Roman Civilization

CMS 206 /History 206

The next year, M'. Lepidus and L. Volcacius were consuls. Neither were allied with Pompey. C. Manilius, tribune in 66, was a Pompeian and his fellow tribune Memmius was a supporter and also a relation of Pompey's. Manilius proposed legislation under which Pompey would receive the Mithridatic command. Cicero and Caesar both supported it. Q. Catulus opposed it on the grounds that it set an unconstitutional precedent, but to no avail.

Cicero had been elected praetor and happened to be assigned the court de reputundis in which Licinius Macer, an ally of Crassus, was charged for extortion during his provincial govenorship. Cicero prided himself in conducting the trial in such a way that Crassus' monetary influence was not felt, and that won popular support. (Ad Att. I.4.) Macer, facing conviction, committed suicide. Stockton reads the trial as marking a new stage in the hostility between Crassus and Cicero that was to mark their careers. Cicero, at this point in his career at least, was on good terms with Antonius and used his influence to help elect Antonius, who had been expelled from the Senate in 70, and with whom he would later serve as consul.

Autronius Paetus and P. Sulla were elected consuls for 65, but promptly sued for corrupt electoral practices by the losers, L. Cotta and L. Torquatus (neither of whom were supporters of Pompey) under the recently passed lex Calpurnia. Autronius tried, but failed to disrupt the trial. Both men were convicted, and by the terms of the law, barred from further political life (Pro Sulla, 15, 71). Catiline, arriving home from his pro-praetorian govenorship in Africa, then attempted to run for consulship in the new elections. The consul Volcacius Tullus rejected his candidacy, either because Catiline himself was about to be charged de reputundis and/or because his candidature was procedurally flawed in that he had not run in the original election (Sallust, BC, 18) [Gruen, p. 417; Stockton, p. 74, n. 19 (suggesting that Catiline may have been running in 66 only to avoid the impending prosecution, while Gruen, conversely suggests that Catiline may have been sued simply to prevent him from running, p. 336.)]. Catiline was promptly indicted by Clodius, although the trial did not take place until 65 [Gruen, p. 217-218. Stockton, p. 74 argues that Clodius may merely have threatened prosecution, which he did not bring until 65].

At the end of December, 66, as soon as the tribunes had stepped down from office, Manilius was immediately sued for de reputundis, again, in Cicero's court. Cicero fixed the trial for the last day of December. But the proceedings were disrupted by demonstrations. The de reputundis charges appear to have been dropped. In 65, however, Manilius was charged de maiestate for disrupting the 66 trial. Catiline was observed in arms in the forum on the day of Manilius' abortive de reputundis trial (In Cat. I. 15). Manilius lost the de maiestate trial. [Gruen, p. 262. Manlius' second trial may have been disrupted by mob violence, and a third trial required to secure his conviction. See, Seager, p. 345.] Cornelius, the tribune of 67, was indicted de maiestate in 66. This trial was also disrupted and marked by mob violence and the charges were dismissed.