Change of Plans
As you may have guessed from my last post, I intended my next to relate to something or other about the Optimates and the Populares. Recently, though, I've changed my mind. After all, I can't even think of how much time I've already devoted to that topic, and it does seem a bit tired.
I decided that I'd rather learn something new, so I think instead, my next post will be about the trial of Murena in 63 B.C.E. Not coincidentally, this trial happened in the year of Cicero's famously turbulent consulship, and just a few days after his second Catilinarian oration.
As you know, one of my projects related to this blog was to read all of those orations, and try to make up some interesting posts about them. Life has a way of stymieing such efforts – I’m finding it really hard to motivate myself to do Latin reading without a particular focus in mind, which is why, just a few moments ago, I decided to go with my instinct and write about Murena instead, doing whatever necessary translating came along with such a subject.
Murena’s case is particularly interesting as it involves conflict between two of my favorite characters in Roman history: Cicero and Cato Uticensis.
I know it’s Really Really Really trite to cite Cicero as one of your favorites, but in any case, considering the time period I’m interested in, and the kinds of sources available, I really do think that it’s unavoidable. Not to say that I necessarily approve of or even “like” him – As anyone who’s even cursorily studied the man knows, his pompousness and seemingly endless conceit is off-putting to any modern person (although I think that it was, culturally, probably quite common and acceptable in ancient Rome.) Still, his orations are beautifully constructed and he is so intimately connected with every known political event and intrigue of the period that it is impossible to refrain from being deeply interested in the man and his work.
As for Cato, well, being a somewhat stoic-minded and stubborn person myself, the attraction is obvious. It is very easy to love a morally high-minded martyr – especially when (as has been seen so often in the case of Christianity) this admiration can be assumed to cover the admirer with some degree of (inevitably self-satisfied) righteousness.
Perhaps it would be appropriate here to give the background of the case, before any future, more involved posts.
L. Licinius Murena had been a praetor in the year 65 B.C.E, and had become popular due to the magnificence of the games that he had provided for the people. Afterwards he served as an administrator in Transalpine Gaul.(1) In 63 he stood for election to the consulship and won, along with Decimus Iunius Silanus. However, before he could take office, he was accused by the unsuccessful candidate Servius Sulpicius Rufus, of electoral bribery. Cato Uticensis (also known as Cato Minor) supported this accusation while Cicero defended Murena.
Electoral bribery, or ambitus, was exceedingly common in Rome, especially during the Late Republic. While familial and political connection and obligation could gain one the votes of a great man and all of his dependents, the votes of the urban plebs were generally secured by money and reputation. Candidates often drove themselves deep into debt in order to pay off these voters, or impress them with extravagant public games, which money they later sought to recoup by rich commissions in the provinces, provided that they won the office.
Prosecution for such bribery was also very common, and, as the accuser was just as likely to have been guilty of ambitus as the accused, was more a tool of political revenge than a means to prevent the bribery itself. As such, the losing party in the election often used it as a means of discrediting his rival.(2) Perhaps Sulpicius, like others before him, hoped to remove Murena from office, and take his place by means of the extraordinary election that would be held if he were found guilty.
Still, as fascinating as I find Roman electoral politics, the more particularly interesting thing about Murena’s trial is the fact that it put Cicero and Cato at odds at a time when each valued the other as an important ally against the Catilinarians. Surprisingly, it was the Catilinarian conspiracy itself that caused their disagreement. While Cato stubbornly followed his principles in demanding that Murena be punished for acts of ambitus, Cicero felt that the court’s primary responsibility was to acquit Murena, regardless of his guilt, in order that new consuls would be able to replace those leaving office in time to defend the state from Catiline.
1. Cicero, Pro Murena 89
2. Lintott, A. “Electoral Bribery in the Roman Republic,” The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 80. (1990), pp. 6-8; Shackleton Bailey, D. R. "The Prosecution of Roman Magistrates-Elect," Phoenix, Vol. 24, No. 2. (Summer, 1970), pp. 162-165.;
I hope to explore this topic further in my next post. I now have access to articles on JSTOR, and at least a few interesting articles to read on the subject while I try to come up with some original thoughts.
I really haven’t been this excited about anything in a while. Just today, while searching through JSTOR I realized that I have to do whatever it takes to get back into academics.
I decided that I'd rather learn something new, so I think instead, my next post will be about the trial of Murena in 63 B.C.E. Not coincidentally, this trial happened in the year of Cicero's famously turbulent consulship, and just a few days after his second Catilinarian oration.
As you know, one of my projects related to this blog was to read all of those orations, and try to make up some interesting posts about them. Life has a way of stymieing such efforts – I’m finding it really hard to motivate myself to do Latin reading without a particular focus in mind, which is why, just a few moments ago, I decided to go with my instinct and write about Murena instead, doing whatever necessary translating came along with such a subject.
Murena’s case is particularly interesting as it involves conflict between two of my favorite characters in Roman history: Cicero and Cato Uticensis.
I know it’s Really Really Really trite to cite Cicero as one of your favorites, but in any case, considering the time period I’m interested in, and the kinds of sources available, I really do think that it’s unavoidable. Not to say that I necessarily approve of or even “like” him – As anyone who’s even cursorily studied the man knows, his pompousness and seemingly endless conceit is off-putting to any modern person (although I think that it was, culturally, probably quite common and acceptable in ancient Rome.) Still, his orations are beautifully constructed and he is so intimately connected with every known political event and intrigue of the period that it is impossible to refrain from being deeply interested in the man and his work.
As for Cato, well, being a somewhat stoic-minded and stubborn person myself, the attraction is obvious. It is very easy to love a morally high-minded martyr – especially when (as has been seen so often in the case of Christianity) this admiration can be assumed to cover the admirer with some degree of (inevitably self-satisfied) righteousness.
Perhaps it would be appropriate here to give the background of the case, before any future, more involved posts.
L. Licinius Murena had been a praetor in the year 65 B.C.E, and had become popular due to the magnificence of the games that he had provided for the people. Afterwards he served as an administrator in Transalpine Gaul.(1) In 63 he stood for election to the consulship and won, along with Decimus Iunius Silanus. However, before he could take office, he was accused by the unsuccessful candidate Servius Sulpicius Rufus, of electoral bribery. Cato Uticensis (also known as Cato Minor) supported this accusation while Cicero defended Murena.
Electoral bribery, or ambitus, was exceedingly common in Rome, especially during the Late Republic. While familial and political connection and obligation could gain one the votes of a great man and all of his dependents, the votes of the urban plebs were generally secured by money and reputation. Candidates often drove themselves deep into debt in order to pay off these voters, or impress them with extravagant public games, which money they later sought to recoup by rich commissions in the provinces, provided that they won the office.
Prosecution for such bribery was also very common, and, as the accuser was just as likely to have been guilty of ambitus as the accused, was more a tool of political revenge than a means to prevent the bribery itself. As such, the losing party in the election often used it as a means of discrediting his rival.(2) Perhaps Sulpicius, like others before him, hoped to remove Murena from office, and take his place by means of the extraordinary election that would be held if he were found guilty.
Still, as fascinating as I find Roman electoral politics, the more particularly interesting thing about Murena’s trial is the fact that it put Cicero and Cato at odds at a time when each valued the other as an important ally against the Catilinarians. Surprisingly, it was the Catilinarian conspiracy itself that caused their disagreement. While Cato stubbornly followed his principles in demanding that Murena be punished for acts of ambitus, Cicero felt that the court’s primary responsibility was to acquit Murena, regardless of his guilt, in order that new consuls would be able to replace those leaving office in time to defend the state from Catiline.
1. Cicero, Pro Murena 89
2. Lintott, A. “Electoral Bribery in the Roman Republic,” The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 80. (1990), pp. 6-8; Shackleton Bailey, D. R. "The Prosecution of Roman Magistrates-Elect," Phoenix, Vol. 24, No. 2. (Summer, 1970), pp. 162-165.;
I hope to explore this topic further in my next post. I now have access to articles on JSTOR, and at least a few interesting articles to read on the subject while I try to come up with some original thoughts.
I really haven’t been this excited about anything in a while. Just today, while searching through JSTOR I realized that I have to do whatever it takes to get back into academics.
posted by L.S. at
8:38 AM
2 Comments:
I read a book recently you may enjoy -- it's called "The State of Exception," by Giorgio Agamben. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Agamben's work; he's a contemporary Italian political and legal theorist, whose work tends to focus on biopower, the use of "bare life" as a tool of power. He often uses Roman legal or cultural examples, with fairly rigorous analysis, to formulate his concept of modern power. I think the book "State of Exception" has some interesting material for your interest in the Late Republican period.
The problem that Agamben is trying to solve is one derived from the prominent theorist of 20th century dictatorship, Carl Schmitt. Schmitt, in his work "Political Theology" formulated a definition of the sovereign as "he who decides the exception" and suspends the norm, that is, whoever can successfully declare a state of emergency and suspend the law. I'm sure you're familiar with the senatus consultum ultimatum which declared a kind of martial law. For Schmitt, the problem was that all law ultimately rests on this exception, and so the law was put in a paradox, in that it could not legally circumscribe the condition of its existence.
Agamben's take on this stems from an analysis of iustitia and the term auctoritas as contrasted with potestas. I think you might find the discussion interesting and perhaps relevant to your research. I do recall at least one mention of Cicero's defense of his actions during the Cataline conspiracy.
Yours,
Becket
That sounds really interesting - I'll have to look it up. Thank you for the recommendation.
Also thanks for looking at my blog - I'm sort of embarrassed that I haven't written anything lately . . .
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home