The Case for the Prosecution in the Ciceronian Era

Chapter Six: In L. Licinium Murenam

chapter six In L. Licinium Murenam he prosecution of L. Licinius Murena in 63, when he was consul-elect, presents a straightforward case for electoral bribery, or ambitus. A disappointed candidate put together a coalition to prosecute one of the victors, who responded by collecting a team of highly competent and politically in›uential orators. They were able to fend off the attack, and Murena went on to serve as consul in 62. That Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (praetor in 65) prosecuted calls for little comment , as it was probably quite usual for a defeated candidate to participate in the prosecution of a successful rival, as had P. Rutilius Rufus, L. Aurelius Cotta, and L. Manlius Torquatus (respectively, TLRR nos. 34, 200, 201). The goal of such an effort was what the defeated candidates for the consulate of 65 accomplished in 66: the disquali‹cation of their successful rivals and the substitution of themselves. Münzer makes the case that the adulescens Ser. Sulpicius who joined Ser. Sulpicius Rufus in the prosecution was the son of the defeated candidate, although this is nowhere explicitly stated. Münzer points to the parallel of L. Manlius Torquatus supporting his father in the prosecution of P. Cornelius Sulla for bribery in 66. If the identi‹cation is correct, Cicero’s wording is rather indirect: “Accusat Ser. Sulpicius, sodalis ‹lius,1 cuius ingenio paterni omnes necessarii munitiores 121 T 122 The Case for the Prosecution esse debebant” [one of the prosecutors is Servius Sulpicius, the son of a fraternity brother [to Murena] and by whose talent all his father’s friends ought to have been rendered safer] (Mur. 56). Rather than just saying that Sulpicius senior is a sodalis of Murena, Cicero implies this by saying that Sulpicius junior is a son of a sodalis of Murena and that he should therefore spend his time defending his father’s sodales, rather than prosecuting them.2 C. Postumius3 is described by Cicero as a paternus amicus of Murena (56), but he was probably related to Sulpicius senior by marriage, possibly through his sister. The “star” of the prosecution team (“fundamentum ac robur totius accusationis” [a foundation and mainstay of the whole prosecution ], 58) was M. Porcius Cato, tribunus plebis designatus in 63.4 He had sworn to prosecute anyone who used bribery in connection with the consular elections for 62, with the exception of his brother-in-law, D. Iunius Silanus, who was married to his sister Servilia (Plut. Cat. Min. 21). Cato was a more than competent orator.5 The team for the defense was more distinguished, including Cicero, the best orator in Rome and incumbent consul; Hortensius (consul in 69), the second best orator in Rome; and Crassus (consul in 70), the second most powerful politician at Rome after Pompey, who was still in the East. Cicero (Brut. 233) ranked Crassus as one of the most powerful orators at Rome for a period of years, despite his rather pedestrian speaking.6 Unfortunately, relatively few facts about the prosecution case survive, because Hortensius and Crassus provided the detailed rebuttal of speci‹c charges of bribery, leaving Cicero as the ‹nal speaker to concentrate on the political consequences of the case (Mur. 48, 54). Following the division established by the prosecution, Cicero divides his speech into three parts: (1) the defendant’s private life, (2) merits of the candidates (contentio dignitatis ), and (3) crimina ambitus (11). He deals with all these areas to some extent, and he even covers the most technical and already discussed area (the crimina ambitus) at the defendant’s request, or so he says (54). But the extant text omits some of the technical rebuttal, summarizing it with the rubrics “DE POSTUMI CRIMINIBUS” and “DE SERVI ADULESCENTIS (CRIMINIBUS)” (57).7 A little earlier in the text (54), Cicero refers to the fact that Postumius spoke about the revelations of the bribery agents (“de divisorum indiciis”)8 and the money that had been seized from them (“de deprehensis pecuniis”). These phrases suggest that the prosecution had found a “smoking gun”: cash that bribery agents admitted was to be distributed in the consular elections. We do not know how the defense tried to deal with this concrete evidence, but we can surmise that it argued (1) that the divisores (distributors [of bribes]) were not reliable witnesses and (2) that the money was being spent to support another candidate. The prosecution would have...