-
Chapter Twelve: In M. Caelium Rufum
- University of Michigan Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
218 chapter twelve In M. Caelium Rufum he trial of M. Caelius Rufus has received eternal notoriety from what must certainly be Cicero’s most popular forensic speech, a seemingly lighthearted effort whose éclat has been enhanced by the fact that republican Rome’s most popular poet today, Catullus, wrote obsessively about the person whom Cicero would like us to believe is the central, though hidden, character in the trial. But the sources’ literary acclaim does not guarantee their historical importance. On the one hand, this trial can be viewed as a minor episode in the use of trials for nonjudicial purposes, when a young prosecutor sought revenge on Caelius for his dogged persistence in prosecuting the young prosecutor’s father, even in the face of an acquittal that had just been handed down. The prosecutor may well have thought that the failure of the recent prosecution mounted by Caelius, combined with Caelius’s disreputable personal and political background and a widely shared perception that he was implicated in unsavory and illegal acts, held out the promise of a relatively easy victory. On the other hand, the trial can be viewed as an important chapter in a struggle over control of Egypt, an area that, although it was not ruled by Rome as a province, constituted the last major area over which Rome exercised nonprovincial hegemony, a land of enormous wealth that was to provide, in the next generation, a base of T power whose seizure consolidated a takeover of the whole Roman Empire. Finally, this trial may represent the “fortuitous”1 con›uence of these personal and political factors. When Caelius was tried in 56, Rome’s relationship to Egypt was attracting keen public interest. The Ptolemaic king of Egypt, Ptolemy XII Auletes, had been expelled by an Alexandrian populace angry over the loss of Cyprus to the Romans. He ‹rst took refuge with Pompey at his Alban villa (Cic. Rab. Post. 6; Dio Cass. 39.14.3) and then went on to Ephesus (Dio Cass. 39.16.3). Pompey, Gabinius, and Lentulus Spinther were viewed as possible generals to lead an army to reinstate the deposed monarch.2 On the other side, an Alexandrian legation, led by the philosopher Dio, came to Rome to plead against the return of Auletes. But according to Dio Cassius (39.13.2), the king successfully destroyed the legation by arranging for the murder of legates on their way to Rome by hiring assassins and neutralized other opponents through fear or bribes.3 The philosopher Dio was murdered , and Cicero, in his defense of Caelius, acknowledges not only that Dio was murdered but that the king took responsibility for the deed (Cael. 23). Given the importance of Egypt, this homicide was a matter of state, something Roman jurors would not wink at. The importance of Rome’s relationship with Egypt must have been one reason why Caelius was a tempting target, since, as we shall see, he was implicated in this murder, as well as in the harassment of other members of the legation. Caelius’s personal reputation and political background were two more reasons why a prosecutor might have calculated that he could succeed in convicting him. Personally, people thought that Caelius was a rake. Politically , he had been attracted into an alliance or at least a dalliance with Catiline . The facts of the case and the character of the defendant coincided to make the prosecution of Caelius an eminently winnable case. There were willing prosecutors, and although they lacked rhetorical eminence, they had reason to think that they could be successful. The chief prosecutor was a young man whose father had been prosecuted that year by Caelius for ambitus, and Caelius was in the process of prosecuting the father a second time. Two minor ‹gures assisted the young prosecutor, P. Clodius (not likely to be the distinguished orator famous as the archenemy of Cicero)4 and L. Herennius Balbus. In retrospect, we know that an alliance of two of Rome’s most distinguished advocates, Cicero and Crassus , aided by the oratorical talent of the defendant himself, would defeat these prosecutors. But the prosecutors can be excused for not predicting, In M. Caelium Rufum 219 [44.201.99.133] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 12:24 GMT) 220 The Case for the Prosecution when they brought their case, that Cicero would come to the aid of a defendant who had been connected not only to Catiline but also to a sibling of...