« ZurückWeiter »
Milo, to oppose these measures on the ground that they were aimed at Milo personally, and that the trials were being unduly hastened. His persevering attacks upon them made Pompeius so indignant that he even threatened to use force, if he were compelled to do so, for the safety of the state.
8 Pompeius was, or pretended to be, afraid of Milo: he quitted his usual residence, and retired to his gardens on the higher grounds, round which a large body of soldiers were on guard. He had also upon one occasion [suddenly dismissed 47?] a meeting of the Senate, because he said he was afraid of Milo coming 48. At the
buted to the decline of Roman eloquence: 'transeo ad formam et consuetudinem veterum iudiciorum; quae etsi nunc aptior est veritati, eloquentiam tamen illud forum magis exercebat, in quo nemo intra paucissimas horas perorare cogebatur, et liberae comperendinationes erant, et modum dicendi sibi quisque sumebat, et numerus neque dierum neque patronorum finiebatur. Primus haec tertio consulatu Gnaeus Pompeius astrinxit, imposuitque veluti frenos eloquentiae. De Orat. c. 38.
privilegium in Milonem ferri. A law specially framed to meet the case of a particular individual was called Privilegium, and was forbidden by the Laws of the Twelve Tables. Comp. pro Domo, c. 16: quo exemplo legem nominatim de capite civis indemnati tulisti? Vetant leges sacratae, vetant XII. Tabulae leges privis hominibus irrogari; id est enim privilegium.' See also de Legg. III. 4.
47 The text is mutilated here. Some propose to fill up the gap with the words repente dimiserat; others insert in porticu sua habuerat.
48 Asconius adds the following particulars in his note on chap. 25. $67: diximus in argumento orationis huius Cn. Pompeium simulasse se timere, seu plane timuisse Milonem, et ideo ne domi quidem suae sed in hortis superioribus ante iudicium mansisse, ita ut villam quoque praesidio militum circumdaret. Q. Pompeius, tribunus plebis, qui fuerat familiarissimus omnium P.
Clodio et sectam sequi se palam profitebatur, dixerat in concione paucis post diebus quam Clodius erat occisus: Milo dedit quem in Curia cremaretis; dabo quem in Capitolio sepeliatis.' In eadem concione idem dixerat (habuit enim eam a. d. VII. Kal. Feb. quum Milo pridie, id est, VIII. Kal. Feb. venire ad Pompeium in eius hortos voluisset) Pompeius ei per hominem propinquum misisset, ne ad se veniret. Prius etiam quam Pompeius tertium consul crearetur, tres tribuni, Q. Pompeius Ru fus, C. Sallustius Crispus, T. Munatius Plancus, quum quotidianis concionibus suis magnam invidiam Miloni propter Clodium excitarent, produxerant ad populum Cn. Pompeium, et ab eo quaesierant num ad eum delatum esset illud quoque indicium, suae vitae insidiari Milonem. Responderat Pompeius Licinium quendam de plebe sacrificulum, qui solitus esset familias purgare, ad se detulisse, servos quosdam Milonis itemque libertos comparatos esse ad caedem suam; nomina quoque servorum edidisse; ad Milonem misisse, ut eos in potestate sua haberet; a Milone responsum esse, ex iis servis quos nominasset partim neminem se unquam habuisse, partim manumisisse. Deinde quum Licinium apud se haberet, Lucium quendam de plebe ad corrumpendum iudicem venisse, qua re cognita, in vincula eum publica a se coniectum. De
creverat enim senatus ut cum interrege et tribunis plebis Pompeius daret operam ne quid respublica detri
next meeting P. Cornificius 49 affirmed that Milo had a weapon attached to his thigh beneath his tunic, and called on him to bare his thigh. Milo lifted up his tunic without hesitation; whereupon Cicero exclaimed that this was only a sample of all the other charges falsely brought against his friend. The tribune Munatius Plancus afterwards brought forward a person named M. Aemilius Philemon, well known as a freedman of M. Lepidus, before a public meeting. His story was, that he and four other freemen besides himself, as they were travelling, came up to the spot where Clodius was being killed, and that on their calling out for help in consequence, they were seized and taken off to Milo's villa, and kept there in confinement for two months. This report, whether true or false, had done much injury to Milo. The same Plancus and his colleague Q. Pompeius had brought forward a Capital Triumvir 50 on the Rostra, and questioned him whether he had detected one of Milo's slaves named Galata committing murder, He replied that the slave had been caught asleep in the tavern as a runaway, and brought into his court. The tribunes, notwithstanding, warned the Triumvir not to discharge the slave; on the next day, however, the tribunes Caelius and Cumanus took him by force from the house of the Triumvir, and gave him back to Milo. Having met with these charges, I have thought it right to mention them, though not alluded to by Cicero. The tribunes Q. Pompeius, C. Sallustius, and Munatius Plancus, were among the foremost in exciting ill-will against Milo by their inflammatory speeches. Cicero also was attacked in the same manner, as Milo's zealous partizan; and indeed so unpopular with the masses was his advocacy of the latter, that they regarded him with quite as much aversion as his client. Pompeius and Sallustius were afterwards suspected of a reconciliation with Cicero and Milo. Plancus however continued their most bitter adversary, instigating the populace against the orator, and exciting
menti caperet. Ob has suspiciones Pompeius in superioribus hortis se continuerat, deinde, ex senatus consulto delectu per Italiam habito quum redisset, venientem ad se Milonem unum omnium non admiserat. Item quum senatus in porticu Pompeii haberetur, ut Pompeius posset interesse, unum tum excuti prius quam in senatum intraret, iusserat.' + See chap. 24. § 66.
50 The functions of the Triumviri
Capitales were somewhat similar to those of the Eleven (ol võeкa) at Athens. They were empowered to receive informations respecting capital offences and inquire into them, to commit to prison all detected criminals, to preserve the public peace, and to inflict summary punishment on slaves and other persons of low rank. For further particulars respecting them see Dict. of Antiq. art. Triumviri Capitales.
suspicions in Pompeius against Milo, by loudly asserting that a conspiracy was on foot for his destruction. Pompeius now made frequent complaints in public that his own life was in danger, and consequently increased his body-guard. Plancus made a show of bringing Cicero also to trial, and the threat was afterwards repeated by Q. Pompeius Rufus. So great however was the firmness and honesty of purpose shewn on this occasion by the orator, that neither his unpopularity, nor the suspicions of Pompeius, nor the fear of future danger to himself, if he should be publicly impeached, nor the force which was now openly employed against his client, could deter him from defending Milo; although, if he had been a little less earnest in his advocacy, he might not only have entirely saved himself from personal risk and the hostility of an unfriendly populace, but also have regained the favour of Pompeius.
9 As soon as the law of Pompeius was passed, Comitia were held, in which L. Domitius Aenobarbus was appointed chief commissioner (quaesitor) for the ensuing trials, in accordance with one of its provisions that such an officer should be elected by popular suffrage from the number of those who had been consuls. The panel of  judges also proposed by Pompeius, was such, that certainly there never had been an occasion on which men more distinguished or more scrupulously upright had been named as judges. Immediately afterwards, Milo was put upon his trial under the new act by the same two youths by whom his household was before demanded; he was also prosecuted by the Appii, C. Cetheius, and L. Cornificius, for corrupt practices; and lastly, for wholesale bribery (de sodalitiis51) by P. Fulvius Neratus. But though he was charged with wholesale bribery and corruption, it was hoped that if, as seemed certain, he were first tried for breaches of the peace, and (as was confidently anticipated) were condemned, he would not answer to the other counts. A previous inquiry for deciding who should be the principal accuser (divinatio52) in the trial for corruption was held before a chief commissioner, named A. Torquatus; and both the commissioners, Torquatus and Domitius, ordered Milo to appear at the preliminary process on the fourth of April. On that day he pre
51 Ambitus was the general term for improper canvassing: the Lex Licinia de sodalitiis was against associations for the wholesale bribery of a tribe by treating or otherwise: see Cic. pro Plancio, c. 15.
52 This was a law-term for the process by which, when two or more accusers came forward against one
person, it was judicially decided which of them should be the principal accuser; the charges brought by him were then attested by the signatures of the others, who were hence called subscriptores. See the Introduction of Asconius to Cicero's Divinatio in Caecilium.
sented himself in person at the tribunal of Domitius, and sent his friends to appear for him at that of Torquatus; in the latter court, M. Marcellus was successful in an application made on his behalf, that he should not be called upon to plead in the trial for corruption, before the other for breaches of the peace had been brought to a conclusion. In the court of Domitius the elder Appius demanded of Milo the production of fifty-four slaves; Milo replied that the slaves who had been specified were their own masters; whereupon Domitius took the opinion of the judges, and decided that the accuser should name as many as he pleased out of the number of slaves before mentioned. The witnesses were then called, in accordance with the new enactment, which, as I have already said, required that the hearing of witnesses should precede the pleadings for three days, and that the judges should authenticate (confirmarent3) the depositions. It also required that on the fourth day all parties should be ordered to attend upon the following day, and that the balls (pilae) on which the names of the judges were inscribed should be balanced (aequarentur55) in the presence of the accuser and the accused. The allotment of the judges was then to be repeated next day, up to the number of eighty-one, and when this number had been drawn, the judges so elected were to take their seats upon the bench immediately; the accuser was then to be allowed two hours for speaking, and the accused three, and on the same day the verdict was to be pronounced: but before the judges gave their votes, the prosecutor and defendant were each of them to reject five out of each of the three classes, so that the number of the judges that actually voted might be reduced to fifty-one.
10 Causinius Scola gave evidence against Milo on the first day of the trial; he deposed that he was with Clodius when he was killed, and heightened the atrocity of the offence as much as possible. As soon as M. Marcellus had begun to cross-question the witness, the Clodian mob by whom he was surrounded made such an uproar, that he became alarmed for his safety, and was admitted by Domitius on the bench (tribunal56). Marcellus and Milo himself now appealed to Domitius for protection. Cn. Pompeius, who was then sitting at the Treasury, and had himself been made uneasy by the disturbances which had taken place, made a promise to Domitius that he would come down with a military escort on the following day. Accordingly, when he appeared, the Clodians were so daunted, that they did not interrupt the examination of the witnesses during the two remaining days 57. The witnesses were cross-questioned by Marcellus, Cicero, and Milo himself. Several of the inhabitants of Bovillae gave their testimony as to the facts which had occurred in their neighbourhood, deposing to the murder of the tavern-keeper, the assault upon the tavern, and the dragging of Clodius out into the highway. Some Vestals of Alba 58 also said that a woman unknown to them had come for the purpose of fulfilling a vow, at the request of Milo, in consequence of the death of Clodius. The last witnesses were Sempronia 59, the daughter of Tuditanus and mother-in-law of Clodius, and his wife Fulvia, who produced a great sensation amongst the bystanders by their sobbing. After the court broke up at about four o'clock in the afternoon, Munatius Plancus harangued the
56 tribunal. The platform on which the judges sat was crescent-shaped, the chair of the presiding judge being in the centre; the two extremities of the semicircle (called cornua) were usually occupied by persons of distinction who were present at the trial. See Tac. Ann. 1. 75.
57 Comp. however Dion Cassius, who states (XL. 53) that a disturbance took place after the troops had been introduced into the Forum, in which some persons lost their lives: ὁ γὰρ Πομπήϊος τήν τε ἄλλην πόλιν διὰ φυλακῆς ἐποιήσατο, καὶ ἐς τὸ διο καστήριον σὺν ὁπλίταις ἐσῆλθε· θορυ βησάντων τε ἐπὶ τούτῳ τινῶν, προσέταξε τοῖς στρατιώταις ἐκδιώξαι αὐτοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἀγορᾶς, πλαγίοις καὶ πλατέσι τοῖς ξίφεσι παίοντας· ἐπειδή τε οὐχ