Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

Gayatri Gogoi

Was Cicero responsible for his exile?

Ciceros exile in 58BC was indisputably one of the lowest points of his career and life at that point. After Publius Clodius Pulcher, a tribune of the people, had passed the Lex Clodia de Civibus Romanis Interemptis which threatened punishment for those who had executed Roman citizens without trial before the people, Cicero left Rome for Southern Italy after failing to find support from Pompey and the senate, and then travelled to Thessalonica, Greece, arriving on May 23, 58 BC. Immediately after Cicero had left the city, Clodius passed another bill declaring Cicero a public enemy, prohibiting him from fire and water within four hundred miles of the city, and also confiscating his property. Cicero remained in exile for 18 months, in despondency and depression, until he was allowed to return to Rome, thanks to the efforts of Pompey and the newly elected tribunes, including Milo. What, then, was the cause of such a unsettled and tumultuous period in Ciceros life and indeed in the political situation generally in the late Roman Republic? The complexities of such a discussion lie in our perception of what constitutes responsibility, in that Ciceros actions may have been directly responsible for his exile, while other actions may have induced different people to exile him, but meaning he was not directly responsible. One might say that Cicero was responsible for his exile, in that he had in fact executed the Catilinarian conspirators without provocatio during his consulship four years previously in 63BC, and therefore deserved his punishment. Moreover, it could be said that Ciceros boasting and exaggeration of his success in thwarting the conspiracy of 63BC was also his own fault in turning popular opinion against himself. On the other hand, one might also argue that Cicero was not responsible for his exile, but the target of a vicious personal vendetta by Clodius. Furthermore, in light of the turbulent political situation of the time, Ciceros outspoken opposition to the First Triumvirate which had been formed in 60BC by Pompey, Caesar and Crassus. All these reasons must be evaluated carefully and thoroughly, bearing in mind the political context of each potential action which may or may not have found Cicero responsible for his exile. From a legal perspective, at first glance, Cicero seems to have deserved his exile. During his consulship, he ordered 5 conspirators to be strangled on the 5th of December 63BC, which is in clear violation of the Lex Sempronia de Capite Civium, which prevented the capital punishment of Roman citizens without a trial before the people. However, this is not as simple as it might first appear. Firstly, the senatus consultum optimum had been passed in response to the massing of Manilus troops in Etruria earlier in the year, which creates situation akin to a state of emergency or martial law. Under the SCU, Cicero had the moral backing of the senate to ensure the state suffer no harm (Sall. Cat. 29), which, while providing no legal protection, gave Cicero the support of the senate should he need to act outside the law. It must be noted that there were those who were immediately opposed to capital punishment, such as Caesar whose speech against capital punishment was so effective so as to convert Silvanus, the proposer of such a measure, against it. Therefore, to what extent the SCU granted Cicero the capability of acting outside the constitution of the state is unclear, both for us and for his contemporaries. Indeed, such problems had been highlighted in the prosecution of Rabirius earlier in 63BC, an elderly senator who had been involved in the killing of the tribune Saturnius who was stoned to death by

Gayatri Gogoi roof tiles in 100BC when an SCU had been passed. Labienus, a tribune, at the instigation of Caesar, had brought a charge of perduellio against Rabirius, which was intended to discredit the SCU, which had been in the past used against the populares, such as against Gaius Gracchus. Therefore, it may be that Clodius too prosecuted Cicero for his meddling in popularis politics, since as one of the optimates, Cicero believed that the senates authority and voting in the comitia centuriata should take precedence over the consilium plebis. This example of Rabirius is a clear example that breaking the law under the SCU is not necessarily reason to undergo punishment, but instead such action may be wielded as a political weapon after the event. Thus, while Cicero may have broken the law in killing the conspirators, from his point of view, he was acting under the orders of the senate to whom he had referred the matter of punishment on the 5th of December. Furthermore, while Cicero may have given the order to strangle the prisoners, we must not underplay the importance of others who supported the death penalty; Cato for example is highlighted by Sallust as the most important in the debate, along with Caesar, and it is after his speech that the senate voted in favour of death (Sall. Cat. 53). Therefore, Catos role in the death of the conspirators, and that of other senators, may mitigate Cicero's individual responsibility for his exile in terms of his actions in 63BC even further. Furthermore, we cannot rely on the knowledge that other senators were opposed to the killing to assume Ciceros responsibility for his exile. Newly elected tribunes L. Calpurnius Bestia and Q. Metellus Nepos vetoed the customary speech of Cicero on the grounds that he had executed the conspirators without trial, but we must keep in mind that Bestia had been part of the conspiracy (Sall. Cat. 17 and 43) and may have wanted to keep Cicero from making a speech out of spite rather than because of a moral or legal issue of acting outside the law. Nepos too had his own agenda, as he was trying to hand over military campaigns against Catiline to Pompey.1 Since those who opposed Cicero had ulterior motives, this too may diminish Ciceros responsibility for his exile based on his actions of 63. What of Ciceros actions after his consulship, prior to his exile? Plutarch commented that Cicero turned many against himself because of his self-aggrandizing in speeches, over-emphasising his own importance as an ex-consul, and one who defeated Catiline's plot (Cic. 24.1). Cicero too admits that such accusations have been levelled at him in De Domo Sua, delivered after his return from exile to the college of priests after Clodius had razed his confiscated property on the Palatine, and consecrated the ground to Libertas so nothing could be built upon it. And since you find fault with me for this, that you assert that I am accustomed to speak too boastfully of myself; I ask, who ever heard me speak in this way, or speak of myself at all, except when I was compelled, and was doing so of necessity? Cicero clearly asserts that he has only mentioned his achievements when he was forced to by circumstance and necessity. To evaluate this claim we may regard the Pro Sulla, delivered in early 62BC, on behalf of Sulla, who was accused of involvement in the Catilinarian conspiracy. For almost thirteen chapters of the speech Cicero barely speaks of his client, but instead talks about himself, which seems, especially to a modern audience, to be acting upon one's vainglorious and self-promoting impulses rather than in the interests of the client one is trying to defend. However, upon closer inspection, we realise that Cicero is not just boasting about his achievements, but is responding to and rebutting claims made by Torquatus, the prosecutor. The patron structure of the Roman judicial system is key to our
1

Lintott p149

Gayatri Gogoi understanding of such behaviour. Paterson writes that the whole point about patrons is that they have, or have access to, the wealth, power, influence and auctoritas, which clients lack in the defence of their interests.2 Therefore, Cicero cannot allow the wounds to his dignitas and auctoritas made by Torquatus to go unchallenged; to allow his own persona to be compromised would be to compromise that of his client, as well as his clients defence. Indeed, Cicero himself says quantum de mea auctoritate deripuisset, tantum se de huius praesidiis deminuturum (Sulla. 2), as much as [Torquatus] can undermine my influence, the more he will weaken the defence of this man. As such, Cicero must counter the claim that he is being inconsistent by defending Sulla when he refused other conspirators such as Autronius, he must refute the insult paid to him when he was called a foreign king (Sull. 21)., which also has echoes of Catiline who called Cicero a peregrinus, or foreigner, and must reinstate his auctoritas as an ex-consul (Sull. 35). The defence of himself is a defence of Sulla. Therefore the emphasis of one's auctoritas as an advocate is crucial to judicial proceedings, and so Ciceros boastfulness may not have been as much of a cause for his unpopularity as we might believe. It may also be that as Lintott says, his future reiteration of his own praises was driven not only by vainglory but by insecurity in face of criticism.3 What this means is that what is considered by many to be boasting on Cicero's part, actually stemmed from Cicero's self-doubt about his actions in 63BC as a result of opposition from some (such as partisans of Caesar, or by Bestia and Nepos), as justification for his actions. Nevertheless, it is clear that on some level Cicero alienated his supporters by his boasting in private life, as is shown in Pompey's coolness to Cicero, who in a letter compared himself to Laelius to Pompeys Scipio Africanus, and boasted about his achievements as consul (Cic. Fam. 5.7). In Cicero's letters to Atticus too we can see reluctance from Pompey to praise Cicero, which was exploited by Crassus (1.14). This may account somewhat for Pompeys lack of support when Cicero was exiled. Therefore, since we have found Cicero's actions more comprehensible, and with diminished responsibility for his exile, we might ask ourselves then, if not Cicero, who was responsible for his exile? An obvious answer springs to mind, P. Clodius Pulcher, who passed the legislation which caused Cicero to go into voluntary exile in 58BC. Cicero and Clodius had had a turbulent relationship before this point. In 62, Clodius had been embroiled in the Bona Dea scandal, in which he had entered the all-womens rites dressed in female attire, supposedly to see Pompeia, Caesars wife (Cic. Ad. Att. 1.12). Clodius had used an alibi that he had been some 90 miles away in Interamna at the time of the supposed visitation. Cicero however broke this alibi, saying he had met Clodius three hours beforew the incident, perhaps in revenge at the instigation of his wife Terentia , whose halfsister Fabia the Vestal Virgin Clodius had prosecuted in 73 on a charge of incestum of having an affair with Catiline. Ciceros actions may also have been motivated by rumours of an affair between him and Clodia, Clodius sister. Whether this is rumour or not, Clodius was only acquitted because of Crassus bribery of the jurors. Therefore, when he was adopted into a Plebeian family with the help of Caesar, and ran for the tribunate Clodius was able to wreak revenge on Cicero. Furthermore fact that Ciceros return found so much support among the people, and that the bill proposed by Milo that Cicero return was only opposed by Clodius may indicate that it was indeed Clodius vendetta and not the general population which led to Cicero's exile.
2 3

Paterson p80 Lintott p149

Gayatri Gogoi However, one might expect more opposition to Clodius exile of Cicero, and so we must examine the wider political situation to discover why he was permitted to pass such laws. The most immediate answer for this is the First Triumvirate, the unofficial alliance of Pompey, Caesar and Crassus in which they would work together to achieve political aims. Cicero had refused an invitation to join them and instead became an outspoken critic of them along with Cato. We can see this in Cicero's letters, such as when he criticises Pompey for allowing the Campanian Land Bill to be passed in 59BC by Caesar (Ad. Att. 2.16), and when he speaks of the general climate of fear in the political world, after Bibulus, Caesar's partner in the consulship is essentially placed under house arrest for the rest of the year, (Ad Att. 2.20). Therefore, Pompey, who had been supported by Cicero such as in 66BC for the pirate command, was prepared to let Cicero be exiled for the sake of his new alliance to achieve his political aims, in his case, the ratification of his eastern land settlement en bloc, and perhaps because he did not wish to cause a rift in the triumvirate because of the love he felt for his new wife Julia, Caesars daughter. This may be illustrated when Pompey decided to campaign on Cicero's behalf for his return, showing his guilt at the lack of support in 58BC, and because of disillusionment with the triumvirate until it was renewed in 56BC. Furthermore, Cicero's lack of support from other members of the senate may also stem from fear of Clodius, either his armed gangs or of similar treatment to Cicero, who had the support of at least Caesar and Crassus, meaning that although Cicero should have had the moral backing of the senate to prevent his exile, the political situation was too volatile for the senators to defend him as they should or as he though tthey would under the SCU. Therefore in conclusion, Cicero's actions were in some way responsible for his exile. Without killing the conspirators, Clodius would have had no political clout to use against him when he was fulfilling his vendetta against Cicero. Cicero too, while having genuine reason for the repeated assertion of his achievements from a judicial standpoint, also alienated many of his would-be supporters such as Pompey by his self-aggrandisement. Furthermore Cicero may have been responsible for his exile in that he spoke out against Clodius and the First Triumvirate. In that sense, speaking out against a group which in Cicero's eyes perverted the Roman constitution and circumvented and diminished the influence of the senate meant Cicero was responsible for his exile, but in not in such a way that Cicero should be blamed. His actions did in fact lead to his exile; nevertheless, it was not his actions in 63BC, but rather refusing to abandon his integrity and political beliefs which more directly caused Cicero's exile. In the choice of keeping one's political integrity or having an easy life, Cicero chose the former, more difficult path. In that sense he is responsible for his exile, but more responsible are those who sought to ruin the political system and undermine the power of the senate, as Cicero saw it, and those senators who in fear did not offer the support they should have at the moment Cicero needed it most.

A Lintott, Cicero as Evidence: A Historians Companion (Oxford 2008) J. Paterson, Self-Reference in Cicero's Forensic Speeches, in J. Powell and J. Paterson , Cicero the Advocate (Oxford 2004) G. Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, 300BC AD 2300 (Princeton 1972)

Вам также может понравиться