Maynooth University GC319 Roman Law and Society 2022-2023 | Cosetta Cadau

Department of Ancient Classics

GREEK AND ROMAN CIVILIZATION

2022-2023

GC319 ROMAN LAW AND SOCIETY

Lecture 12 Political violence and legislation in the Late Republic

1. What is political violence in the Late Roman Republic?

a. ‘The crime of vis has two defining characteristics. The first is the actual act of violence.
The second is an adverse effect on society as a whole. Perhaps by statue, and certainly in
fact, it is vis contra rem publicam that is criminal’ (A. Riggsby, Crime and Community in
Ciceronian Rome, Austin, Texas 1999, p. 112)

b. And if he were then to be informed that there is a law for rebellious and criminal Roman
citizens who have besieged the senate house with arms, used violence against the
magistrates, and attacked their country, and that under this law trials may be held on any
day of the year without exception, he would not object to the law, but would enquire what
charge it is that is before the court. (Cicero, Pro Caelio, 1)

c. You are investigating a charge of violence. The law concerned is one that has to do with
the dominion, the sovereignty, the condition of our country, and the safety of us all,
the law which Quintus Catulus carried at a time of armed civil strife and almost desperate
national crisis, and the law which, after those fires which blazed during my consulship had
been brought under control, extinguished the smoking embers of the conspiracy. (Cicero,
Pro Caelio, 70)

d. It is always the business of the judge in a trial to find out the truth; it is sometimes the
business of the advocate to maintain what is plausible, even if it be not strictly true,
though I should not venture to say this, especially in an ethical treatise, if it were not also
the position of Panaetius, that strictest of Stoics. Also, briefs for the defence are most likely
to bring glory and popularity to the pleader and all the more so if ever it falls to him to lend
aid to one who seems to be oppressed and persecuted by the influence of someone in power.
(Cicero, De Officiis, 2.51)

2. ‘Milo murdered Clodius in the interest of the public welfare’. What is Cicero’s
response to this defence line?

3. Causes of political violence in the Late Republic

• The power of the Senate
• The power of the people
Sallust, The Catilinarian War 38: All those who disturbed the Republic put forward worthy
motives, some claiming to protect the rights of the people, others that they were strengthening
the senate’s authority. But it was all pretence. Every man was fighting for his own power.

1
Maynooth University GC319 Roman Law and Society 2022-2023 | Cosetta Cadau
Department of Ancient Classics

• Population in the Late Republic: 750k

The poor were unable to raise children: abortion, infanticide legal, birth rate depressed by
scarcity of reproductive women, increased manumission
• Difficulties in keeping order
• Panem et circenses
• Poverty of the urban population leads to support of politicians offering hostility towards
the upper classes

4. Which classes did violence originate from?

• Tiberius Gracchus (133 BC), Gaius Gracchus (121 BC), and Saturninus (100 BC)
• The first open act of illegal political violence came from the nobility
• In 103 and 100 the tribune, Saturninus, who also proposed land distribution and revived
the grain dole on the Gracchan scale, did not scruple to murder opponents and rivals; he
too was suppressed by the senate.
• In the 70s the prevalence of piracy began to affect the corn-supply.
• Land for the veterans in the 60s
• The years from 67 to 62 (when Pompey came back) were full of violence and threats of
violence. In 63 Catiline rose in arms against the government with a band of discontented
peasants.
• In the aftermath of the conspiracy, Cicero incurred the lasting hatred of the masses.
• As consul in 59 Caesar carried agrarian laws with the support Pompey's veterans. In return,
he received the great command in Gaul. To check senatorial reaction, once Caesar had left
for his province, Pompey and Caesar promoted the election to the tribunate of Publius
Clodius, and it was Clodius who finally made the grain distributions free. This was the
prime source of the enormous popularity he enjoyed with the plebs so long as he lived.
• Urban plebs: a heterogeneous and volatile body

5. Cicero on Clodius’ gangs

Only from Cicero do we know anything of the composition of Clodius' bands. He speaks of
slaves, including runaways and thugs whom Clodius had bought himself for the purpose of
terrorism, criminals - "assassins freed from the jail", which Clodius "emptied into the forum" -
foreigners; at best they were hirelings.
In Rome the Catilinarians tried to raise "the artisans and slaves"; according to Cicero, Clodius'
following included shopkeepers.

6. Aims of political violence

• Loyalty to patrons or leaders
• land distributions
• hunger seems to have been the chief motive force (57 BC food riot).

Cicero Pro Milone 6: In this trial, gentlemen, I shall not seek to defend Titus Annius Milo
against the charge by making use of his tribunate and all the things he has done to protect the
state. Unless you actually see with your own eyes that Clodius set a trap for Milo, I shall not
beg you to waive the charge for us in consideration of Milo’s many outstanding public services,
nor shall I insist that, since the death of Publius Clodius proved to be your salvation, you should
put it down to the merits of Milo rather than to the good fortune of the Roman people. But if I

2
Maynooth University GC319 Roman Law and Society 2022-2023 | Cosetta Cadau
Department of Ancient Classics

succeed in making it clear as day that it was Clodius who set the trap, then I shall go on to
beseech and implore you, gentlemen, that, even if we lose everything else, we may at least
retain the right of defending our lives, without fear of punishment, against the weapons and
criminality of our enemies.

Historical precedents for justifiable killings

Surely everyone knows that, when someone is being tried for murder, the deed is either
categorically denied, or justified as right and lawful? Unless of course you think that Publius
Africanus was out of his mind when, on being maliciously asked at a public meeting by Gaius
Carbo, who was tribune of the plebs, what he thought about the death of Tiberius Gracchus, he
replied that in his view he had been lawfully killed! And if it is automatically wrong to kill
Roman citizens who are criminals, then the famous Servilius Ahala, Publius Nasica, Lucius
Opimius, Gaius Marius, and indeed the whole senate in the time of my consulship would all
have to be considered beyond the pale! And so gentlemen it is not without good reason that,
even in the realm of fiction, the most learned writers have handed down the story of one who
killed his mother to avenge his father and who, when the votes of the human jury were split,
was acquitted not merely by the vote of a god, but by that of the wisest of all the gods.
Pro Milone 8
Against the Republic?
So why did the senate decree that the burning of the senate-house, the assault on Marcus
Lepidus’ house, and the killing itself were against the interests of the state? Simply because in
a free country acts of violence against citizens are always against the interests of the state. [14]
Self-defence against violence, although sometimes unavoidable, is never something one would
wish for. The day on which Tiberius Gracchus was killed, the one on which Gaius Gracchus
died, and the arms of Saturninus all did harm to the state despite the fact that the suppression
of these men was in the public interest. So that is why, once it was established that a killing
had taken place on the Appian Way, I did not myself vote that the man who had acted in self-
defence had acted against the interests of the state. Instead, since violence and the setting of a
trap were involved, I voiced my disapproval of what had occurred, while leaving the question
of guilt to be decided by a court.
Pro Milone 13-14

7. Portrayal of Pompey the Great in the Pro Milone

Pompey spoke, or rather wished to speak. For as soon as he got up Clodius's ruffians raised a
shout, and throughout his whole speech he was interrupted, not only by hostile cries, but by
personal abuse and insulting remarks. However, when he had finished his speech—for he
shewed great courage in these circumstances, he was not cowed, he said all he had to say, and
at times had by his Commanding presence even secured silence by his authority —well, when
he had finished, up got Clodius. Our party received him with such a shout—for they had
determined to pay him out—that he lost all presence of mind, power of speech, or control
over his countenance. This went on up to two o'clock-Pompey having finished his speech at
noon —and every kind of abuse, and finally epigrams of the most outspoken indecency were
uttered against Clodius and Clodia. Mad and livid with rage Clodius, in the very midst of the
shouting, kept putting questions to his claque: "Who was it who was starving the commons to
death?" His ruffians answered, "Pompey." "Who wanted to be sent to Alexandria?" They
answered, "Pompey." "Who did they wish to go?" They answered, "Crassus." The latter was
present at the time with no friendly feelings to Milo. About three o'clock, as though at a given
3
Maynooth University GC319 Roman Law and Society 2022-2023 | Cosetta Cadau
Department of Ancient Classics

signal, the Clodians began spitting at our men. There was an outburst of rage. They began a
movement for forcing us from our ground. Our men charged: his ruffians turned tail. Clodius
was pushed off the rostra: and then we too made our escape for fear of mischief in the riot.
Cic. To his brother Quintus 2.3.2

But Gnaeus Pompeius, as is shown by his proposing his bill, has already pronounced his
verdict, both on the facts and on the whole issue: for the bill which he carried specifically
concerned the act of violence on the Appian Way in which Publius Clodius was killed.’ So
what was it that he proposed? Obviously, that an inquiry should be held. And what is to be the
subject of this inquiry? Whether the deed was committed? But that is perfectly obvious. He
appreciated, therefore, that even where the deed was admitted it was still possible to argue a
plea of justification. Had he not appreciated this (that the man who admitted the deed could be
acquitted), he would not, on seeing that we did admit it, have ordered an inquiry, nor would he
have given you the letter of acquittal with which to record your vote as well as the letter of
condemnation. As I see it, Gnaeus Pompeius has not only refrained from making any
unfavourable judgement about Milo, but has actually laid down what it is that you ought to be
considering as you ponder your verdict. For what he has given to the man who admits the deed
is not punishment, but the chance to clear himself; and this shows that it is not the mere fact of
the killing which he thinks should be investigated, but the motive.
Pro Milone 15
Pompey and Clodius
A slave of Publius Clodius was arrested in the temple of Castor: Clodius had posted him there
to murder Gnaeus Pompeius. A dagger was wrenched from his hand and he confessed all. From
then on Pompeius kept away from the forum, away from the senate, and away from the public
eye; he sought protection behind his own door and walls, and not in his rights under the law
and courts. … But how idiotic of me to think of comparing Drusus, Africanus, Pompeius, and
myself with Publius Clodius! What happened in their cases could easily be put up with; but no
one could calmly accept Publius Clodius’ death! The senate is grief-stricken, the equestrian
order is inconsolable, the whole country is worn out with sorrow, the towns of Italy are in
mourning, the colonies are prostrate, and the very fields bewail the loss of a citizen so kind, so
good, and so gentle!
Pro Milone 18; 20
Pompey’s motivations …
No, members of the jury, that was certainly not the reason why Pompeius thought that a special
inquiry should be set up. As a man of great wisdom with a lofty and almost divine mind, he
took account of many considerations. He saw that Clodius had been his enemy and Milo his
friend, and that if he were to participate in the general rejoicing himself, there would be a
danger that the sincerity of his past reconciliation with Clodius might be called into question.
There were many other factors of which he took note, but this one he was particularly aware
of, that however strict the terms of his bill were, you yourselves would nevertheless deliver a
courageous verdict. It was for this reason that he chose the brightest luminaries from the most
distinguished orders …
Pro Milone 21

8. Portrayal of Clodius in the Pro Milone

The charge of murdering Clodius, members of the jury, gives me no cause for concern. I am
not so deranged or so ignorant and unaware of your feelings as not to know your thoughts on
Clodius’ death. Suppose that I were not prepared to refute the charge as I have done. It would
4
Maynooth University GC319 Roman Law and Society 2022-2023 | Cosetta Cadau
Department of Ancient Classics

then be open to Milo, without harming his defence, publicly to proclaim a glorious untruth: ‘I
admit I killed him! But the man I killed was not a Spurius Maelius who, by lowering the price
of corn and squandering his own property, appeared to have sided too strongly with the plebs
and was therefore suspected of aiming at tyranny. Nor was he a Tiberius Gracchus who deposed
his colleague from office by revolutionary means. The killers of both these men won such glory
that their names became famous throughout the world. No! The man I killed,’ Milo would dare
to say, safe in the knowledge that he had freed the country at his own personal risk, ‘was one
whose unspeakable adultery, actually committed on the sacred couches of the gods, was
discovered by women of the highest rank. [73] A man whose punishment the senate repeatedly
decreed to be necessary for the purification of the religious ceremonies that he had defiled. A
man whom Lucius Lucullus, after holding an investigation, declared on oath he had found
guilty of the unspeakable crime of incest with his own sister. A man who used the weapons of
slaves to drive out a citizen whom the senate, the Roman people, and all the nations had called
saviour of both the city itself and of the lives of her citizens. A man who gave out kingdoms
and took them away, and parcelled out the world to anyone he pleased. A man who committed
a great many murders in the forum, and who used armed force to confine an outstandingly
brave and famous man within his own home. A man who never saw anything wrong in any
criminal deed or sexual outrage. A man who set fire to the temple of the Nymphs in order to
extinguish the official revision of the censor’s register inscribed in the public records …
Pro Milone 72-73

Reading
Brunt, P. A. (1966), 'The Roman Mob', Past & Present, 35 (1), 3-27.
Lintott, A.W. (1974), 'Cicero and Milo', Journal of Roman Studies, 64, 62-78.
May, James M. (1979), 'The Ethica Digressio and Cicero's Pro Milone: A Progression of
Intensity from Logos to Ethos to Pathos', Classical Journal, 74, 240-46.
--- (2001), 'Cicero's Pro Milone: An Ideal Speech of an Ideal Orator', in Cecil W. Wooten (ed.),
The Orator in Action and Theory in Greece and Rome: Studies in Honor of George A.
Kennedy (Leiden: Brill).
Millar, Fergus (1995), 'Popular Politics at Rome in the Late Republic', in Irad Malkin and Z.W.
Rubinsohn (eds.), Leaders and Masses in the Roman World: Studies in Honor of Zvi
Yavetz (Leiden: Brill).
--- (1998), The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press).
Mouritsen, Henrik (2001), Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic (CUP)
Nippel, Wilfried (1995), Public Order in Ancient Rome (CUP)
Riggsby, Andrew M. (2004), Crime and Community in Ciceronian Rome (Austin: University
of Texas Press).