AMBITO SOCIAL

Plutarch states that Crassus and Pompey in their first'consulship disagreed on almost every measure and. rendered their consulship barren politically, with no achievement other than Crassus' great sacrifice and

('])

feast in honour of Heracles (Cr.12.2;cf.Suet.lul.19*2). Plutarch here makes no mention of the genuine legislative achievements of that year which included the restoration of the full tribunicia potestas, the revival of the censorship, the reform of the law courts by the Lex Aurelia, the Lex Plotia de Reditu Lepidanorum, and probably the Lex Plotia Agraria.

Crassus' part in or attitude towards these measures must be considered. In his life of Pompey, Plutarch attributes all the credit for the

legislation concerning the tribunate to Pompey, and goes on to say that the law court reform was enacted under his auspices (Pomp.22.3)» It is clear however from Cicero, quoted by Asconius, that both consuls were directly concerned with the former piece of legislation: "qui

restituèrent earn potestatem" (A5C.76C). Pompey's was clearly the name more readily associated with the measure, presumably because of his well publicised appearance at Palicanus' contio when consul designate

(Cic.Verr.1.43;Ps.Asc.22QSt;Sail.Hist.4.43M). That even Cicero

elsewhere attributes the restoration to Pompey alone (Leg.3*22) shows no more than Cicero's well established and chronic desire to analyse,

criticise, and if possible justify every move in that politician's devious career, Crassus he simply detested: "0 hominem nequam"

(Cic.Att.4.13.2). ^

Pompey's certain adherence to the cause of the tribunicia potestas can be dated no earlier than Palicanus* contio. That Sallust seems to attribute to Macer a claim of Pompey*s support in 73 cannot be considered

- 35 -

conclusive evidence either that Macer did so claim, or that if he did he was speaking with knowledge of Pompey's position or with his authority. He .may have hoped for Pompey*s support at a time when Pompey had given little thought to the matter. Indeed Sallust’s words seem to confirm this view (Hist.3*48.23M). It has been argued kbove on the other hand that there is a surprising continuity of connections of one sort or another between Crassus and the several agitating tribunes of the 70s. At Macer's trial in 66, while Crassus was his staunch supporter, Cicero, in 66 showing clear Pompeian sympathies, was far from friendly

(Cic.Att.1.4.2;Val,Max.9.12.7;Plut.Cic.9,1-2). Crassus’ connections with Sicinius and Quinctius have been discussed. Sicinius disappears after his tribunate, but L.Quinctius went on to a praetorship in 68 in which he.cooperated with Gabinius over the measure to deprive Lucullus of Pontus and Eithynia (Plut.Luc.33°5;Hall.Hist.4.71M). In view of his clash with Lucullus during his tribunate in 74, his conduct in 68 need not reflect any friendship or alliance with Pompey (Cic.Clu.110-12; Sail.Hist.3*48.11M;Plut.Luc.3.4;Ps.Asc.1898t.). Similarly it would be illegitimate to infer from Quinctius’ post under Crassus in 71j that the latter was necessarily hostile to Lucullus in 68 or friendly to Pompey.

Crassus is never given sole credit for the restoration of the

tribunes’ powers as is Pompey (Cic.Leg.3.22;Veil.Pat,2.30.4;Plut.Pomp.22.3) but is coupled with his colleague with no indication that he need have been more than indifferent to the matter (Asc.76C;Schol.Gron.340 6t; Ps.Asc,189 St ;Sail.Cat.38.1). Cicero to be sure is quoted by Asconius as saying that Crassus, as one of the restorers of the tribunes’ powers would naturally wish to help Cornelius, a former tribune, at whose trial he was then in 63 a juror (Asc.76c). Cicero may here be being more than a little disingenuous. Nevertheless the references to both consuls

- 3 '6 -

would make it fairly certain that both were officially concerned and that the measure was enacted by a Lex Pompeia-Licinia, rather than by a

Lex Pompeia.simply carried in the consulship of Pompey and Crassus. Had the latter bean the case, it would seem probable that Crassus would not'have received even those mentions he did. Pompey undoubtedly possessed a remarkable ability to gather all credit, deserved or otherwise, from any matter with which he was even remotely concerned. The suppression of Lepidus, the conclusion of the Sertorian war, the Servile war, and the conquest of Mithridates are all, examples of this (Cf.Plut.Pomp.31-7)= This would seem true also in domestic matters; he attracted a great part of the praise and blame for Caesar's

legislation in 59 (Cic.Att.2.l4.1;2.16.2;2.19»3 etc.).

The question of the reform of the law courts is also hard to resolve, Plutarch implies that Pompey permitted this reform but did not concern himself with it in the same way that he had with the tribunicia potestas^^^ He had however referred to it in his speech as consul designate at

Palicanus' contio (Cic.Verr.1.45;App.BG1.121;Sall.Hist.4.46M). It is worth noting that only one source associates Palicanus with the issue of the courts and even that source is unsure whether Quinctius might not be the man involved with them (Schol.Gron,328-9 St.). Of all the agitating tribunes of the 70s it was certainly Quinctius who had shown greatest concern with judicial corruption (MRR2.103).

Consideration must be given to the likely political associations of L.Cotta, praetor in 70, the actual legislator, and to the men and the motives involved in the trial of Verres, before any reconstruction can be made of the circumstances surrounding the reform. Further analysis of the political scene will also help.

- 37 -

successive consulships and a praetorship. The eldest, C.Cotta consul 75, had, with the cooperation of the tribune Opimius, been responsible for the repeal of Sulla's law limiting the further careers of holders of the

tribunate (MRE2i96,97). In a famous phrase Sallust.described him as "ex factions media consul" (Hist.3*48.8M). This has been subjected to two chief varieties of interpretation;, (i) "from the centre, party", that is to say a moderate, neither optimale nor popular ; (ii) "from the heart of the faction", meaning the Sullan oligarchy. The latter would seem rather the happier linguistically, but rather presupposes, as does the former,a division between the Sullan establishment or optimales and the populares, democrats, reformers or what you will^^^ This ignores the fact, revealed by numerous politically motivated prosecutions during the 70s and by the intrigues for the various desirable military commands, that what Sulla had sought with some success to restore was the old

political in-fighting, with its swirling and changing patterns of personal and family alliances and alignments, that can be discerned before the

(5)

dissensions of the 80s, That two men were both found on Sulla's side

/

by the end of the 80s means nothing. Survival demanded it. Pompey Catulus, M.Lepidus, Metellus Pius, the Luculli, Crassus, Cicero, Catiline show few signs of pulling together in one "Sullan" party after Sulla's death yet all had ended on his side^^^ Thus it may be that by factio Sallust here refers to a particular grouping within the "Sullan oligarchy", presumably one of which Macer, or at any rate Sallust,disapproved. The word is used in something like this sense in "Cethegi factione in senatu"

(Ps.Asc.259 St.). Not dissimilarly Cicero used the word boni not just to mean those holding sound conservative views but rather as a name for a particular grouping, centring first on Catulus and then increasingly on M.Cato. It could well be in fact that the two groups, Sallust's factio,

.38

almost plways a pejorative term, and Cicero's boni,hot unsurprisingly the reverse, are to some extent coincident. It has already been suggested

. . /

that in the 70s two large groupings of individuals may be discerned, one gathered around.^Catulus and his brother-in-law Hortensius, the other composed of friends and connections of the rising star of Pompey.

C.Cotta helped to defend Cn.Dolabella, consul 81, at his trial in the 70s prosecuted by Caesar,.' Hortensius also-spoke for the defence (Asc.26C; Suet.lul.4;Plut.Caes.4;Cic.Brut.317;Ps.Asc.194 St.). C« Cotta is also on record as having supported the praetorian candidacy of Q.Metellus, later Creticus (Sail.Hist.2.23*26,43,48-30M). M.Cotta supported the pirate command of M.Antonius (Ps.Asc.259 St;Vell.Pat.2.31;App.Sic.6), but opposed the aspirations of L.Lucullus for the command against Mithridates which he sought himself (Plut.Luc.6). Cooperation with Hortensius and M.Antonius and opposition to L.Lucullus would seem to confirm the impression that the Cottae may have been well established at the heart of the Catulan factio. As has already been observed, too rigid a duality must not be attributed to the politics of this period, Pompey clearly aimed to be a power in the state. Catulus and his friends were opposed to him, and some of these friends were attacked as a result. Others may have been disinclined to follow the rising star and may or may not have formed temporary groupings with the Catalans to frustrate

particular Pompeian moves. If a third loose grouping is considered, friendly at times towards the factio and often hostile towards the "Pompeians", the picture may become clearer. This group may have

consisted of connections of Catulus who were less opposed to the ideas of the agitating tribunes than Catulus himself. Thus C,Cotta lifted the ban on tribunician careers with the support of Opimius. In the following year however, Opimius was attacked by Hortensius, Catulus and C.Curio

- 39 -

with the help of the praetor C.Verres (Cic.Verr.2.1.155-7; cf.Schol.Gron.34l St). Nevertheless the Cottae show political associations with Hortensius, and with Verres* kinsman and protector Q.Metellus Creticus. It wopld seem that,disagreement on the subject of

the tribunate was not of sufficient importance to affect general

— (7)

political alignments.

It has been shown that Crassus was probably opposed by Pompeians in the 70s. His prosecution for incest seems likely to have come from that quarter, and it is likely that the consuls of 72 were no friends of his. Catiline, also attacked in 73, was defended by Catulus with the help of M.Cato, Other than the similarity of the prosecutions and the common

factor of M.Piso for the defence, there is little else to show that Crassus was directly linked with Catulus. On the other hand Crassus like the Cottae may well have been sympathetic to the causes urged by the tribunes during the 70s.

Another possible connection is that Dio seems to imply that the censors of 64 were opposed by certain tribunes on the same matter that had caused their predecessors in 65 to fall out (Dio 37*9.4). The

censors of 65 were Crassus and Catulus; the subject of disagreement was, according to Dio, the question of the enfranchisement of the Transpadani; L,Gotta was one of their successors. It is possible that Dio merely means that these censors too achieved nothing because they too resigned, but " does seem rather more specific. The tribunes vetoed even the Lectio senatus, fearing their own expulsion. It may be that they feared this as retribution for their opposition to the extension of the franchise taken up again by the new censors. Dio goes on to record the banishment of non-citizens by the Lex Papia, thus concluding what he may have intended as one section on one subject, that of the franchise

(Dio 37.9•5-5)» The tribune Papius could well be one of the tribunes who forced the censors to resign. It would seem likely therefore that L.Cotta as censor may have sought to carry on Crassus' policy and this, together with the legislation of C.Cotta in 75, of L.Cotta in 7^» and C.Cotta’s support for Q.Creticus, who was soon to marry his daughter to one of Crassus’ sons, makes it more than likely that the family, though in many ways part of the faictio of Catulus, may have been politically

sympathetic towards Crassus^^^

Other men with Catalan links may have associated with Crassus in the 70s, He was certainly involved later with Catiline and C.Antonius, possibly with P,Sura too, and their connection may well have started much earlier. He may have gathered about him a group of the rather less conservative members of Catulus’ circle, agreeing with Catulus and the more rigid of his friends on personalities, but rather less on policies.

If this analysis of the political situation is pursued, a tentative account of the events of 71 and 70 becomes possible, Crassus, associated with the Catulan circle, was opposed by the Pompeian consuls of 72, and ■ indeed may, as argued above, have been a rival for the consulship of that year. His connections, and perhaps a specific bargain, enabled him to secure the command against Spartacus at the expense of those same consuls. He had however shown already an interest in the causes of the tribunate and of the law courts, and may thereby have made himself seem a

relatively unsafe man for the consulship in the eyes of Catulus and others, Pompey, triumphantly returned from Spain, was a formidable opponent,

Crassus therefore approached Pompey and proposed an alliance

(Plut.Cr,12,1;Pomp.22,1-2), Pompey would swing his considerable voting power in support of Crassus and would espouse the popularis causes favoured by Crassus, Both men’s popular support would thereby be increased

- 41 -

removing any element of doubt about their election, Crassus would wield his considerable influence in the senate to effect a dispensation for Pompey from the requirements of the Lex-annalis (cf.Plut.Pomp.22.2). He himself.certainly required no such dispensation, nor was there for either man any difficulty about standing in absentia as has- sometimes been thought. Election in absentia was indeed forbidden (Plut.Mar.12), but since the comitia centuriata met outside the pomerium, Pompey and Crassus were able to attend the elections while awaiting respectively a triumph and an ovation. Professio in absentia however was in these circumstances inevitable, but this does not seem to have been made illegal until some time between 63, when Rullus proposed his land bill, and 60, when Caesar was foiled of his triumph by such a prohibition!^^

Another concession on Crassus’ part may well have been an agreement to resurrect the censorship and to help the consuls of ?2 to repair their affronted dignity. Consuls were certainly able to exercise some

discretion in the question of whether or not to hold censorial elections (cf.Cic.Att.4.2.6)!^°)

They were elected and perhaps came near to quarrelling while stilly designate. The matter for dispute may have been Pompeyfe claim to a share, perhaps even a major share, of the credit from the Servile War

(App.BC.1.121;cf.Plut.Pomp.21,2;Cr.11.7~8;Cic.Leg.Man.30)» On entering office however, the consuls may have effected a formal reconciliation, and then together sponsored the bill to restore the full tribunicia potestas. Thereafter all seems to have soured. The censors were

elected with or without Crassus* help. They proceeded to expel from the senate several men connected with the Junian quaestio, a move most

acceptable presumably to L.Quinctius and perhaps also to Crassus, They also however expelled P.Sura (Plut.Cic.17.1îDio 3 6 . 3 1 C.Antonius

- 42

(Asc,84c), M.Valerius,Messalla Niger (Val.Max,2,9-9)» and Q.Curius

(Ssill.Cat.17»3;App.BC2.3)- ■ Antonius and Sura have already been discussed. Messalla Niger was probably a close connection of Hortensius (Plut.Sull.

f 11 ^

35-4;Val.Max.5-9-2). In vipw of this it.is interesting to find him’ serving as an agrarihn commissioner under the Lex lulia of 59 (MPE2.192), thereby displaying some political flexibility. Sura, Antonius, and

Curius were all involved with Catiline in 64/3- It is impossible to tell whether they were so involved then simply because they had been expelled, or whether they may not have been expelled because they were associates of Crassus in 70- In the latter case the censorial power would have been used against political enemies who happened to be vulnerable because disreputable, a procedure hallowed by usage. The revival of the

censorship seems in itself to have been a popular policy. Cicero claimed that the need for judicial reform led to agitation for the restoration of the tribunician power and to a desire for the reinstitution of the

censorship (Div.Caec.8). This could explain in a general way a number of the expulsions. Sura had featured in more than one judicial scandal (Cic.Att.1.l6.9;Plut.Cic.17.2-3;cf-MRR2.102). C.Antonius had escaped condemnation but the case was given by the censors as one reason for his expulsion (Asc.84C;Q.Cic.Comm.Pet.8).

The fact that Crassus may have favoured the reform of the courts and have been glad to see several Junian jurors assailed does not mean that he need have been in any way hostile to Sura or Antonius. Caesar as

index quaestionis in 64 sought to bring to book certain Sullan malefactors, but was not pleased when Catiline was brought before him (MRR2.162;

cf.below, p79&n.5)«Thehe may indeed have been a similar irony intended by the censors in applying to friends of Crassus the vigorous justice he had

(

)

— 43 —

full effect to the enfranchisement of the Italians, probably deliberately obstructed since the 80s. The voting population was vastly increased

(MRR2.12%cf.54), and it may-well be that the urgency with, which ambitus legislation was brought forward during the next decade could reflect a political scene in which old-fashioned personal clientelae were submerged by the new voters and bribery was seen as the only alternative!"*^^ The debt of gratitude owed to the censors, and to Pompey, who probably

managed as usual to secure much of the credit, must have augmented

greatly the latter’s strength in the assemblies. Whether Crassus shared in this must remain uncertain.

The suggestion of dissension between the consuls over the exercise of the censorship by Pompey's friends is of course not supported by

direct evidence, but does fit well with accounts of a souring of relations and with the apparent delay in implementing the jury reform, which was not effected before September (Cic.Verr.2.7.177)> Pompey may have withdrawn his backing, although he probably did not move into direct opposition.

Cicero associates the issue of the courts very closely with the verdict of the Verres case, implying that, should Verres be acquitted, the demand for drastic changes would be irresistible. It has been suggested that a change to entirely equestrian juries was indeed sought, and that those who desired this hoped therefore for Verres* acquittal !"*^^ This desire is attributed to Pompey in the face of a considerable body of opinion supporting the belief that Pompey was prominent in instigating

(15)

the prosecution. Verres was certainly supported by Pompey's enemies. In 72 Gellius and Clodianus had tried to help Sthenius, Pompey’s client,