical Monthly, 6.2: 227–31. ——(1988). The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays (Oxford). BÜCHNER, K. (1961). 'Humanum und Humanitas in der römischen Welt', Studium Generale, 14:

636–48.

——(1962). Studien zur römischen Literatur II: Cicero (Wiesbaden). BÜRGE, A. (1974). Die Juristenkomik in Ciceros Rede Pro Murena (Zürich). CALLENDER, M. H. (1963). Roman Amphorae (London). CARTER, J. M. (1993). Julius Caesar, the Civil War, Book III (Warminster). CARY, M. (1949). The Geographic Background of Greek and Roman History (Oxford). CASSON, L. (1951). 'Speed under Sail of Ancient Ships', Transactions of the American

Philological Association, 82: 136–48.

——(1965). 'Harbour and River Boats of Ancient Rome', Journal of Roman Studies, 55: 31–9. ——(1991). The Ancient Mariners: Seafarers and Sea Fighters of the Mediterranean in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ). CAUVILLE, S. and DEVAUCHELLE, D. (1984). 'Le Temple d'Edfou: étapes de la construction;

nouvelles données historiques', Revue d'égyptologie, 35: 31–55.

CHRISTIANSEN, E. (1988). The Roman Coins of Alexandria: Quantitive Studies (Aarhus,

Denmark). Page 5 of 28

CIACERI, E. (1918). Processi politici e relazioni internazionali (Rome).

——(1926–30). Cicerone e i suoi tempi (Milan). CICHORIUS, C. (1922). Römische Studien (Leipzig). CLARK, A. C. (1907). Q. Asconii Pediani, Orationum Ciceronis (Oxford).

——(1909). M. Tulli Ciceronis Orationes (Oxford). CLARKE, M. L. (1945). 'Ciceronian Oratory', Greece and Rome, 14: 72–81. CLASSEN, C. J. (1965). 'Cicero Pro Cluentio 1–11 im Licht der rhetorische Theorie und Praxis',

Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 108: 104–42.

——(1978). 'Cicero, the Laws and the Law-Courts', Latomus, 37: 597–619. CLOUD, J. D. (1988). 'Lex Iulia de Vi: Part 1', Athenaeum, 66: 578–95.

——(1994). 'The Constitution and Public Criminal Law' in J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, 9: 491–530. COARELLI, F. (1981). Dintorni di Roma (Guide archeologiche Laterza, 7; Rome).

——(1985). Il foro romano II: periodo repubblicano e augusteo (Rome). CRAIG, C. P. (1981). 'The Accusator as Amicus: An Original Roman Tactic of Ethical

Argumentation', Transactions of the American Philological Association, 111: 31–7. ——(1993). Form as Argument in Cicero's Speeches: A Study of Dilemma (Atlanta, Ga.). CRAWFORD, D. J. (1980). 'Ptolemy, Ptah and Apis in Hellenistic Memphis', Studia Hellenistica

(Studies on Ptolemaic Memphis), 24: 1–42.

........................................................................................................................... pg 231 CRAWFORD, J. W. (1984). M. Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Orations (Göttingen). ——(1994). M. Tullius Cicero, the Fragmentary Speeches: An Edition with Commentary (Atlanta, Ga.). CRAWFORD, Μ‎. H. (1974). Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge).

——(1977). 'Rome and the Greek World: Economic Relationships', Economic History Review, 2nd series, 30: 42–52.

Page 6 of 28

——(1978). 'Trade and Movement of Coinage across the Adriatic in the Hellenistic Period', in R. A. G. Carson and C. M. Kraay (eds.), Scripta Nummaria Romana: Essays presented to Humphrey Sutherland (London), 1–11. ——(1985). Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic (London). ——(1992). The Roman Republic, 2nd edn. (London). ——(1996). Roman Statutes, 2 vols. (Cambridge). CRINITI, N. (1970). L'epigrafe di Asculum di Gn. Pompeo Strabone (Milan). CRISCUOLO, L. (1982). Bolli d'anfora greci e romani: la collezione dell'Università cattolica di

Milano (Bologna).

——(1989). 'La successione a Tolemeo Aulete ed i pretesi matrimoni di Cleopatra VII con i fratelli', in L. Criscuolo and G. Geraci (eds.), Egitto e storia antica dell'ellenismo all'età araba (Bologna), 325–39. CROOK, J. A. (1967). Law and Life of Rome (London). DAMON, C. and MACKAY, C. S. (1995). 'On the Prosecution of C. Antonius in 76 B.C.', Historia, 44:

37–55.

D'ARMS, J. H. (1970). Romans on the Bay of Naples: A Social and Cultural Study of the Villas

and their Owners from 150 B.C. to A.D. 400 (Cambridge, Mass.).

——(1980). 'Senators' Involvement in Commerce in the Late Republic: Some Ciceronian Evidence', Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 36: 77–89. ——(1981). Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome (Cambridge, Mass.). DAVID, J.-M. (1980). 'Eloquentia popularis et conduites symboliques des orateurs de la fin de la République: problèmes d' efficacité', Quaderni di storia, 12: 171–212.

——(1992). Le patronat judiciaire au dernier siècle de la République romaine (Rome). DE FRANCISCIS, A. (1956). 'Commento a due nuovi Tituli Magistrorum Campanorum', Studi in

onore di Aristide Calderini e Roberto Paribeni, 3: 353–8.

DEMOUGIN, S. (1988). L'ordre équestre sous les Julio–Claudiens (Rome). DENIAUX, E. (1991). 'Les Recommandations de Cicéron et la colonisation césarienne: les terres

de Volterra', Cahiers du Centre G. Glotz, 2: 215–28.

Page 7 of 28

DE RUYT, C. (1983). Macellum: marché alimentaire des romains (Louvain). DE SANCTIS, G. (1932). 'Il primo testamento regio a favore dei Romani', Rivista di fililogia e di

istruzione classica, 10: 59–67.

DESSAU, H. (1911). 'Gaius Rabirius Postumus', Hermes, 46: 613–20.

——(1913). 'Gaius Rabirius Postumus', Hermes, 47: 320. ........................................................................................................................... pg 232 DE VISCHER, F. (1940). Les Édits d'Auguste découverts à Cyrène (Louvain). DOUGLAS, A. E. M. (1958). 'Roman Cognomina', Greece and Rome, NS 5: 62–6.

——(1966). M. Tulli Ciceronis Brutus (Oxford). ——(1986). Review of J. W Crawford, 'The Lost and Unpublished Orations', Journal of Roman Studies, 76: 334. DRUFFEL, E. V. (1920). 'Zum Dioiketen-Problem', Archiv für Papyrus-forschung und verwandte

Gebiete, 6: 30–3.

DRUMANN, W. and Groebe P. (1899–1929). Geschichte Roms, 6 vols. (Berlin). DRUMMOND, A. (1995). 'Law, Politics and Power. Sallust and the Execution of the Catilinarian

Conspirators', Historia (Einzelschriften), 93: 1–136.

DUNKLE, J. R. (1967). 'The Greek Tyrant and Roman Political Invective of the Late Republic',

Transactions of the American Philological Association, 98: 151–71. DUPONT, F. (1992). Daily Life in Ancient Rome (Oxford).

DURRBACH, F. (1921). Choix d' inscriptions de Délos avec traduction et commentaire (Paris). EARL, D. C. (1960). 'Political Terminology in Plautus', Historia, 9: 235–43.

——(1967). The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome (London). ——(1970–1). 'Virtue and Politics: Rome and the Renaissance', in E. Gareau (ed.), Valeurs antiques et temps modernes (Ottawa), 143–62. EMPEREUR, J.-Y. (1977). 'Timbres amphoriques de Crocodilopolis–Arsinoé', Bulletin. Institut

français d'archéologie orientale, 77: 197–233.

Page 8 of 28

ÉTIENNE, R. (1990). Ténos II. Ténos et les Cyclades: du milieu du IVe siècle av. J.–C. au milieu

du IIIe siècle ap. J.–C. (Paris).

EWINS, U. (1960). 'Ne quis indicio circumveniatur', Journal of Roman Studies, 50: 94–107. EYER, J. J. (1963). 'Roman Education in the Late Republic and Early Empire', Greece and Rome, NS 10: 47–59.

FALLU, E. (1970). 'La première lettre de Cicéron à Quintus et la Lex Iulia de repetundis', Revue

des études latines, 48: 180–204.

FANTHAM, E. (1975). 'The Trials of Gabinius in 54 BC', Historia, 24: 425–43. FASCIONE, L. (1974). 'Riflessioni sull' orazione per Rabirio Postumo', Studi Senesi, 86: 335–76. FERRARY, J.-L. (1980). 'Délos vers 58 av. J-C', in J.–C. Dumont, J.-L. Ferrary, P. Moreau, et al.

(eds.), Insula Sacra. La loi Gabinia Calpurnia de Délos (58 av. J-C) (Rome), 35–61. ——(1983). 'Sulla legislazione de Repetundis', Labeo. 29: 70–7.

——(1988). Philhellénisme et Impérialism, aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du Monde Hellénistique (Rome). ........................................................................................................................... pg 233 FLOWER, H. (1996). Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (Oxford). FOWLER, W. W. (1922). The Religious Experience of the Roman People (London). FRAENKEL, E. (1916). 'Zur Geschichte des Wortes Fides', Rheinisches Museum für Philologie,

71: 187–99.

FRANK, T. (1920). 'Tulliana', American Journal of Philology, 41: 275–82.

——(1927). An Economic History of Rome to the End of the Republic (Baltimore). FRASER, P. M. (1972). Ptolemaic Alexandria, 3 vols. (Oxford). FREDERIKSEN, M. W. (1984). Campania (London). FREYBURGER, G. (1986). Fides, étude sémantique et religieuse depuis les origines jusqu' à l'

époque augustéenne (Paris).

FRIEDLÄNDER, P. (1954). Plato (London).

Page 9 of 28

FRIER, B. W. (1985). The Rise of the Roman Jurists: Studies in Cicero's Pro Caecina (Princeton,

NJ).

FÜHRMANN, M. (1970–82). Marcus Tullius Cicero. Sämtliche Reden. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und

erläutert, 6 vols. (Munich).

——(1990). Cicero and the Roman Republic (Oxford). GABBA, E. (1956). 'Osservazioni sulla legge giudiziaria di M. Livio Druso (91 A.C.)', La parola

del passato, 11: 363–72.

——(1980). 'Riflessioni antiche e moderne sulle attività commerciali a Roma nei secoli II e I A.C', Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 36: 91–102. GARDINER, A. H. (1920). 'The Ancient Military Road between Egypt and Palestine', Journal of

Egyptian Archaeology, 6: 99–116.

GARDNER, J. F. (1989). 'The Adoption of Roman Freedmen', Phoenix, 43: 236–59. GARNSEY, P. (1983). 'Grain for Rome', in P. Garnsey, K. Hopkins, and C. R. Whittaker (eds.),

Trade in the Ancient Economy (London), 118–30.

——(1988). Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco–Roman World (Cambridge). GELZER, M. (1968). Caesar: Politician and Statesman (Oxford).

——(1969). Cicero: Ein biographischer Versuch (Wiesbaden). GIARDINA, I. C. (1967). M. Tulli Ciceronis Pro Rabirio Postumo (Milan). GOTOFF, H. C. (1979). Cicero's Elegant Style (Urbana, III.). GRANGER-TAYLOR, H. (1982). 'Weaving Clothes to Shape in the Ancient World: The Tunic and

Toga of the Arringatore', Textile History, 13.1: 3–25. GRANT, M. (1972). Cleopatra (London).

——(1982). The Hellenistic Greeks (London). GRAY, E. W. (1979). 'The Consular Elections held in 65 BC', Antichthon, 13: 56–65. GREENIDGE, A. H. J. (1971). The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time, (reprint of Oxford, 1901; New

York).

Page 10 of 28

GRENFELL, B. P. and HUNT, A. S. (1897). New Classical Fragments and other Greek and Latin

Papyri (Oxford).

........................................................................................................................... pg 234 GRIFFIN, M. T. (1973a). 'The Leges Iudiciariae of the Pre-Sullan Era', Classical Quarterly, NS 23: 108–26. ——(1973b). 'The Tribune C. Cornelius', Journal of Roman Studies, 63: 196–213. GRIMAL, P. (1943). Les jardins romains à la fin de la République et aux deux premiers siècles

de l'empire (Paris).

GRUEN, E. S. (1966). 'P. Clodius Pulcher, Instrument or Independent Agent?', Phoenix, 20: 120–

30.

——(1968). Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149–78 B.C., (Cambridge, Mass.). ——(1969a). 'Pompey, the Roman Aristocracy and the Conference of Luca', Historia, 18: 71– 108. ——(1969b). 'The Consular Elections for 53 B.C.', Hommages à Marcel Renard, 2: 311–21. ——(1974). The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (Berkeley, Calif.). ——(1984). The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley, Calif.). GUIRAUD, P. (1905). Études économiques sur l'antiquité (Paris). GUITE, H. (1962). 'Cicero's Attitude to the Greeks', Greece and Rome, NS 9: 142–59. GUITTARD, C. (1984). 'Tite–Live, Acius et le rituel de la Devotio', Comptes rendus des séances.

Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 84: 581–600. HABICHT, C. (1990). Cicero the Politician (Munich).

HAHM, D. E. (1963). 'Roman Nobility and the Three Major Priesthoods, 218–167 B.C.',

Transactions of the American Philological Association, 94: 73–85.

HALM, K. F. (1855). 'Über Cicero's Rede Pro C. Rabirio Postumo: Eine kritische Abhandlung',

(Abhandlungen der Bayrerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1), 7.3: 621–64. HANDS, A. R. (1972). 'Livius Drusus and the Courts', Phoenix, 26: 268–72.

HARDY, E. G. (1912). 'The Judiciary Law of Livius Drusus', Classical Review, 26: 218–20.

Page 11 of 28

——(1913). 'Three Questions as to Livius Drusus', Classical Review, 27: 261–3. HARLAN, M. (1995). Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins 63BC–49BC (London). HARRIS, W. V. (1971). Rome in Etruria and Umbria (Oxford).

——(1979). War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327–70 BC (Oxford). HASSALL, M., CRAWFORD, M. H., and REYNOLDS, J. M. (1974). 'Rome and the Eastern Provinces at the End of the Second Century B.C.', Journal of Roman Studies, 64: 195–220. HEIBGES, U. M. (1969). 'Religion and Rhetoric in Cicero's Speeches', Latomus, 28: 833–49.

........................................................................................................................... pg 235 HEINEN, H. (1966). 'Rom und Ägypten von 51 bis 47 v. Chr. Untersuchungen zur Regierungszeit der 7. Kleopatra und des 13. Ptolemäers' (Tübingen, Ph.D. thesis). ——(1968). 'Séleucos Cybiosactès et le problème de son identité', Studia Hellenistica, 16: 105–14. ——(1990). Review of H. Sonnabend, 'Fremdenbild und Politik Vorstellungen der Römer von Ägypten und dem Partherreich in der späten Republik und frühen Kaiserzeit', Biblioteca Orientalis, 47: 658–65. HEINZE, R. (1929). 'Fides', Hermes, 64: 140–66. HELLEGOUARC'H, J. (1963). Le Vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la

République (Paris).

HENDERSON, M. I. (1951). 'The Process "De Repetundis" ', Journal of Roman Studies, 41: 71–88.

——(1963). 'The Establishment of the Equester Ordo', Journal of Roman Studies, 53: 61–72. HENDRICKSON, G. L. (1933). 'The Memoirs of Rutilius Rufus', Classical Philology, 28: 153–75. HESKEL, J. (1994). 'Cicero as Evidence for Attitudes to Dress in the Late Republic', in J. L.

Sebesta and L. Bonfante (eds.), The World of Roman Costume (Wisconsin), 133–45.

HESNARD, A. (1980). 'Un Dépôt augustéen d' amphores à la longarina, Ostie', in J. H. D' Arms

and E. C. Kopff (eds.), The Seaborne Commerce of Ancient Rome: Studies in Archaeology and History (Rome), 141–56. HIESINGER, U. W. (1973). 'Portraiture in the Roman Republic', (Aufstieg und Niedergang der

römischen Welt 1.4): 805–25. Page 12 of 28

HILL, H. (1952). The Roman Middle Class in the Republican Period (Oxford). HINARD, F. (1985). Les Proscriptions de la Rome républicaine (Rome). HIND, J. G. F. (1994). 'Mithridates', in J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson (eds.), Cambridge

Ancient History, IX: (Cambridge), 130–64.

HÖLBL, G. (1994). Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches: Politik, Ideologië und religiöse Kultur von

Alexander dem Groβ‎en bis zur römischen Eroberung (Darmstadt).

HOMOLLE, T. (1882). 'Le proconsul Rabirius', Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 6: 608–

12.

HOPKINS, K. (1978). 'Rules of Evidence', Review of F. Millar, 'The Emperor in the Roman World',

Journal of Roman Studies, 68: 181.

——(1983a). Death and Renewal (Cambridge). ——(1983b). 'Models, Ships and Staples', in P. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker (eds.), Trade and Famine in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge), 84–109. HORSFALL, N. (1989). Cornelius Nepos: A Selection, Including the Lives of Cato and Atticus

(Oxford).

HOWGEGO, J. (1990). 'Why did Ancient States Strike Coins?', The Numismatic Chronicle, 150:

1–25.

........................................................................................................................... pg 236 JAMESON, S. (1970). 'Pompey's Imperium in 67: Some Constitutional Questions', Historia, 19: 539–60. JANSSEN, L. (1981). 'Some Unexplored Aspects of Devotio Deciana', Mnemosyne, 34: 357–81. JOCELYN, H. D. (1967). The Tragedies of Ennius (Cambridge). JOLLIFFE, R. O. (1919). Phases of Corruption in Roman Administration in the Last Half-Century

of the Roman Republic (Menasha, Wis.).

JONES, A. H. M. (1960). Studies in Roman Government and Law (Oxford).

——(1972). The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate (Oxford). ——(1974). The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History (Oxford). Page 13 of 28

JONES, C. P. (1973). 'The Date of Dio of Prusa's Alexandrian Oration', Historia, 22: 302–9.

——(1978). The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (London). JONES, J. M. (1990). A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (London). JOUGUET, P. (1948). 'Les assemblées d'Alexandrie à l' époque ptolémaique', Bulletin de la

société archéologique d'Alexandrie, 37: 71–92.

JUSTER, J. (1914). Les Juifs dans l'empire remain (Paris). KAIMIO, M. (1981). 'On the Sureties of Tax Contractors in Ptolemaic Egypt', American Studies

in Papyrology (Proceedings of the XVI International Congress of Papyrology), 23: 281–7. KAJANTO, I. (1965). The Latin Cognomina (Helsinki). KALLET-MARX, R. M. (1989). 'Asconius 14–15 Clark and the Date of Q. Mucius Scaevola's

Command in Asia', Classical Philology, 84: 305–12.

KASER, M. (1956). 'Infamia und ignominia in den römischen Rechtsquellen', Zeitschrift der

Savigny–Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, 73: 220–78.

KEES, H. (1961). Ancient Egypt: A Cultural Topography (Chicago). KEPPIE, L. (1984). The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire (London). KIDD, I. G. (1972). Posidonius I. The Fragments (Cambridge).

——(1988). Posidonius II. The Commentary: Fragments 150–293 (Cambridge). KIRBY, J. T. (1990). The Rhetoric of Cicero's Pro Cluentio (Amsterdam). KLEINER, D. E. E. (1977). Roman Group Portraiture (New York). KLODT, C. (1992). Ciceros Rede Pro Rabirio Postumo. Einleitung und Kommentar (Stuttgart). KLOSKO, G. (1986). The Development of Plato's Political Theory (New York). KNOCHE, U. (1935). 'Magnitudo animi Untersuchungen zur Entstehung und Entwicklung eines

römischen Wertgedankens', Philologus, 27.3: 1–93.

KÖNIG, A. and KÖNIG, I. (1991). Der römische Festkalender der Republik (Stuttgart). KONRAD, C. F. (1996). 'Notes on Roman Also-Rans', in J. Linderski (ed.), Imperium sine fine: T.

Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic (Stuttgart), 103–43. Page 14 of 28

........................................................................................................................... pg 237 LACEY, W. K. (1978). Cicero and the End of the Roman Republic (London). LAFFI, U. (1967). 'II mito di Silla', Athenaeum, 45: 177–213; 255–77. LANHAM, R. A. (1968). A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms: A Guide for Students of English

Literature (Berkeley, Calif.).

LAUNEY, M. (1949). Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (Paris). LEIGH, M. (1995). 'Wounding and Popular Rhetoric at Rome', Bulletin of the Institute of

Classical Studies, NS 2: 195–216.

LENGER, M.-T. (1980). Corpus des ordonnances des Ptolémées (Académie royale de Belgique.

Mémoires de la classe des lettres 64.2; Brussels).

LESQUIER, J. (1911). Les Institutions militaires de l' Égypt des Lagides (Paris).

——(1918). L'armée romaine d'Égypte d'Auguste à Dioclétien (Mémoires de l'institut français d'archéologie orientale 41; Cairo). LEWIS, N. (1983). Life in Egypt under Roman Rule (Oxford). LIEBESCHUETZ, J. H. W. G. (1979). Continuity and Change in Roman Religion (Oxford). LIND, L. R. (1979). 'The Tradition of Roman Moral Conservatism', Collection Latomus, 164: 7–

58.

LINDERSKI, J. (1996). 'Q. Scipio Imperator', in J. Linderski (ed.), Imperium sine fine: T. Robert S.

Broughton and the Roman Republic (Stuttgart), 145–9.

LINTOTT, A. W. (1967). 'P. Clodius Pulcher–Felix Catilina?', Greece and Rome, 14: 156–69.

——(1968). Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford). ——(1974). 'Cicero and Milo', Journal of Roman Studies, 64: 62–78. ——(1976). 'Notes on the Roman Law Inscribed at Delphi and Cnidos', Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 20: 65–82. ––(1981). 'The Leges de Repetundis and Associate Measures under the Republic', Zeitschrift der Savigny–Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistiche Abteilung), 98: 162–212. ——(1992). Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic (Cambridge). Page 15 of 28

——(1993). Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration (London). ——(1994). 'Political History, 146–95 B.C.', in J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, IX (Cambridge), 40–103. LOSFELD, G. (1991). Essai sur le costume Grec (Paris). LUGLI, G. (1946). 'Albano Laziale–Scavo dell' Albanum Pompei', Notizie degli Scavi, 7: 60–83. LUZZATO, G. I. (1941). 'Appunti sul testamento di Tolomeo Apione a favore di Roma', Studia et

documenta historiae et juris, 7: 259–312.

MADVIG, J. N. (1855). 'Epistola Critica' (Abhandlungen der Bayrerischen Akademie der

Wissenschaften 1), 7. 3: 664–72.

........................................................................................................................... pg 238 ——(1845–62). Addenda et Corrigenda, Orelli, Baiter, Halm, M. Tullii Ciceronis Opera, 2nd edn. (Zürich). MAEHLER, H. (1983). 'Egypt under the Last Ptolemies', Bulletin of the Institute of Classical

Studies, 30: 1–16.

MAGIE, D. (1950). Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, NJ). MANACORDA, D. (1989). 'Le anfore dell'Italia repubblicana: aspetti economici e sociali', in

Amphores romaines et histoire économique. Dix ans de recherche, VI (Rome), 443–67.

MANNING, C. (1985). 'Liberalitas, the Decline and Rehabilitation of a Virtue', Greece and Rome, NS. 32: 73–83.

MANUZIO, P. (1541). M. Tulli Ciceronis Orationum Volumen Tertium, Post Omnes Omnium

Editiones Accuratissime Emendatum (Venice).

MARSHALL, A. J. (1984). 'Symbols and Showmanship in Roman Public Life: The Fasces',

Phoenix, 38: 120–41.

MARSHALL, B. A. (1976). Crassus: A Political Biography (Amsterdam).

——(1978). 'Problems in the Career of Crassus', Liverpool Classical Monthly, 3.6: 159–64. MASSON, H. J. (1974). Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (American

Studies on Papyrology 13; Toronto).

MASSON, O. (1966). 'Quelques noms grecs rares', Philologus, 110: 246–57.

Page 16 of 28

MATTINGLY, H. B. (1970). 'The Extortion Law of the Tabula Bembina', Journal of Roman Studies,

60: 154–68.

MAY, J. M. (1988). Trials of Character: The Eloquence of Ciceronian Ethos (Chapel Hill, NC). MEIER, C. (1966). Res Publica Amissa (Wiesbaden). MICHELS, A. K. (1967). The Calendar of the Roman Republic (Princeton, NJ). MINERS, N. J. (1958). 'The Lex Sempronia ne quis iudicio circumveniatur', Classical Quarterly, NS 8: 241–3.

MITCHELL, T. N. (1969). 'Cicero before Luca (September 57–April 56 B.C.)', Transactions of the

American Philological Association, 100: 295–320.

——(1979). Cicero: The Ascending Years (New Haven). MOMMSEN, Th. (1887–8). Römisches Staatsrecht, 3rd edn. (Leipzig).

——(1905–13). Gesammelte Schriften von Theodor Mommsen, 8 vols. (Berlin). ——(1907). Le droit pénal romain (Paris). ——(1955). Römisches Strafrecht (Darmstadt). MOOREN, L. (1972). 'The Strategos Apollonides (P. P. I 219)', Ancient Society, 3: 121–5.

——(1975). The Aulic Titulature in Ptolemaic Egypt (Brussels). ——(1981). 'Ptolemaic Families', American Studies in Papyrology, 23: 289–301. ——(1985). 'The Ptolemaic Court System', Chronique d'Égypte, 60: 214–22. MOREAU, P. (1982). Clodiana Religio, un procès politique en 61 avant J.C (Paris).

........................................................................................................................... pg 239 MORETTI, L. (1976). 'Un decreto di Arsinoe in Cirenaica', Rivista di fililogia e di istruzione classica, 104: 385–98. MORITZ, L. A. (1962). Humanitas (Cardiff). MØRKHOLM, O. (1975). 'Ptolemaic Coins and Chronology: The Dated Silver Coinage of

Alexandria', American Numismatic Society Museum Notes, 20: 7–24.

Page 17 of 28

——(1980). 'Cyrene and Ptolemy I', Chiron, 10: 145–59. ——(1982). 'Some Reflections on the Production and Use of Coinage in Ancient Greece', Historia, 31: 290–305. MUSSIES, G. (1968). 'Egyptianisms in a Late Ptolemaic Document', Papyrologica Lugduno–

Batava, 17: 70–6.

NÉMETH, B. (1968). 'Zu den politischen Ambitionem des Marcus Cicero im Jahre 54', Acta

Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Dehreceniensis, 4: 49–58.

NEUHAUSEN, K. A. (1979). 'Ciceros Vater, der Augur Scävola und der junge Cicero', Wiener

Studien, NS 13: 76–87.

NICCOLINI, G. (1934). I fasti dei tributi della plebe (Milan). NICOLET, C. (1958). 'Le Sénat et les amendements aux lois à la fin de la république', Revue

historique de droit français et étranger, 36: 260–75.

——(1966–74). L'Ordre équestre à l'époque républicaine (312–43 av. J.-C.), 2 vols. (Paris). ——(1980). The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome (London). ——(1991). Space, Geography and Politics in the Early Roman Empire (Michigan). ——(1994). 'Economy and Society', in J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, IX (Cambridge), 599–643. NISBET, R. G. M (1961). M. Tulli Ciceronis in L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio (Oxford).

——and HUBBARD, M. (1978). A Commentary on Horace: Odes Book II (Oxford). OLECHOWSKA, E. (1981). M. Tulli Cicero Orationes: Pro Cn. Plancio, Pro C. Rabirio Postumo

(Leipzig).

OLSHAUSEN, E. (1963). 'Rom und Ägypten von 116 bis 51 v. Chr.', (Nüremberg, Ph.D. thesis). OOST, S. I. (1955). 'Cato Uticensis and the Annexation of Cyprus', Classical Philology, 50: 98–

112.

——(1956). 'The Date of the Lex lulia de Repetundis', American Journal of Philology, 77: 19– 28.

Page 18 of 28

OTTO, W. (1934). Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6 Ptolemäers (Abhandlungen der Bayrerischen

Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische 11; Munich).

PAGLIARA, C. (1968). 'Bolli anforari inediti da Felline', Studi classici orientali, 17: 227–31. PANAYOTOU, G. (1984). 'Consistency and Variation in Cicero's Oratorical Style' (Urbana, III.,

Ph.D. thesis).

........................................................................................................................... pg 240 PAOLELLA, M. R. (1989). 'Osservazioni semantico–lessicali su fortuna in Cicerone', Bolletino di studi latini, 19: 33–48. PARKE H. W. (1988). Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (London). PASOLI, E. (1966). Saggi di Grammatica Latina (Bologna). PEACOCK, D. P. S. and WILLIAMS, D. F. (1986). Amphorae and the Roman Economy (London).

Πελεχίδις‎ Xp. (1969). 'Ανέχδοτοι ἐπιγραφαί ἐξ Ἄνδρου χαί Νάξου‎ (Athens). PEREMANS, W. (1978). 'Les Révolutions égyptiennes sous les Lagides', in H. MAEHLER and V. M. STROCKA (eds.), Das ptolemäische Ägypten (Berlin), 39–50.

PERL, G. (1970). 'Die römischen Provinzbeamten in Cyrene und Creta zur Zeit der Republik',

Klio, 52: 319–54.

PESTMAN, P. W. (1967). Chronologie égyptienne d'après les textes démotiques (332 av. J.-C.–

453 ap. J.-C.) (Papyrologica Lugduno—Batava 15; Leiden).

PETROCHILOS, N. (1974). Roman Attitudes to the Greeks (Athens). PIGANIOL, A. (1956). 'Un Épisode inconnu de la vie de Pompée', Studi in onore di Aristide

Calderini e Roberto Paribeni, 1: 133–8.

PLUMPE, J. C. (1941). 'Roman Elements in Cicero's Panegyric on the Legio Martia', Classical

Journal, 36: 275–89.

POMEY, P. (1978). 'L'Épare Romaine de la Madragne de giens', Gallia, suppl. 34: 101–7. QUAEGEBEUR, J. (1980). 'The Genealogy of the Memphite High Priest Family in the Hellenistic

Period', Studia Hellenistica, 24: 43–82.

——(1989a). 'The Egyptian Clergy and the Cult of the Ptolemaic Dynasty', Ancient Society, 20: 93–116. Page 19 of 28

——(1989b). 'Une Scène historique méconnue au grand temple d' Edfou', in L. Criscuolo and G. Geraci (eds.), Egitto e storia antica dall'ellenismo all'età Araba, (Bologna), 595–608. RAMSEY, J. T. (1980). 'The Prosecution of C. Manilius in 66 B.C. and Cicero's Pro Manilio',

Phoenix, 34: 323–36.

RAUH, N. K. (1989). 'Auctioneers and the Roman Economy', Historia, 36: 451–71.

——(1993). The Sacred Bonds of Commerce (Amsterdam). RAWSON, E. (1976). 'The Ciceronian Aristocracy and its Properties', in M. I. Finley (ed.), Studies

in Roman Property (Cambridge), 85–102.

——(1985). Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London). ——(1994). 'Caesar: Civil War and Dictatorship', in J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, IX, (Cambridge), 424–67. REA, J. R. (1988). The Oxyrynchus Papyri (Graeco–Roman Memoirs 75; London).

........................................................................................................................... pg 241 REIL, T. (1913). 'Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Gewerbes im hellenistischen Ägypten' (Leipzig, Ph.D. thesis). REINACH, T. (1899). 'Antiochus Cyzicène et les Juifs', Revue des études juives, 38: 161–71. REYNOLDS, J. (1962). 'Cyrenaica, Pompey and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus', Journal of

Roman Studies, 52: 97–103.

——(1976). 'Roman Inscriptions, 1971–1975', Journal of Roman Studies, 66: 174–99. RICHARDSON, E. H. (1953). 'The Etruscan Origins of the Early Roman Sculpture', Memoirs of the

American Academy in Rome, 21: 77–124.

RICHARDSON, J. S. (1975). 'The Triumph, the Praetors and the Senate in the Early Second

Century B.C.', Journal of Roman Studies, 65: 50–63.

——(1994). 'The Administration of the Empire', in J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, IX (Cambridge), 564–98. RICKETS, L. (1990). 'A Dual Queenship in the Reign of Berenice IV', Bulletin of the American

Society of Papyrologists, 27: 49–60.

RIDLEY, R. T. (1981). 'The Extraordinary Commands of the Late Republic', Historia, 30: 280–97.

Page 20 of 28

ROCHLITZ, S. (1996). Das Bild Caesars in Ciceros 'Orationes Caesarianae' (Studien zur

klassiscen Philologie 78; Frankfurt).

ROSENDORFER, H. (1990). Die angebliche Adoption des Augustus durch Cäsar (Akademie

der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Mainz: Abhandlungen der Klasse der Literatur 1; Stuttgart).

ROSTOVTZEFF, M. I. (1941). The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford). ROTONDI, G. (1912). Leges Publicae Populi Romani (Milan). ROWLAND, R. J. (1966). 'Crassus, Clodius and Curio in the Year 59 B.C.', Historia, 15: 217–23. RUBINSOHN, W. Z. (1993). 'Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysos and Rome's Conquest of the

Hellenic East', Mediterranean Historical Review, 8: 5–54.

SALLER, R. P. (1980). 'Patronage and Promotion in Equestrian Careers', Journal of Roman

Studies, 70: 44–63.

SALMON, E. T. (1967). Samnium and the Samnites (Cambridge). SALOMIES, O. (1987). Die römischen Vornamen, Studien zur römischen Namengebung

(Helsinki).

——(1992). Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire (Helsinki). SAMUEL, A. E. (1962). Ptolemaic Chronology (Munich). SANFORD, E. M. (1939). 'The Career of Aulus Gabinius', Transactions of the American

Philological Association, 70: 64–92.

SCALIGER, J. J. (1965). Coniectanea in M. Terentium Varronem de Lingua Latina (Paris).

........................................................................................................................... pg 242 SCHÄFER, T. (1989). Imperii Insignia, Sella Curulis und Fasces. Zur Repräsentation römischer Magistrate (Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Institute, Roemische Abteilung Ergänzungsheft 29; Mainz). SCHÜRER, E. (1973–87). The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–

A.D. 135), 3 vols. (Edinburgh).

SCULLARD, H. H. (1970). Scipio Africanus: Soldier and Politician (London).

——(1981). Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic, (London). Page 21 of 28

SEAGER, R. (1967). 'The Date of Saturninus' Murder', The Classical Review, NS 17: 9–10.

——(1979). Pompey: A Political Biography (Oxford). ——(1980). 'Two disparate notes: 1) Crassus, Ptolemy Auletes and Ennius' Medea 2) Digest 34. 5. 13(14). 3', Liverpool Classical Monthly, 5:89–90. ——(1994). 'Sulla', in J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, IX (Cambridge), 165–207. SERRA ZANETTI, P. (1956–7). 'Sull' uso di "quamvis" in Cicerone', in Classe di scienze morali,

Rendiconto accademia delle scienze di Bologna, 142–65. SERRAO, F. (1956). Il Frammento Leidense (Milan).

SEYFFERT, M. (1878). Scholae Latinae. Beiträge zu einer methodischen Praxis der lateinischen

Stil und Compositionsübungen (Leipzig).

——and MÜLLER, C. F. W. (1965). M. Tulli Ciceronis, Laelius (Hildesheim). SEYMOUR, P. A. (1914). 'The Policy of Livius Drusus the Younger', English Historical Review, 29:

417–25.

SHACKLETON BAILEY, D. R. (1960). 'The Roman Nobility in the Second Civil War', Classical

Quarterly, NS 10: 253–67.

——(1962). 'On Cicero, Ad Familiares', Philologus, 105: 72–89, 263–72. ——(1965–70). Cicero's Letters to Atticus, 7 vols. (Cambridge). ——(1976). 'Review of I. Shatzman, Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics', Phoenix, 30: 207– 12. ——(1977). Cicero: Epistulae ad Familiares, 2 vols. (Cambridge). ——(1980). Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem et M. Brutum (Cambridge). ——(1988a). Cicero's Letters to his Friends (Atlanta, Ga.). ——(1988b). Onomasticon to Cicero's Speeches (Cambridge, Mass.). ——(1991a). Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature (American Classical Studies 3; Atlanta, Ga.).

Page 22 of 28

——(1991b). Cicero. Back from Exile: Six Speeches upon his Return (Chicago, III.). SHATZMAN, I. (1971). 'The Egyptian Question in Roman Politics 59–54 B.C.', Latomus, 30: 363–

9.

——(1975). Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics (Collection Latomus 142; Brussels). SHERWIN-WHITE, A. N. (1949). 'Poena Legis Repetundarum', Papers of the British School at

Rome, 17: 5–25.

........................................................................................................................... pg 243 ——(1952). 'The Extortion Procedure Again', Journal of Roman Studies, 42: 43–55. ——(1966). The Letters of Pliny (Oxford). ——(1972). 'The Date of the Lex Repetundarum and Its Consequences', Journal of Roman Studies, 62: 83–99. ——(1982). 'The Lex Repetundarum and the Political Ideas of Gaius Gracchus', Journal of Roman Studies, 72: 18–31. ——(1984). Roman Foreign Policy in the East 168 BC to AD 1 (London). ——(1994). 'Lucullus, Pompey and the East', in J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, IX (Cambridge), 229–73. SIANI, M. D. (1991). Commentary on Cicero's Pro Rabirio Ρ‎ostumo (London, Ph.D Thesis). SIANI-DAVIES, M. (1996). 'Gaius Rabirius Postumus: A Roman Financier and Caesar's Political

Ally', Arctos (Acta Philologica Fennica), 30: 207–40.

——(1997). 'Ptolemy XII Auletes and the Romans', Historia, 46: 306–40. SIJPESTEIJN, P. J. (1965). 'Mithridates' March from Pergamum to Alexandria in 48 B.C.', Latomus,

24: 122–7.

——(1990). 'SB I 5802: A Reedition', Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 82: 102. SKEAT, T. C. (1969). The Reigns of the Ptolemies (Munich). SOLAZZI, S. (1937–8). Il concorso dei creditori nel diritto romano, 2 vols. (Pavia). SONNABEND, H. (1986). Fremdenbild und Politik: Vorstellungen der Römer von Ägypten und

dem Partherreich in der späten Republik und frühen Kaiserzeit (Frankfurt). Page 23 of 28

STANGL, T. (1909). 'Pseudoasconiana. Textgestaltung und Sprache der anonymen Scholien

zu Ciceros vier ersten Verrinen auf Grund der erstmals verwerteten ältesten Handschriften', Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, 2: 60–189. ——(1912). Ciceronis Orationum Scholiastae, 2 vols. (Leipzig). STAVELEY, E. S. (1953). 'Iudex selectus', Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 96: 201–13.

——(1963). 'The Fasces and Imperium Maius', Historia, 12: 458–84. STIEVANO, G. (1951). 'La supposta devotio di P. Decio Mure nel 279 A.C.', Epigraphica, 13: 3–

13.

STOCKTON, D. (1971). Cicero: A Political Biography (Oxford). STRACHAN-DAVIDSON, J. L. (1912). Problems of the Roman Criminal Law (Oxford). STRASBURGER, H. (1956). Concordia Ordinum. Eine Untersuchung zur Politik Ciceros

(Amsterdam).

STROH, W. (1975). Taxis und Taktik (Stuttgart). SULLIVAN, R. D. (1990). Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100–30 BC, (Toronto).

........................................................................................................................... pg 244 SUMNER, G. V. (1966). 'Cicero, Pompeius and Rullus', Transactions of the American Philological Association, 97: 569–82. ——(1971). 'The "Lex Annalis" under Caesar', Phoenix, 25: 246–71. SUOLAHTI, J. (1955). The Junior Officers of the Roman Army in the Republican Period (Helsinki). SÜSS, W. (1910). Ethos (Leipzig). SYME, R. (1939). The Roman Revolution (Oxford).

——(1955). 'Missing Senators', Historia, 4: 52–71. ——(1958). 'Imperator Caesar: A Study in Nomenclature', Historia, 7: 172–88. ——(1961). 'Who was Vedius Pollio?', Journal of Roman Studies, 51: 23–30. ——(1964). Sallust (Berkeley, Calif.).

Page 24 of 28

——(1979–88a). 'Caesar, the Senate, and Italy', Roman Papers, 1 (ed. E. Badian), 88–119. ——(1979–88b). 'Observations on the Province of Cilicia', Roman Papers, 1 (ed. E. Badian), 120–48. ——(1979–88c). 'Review. A. Degrassi, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae', Roman Papers, 2 (ed. E. Badian), 638–41. ——(1979–88d). 'Clues to Testamentary Adoption', Roman Papers, 4 (ed. A. R. Birley), 159– 73. TAYLOR, L. R. (1949). Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley, Calif.). TCHERNIA, A. (1986). Le Vin de l'Italie romaine (Rome). THISSEN, H. J. (1977). 'Zur Familie des Strategen Monkores', Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und

Epigraphik, 27: 182–4.

THOMAS, J. D. (1978). 'Aspects of the Ptolemaic Civil Service: The Dioeketes and the Nomarch',

in H. Maehler and V. M. Strocka (eds.), Das ptolemäische Ägypten (Berlin), 187–94.

THOMAS, J.-F. (1994). 'Un group sémantique: Gloria, Laus, Decus', in C. Moussy (ed.), Les

problèmes de la synonymie en Latin (Paris), 91–100.

THOMPSON, C. E. (1978). 'To the Senate and to the People: Adaptation to the Senatorial and

Popular Audiences in the Parallel Speeches of Cicero', (Ohio, Ph.D. thesis).

THOMPSON, D. B. (1973). Ptolemaic Oinochoai and Portraits in Faience. Aspects of the Ruler-

cult (Oxford).

THOMPSON, D. J. (1988). Memphis under the Ptolemies (Princeton, N J).

——(1990). 'The High Priests of Memphis under Ptolemaic Rule', in M. Beard and J. North (eds.), Pagan Priests, Religion and Power in the Ancient World (London), 97–116. ——(1994). 'Egypt, 146–31 B.C.', in J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson (eds.),' The Cambridge Ancient History, IX (Cambridge), 310–26. TREGGIARI, S. (1969). Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic (Oxford).

——(1973). 'Cicero, Horace, and Mutual Friends: Lamiae and Varrones Murenae', Phoenix, 27: 245–61. ........................................................................................................................... pg 245 Page 25 of 28

TURNÈBE, A. (1564). Adversaria (Paris). TURNER, E. (1984). 'Ptolemaic Egypt', in F. W. Walbank and A. E. Astin (eds.), Cambridge

Ancient History, VII, 2nd edn., (Cambridge), 118–74.

TYRRELL, W. B. (1978). A Legal and Historical Commentary to Cicero's Oratio Pro Rabirio

Perduellionis Reo (Amsterdam).

VAN'T DACK, E. (1983). 'L'Armée lagide de 55 à 30 Av. J.-C.', The Journal of Juristic Papyrology,

19: 77–86.

——(1988). Ptolemaica Selecta. Études sur l'armée et l'administration lagides (Studia Hellenistica 29; Louvain). VENTURINI, C. (1979). Studi sul 'crimen repetundarum' nell' età repubblicana (Milan).

——(1987). 'Concussione e corruzione', Studi in onore di A. Biscardi, 6: 133–57. VERSNEL, H. S. (1970). Triumphus: An Enquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of

the Roman Triumph (Leiden).

VOLKMANN, H. (1958). Cleopatra: A study in Politics and Propaganda (London). WALBANK, F. W. (1992). The Hellenistic World, 3rd edn. (London). WALKER, D. R. and KING, C. E. (1976–8). The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage (Oxford). WALLACE-HADRILL, A. (1989). Patronage in Ancient Society (London). WANSCHER. O. (1980). Sella Curulis. The Folding Stool. An Ancient Symbol of Dignity

(Copenhagen).

WARD, A. M. (1972). 'Cicero's Fight against Crassus and Caesar in 65 and 63 B.C', Historia, 21:

244–58.

WATSON, A. (1967). The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford). WATT, W. S. (1958). M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistulae (Oxford). WATTS, N. H. (1931). Cicero: The Speeches, with an English Translation (London). WEAVER, P. R. C. (1972). Familia Caesaris (Cambridge).

Page 26 of 28

WEINRIB, E. J. (1968a). 'Family Connections of M. Livius Drusus Libo', Harvard Studies in

Classical Philology, 72: 247–78.

——(1968b). 'The Prosecution of Roman Magistrates', Phoenix, 22: 32–56. ——(1970). 'The Judiciary Law of M. Livius Drusus (tr. pl. 91 B.C.)', Historia, 19: 414–43. WELCH, K. E. (1996). 'T. Pomponius Atticus: A Banker in Politics?', Historia, 45: 450–71. WENGER, L. (1940). Institutes of the Roman Law of Civil Procedure (New York). WHITE, P. (1995). 'Postumus, Curtius Postumus, and Rabirius Postumus', Classical Philology,

90: 151–61.

WHITEHORNE, J. (1994). Cleopatras (London). WILCKEN, U. (1912). Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde (Leipzig).

——(1920). Archiv für Papyrusforschung und Verwandte Gebiete (Berlin). WILLIAMS, R. S. (1978). 'The Role of Amicitia in the Career of A. Gabinius (Cos 58 B.C.)',

Phoenix, 32: 195–210.

........................................................................................................................... pg 246 WILLIAMS, R. S. (1985–86). 'Rei publicae causae: Gabinius' defence of his restoration of Ptolemy Auletes', Classical Journal, 81: 25–38. WILLIAMSON, C. (1987). 'Monuments of Bronze: Roman Legal Documents on Bronze Tablets',

Classical Antiquity, 6: 160–83.

WILSON, L. M. (1924). The Roman Toga (Baltimore).

——(1938). The Clothing of the Ancient Romans (Baltimore). WIRSZUBSKI, C. (1954). 'Cicero's Cum Dignitate Otium: A Reconsideration', Journal of Roman

Studies, 44: 1–13.

WISEMAN, T. P. (1966). 'The Ambitions of Quintus Cicero', Journal of Roman Studies, 56: 108–

15.

——(1967). 'Lucius Memmius and his Family', Classical Quarterly, NS 17: 164–7. ——(1970a). 'The Definition of "Eques Romanus" in the Late Republic and Early Empire', Historia, 19: 67–83. Page 27 of 28

——(1970b). 'Pulcher Claudius', Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 74: 207–21. ——(1971). New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 B.C.–A.D. 14 (Oxford). ——(1976). 'Senators, Commerce and Empire', Liverpool Classical Monthly, 1: 21–2. ——(1994). 'Caesar, Pompey and Rome 59–50 BC', in J. A. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, IX (Cambridge), 368–423. YAVETZ, Z. (1962). 'The Policy of C. Flaminius and the Plebiscitum Claudianum', Athenaeum,

40: 325–44.

ZUCKER, F. (1952). 'Simaristos', Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 95: 338–42.

——(1957). 'Simaristeioi', Philologus, 101: 164–6. ZUMPT, A. W. (1865–9). Das Criminalrecht der römischen Republik (Berlin).

Page 28 of 28

Oxford Scholarly Editions Online INDEX LOCORUM

Mary Siani-Davies (ed.), Clarendon Ancient History Series: Marcus Tullius Cicero: Pro Rabirio Postumo Published in print:

2001

Published online:

January 2017

........................................................................................................................... pg 247 INDEX LOCORUM References in bold figures denote passages in the translation. For abbreviations, please see pp xiii–xiv.   Ammianus Marcellinus 22.16.23 195 Appian B.C. 1.22 85n72, 146 28 136 28 152 31 223 32–3 152 33 153 35 155, 157 94 179 100 136 102 3n9, 4n12 111 6n18 2.8.51 8n25, 128–9 10 209 14 133 23 17n58 23 17n59 49.200–4 36n124 56–9 59n66, 210 58–9 60n69 69–71 211 89 58n63 89–90 69n14 5.4 58n63 Mith. 6.39 55n57 11.36–7 120 12.66 132 12.120 61n72 14.96 11n36 15.104 168 17.114 12n38, 12n39, 23n80 29.93 4n12 114.557 15n52 Sic. 1 2n5 Syr. 51 26n88, 33n115, 163, 168 257 15n52 Aristotle Po. 1450a 184 Asconius Corn. 53 138 53–58 76n41 59 147 Div. 12 p. 190 St. 190 Mil. 48 89n90 Pis. 15 148, 150 [Pseud-Asc.] 1Ver. 39 132 Sc. 16–17 67n8, 87n80 17–18 77n47 25 111 Aurelius Victor, Sextus vir ill. 32 115 66 155 73 48n32, 48n33, 153 77 66n4 86 14n48, 19n66   BGU III. 1002 31n108 VIII. 1736–40 5n15 1757 22n76 1762 20n68, 22n75 ........................................................................................................................... pg 248 1772, 1756, 1757, 1758 171 1773, 1782 18n63 1820 31n108 1821 18n63, 22n76 1825 18n63 1828 18n63, 36n125 1846 18n63 XIV.2315 18n63 British Museum Harris stelai B.M. 1026 5n17 B.M. 886 5n16   Caesar B. Afr. 8 62n77 26 62n77 42–3 134 44 62n77 86 58n63, 59n65, 210 93 59n65, 210 B. Alex. 7 29n102, 195 34 58n63 34–40 61n72 48 214 52 214 66 61n76 70–6 61n72 78 4n12 B. Civ. 1.6.4 61n76 22.4 25n85 85.7 66n4 2.8.3 137 3.4.4 36n123 18.3 66n3 103.1f. 14n48 103.2 20n66 103.5 36n127 104.1 36n126 104.3 36n127 105.1f. 58n63 106.4 36n127 106.4– 5 18n62 107.2 129 108.1f. 37n128 110.1f. 29n102 110.1–6 36n126 B. Gall. 1.16.2 209 3.9.1 203 4.20.1 209 5.1.1 203 12.6 209 6.3.1 209 B. Hisp. 42.7 209 Calpurnius Siculus Ecl. 7.26 178 7.81 178 Page 1 of 10

Cato the Elder Agr praef.1 200 Catullus 10 150 28 150 29 206, 210 46 150 57 206 Cicero Ac. Post. 1.7.29 113 Agr. 1.1 3n10, 8n27 7 216 13 10n31 22–7 117 27 153 2.1–16 117 10–12 10n31 18 159 41 9n30 41–2 112 41–4 3n10 42 1n2 43–4 10n31 ........................................................................................................................... pg 249 44 9n30, 10n32, 10n33 45–6 18n61 50 10n31 100 126 102 117 Amic. 1 138 32 191 46 182 58 182 69 115 Arch. 8 144 9 33n115, 168, 184 24 210 Att. 1.1.3 149 4.2 137 6.1 49n36 8– 9 203 12.1 122, 213 14.5 110 16.3 148 16.5 72n27 17.4 114 17.5 125, 161, 206 17.8 154, 156, 157 17.11 158 18.1 126 18.3 157 19.4 43n14, 43n15, 43n17 19.9 86n76 20.4 86n76 2.1.3 48n33 1.6 13n41, 207 1.8 82n62, 156, 157, 158 1.10 86n76 2.12 82n62 3.3 209 4.2 13n44 5.1 13n44, 14n45, 170 7.2–3 13n44 7.3 170 8.8 179 9.1 13n44 9.2 71n26 13.1 10n31 16.2 13n41, 18n63 16.4 203 18.1 206 18.3 207, 209 19.3 133 19.4–5 207, 209 21.5 133 3.6.1 220 8.1ff. 220 8.3 220 13.2 114 15.1 220 18.1 220 20.1 46n27 22.3 46n27 23.1 170 4.2.5 46n27, 220 2.7 179 5.1 192, 206 5.2 69n18, 192 5.3 192 8a.2 126 9.1 72n29 10.1 f. 31n108 15.1 46n27 15.3 79n53 15.4 82n62, 192 15.7 67n8, 124 15.9 67n7 15.10 206 16.5 82n62 17.1 79n53 17.2–3 211 17.4 69n16, 75n39, 82n62 17.5 82n62, 130 18.1 69n14, 70n19, 82n62, 111 ........................................................................................................................... pg 250 18.2 69n18 18.3 66n4, 68n13, 69n15, 72n29, 77n45, 82n62, 160, 202 18.4 69n14 19.1 79n54 19.1ff. 80n57 19.2 70n19, 75n37, 206 5.2.1 46n27 10.1–2 86n76 12.1–3 205 12.6 203 16.3 86n76 20.5 80n56 21.4 159 21.8 56n59 21.10–13 149 21.12 132 21.13 200 6.1.3–4 120 1.5–7 149 1.16 117, 187 2.7 132, 200 3.3 117 7.3.5 206 3.10 51n44 5.3 127 7.5 161 7.6 206 7.7 46n27 9.4 146 14.2 139 26.1 183 8.16.2 111, 206 9.2a.3 53n46 3.2 53n47 5.1 45n23, 53n47, 53n48, 53n49, 84n69, 210 6.2 53n46, 53n48, 84n69 11.4 206 12.2 152 18.1ff. 207 10.3.3 84n69 13.3 53n48 11.2.1 218 14.3 117 12.5.3 155 26.2 51n44 49.2 61n74, 63n78 13.9.1 61n74, 63n78 29.1 196 47.1 182 52.1 80n56 14.1.1 64n82 9.2 63n80 10.2 63n81 19.1ff. 68n12 15.2.3 54n51, 64n82 15.2 24n82, 127, 164 41ff. 122 16.2.1ff. 207 2.2 218 3.5 182 Balb. 1 138 11 131, 180 12 173 21 179 28 143, 180 28–9 144 48 152 54 136 60 146 61 192 Brut. 1 64n83 10 46n27 18 178 22 180 37–8 175 85–9 180 106 85n71 114 149 ........................................................................................................................... pg 251 131 195 213 116 224 136, 152 232 119 261 206 303 116 306 138 Caec. 154 17–18 222 63 136 64 138 100 89n90, 143, 144 Cael. 154 1 74n34 4 153 7 190 18 12n38, 18n62, 25n84, 182 19 188 22 194 23–4 24n82, 127 25 190 40 195 44 216 51 24n82, 127 55 139, 189 65 195 66–7 188 77 224 Catil. 1.4 152 2.18 218 4.9 207 Clu. 154, 172 9 156 10 190 11 199 20 74n34 29 87n80 30 156 37 156 40 177 41 83n64 49 87n80, 190 50 87n80 55 146 56–9 74n34 72 195 74 87n80, 145 75 146 79 156 80 181 83 156 90 88n85, 156 97 166 98 157 99 166 103 157 104 88n85 104–8 156 111 177 113 157 114–16 88n85 115–16 144 116 74n33, 83n64, 131, 132 118 190 120–1 161 121 147 131 156 139 164 143–60 71n23 147 137 148 150, 153, 222 150–4 157 150–60 156 152–3 157 153 156, 157, 160 153–6 158 154 159 154– 8 160 156 156 159 142 160 212 168 189 169 216 179 220 ........................................................................................................................... pg 252 180 187 192 222 199 87n80 202 212 Corn. apud Asconius, 62 76n41 de Orat. 1.15 137 18 115 24–5 154 32 114 201 115 256 115 2.20 195 95 175 116 143 194 145 200f. 191 225–6 200 265 196 266 177 281 131 291ff. 176 310–12 223 3.127 181 164 152 197 196 Page 2 of 10

  Deiot. 25 59n65, 216 Dig. 22.1.33 205 5.1 188 5.13 86n77 29.1.1 215 4.1 215 48.2.3 87n78 11.1 86n76 11.1f. 89n91 11.1 85n75, 86n76 11.3 85n75, 86n76, 86n77, 157 11.6 86n77, 89n90, 157 11.7 86n77 11.9 85n75, 86n76 50.5.3 203 58.8.3 89n88 Div. 1.59 220 Div Caec. 19 87n83 10 86n78 20 86n78 37 86n78 64 86n78 Dom. 1 159 20 38n131 23 133 28 43n14 29 87n78 38 159 41 206 44 145 50 154 52 38n131 55 190 62 168, 190 66 190 70 190 72 219 77 87n78 77–8 144 79 42n13, 43n14 85 223 113 113, 168 115 42n9 124 168, 190 Fam. 1.1.1 18n62, 24n82, 25n86, 27n92, 121, 124, 127, 164, 170 1.1–4 25n84 1.2 72n27, 112, 127 1.3 25n85, 25n87, 66n3, 72n28, 122, 127, 170 2.1 170 ........................................................................................................................... pg 253 2.1–4 66n3 2.3 25n87, 127, 170 3.2 56n59 4.1 66n3, 170 4.2 18n62, 25n84, 25n86, 121, 170 5a.1 170 5a.3–4 33n115, 73n31, 122, 202, 213 5b.1 25n87, 28n96, 127, 170 5b.1–2 72n27 6.1 170 7.1 170 7.3 66n3 7.4 17n59, 25n84, 28n96, 28n99, 32n111, 112, 121, 170 7.6 73n31, 122 7.10 69n18 8.1. 69n18 8.2 149 8.4 160 9.5 192 9.7 13n44, 194 9.9 127 9.11 191 9.13 169 9.18–21 209 9.19 191 9.19–20 70n19 9.20 164 9.21 70n19 9.23 220 9.25 166 13.1 170 2.4.1–2 79n53 6.3 75n37 6.5 220 16.2 112 16.7 54n50, 54n51, 61n74, 63n78 3.2.1 114 6.3 38n131, 166 6.3–6 17n59 6.6 38n131 7.5 56n59 10.10 70n19 4.14–15 82n62 5.2.3 206 5.2 206 7.2 206 7.3 192 9.1 82n62 17.2 149 6.2.3 183 4.2 196 8.3 42n9 12.2 54n52, 61n76 20.1 82n62 7.1.4 80n57 3.8 206 4.1 66n3 4.21 216 6.1–2 209 6–17 142 8.1 163 11.1 76n44 17.1 18n62, 21n73, 21n74, 25n84, 32n112, 33n115, 73n31, 123, 127, 168, 201, 202, 219 18.4 79n54 30.3 222 8.4.2 206 4.4 194 4.5 112 6.2 76n42, 77n46, 87n78 8.1 74n34 8.2 87n78, 132, 144, 146 8.2–3 90n92 8.3 83n64, 88n85, 145, 194 8.3f. 91n94 8.5 111, 213 14.3 206 ........................................................................................................................... pg 254 9.13.3 183 13.4 208 10.6.1f. 43n14 11.1.1 159 9.1 64n83 16.2 191 28.2 206 28.6–8 64n82 12.1.1 167 26.1 42n9 29.1 191 13.4.1 43n15, 43n17, 222 4.1ff. 220 4.2 10n31, 43n16, 43n17 4.11 44n21 4–5 42n12 5.1–2 220, 222 5.1ff. 220 5.2 44n18, 44n19, 44n20, 116, 221 15.1 114 29.4 66n3 69.1 220 69.1f. 52n45 73–4 61n76 14.1.3 220 4.2 220 15.15.2 183 19.3 216 16.4.2 196 Fin. 2.16 155, 157 4.28 155 77 155 5.22 155 62 155 Flac. 1 131 2 190 4 111, 145, 148 9–12 196 51 189 10–12 193 13 87n79 16–20 196 21 87n80, 139 23–4 196 27ff. 86n76 28 166 28–68 58n61 61–6 196 71 196 96 88n85 101–5 224 135 16n53 Font. 153–4 3 88n85 36 190 42–3 196 Gab. 83n65 Har. 1–7 121 3ff. 191 13 170, 222 17 121 28 24n82, 120, 127, 164 34 24n82 43 118, 207 51 152 60 117 Inv. 1.106–9 224 Leg. 1.13 116, 138 2.22 196 47–9 138 3.28 130 Lig. 148 13 212 21 190 Man. 8 132 17–18 117 38 198 344 166 ........................................................................................................................... pg 255 57–8 133 Marc. 26 210 Mil. 83n67 14 74n34 16 154 66 149 81 145 94–8 224 Mur. 2 145 3 190 7 190 10 190 16 153 18ff. 196 29 138 31 179 32 179 42 132 45 145 54 61n74 56 61n74 57 61n74 69 61n74 60 118 87–90 224 N.D. 1.23 155 63 155 3.30 155 74 40n5, 155, 157 Off. 1.22 216 23 112 25 8n26 92 121, 161, 216 104 118, 206 115–16 114 121 115, 119 150 118, 206 150–1 200 151 119 2.1 115 9 115 16 ff. 114 18 115, 120 31 115 45 115 64 118, 206, 216 75 85n71, 88n85, 135 87 216 3.63 216 Orat. 14 116 67 140 81–6 129 92 175 102 Page 3 of 10

48n33 120 173 Parad. 43f. 119 Part. 49 193 55–7 224 90 173 Phil. 1.23 89n88, 144 29 158 2.5 128 54 128 64 ff. 216 78 206 95–6 126 3.7 136 20 112 5.14 177 6.19 183 7.8 138 8.31 138 10.19 183 11.17 167 38 192 12.27 49n34 13.8 149 Pis. ........................................................................................................................... pg 256 1 160 2 153 3 133 4 10n31 5 113 8 191 11 191 12 202 16–17 196 17 133 20 69n14, 190 34 149 35 193, 214 37 89n91 41 78n49, 191, 183 41 ff. 133 45 78n49, 191 48 68n10, 168, 191, 194 48 ff. 168 49 29n103, 33n115, 59n68, 163, 169 49 f. 26n89 50 25n85, 68n12, 86n76, 86n77, 88n85, 166, 170 51 168 64 191 68 195 72 191 79 209 87 86n77 90 86n76, 135 90– 1 88n85 91 86n77 92 177 93 180 94 162 94–7 150 98 112 fr. 2 119 Planc. 154 2 f. 190 18 160 21 148 24 138, 161 31 222 43 67n9 46 113 50 118 59 153 67 160 72 147 79 161 86 33n115, 168, 184, 206 91–4 66n3 93 83n66 94 192 104 67n9 Prov. 7 85n73, 86n76, 89n91 7 ff. 86n77 8 196 9–10 133 10–11 165 14 78n49 14–15 133 25 206 27 118 39 207 40–2 206 41 209 41 ff. 207 42 209 42 ff. 191 47 206 Q.fr. 1.1.15 173 1.17 162 1.25 114 1.28 196 2.4 193 2.15 69n15, 121, 152 2.15–16 133 2.2.1 78n48 ........................................................................................................................... pg 257 2.3 25n84, 25n87, 27n92, 28n96, 66n3, 127, 170 2.3–4 121 3.2 72n28, 80n56, 121, 192 3.2– 4 72n27 4.1 80n56 4.5 28n96, 66n3, 72n29, 170 5b.1–2 28n96 6.1 28n96, 152 6.3 127 7.1 78n49 7.3 69n18 11.2 67n7, 133 12–15 209 12.1 77n46 12.1–2 78n48 12.2 28n98, 32n113 12.3 67n6, 152 13.1 83n66 13.2 165 13.5 66n4 14.3 47n31, 163 14.4 124, 211 15.1 192 15.1 ff. 160 16.1 66n3 16.3 82n62, 191 3.1.1 66n3 1.1 ff. 206, 209 1.3 66n3 1.8 54n51 1.10 47n31, 54n51 1.11 82n62, 210 1.13 54n51 1.15 67n9, 68n12, 69n16, 70n19, 70n20, 70n23, 74n33, 76n40, 76n42, 77n45, 130, 133, 152 1.15–16 75n37 1.16 82n62, 211 1.18 54n51 1.18–22 80n57 1.22 75n37 1.24 67n9, 68n11, 69n15, 152 2.1–2 69n15 2.1–3 68n12 2.1 67n9, 69n14, 77n45, 130, 165 2.2 70n19, 75n37, 133, 152, 191, 212, 219 2.3 67n8, 75n39, 193 3.1 66n3 3.2 67n9, 72n29, 73n31, 75n39, 76n42, 129, 130, 152, 202 3.2–3 77n45 3.3 69n14 4.1 74n35, 78n50, 82n62, 165 4.1–2 75n37, 79n52 4.1–6 77n45 4.2 69n18, 70n19, 190 4.2–3 68n12 4.3 70n19 4.6 75n39, 78n51 5.4 66n3, 68n12, 160 5.5 70n19, 79n54 5.8 69n14 6.2 70n19, 79n53 6.3 75n39, 78n51 6.4 207 6.9 79n54 7.1 75n37, 75n38, 79n52, 146 7.2 79n53 7.3 192 9.3 69n14, 82n62 8.3.9 211 8.3 85n73 Quinct. 29 80n56 49–50 216 60 216 76 214 77 196 ........................................................................................................................... pg 258 92 f. 216 95–7 216 97 212 Rab. Perd. 1 111, 143 2 49n34 5 143 7–8 49n35, 50n40 8 39n1, 39n2, 40n5, 40n6, 45n25 18 48n33 20 136, 153 27 148 31 48n32, 48n33 32 10n31 Rab. Post. 1.1 46n28, 93, 110–13, 113, 120, 212 2 93–4, 113–16, 183, 210, 211, 224 2.3 39n1, 40n3, 40n6, 44n19, 44n20, 94, 116–18, 160, 186, 199, 216 3–4 210 4 13n41, 13n44, 15n50, 18n62, 21n74, 24n83, 39n2, 41n7, 42n10, 49n37, 68n13, 94, 111–12, 117, 118–22, 120, 122, 123, 160, 185, 203, 216, 221 4–3.6 223 5 21n74, 94, 121, 122–3, 176 3.5 1n2, 37n130, 95, 120, 121, 123 5–6 185 6 13n43, 14n45, 18n62, 19n65, 21n71, 21n73, 24n82, 25n84, 25n85, 37n128, 71n24, 72n27, 95, 120, 124–9, 130, 141, 146, 176, 183, 184 7 67n9, 95, 129–30, 167 7–4.8 70n22 7–5.12 223 8 65n1, 95, 130, 140 4.8 25n87, 87n81, 87n82, 88n85, 89n91, 90n92, 96, 131–5, 140, 164, 198, 205, 213, 217 8–9 70n21 8–7.18 70n23 9 76n41, 91n94, 96, 131, 135–9, 138, 141, 193, 198 10 96, 139 5.10 70n22, 90n93, 96–7, 139, 140, 158 10–5.11 140–1 11 87n80, 87n81, 88n86, 97, 198, 210, 223 11–5.12 113, 142–6 11–7.16 141 12 97, 146–7 6.13 70n23, 97–8, 110, 117, 146, 147–51, 149, 151, 156, 163, 169 13– 14 153–4 13–7.19 147 14 98, 136, 149, 151–3 15 98, 117, 125, 126, 147, 153–4 7.16 98– 9, 125, 149, 154–60 17 99, 117, 119, 158, 160–2 18 99, 141, 146, 162–3, 219, 222 18–19

Page 4 of 10

128 19 85n75, 99, 163, 169 8.19 26n91, 27n93, 71n24, 99–100, 113, 133, 163–5, 164, 184, 219 19–21 190 20 23n78, 23n80, 26n89, 26n90, 100, 165–7, 168, 169, 213, 223 21 25n85, 25n86, 26n89, 26n91, 27n92, 88n84, 100, 128, 142, 163, 164, 167–71, 184, 185, 188, 213 22 19n66, 32n114, 100, 123, 141, 171–3, 175, 181, 188, 204 ........................................................................................................................... pg 259 22–9.26 223 9.23 26n88, 101, 173, 173–5, 208 23 ff. 115 24 101, 173, 175 25 21n74, 101, 175, 175–7, 185 26 101–2, 177–8 10.26 102, 178–9 27 102, 144, 179–81, 185 28 102, 171, 172, 181–2 29 103, 121, 182–3, 218 11.29 103, 112, 182, 183–4 30 27n94, 34n118, 71n24, 103, 168, 184–6, 188, 198 30–11.31 70n21, 186–7 30–12.34 70n22 31 18n63, 34n118, 74n33, 91n95, 103–4, 168, 187–9, 190, 201 31 ff. 118 32 74n33, 91n95, 104, 140, 189– 90, 197 12.32 104, 164, 165, 190–1 33 70n20, 83n64, 104, 149, 164, 165, 191–3, 219 34 26n89, 68n10, 104–5, 149, 168, 184, 187, 188, 189, 193–4, 197 34–5 18n62 35 105, 139, 195, 223 35–6 174 13.36 18n62, 90n92, 105, 190, 195, 195–7 36–7 70n22, 189 37 87n80, 91n94, 105–6, 135, 190, 197–8, 213 38 21n74, 27n94, 106, 112, 147, 198–9 14.38 45n25, 49n37, 106, 117, 119, 188, 199–200, 210, 212 39 21n74, 32n114, 35n122, 69n17, 73n31, 106, 171, 199, 200–2 40 31n109, 35n119, 35n122, 62n77, 106–7, 162, 202–5, 205 15.41 27n94, 60n70, 71n25, 72n30, 73n31, 107, 121, 123, 141, 176, 185, 205–9, 218, 223 41 ff. 149 41–16.44 83n66, 145 42 81n58, 107–8, 211 16.43 108, 113, 141, 163, 199, 200, 210– 11 43 f. 216 44 72n30, 75n36, 108, 209, 211 17.45 39n1, 40n3, 45n25, 49n37, 108–9, 110, 111, 135, 176, 187, 212–17, 221 46 109, 135, 145, 162, 208, 213, 215, 217–19, 222, 223 47 43n16, 44n22, 45n25, 88n85, 109, 119, 219–22 48 73n32, 88n85, 88n86, 89n89, 109, 113, 141, 145, 163, 205–6, 208, 219, 222–4 Red. Pop. 23 182, 191 Red. Sen. 220 8 170 10 190 23 42n12 27 170 31 190 32–3 206 reg. Alex. ap. Schol. Bob. fr.1 (p.91 St.) 8n26, 9n30 fr.2 (p.91 St.) 9n30 fr.3 (p.91 St.) 3n10 ........................................................................................................................... pg 260 fr.5 (p.92 St.) 3n10, 8n27 fr.6 (p.92 St.) 9n28, 9n30, 10n31 fr.7 (p.92 St.) 9n29, 9n30 fr.9 (p.93 St.) 8n27 Rep. 1.13 180 36 177 2.55 159 4.7 112, 119 9.14 115 11.17 115 12.18 ff. 115 Rhet. Her. 1.20 88n86, 89n90, 136 2.9 207 45 143 4.22 140 64 199 Q. Rosc. 3 131 41 214 43–5 189 S. Rosc. 3 145 8 87n80 30 222 46 182, 196, 212 56–7 129 90 44n18, 182 99 214 99 ff. 216 102 214 143 216 144–7 218 150 212 Scaur. 3 173, 196 23 87n79 31 190, 193 31–6 67n8 36 136 40 144 Sen. 49 161 Sest. 6 160 17 159 18 69n15, 133, 191, 218 19 129, 195 20 191 21 160 24 ff. 191 26 118 31 138 42 145 48 116 55 133, 198 57 1n2, 17n59, 38n131, 129 60 114, 118 64 114 65 216 93 133, 168 96–8 160 102 158 110 208 135 89n91 139 114, 118 141 196 144 224 146 144 Sul. 2 190 14 118 17 179 47 190 55–9 149 58 218 60 146 63 146 65 10n31 81 87n80 89 144 90 212 90 218 Tog. cand. ........................................................................................................................... pg 261 ap. Asc. 85 206 Top. 43–5 173 63 224 64 129 92 140 96 140 Tul. 8 135 Tusc. 1.1–3 178 5.57 174 5.108 143 Vat. 12 166 25 68n12 29 85n73, 89n91, 148 1Ver. 6 77n47 8 167 10 76n42 15 86n78 30 76n42 32 87n80 33 188 38–9 132, 157 51 85n71 55 87n80, 139 213 167 2Ver. 1.12 166 26 85n71, 135, 136 30 77n47 44 215 48 173 52 214 72–3 166 73 150 92 80n57 95 132 100 40n4, 41n9 102 40n4, 41n9 114 215 122 119 137 214 146 87n83 158 40n4, 41n9 2.7 196 9 173 15 85n71 26 85n75, 163 27 87n83 50 182 74 87n80 76 4n13, 13n40, 112, 145 76–7 88n85, 89n90 78 86n77, 157 82 146 87 179 94 87n78 98 87n80 100 89n88 101 87n78 130 78n51 174 147 181 154 185 147 3.3 199 184 144 4.22 144 54 178 60–8 4n13 66 193 5.36 158, 160 40 178 45 119, 125, 148, 200 50 166 77 159 86 177 137 177 145–6 204 157 204 180–2 126

Page 5 of 10

CIL I 22 205 ........................................................................................................................... pg 262 2

1863 134 2500, 1.4 132 I 1 155 66 130 199 155 757 169 763 56n59 773 55n56 911 47n30 2340b 50n42 2340c 51n42 VI 1933 55n55 2246 35n120 11035 205 17913 51n44 24896 51n44 32437 54n54 38266 51n44 38267(D) 51n44 X 1088 51n44 8042 50n42 8051 50n42 XI, 3328 51n44 XIV 2105 55n55 2112 205 Demosthenes Olynth. 1.11 112 Dio Cassius 13.12.1 13n42 28.fr.97 144 97.3–4 180 29.16.3 24n82, 127, 164 36.44.1 138 44.1–2 76n41, 76n42, 79n55 37.25.4 10n31 26.1–3 48n33 26.3 48n32 29.1 143 37.1–3 159 37.2 48n33 38.2.1–2 209 2.4–6 209 5.3 153 7.6 72n30 9.1–4 133 16.3 191 30.5 17n59 39.5.5 69n17 12.1 13n41, 13n44, 72n30, 120, 122, 123, 129 12.2–13.1 14n49 12.2 17n58, 20n67 12.3 18n62, 25n84, 25n85, 170 12–13 13n43, 18n63 12–15 124 13–14 127 13.1 22n76, 24n82 13.15 170 14.3 37n129 14.3–4 21n73, 127 15.1f. 25n86, 170 15.2 121 16.2 66n3, 72n27 16.3 24n82, 127, 164 22.2–4 38n131 32.2–3 65n2 33–9 151 55.1 24n82, 127, 164 55.3 163 55.5 74n35, 191 55.6 69n14 55–6 33n115 56.1 26n88 56.1–5 28n99, 166 56.2 7n22, 129 56.2–3 163 56.3–4 27n93 56.3 26n88, 69n14, 168, 184 56.4 28n99, 122, 123 56.6 28n100, 32n113 ........................................................................................................................... pg 263 56–8 23n80, 165 57.1 26n89 57.1–2 22n76, 23n77 57.2 166 57.2–3 164 58.1 28n99, 28n100, 29n102, 30n105 58.2 15n51 58.3 29n103, 35n121 59.1–2 28n99, 31n108, 166 59.2 191 60.1 164 60.2–4 67n8 60.3–4 67n7 60.4 171 60–2 13n43 61.1–4 75n38 62.1 69n15, 78n49 62.2 75n38 62.3 68n13, 69n14 63.1–5 70n20, 75n39 63.2 69n17 63.2–5 165, 191 63.3 81n59 63.4 194 64 ff. 67n7 40.45.1 211 60.1–4 206 63.46 64n84 41.18.2 221 42.2.1 58n62 3.4 36n123 6.3 58n63 11.1–5 134 34.1 60n71 36.3 22n76 38.1 36n124 44.2 22n76 47.5 61n72 49.1–5 60n71 51.3 61n75 43.6.3 62n77 25.2 148 25.3 59n65 6.4 64n82 45.17.1 61n76 18.2 177 47.26.3 61n76 50.5.1 195 51.5.4 14n48, 20n66 16.1f. 15n51 fr.41 = Zonar. 8.6 (Pl379) 2n5 Dio Chrysostom Or. 32.2.4 195 36.1ff. 7n23, 203 70.1 15n52, 16n53, 18n63 Diodorus Siculus 1.31.6–8 16n56 44.1 14n46 83.1–9 18n61 83.8 16n53 83.8–9 14n46 17.52.5 7n23 52.6 16n56 30–40.13 124 31.18.1–2 3n8, 123 33.28b.1–3 7n24 34/35.2.25–7 85n72 36.9.1 144 37.10.1 154, 155 40.1.1a–1b 23n77 Diogenes Laertius 5.78–9 175 Dionysius Halicarnassus 3.61 177   Euripides Medea 1–10 12n38 321 183 352–4 183 Eusebius Chron. 1.40.25–7 23n77 Eutropius 2.15 2n5 ........................................................................................................................... pg 264 6.11 6n18   Festus Brev. 13 4n11, 17n58 343 M 175 De verb. p.137 214 Page 6 of 10

Florus 1.41.15 166 2.5.17 157   Gaius Inst. 1.211 214 2.252 214 Gellius, Aulus 3.18.4 158 6.10.2 148   Homer Il. 17.32 112 Horace Ars Poetica 80.90 181 Carm. 2.14.1 47n31 14.22–7 64n85, 65n87 3.1.8 196 2.19 159 24.54–7 195 Ep. 8.11 160 16.58 158 Sat. 1.6.86 187 2.5.109 214   ILLRP 343 55n57 343–5 7n23 399 55n56, 61n73 1026 47n30 1184 50n42 ILS 4404 35n120 4945 54n54   Josephus A.J. 13.349 4n12 419–20 4n13 14.35 12n38 37 168 55 7n22, 129 82–97 168 92–7 28n100 98 26n88, 27n93, 163 98–9 29n101, 33n115, 168 101–4 166 103 26n88, 163 127– 36 30n104 160, 170, 178, 180 61n76 241 56n58 241–3 58n61 244–6 58n61 249 56n60 256– 8 58n61 259–61 58n61 382 120 388 129 B.J. 1.116 4n13 160–74 168 171–5 28n100 175 26n88, 29n101, 33n115, 163, 168 176 166 178 26n88, 163 179 27n93 187–92 30n104 2.385 16n56 490 15n52 Justinus Prol. 39.4.1–4 31n110 5.1 20n67 5.1–2 4n11 39–40 4n12 ........................................................................................................................... pg 265 Juvenal 6.433 216 7.13–16 18n62 15.14ff. 15n51   lex Latina of tabula Bantina 1 ff 89n90 lex rep. 1–3 153 2 85n72, 150 3 85n72 4–6 76n40 6–8 77n45, 135, 217 8–9 150 9 87n78 11 89n90 12–18 161 18–19 87n78 13 89n90 23 85n71 29 144 32–5 131, 188 34 139 35–8 212 43–5 212 55 87n80, 198 56–8 134, 214 57–8 216 58–9 85n71, 87n83, 131 58–61 217 59–61 135 60 87n78 61–4 213 62–4 134 63 87n78 64–6 218 66–7 134, 217 66–8 135 73–5 85n71 76 ff. 86n76, 136 81 85n71 Livy 1.8.3 177 20.2 158 3.9.5 146 5.18.4 208 6.14.7 223 8.6–11 116 10.10–14 116 14.12 162 26.1ff. 179 10.24.13 151 26–30 116 39.3 116 21.3.6 151 63.3–4 200 63.4 119, 148 22.25 ff. 119 25.4.9 223 29.19.11 177 19.12 177, 180 30.15.12 159 38.12 ff. 179 35.5 6n20 40.46.12 191 51.2 149 44.19.6–14 123 Per. 14 2n5 46 3n8 55 214 69 152 70 4n11, 180 71 155 97 147 104 16n55, 17n59 105 151 111 19n66 Lucan 2.583–7 11n34 8.23–6 60n70, 121 95 13n41, 13n42 518 ff. 13n41, 13n42, 122 Lucilius 2.88 ff. 195 3.123 203 2.91–98 178   Martial 1.85 216 4.42 195 ........................................................................................................................... Page 7 of 10

pg 266 5.62 179 8.66 159 MRR I. 35 116 459 115 575 152 II. 193–4 133 203 133 218 166 223 130 475 122 183 169 199–200 169 221–2 67n7   Nepos Att. 5.1 149 2 46n27   OGIS 191.2 5n16 Ovid Rem. 150 177   P. Louvre 3452 22n75 P. Med. Inv. 68.53 33–35, 39, 171–2 P. Oxy. 2222 21n70 3777 22n76 P. Tebt. 1.33 7n24 P. Theb. 703, ll. 87–117 204 Pausanias 1.9.3 4n12, 20n67 Petronius Satyricon 30 214 Plato Leg. 747c 195 Lett. 7.328 B ff. 174 Plautus Mil. 949 128 Poen. 1.1.57 214 Pliny the Elder Nat. 2.22 113 7.117 10n31 130 214 140 200 150 41n7 9.23 169 58 214 11.93 64n82 13.3–4 205 50 179 74–83 204 33.34 85n72 118 214 136 12n38 34.4 214 37.17 181 Pliny the Younger Ep. 2.11.2 89n88 3.9.1–6 89n88 9.6 85n75, 150 4.9.6 89n88 9.7 86n76 5.20.2 89n88 9.7.3 181 10.75.1 f. 89n88 Plutarch Aemilius Paullus 115 Ant. 3.2–4 28n99, 29n102, 29n103, 33n115, 59n68, 168 2–5 163 72.3 30n107 Brut. 27.2 167 Caes. 15.2–3 209 20.2 206 21.4 206 28.7 66n4 37.1–2 221 48.4 33n115, 73n31, 202 48.7–9 185, 207 ........................................................................................................................... pg 267 Cat. Mai. 21.5–7 149 21.8 200, 210 25.1 149 Cat. Min. 33.7 133 35.1–7 13n41, 122 2 16n54 2–5 8n26 35–6 17n59, 38n131 38.1–4 203 42.1 67n6 43.7 151 44.1 67n6 Cic. 9.1 ff. 137 9.4 138 4–6 76n41, 76n42, 79n55 5 77n46 31.4 191 Crass. 13.2 9n28, 9n29 Ira 3.23 30n107 Luc. 2.5–3 3n7, 7n24 Mar. 5.1–7 152 Pomp. 22.5–9 147 28.3–4 11n36 30.1 11n35 33.4–5 168 48.4 133 49.1–14 191 6 16n54, 18n62, 25n84 7 16n54 50.1 f. 127 51.3 206 65–80 37n129 78.1 36n127 79.3 36n127 80.3 36n124 Seneca Con. 10.5 30n107 Sul. 5.6 85n71 Polybius 2.19.6 116 3.4.2–3 159 6.53.8 160 14.11.1–5 195 16.27.2–3 159 29.27.1–7 7n22 34.14.4–5 16n57 Porphyry FGrHist. 91 12n38 260 fr. 1.2 23n77 fr. 2.8–9 = Porph. ap. Euseb. Chron. I, col. 164, Schoene 20n67 fr. 2.11 3n9 fr. 2.12 4n12 fr. 2.14 22n75 266 fr. 28 3n10 PP I, 303, 403 19n65 14520 5n14 14523 5n15 14553 4n11 14554 5n14 14559 17n59 Propertius 3.11.33 195 12.1 ff. 65n87  

Page 8 of 10

Quintilian Inst. 1.4.25 41n7 1.8.2 182 11.10 195 2.17.21 169, 172 4.1.46 223, 224 2.10 184 4.1 87n80 5.2.5 126 7.1 189 7.2 139 7.9 87n80 7.25 87n80 7.32 189 6.1.2 216 7.1.9 48n33 1.16 48n33 9.2.6–15 140 2.17 176 ........................................................................................................................... pg 268 11.1.73 165 3.65–8 137 3.172 216   Sallust B. Cat. 38.1 8n25 39.1 8n25 54.1 209 Hist. 1.55.9 161 2 fr.43 6n18, 6n20 Jug. 4.5–6 210 8.2 21n71, 124 31.7 146 85.23 114 SB III. 6156 22n76, 24n81 SEG II.104 187 III.378 B1 7n21 IX 5 4n11, 4n12 7 4n11 8 88n84 Seneca the Younger Ep. 15.2 ff. 195 77.1 204 88.18 195 Servius on Aen. 1.13 48n32, 153 2.781 177 on Georg. 4.127 11n36 Silius Italicus 12.27–32 161 Stele Bucheum 200 31n108 Strabo 2.5.39 (134) 32n111 7.17.7–8 (793) 204 8.7.5 (386–8) 11n36 12.3.34 (558) 26n88, 27n93, 29n102, 29n103, 163 3.34–5 (558) 23n80, 27n95 14.3.3 (665) 11n36 6.4 (684) 17n59 16.2.3 (749) 4n13 17.1.6–9 (792–4) 7n23 1.11 (796) 4n12, 14n48, 15n52, 19n66, 21n73, 22n76, 23n77, 23n80, 29n103, 35n121, 127, 165 1.12 (798) 28n98, 28n100, 29n102 1.13 (798) 38n133, 203 1.21 (803) 29n102 1.24 (804) 30n105 1.43 (814) 174 1.52–3 (819) 15n51 fr.14 12n38 Suetonius Aug. 10.1 64n82 11.1 64n83 40.5 177 73.1 177 Claudius 16 32–3n114, 82n61 Gram. 14 51n44 16 46n27 Jul. 11 10n32, 15n52 12 48n33 24 67n7 30 207 36 58n63 42 135 43 89n90 45 177 50 214 54 13n44, 18n63, 27n94, 72n30, 120 55 206 72 208 72–3 209 Nero 22 67n7 Tib. 13 177 ........................................................................................................................... pg 269 Sulpicius Severus Dial. 1.1 205   Tacitus Ann. 1.10 64n83 1.73 196 2.42 214 3.66–9 89n88 4.15 85n75, 89n88 20 198 11.22 147 12.22 89n88 13.10 214 30 85n75, 89n88 33 89n88 52 89n88 14.18 89n88 28 85n75, 89n88 48 89n88 Hist. 1.11 15n51 1.66 214 77 89n88 4.45 89n88 Terence Eu. 1038 204 1064 183 Hec. 696 113 Tertullian Pall. 1 177 3 177 5 178 Theocritus Idyll 15.47–9 195 Theophrastus H.P. 4.8.3–4 204 Thucydides 4.36.3 116   Valerius Maximus 1.7.3 116 2.4.6 169 3.4.4 119 6.2 180 6.3 179 7.9 87n78 4.2.4 165 2.5 191 5.1.1 ff. 3n8, 123 2.10 214 6.2.8 66n3 9.14 152 7.1.8 136 8.5 46n27 8.1.3 130 1.10 87n79, 188 1.abs. 3 67n9, 70n20 9.1, ext. 6 23n80, 29n102 4, ext. 1 17n58 7.3 152 12.7 90n92, 137

Page 9 of 10

Varro L. 5.181 148 6.61 214 9.60–2 41n7 Velleius Paterculus 2.8.1 144 13.2 144, 155, 180 13.3 85n72 31.2 167 32.3 147 38.6 17n59 45.3 38n131 45.5 17n58 46.1 151 62.2 167 76 162 Vergil Aen. 1.282 177 10.467–9 210 Ecl. 1.23 116 Vitruvius 1.4.12 214 2.9.16 203   Zonaras 10.10 (PI 488) 14n48 ........................................................................................................................... pg 270

Page 10 of 10

Oxford Scholarly Editions Online GENERAL INDEX

Mary Siani-Davies (ed.), Clarendon Ancient History Series: Marcus Tullius Cicero: Pro Rabirio Postumo Published in print:

2001

Published online:

January 2017

........................................................................................................................... pg 271 GENERAL INDEX a rationibus 182 Accius, T. 156 Achaea; Pompey's campaign against pirates 11 Achillas, leader of the Gabiniani 36 Acta Alexandrinorum 34 adoption 46–7, 215–16 of Postumus by C. Rabirius 45–6, 108–9 & comm, 225 Afranius, L. 72, 170 ager publicus 6, 9–10, 42 Ahenobarbus, L. Domitius 67 Alban villa, Pompey's 20, 95 & comm, 225 Albinus, A. Postumius 178 Albucius, T. 144, 178 Alenus, L. 40n5 Alexander the Great 101 & comm Alexandria: Ptolemy XII Auletes and 5n15, 15–16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 35 Caesar in 18n62, 207 commerce 7, 50 Gabinius and 30, 32, 36 power of popular opinion in 14, 15, 16n57, 18, 20, 23 Roman attitude to 18n62, 105 & comm sailing time to Puteoli from 205 size of population of 16n56 witnesses against Postumus from 103–4 & comm, 104–5 Alexandrian War 60 Alfius Flavus, C. 67, 68 amicitia between Egypt and Rome 2 amphora stamps 50–1 Antiochus III, king of Syria 179 Antiochus VIII, Grypus 31n110 Antiochus X Eusebes, king of Syria 4 Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, king of Syria 22 Antiochus (freedman of Gabinius) 69 Antipater the Idumaean 29 Antonius, L. 57 Antonius, M. (cos. 99) 152, 207

Page 1 of 14

Antonius, M. (praetor 74) 167 Antonius, M. (Mark Antony): in Civil Wars 38, 59, 60, 63 in Gabinius' force in Egypt 28, 29, 163 Apamea with Synnada 56n59 Appian 39, 59–60 Appuleius (proquaestor of Asia) 57 Apulia 49, 50, 64 aquae et ignis interdictio 88–9, 143–4 Archelaus, king of Egypt: accession and marriage to Berenice IV 23–4, 26, 27, 166, 169, 226 death at Pelusium 29, 164, 226 fleet of 100 & comm Aristobulus (Judaean leader) 28, 168 Asia, Roman province: proconsuls 56–9, 60–2, 226 tax farmers 157 Atticus, T. Pomponius 46n27, 220 auctions 108–9 & comm, 186–7 Axius (banker) 213   Balbus, L. Cornelius 54, 63 Balbus, T. Ampius 54, 57, 66n3, 192 Berenice IV, queen of Egypt 21–3, 35, 166, 226 ........................................................................................................................... pg 272 joint rule with Cleopatra V Tryphaena 19, 20, 21–2, 225 Bithynia 10, 58, 61 Brutus, M. Junius 46n27, 148–9   Caecilius, Q. (Atticus' uncle) 149 Caecilius, T. (Atticus' freedman) 46n27 Caecilius Epirota, Q. (Atticus' freedman) 46n27 Caecina, A. 222 Caelius Rufus, M. 54, 154 Caesar, C. Julius: and Ptolemy XII Auletes 13; involvement in financing 33, 52, 60, 72–3, 107 & comm; reclaims debts 60, 185, 226 agrarian legislation 10, 42–5 and minor priesthoods 54–5 in Asia 58, 61 Cato's aversion to 72n30 and conference of Luca 170 consulship (59) 13 death 226 in Egypt 18n62, 36, 38, 207, 226 freedmen 55 and Gabinius 70, 134 immunity from prosecution 65 and Jews 58 military campaigns 60–1, 66, 107 & comm, 208–9; in Africa (46) 59–60, 62, 207, 210, 226 and Postumus 52, 53–5, 60, 63, 149, 210; Postumus' military support of 39, 53, 62, 63, 210, 226; Postumus' relationship with 71, 81, 83, 107 & comm, 108, 109 physical endurance 81, 107 & comm and Pompey 59–60, 170, 211 provincial administration 58, 61–2 and Senate 48, 72n30 see also under Cicero, M. Tullius Caesar, Sex. Julius 61 Calabria 11 Calidius, M. (praetor 57) 68n11 Page 2 of 14

Callisthenes 101 & comm Calvinus, Cn. Domitius 130, 211 proconsul of Asia 57, 58–9, 60–1 Canidius (trib. 56) 18 Caninius, L. Gallus 66n3, 72, 170, 192 Capito, L. 70n20 Capitol 95 & comm Capua; magistrate list 40n3 Carbo, C. Papirius 224 Cato, C. Porcius (trib. 56) 24, 82n62, 133, 144, 226 Cato, M. Porcius (cos. 195, censor 184) 200 Cato Uticensis, M. Porcius (praetor 54) 8, 156, 177 annexation of Cyprus 17, 168 and triumvirs 8, 65, 66–7, 72n30, 84n70, 211, 226 praetorship 67, 75–6 and trials of Gabinius and Postumus 70, 75–6, 133 cats as sacred in Egypt 18 Catulus, Q. Lutatius (cos. 78) 8, 9 cheques 185–6 chronology 225–6 Cicero, M. Tullius: and Caesar 13, 80n57, 81, 107 & comm, 206–7 and Clodius 83, 192 and Crassus 8–9 and C. Curtius 44, 94 & comm, 220 death 226 declines libera legatio to Egypt (59) 13–14 defends triumvirs' supporters 65–6, (see also Gabinius and Postumus below) equestrian status 98 & comm, 161, 208 ........................................................................................................................... pg 273 exile 109 & comm, 225 and Gabinius 71, 83, 164; decision to defend 70, 75, 78–9, 82–3, 99– 100, 104 & comm, 138 legal knowledge and experience 96 & comm and Lentulus' proposed expedition to restore Ptolemy XII Auletes 25, 28, 31–2, 170–1, 226 letters as evidence on Gabinius' and Postumus' trials 78–81 and Manilius' case 79n55 and Postumus 38–48, 52–3, 62–3, 71, 108–9 & comm; attitude to defending 70, 82–3 petitions for triumph 159 and Pompey 72, 80, 81; pressure to defend Gabinius 69–70, 75, 80, 81, 104 & comm, 191 praetor of extortion courts (66) 76, 96 & comm publication of speeches 83–4 Rabirius, C. probably meets (89) 225 rhetorical nature of speech 1, 18n63, 26 and Senate 95 & comm and Servilius Isauricus 51–2 supports Lentulus' candidature for military expedition to restore Ptolemy XII Auletes (56) 25 and Verres 77n47 see also Index Locorum and structure of speech Cicero, Q. Tullius 192 Cilicia 11, 17n59, 56n59, 58, 61, 226 civil rights, loss of 88–9 Civil War 37, 52–3, 59–60, 226 campaigns in Africa 38, 59, 60, 62, 210, 226 Claudian plebiscite (219–18) 148 Claudianus, M. Livius Drusus 66n3, 82n62, 192 Claudius Pulcher, Ap. (cos. 54) 67, 90, 192–3 Claudius Pulcher, C. 67, 90, 144 Cleopatra III 31n110 Cleopatra IV 5

Page 3 of 14

Cleopatra V Selene 4, 5, 31n110 Cleopatra V Tryphaena 5, 19, 20, 21–2, 31, 225 Cleopatra VII Philopator 5, 14n48, 20, 37, 38, 226 Cleopatra Berenice III 3, 5 Clodius Pulcher, P. 13n44, 17, 46n27, 156 and Cicero 83, 190–1, 192 and Gabinius 83, 164, 190–1 and Pompey 21, 72, 192 Cluentius Habitus, A. 154 Cnidos; 'Piracy law' 166 cognomina 40–2 Comana 23, 59 comperendinatio 87 condemnation, stigma of 109 & comm contracts, written 95 & comm Cosilius (banker) 213 Crassus, M. Licinius 8–10, 66, 164 attempts to annex Egypt 8–9, 9–10, 225 and Ptolemy XII Auletes' restoration 11–12, 13, 24n83, 25, 170 conference of Luca 25, 170, 226 Curtii Postumi 40, 41–2 Curtius (lawyer, father of C. Curtius) 220–1 Curtius, C. (father of Postumus) 39, 40, 42–5, 94 & comm, 108 & comm, 109 & comm, 225 Curtius, M. 47–8, 50n40 Curtius Helenus, C. 54–5 Curtius Mithres, C. 51–2 curule chair 99 & comm ........................................................................................................................... pg 274 Cyprus 7, 16–18, 20, 38, 168, 225 Cyrene 4, 6–7, 8, 11, 225   death penalty 88 debt, dishonour of 103 & comm Decius Mus, P. (cos. 340) 94 & comm Decius Mus, P. (cos. I. 312) 94 & comm Delos: amphorae with Postumus' stamp 50 inscription on Postumus' proconsulship 39, 55–6 Demetrius of Phalerum 101 & comm Dendera, graffito from temple at 21–2, 31 devotio 94 & comm dictatorship, Pompey and 66n4, 68 Dio Chrysostom 15, 24 Dionysius II, tyrant of Syracuse 101 & comm divinatio (legal procedure) 77, 136 Dolabella, P. Cornelius 46n27 Page 4 of 14

Domitius Ahenobarbus, L. 67 dress, Greek 101–3 & comm Drusus, M. Livius; judiciary law (91) 98 & comm   Edfu, pylon at 18n61, 31 Egypt: amicitia with Rome 2 army 20, 32, 36 Civil War campaigns (48) 36, 37, 38, 60, 226 coinage 34, 185, 201 embassies to and from Rome 7, 13, 14 loss of territory to Rome 6–7, 8, 37 Postumus' trade with 50 recovery of Ptolemy XII Auletes' debts by Romans 18, 32–5, by Caesar 60, 185, 226 relations with Rome before departure of Ptolemy XII Auletes 2–3, 7, 8, 225 religion 5, 18, 30 Roman annexation of 3–4, 8–9, 9–10, 38, 225 rulers see Archelaus; Berenice IV; and under Cleopatra; Ptolemy taxation 13n44, 18, 34, 35, 103 & comm, 186–7 see also under Caesar, C. Julius; Rabirius Postumus, C. elections, consular (53) 211 embassies 7, 13, 14, 24 Ennius, Q.; Medea Exul 12, 102 & comm Ephesus 24, 27, 51–2, 164, 226 equestrian order 98 & comm, 100 & comm, 108, 208 Julian law on extortion excludes 70, 85, 96–9 jurors 98–9 & comm exile 143–5 extra ordinem legal cases 74 eyebrows, raising of 105 & comm   familiaris 163 Fannius, C. 57 fasces 99 & comm Fayum 50 festivals, Roman public 78, 79–80 fides 112, 121 Flaccus, L. Valenius 136 Flamininus, T. 178 Flavus, C. Alfius 67, 68 floods, Tiber (October 54) 68, 75n38, 78 Fonteius, M. 136, 138, 154 food supply, Roman 6 Fortune 93 & comm freedmen 46n27, 47, 51, 54–5   Gabiniani (army unit) 32, 36, 37, 38, 172 Gabinius, A. 132–4 ancestors commemorated on Delos 55 Ap. Claudius attacks (54) 193 ........................................................................................................................... Page 5 of 14

pg 275 and Archelaus 23, 100 & comm avarice 100 n, 103 & comm and Berenice IV's marriage 22, 23, 100 & comm and Caesar 59, 60, 134 career 132–4 Cato alleges electoral corruption (58) 133 and Clodius 83, 164, 190–1 consulship (59) 225 death 226 Egyptian expedition to restore Ptolemy XII Auletes 25–6, 27–32, 226 Ptolemy XII Auletes' payments for 69–70, 100 & comm, 103 & comm, 104–5, 202; treason trial 68–9, 86, 111, 226 and Jews 25, 168 and Postumus 70, 71, 106 & comm and Pompey 134, 164; Pompey sponsors restoration of Ptolemy XII Auletes 23, 68, 72, 163–4, 169; Pompey's support during trial 69, 70, 81n59 Syrian proconsulship 69, 133, 165, 225; plans to attack Parthia 26, 27–8, 226 and tax farmers 29, 32, 133, 165 trial for treason (54) 68–9, 82n62, 86, 111, 226 trial for extortion 69–70, 74–5, 103 & comm, 129–30, 138, 226; Cicero's decision to defend 70, 75, 78–9, 82– 3, 99–100, 104 & comm, 138; defaults on fine 70, 90; Postumus' trial as subsidiary to 95 & comm unpopularity 164–5 generosity 94 & comm glass 106 & comm Glaucia, C. Servilius 98 & comm, 136, 180 gold 109 & comm Gracchus, C. Sempronius; laws: Acilian 85 ne quis iudicio circumveniatur 155, 156

Gracchus, Ti. Sempronius 6n20 graffito, demotic, from Dendera 21–2, 31 gravitas 95 & comm Greece: Civil War campaigns in 39, 59–60 Roman attitudes to 101–3 & comm, 105 & comm   Helenus, C. Curtius 54–5 Heliodorus (strategos of the Heracleopolite nome) 19 Hephaestion (Egyptian courtier) 19, 171 Heracleopolis 20 Hermodorus (father of Usia Prima, priestess of Isis) 35 Hirtius, A. (cos. 43) 54, 64 Horace (Q. Horatius Flaccus) 39, 64–5 Hordeonius, M. 51 Hortensius Hortalus, Q. 8, 13, 25, 170 Hybrida, C. Antonius 138 Hyrcanus II, high priest of Judaea 29, 56   images, ancestral 99 & comm infamia 89 interdiction of water and fire 88–9, 143–4 interest rates 103 & comm, 106 & comm interreges 76  

Page 6 of 14

Jews 25, 56, 58, 168 Jugurthine Wars 9 Julian law of extortion 84–91, 110, 225 Claudian plebiscite (219–218) 148 damages 87–8, 96 & comm, 108–9 & comm ........................................................................................................................... pg 276 equestrians ineligible under 70, 85, 96–9 form of verdict 145, 198 Gabinius' trial under 69– 70 jurors 70, 90, 104 & comm, 105, 189 procedure 86–7, 104 & comm Postumus' trial as breaking rules 95 & comm, 96–9 securities 96 & comm, 105 and unauthorised military action 68–9, 86, 166–7 'What has become of the money' clause 70, 90–1, 95 & comm, 96–7 & comm, 104 & comm on witnesses 74, 91, 103–4 & comm written evidence 104, 189 juries 87, 93 & comm, 98 & comm composition 98–9 & comm, 147–8, 152, 161–2 voting procedure 97 & comm in 'What has become of the money' cases 70, 90, 104 & comm, 105, 189 Juventius Laterensis, M. 145–6   Kalasiris (Egyptian strategos) 21–2   Laenius Flaccus 220 land redistributions 42–5 Laodicea, Asia 56 laws, leges: Acilian 85, 135 annalis 152 Antonia (49) 221 Aurelian (70) 146, 147 Caepio's 136 Calpurnian (149) 85n71, 87–8 Clodia de provinciis (58) 167 Cornelian; for extortion (81) 87, 90, 96 & comm, 110, 145–6, 225; for murder (de sicariis) 155, 156; for treason (de maiestate) 68–9, 85, 86, 166–7 Drusus' judiciary (91) 98 & comm, 225 Gabinian 132, 225 Julian of extortion see separate entry Junian of extortion 85n71, 87–8 Latina, of tabula Bantina 89n90 ne quis indicio circumveniatur of C. Gracchus 155, 156 Papia 69 penalties under the Julian of extortion 88–9 Piracy, Cnidos text of 166 Pompeia judiciria 150 Porcian (101) 85, 166 de provinciis praetoriis 85   Rullan agrarian 225 scale of restitution 87–8 Servilian on extortion (101) 87, 90, 96 & comm, 225 Servilian, of Glaucia (92) 136, 180 Tullian, de ambitu 69 see also Julian law of extortion; tabula Bembina, law of legal procedure 77, 86–7, 97 & comm, 104 & comm Lentulus Crus, L. Cornelius 50 Lentulus Marcellinus, P. Cornelius 6–7 Lentulus Niger, L. Cornelius 68n11, 70n20, 130 Lentulus Spinther, P. Cornelius (cos. 57) 17n59, 159, 169–70, 226 proposed as leader of expedition to restore Ptolemy XII Auletes 25, 72, 73, 95 & comm, 100 & comm, 122, 213, 225, 226, (Cicero's support) 28, 31–2, 226 Lepidus, M. Aemilius 50, 149 Libo see Marcius; Scribonius

Page 7 of 14

Licinius Macer, C. 49 linen 106 & comm ........................................................................................................................... pg 277 Luca, conference of 25, 170, 226 Lucullus, L. Licinius 2–3, 7n24, 8, 144, 149 and plans for restoring Ptolemy XII Auletes 25, 170 ludi 78 Luperci 54–5 Lupus, P. Rutilius 72, 170   Macer, C. Licinius 137, 224 Manilius, C. 76, 79n55, 137–8 Manlianus, D. Iunius Silanus 224 Marcius, L. Libo 50 Marcius, Q. Philippus 61 Marius, C. 152, 153, 161 Matius, C. 54, 63, 64, 206 Maximus, Q. Fabius 93 & comm Memmius, C. (trib. 111) 152 Memmius, C. (trib. 54) 67, 95 & comm, 100 & comm, 104 & comm, 211 prosecutes Gabinius and Postumus 67, 70, 77–8, 95 & comm, 129–30 Memmius, L. 7n24 mercenary troops in Egypt 20n67 Messius, C. 66n3, 67, 72, 82n62, 83n64 Metellus Numidicus, Q. Caecilius (cos. 109) 152 Micipsa, king of Numidia 9 Milo, T. Annius 72, 75, 192, 220 mime plays 105 & comm Minucius Thermus, Q. 57 Mithridates III, king of Parthia 26 Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysus, king of Pontus 102 & comm Roman wars against 2–3, 7, 9– 10, 132–3, 168; Ptolemy XII Auletes' assistance to Rome 11, 13 Monkores (strategos of Ombite nome) 19, 31   names, personal 40–2, 46–7 Naples 49, 102 & comm Nero, Ti. Claudius 70n20, 130, 164–5 Nicias of Cos 51 Nicopolis, Armenia Minor 59

Page 8 of 14

nominis receptio 77 Numidia 9   Octavian (later Augustus) 38, 63–4 Oppius, C. 54, 63 Oppius, L. 54 Oppius, P. 138 Orodes, king of Parthia 26 Orsanes (Parthian prince) 26   Paestum; amphorae with Postumus' stamp 50 Paniskos (general of Heracleopolite nome) 19 Pansa Caetronianus, C. Vibius 54, 61, 64 papyri 106 & comm P. Med. Inv. 68.53 33–4, 35, 39, 171–2 Parthia 26, 27–8, 226 Patisius, Q. 57 Paullus, L. Aemilius (cos. 182, 168) 93 & comm Pelais (general of Ombite nome) 19 Pelusium, battle of 23, 27–8, 29, 31–2, 226 perjury 105 & comm Pharnakes, king of Pontus 59, 60–1 Pharsalus, battle of 63–4 philhellenes 102 & comm, 179–80 Philip II Barypous, Seleucid ruler 22 Philippus, Q. Marcius 61 piracy: Archelaus and 26, 100 & comm law from Cnidos 166 special commands against 6n20, 11, 167, 225 Piso, C. Calpurnius 138 Piso Caesonius, L. Calpurnius 225 ........................................................................................................................... pg 278 Plancius, Cn. 66n3, 82n62, 83n64, 154, 220 Plancus, L. Munatius 63 Plato 101 & comm Plautius Hypsaeus, P. 170 Pliny the Younger 215 Plotius, A. 66n3 Pompeius Strabo, Cn. 49, 225 Pompey (Cn. Pompeius Magnus): and Ptolemy XII Auletes 10n33, 11–12, 13, 33, 37, 95 & comm, 225; and restoration 16, 18, 24–5, 170; sponsors Gabinius' expedition 23, 25, 26, 72, Page 9 of 14

163–4, 169 Alban villa 20, 95 & comm, 225 and Archelaus 23 and Caesar 59–60, 170, 211 in Civil War 37, 38, 59–60, 226 and conference of Luca 25, 170, 226 death 37 immunity from prosecution 65 and Jews 28 legislation 161–2, 226 in Mithridatic War 168 and nobility 21, 66, 71–2, 84n70 on personal relations with kings 8n25 political opposition to 8, 21, 66, 71–2 and pirates 167, 225 rumours of impending dictatorship (53/2) 66n4, 68, 211 consulships 98 & comm, 211 third triumph 159 vineyards 50 see also under Cicero, M. Tullius; Gabinius, A. Pontus 59, 60–1 see also Mithridates VI; Pharnakes postulatio 77 Postumus (candidate for praetorship, 63) 61n74 Postumus (cognomen) 40–2 Postumus (of Propertius 3.12) 65n87 Postumus, C. Julius (prefect of Egypt A.D. 45–7) 34n116 Postumus, C. Rabirius see under Rabirius Pothinus (Egyptian chief minister) 19n66 praenomina 46n26 priesthoods: native Egyptian 5, 30 Roman 54–5, 65, 99 & comm Propertius, Sex. 65n87 Ptolemais (Egypt or Phoenicia) 32 Ptolemies: bequests of territory to Rome 3–4, 6, 7, 8, 17n58 dynastic struggles 4–5, 8; and flight to Rome 3, 14 Ptolemy II Philadelphus 2, 187 Ptolemy V Epiphanes 187 Ptolemy VI Philometor 3 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II 3, 4n11 Ptolemy IX Soter II (Lathyros) 4, 5, 7 Ptolemy X Alexander I 3n10, 7, 17n58, 20 Ptolemy XI Alexander II 3–4, 8 Ptolemy XII Theos Philopator Philadelphos Neos Dionysos (Auletes) 1–38 accession 4, 225 aim as to maintain dynasty 37–8 bribes and gifts to Romans 13, 21, 24, 26, 27, 37 Cato meets him in Rhodes (58) 8 character of 93 & comm, 100–3 & comm coronation 5n15 date of birth 31n110 death 36, 226 departure from Egypt 14–20, 225 diplomacy and guile 37, 38 in Ephesus 24, 27, 164, 226 establishment of rule 4–5 ........................................................................................................................... pg 279 loans from Roman financiers 13, 19, 21, 24, 27, 37; Caesar's involvement 52, 60, 72–3; Postumus makes 19, 54, 94–5 & comm, 106; repayment 32–5, 106 & comm, 213 loss of territory to Rome 6, 7, 16–18, 37 mercenary troops 20n67, 32, 36 military expedition to restore 27–32; plans 24–7 and Mithridatic War 11, 13 parentage 4, 31n110 reign after restoration 35, 36, 226 restoration to throne 30–1, 226 socius et amicus of Rome 5, 10, 13, 14, 17, 37–8, 94 & comm, 95 & comm, 225 titles 4, 5 will 36–7 see also under Alexandria; Caesar, C. Julius; Gabinius, A. (Egyptian expedition); Pompey; Rabirius Postumus, C.; Senate Ptolemy XIII 37, 226 Ptolemy Apion 4, 6 Ptolemy of Cyprus 17, 38, 168

Page 10 of 14

publicani 6, 40, 94 & comm, 152, 165, 186–7 publication of speeches 83–4 Pullus' pottery workshop at Ugentum 50 Punic Wars 2n6 Puteoli 106 & comm   Rabirius, C. (Postumus' uncle and adoptive father): Cicero's probable meeting with 225 and Postumus 39–40, 45–6, 108–9 & comm, 225 tessera nummularia of 47n30 trials 45, 48–9, 225 Rabirius Postumus, C. 38–65 adoption by Rabirius, C. 45–6, 46–7, 108–9 & comm, 225 amphorae with stamp of 50–1 Appian's reference to 39, 59–60 and Ptolemy XII Auletes; loans 13, 19, 21, 52, 60, 94–5 & comm, 106; possible meeting in Ephesus 27, 164 birth date 45, 225 and Caesar 52, 53–5, 60, 63, 149, 210; Caesar's patronage 39, 45, 55–8, 61–2, 210; Cicero refers to relationship with 71, 83, 107, 108, 109; support to Caesar in Civil War 39, 53, 59–60, 62, 63, 210, 226 charges against see structure of speech and Cicero 38–48, 52– 3, 62–3, 109 & comm; Cicero's attitude to defending 82–3 in Civil War 39, 53, 59–60, 62, 63, 210, 226 death 64 Delos inscription on 39, 55–9 departure from Rome for East 26–7, 100 & comm education 101 & comm in Egypt 100–3; as dioecetes, chief royal treasurer 32–4, 100–3 & comm, 106 & comm, 185–6, 226; imprisonment and flight 35, 38, 106 & comm, 186, 226 equestrian status 70, 108 family tree 39 and father 39n2, 40–1, 42, 44, 94 & comm freedmen 47, 51, 54–5 and Gabinius 71, 99–103, 106 & comm Horace's reference to 39, 64– 5 ........................................................................................................................... pg 280 name 39, 40–2, 46–7, 62–3, 93, 108 & comm and Octavian 63–4 papyrus fragment mentioning 33–4, 35, 39, 171–2 priesthood 65 proconsulship of Asia 39, 55–62, 226 retirement 64–5 seafaring skills 59–60, 62 in Senate 45, 53, 84, 210, 226 trading and financial interests 47, 49–51, 52, 54, 94 trial for extortion 65–91, 226; date 73–81; motives 65–73; result 82–4; see also Julian law of extortion; structure of speech witnesses 74 response (legal term) 96 & comm rostra 99 & comm Rullus, P. Servilius; agrarian bill (63) 9–10, 225 Rutilius Rufus, P. (cos. 105) 102 & comm, 144, 157   Saturnalia 79–80 Saturninus, L. Appuleius 48, 152, 153 Scaurus, M. Aemilius 67, 168 trial for extortion (54) 66n3, 77n47, 82n62, 111, 136, 138, 193 Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Numantinus, P. Cornelius (cos. 147, 134) 7n24, 93 & comm Scipio Africanus, P. Cornelius (cos. 205) 179–80 Scipio Asiaticus, L. Cornelius (cos. 190) 102 & comm Scipio Nasica, Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius 58 Scribonius, L. Libo 66n3, 72, 170, 192 seafaring 59–60, 62, 106 & comm, 205

Page 11 of 14

sectio bonorum 214 securities 96 & comm, 105 Seleucus (husband of Berenice IV) 22–3 Selicius, Q. 122, 213 Sempronius Rufus, C. 149 Senate: and annexation of Cyprus 17 and Ptolemy XII Auletes' restoration 16, 18, 21, 24–5, 72, 94, 95 & comm, 122, 170, 225; abandons military option 25, 26, 28 business involvement of members 148–9 Cicero and 95 & comm Curtius admitted to 44–5 declining influence 8, 71 and equestrian order 98 & comm, 99 & comm new men in 52–3 Postumus' admission to 45, 53, 84, 210, 226 senatus consultum Calvisianum (A.D. 4) 86, 88 triumvirs' attitude to 48, 71 Servilius, C. 144 Servilius, M. 75n36, 90–1, 145–6 Servilius Glaucia, C. 98 & comm, 136, 180 Servilius Isauricus, P. 51–2, 57, 62, 67 sesterce 108 & comm Sestius, P. 50, 149 ships 106 & comm shoulders, shrugging of 105 & comm Sibylline books 24, 25, 31–2, 68, 94 & comm, 170, 226 Σιμαρίστειοι‎ (Alexandrian faction) 16 Sinope, battle of 60–1 Sisenna (son of Gabinius) 28n99 Sittius, P. 149 ........................................................................................................................... pg 281 slaves seized as debt payment 34–5 Sopatros, envoy of Jewish high priest to Asia 56 Sosius, Q. 40n5 structure of speech beginning of defence 91–5 answers charge of inciting general corruption in public life 71, 95 Postumus' ineligibility for prosecution under Julian law 96–9 answers charge of prompting Gabinius to restore Ptolemy XII Auletes 71, 99–103 answers charge that Postumus took 10 per cent of revenue for himself 71, 103–7 Postumus' relationship with Caesar, and panegyric of Caesar 107–8 epilogue 108–9 Sufenas, M. Nonnius 66n3, 82n62 Sulla, L. Cornelius 3, 4, 102 & comm proscriptions and confiscation of land 42, 43, 44, 220–1, 222 Sulla, P. Cornelius (nephew of above) 72n29, 149, 202 supplicatio of 23 November 54, 78 Syene 11 Syracuse; amphorae with Postumus' stamp 50 Syria, Roman governors of 58, 61 Gabinius 66, 69, 133, 225  

Page 12 of 14

tabula Bantina 89n90 tabula Bembina, law of 85, 89n90, 136, 225 on damages 87, 217 on procedure 77, 110, 134, 135 Tacitus, Cornelius 86 talents 100 & comm Taranto; amphorae with Postumus' stamp 50 tax farmers, Roman 29, 32, 78, 103 & comm, 133, 157 tessera nummularia of C. Rabirius 47n30 Theodotus (tutor to Ptolemy XIII) 19n66 Theophanes (Pompey's scribe) 14n45, 16n54 Tiber floods, October 54 68, 75n38, 78 Timagenes of Alexandria 30, 35 tragedy 103 & comm Tralles 56 treason; lex Cornelia de maiestate 68–9, 85, 86, 166–7 Trebonius, C. 57 tribunate, development of 8n25, 17, 77–8 tribunes, military 98 & comm tribuni aerarii 147–8 triumphs 99 & comm triumvirate, first 8 conference of Luca 25, 170, 226 and nobility 8, 65, 66–7, 71–2, 72–3, 84, 211, 226 see also individual members Tubulus, L. Hostilius 155 Tyre, tax farmers from 29, 32, 78   Ugentum; Pullus' potter's workshop 50 Usia Prima, priestess of Isis 35   Valerius Flaccus, L. 111, 136, 138 Valerius Orca, Q; Cicero's letters to 42–5, 220 Varius, P. 149 Varro, M. Terentius 220 Vatinius, P. 66n3, 191 Verres, C. 40, 77n47, 136, 145 Volaterrae 42–3, 221–2 ........................................................................................................................... pg 282 Volcacius, L. Tullus 170 voting procedure in court 97 & comm  

Page 13 of 14

wealth: Egypt as source of 7, 8 Roman attitudes to personal 106 & comm, 108 & comm wills, Ptolemies' 3–4, 7 winter, harshness of 81, 107 & comm. witnesses 103–4 & comm, 104–5 written evidence 104, 189   Zela, battle of 60

Page 14 of 14