Lucius Licinius Crassus

 Home| Latíné | Deutsch | Español | Français | Italiano | Magyar | Português | Română | Русский | English

L. Licinius L. f. C. n. Crassus was one of the most distinguished statesmen of his day and was accounted the greatest, or at least one of the two greatest, orators in Roman history up to the time of Hortensius and Cicero.

Contents 1 The young orator 1.1 In C. Carbonem 1.2 De colonia Narbonem deducenda 1.3 Pro Licinia 1.4 Allegiances 1.5 Policies 2 The young politician 2.1 Multae causae 2.2 Tribunus plebis 2.3 De lege iudiciaria 2.4 The changing political landscape 2.5 Aedilis curulis in a time of upheaval 2.6 Candidate for praetor 3 The higher magistracies 3.1 Praetor 3.2 Consul 4 Cursus honorum[62] 5 References

The young orator

L. Crassus was born C. Laelio Q. Caepione cos.‡ (DCXIV a.u.c.).^[1]

 He was a member of an illustrious gens and family, and may have been the grandson of the consular C. Licinius C. f. P. n. Crassus; his father, however, appears not to have achieved any major magistracy, and L. Crassus built his public career not only on ancestry but also on oratory.

In C. Carbonem

His first notable accomplishment as an orator was his prosecution of C. Papirius Carbo, apparently L. Metello L. Cotta cos.‡ (DCXXXV a.u.c.) just after Carbo's consulate. Carbo had been an associate of C. Sempronius Gracchus but distanced himself from Gracchus after the latter's death and even defended his killer in court.^[2]

 The charge on which Carbo was prosecuted is unknown.[3]

 In any case, Carbo anticipated conviction and killed himself, and the prosecution evidently established Crassus as a rising star of the law-courts.[4]

 It is not known how far, if at all, the trial had progressed before Carbo gave up hope, and his despair may have been prompted as much by the political power of his enemies as by the rhetorical powers of his accuser; nonetheless, Crassus, only 21 years old, had defeated a consular who was also a very distinguished orator, and Cicero identifies this as the case which brought him to prominence.[5]

De colonia Narbonem deducenda

In the following year, M. Catone Q. Rege cos.‡ (DCXXXVI a.u.c.), Crassus made a speech in support of the foundation of a colony, proposed by the consul Q. Marcius Rex, in Gallia Narbonensis.^[6]

 The political context of the debate is lost, but the issue seems to have been hotly contested, with the people in favour of the colony and the senate opposed to it, for Cicero says that Crassus "wanted to take up a popular cause in the matter of the Narbonese colony and to found that colony himself, as indeed he did", and that in his speech "he disparaged as much as he could the authority of the senate".[7]

 Again Crassus found himself on the winning side, although again we cannot be sure whether this success was the result of his own talents or other political factors: the colony of Narbo Martius was duly approved, and Crassus was one of the duumviri sent out to supervise its foundation.[8]

Pro Licinia

The next of Crassus' exploits which claimed the attention of history came M'. Balbo C. Catone cos.‡ (DCXL a.u.c.) when Crassus was 26.^[9]

 Earlier in the year a young woman named Helvia, the daughter of a Roman eques, had been struck by lightning and was found lying dead in such a shocking state that it was regarded as a fearful portent.[10]

 It was interpreted as foretelling a disgrace for virgins and for the equestrian class.[11]

 This prompted a certain Manius, the slave of the Italian orator T. Betutius Barrus, to come forward with information against certain Vestal virgins whom he accused of having sexual relations with various men.[12]

 After further investigations, three Vestals, Marcia, Aemilia, and Licinia, were brought to trial before the pontifex maximus, accused of liaisons with a number of men including equites.[13]

 The pontifex maximus, after taking the advice of the whole collegium pontificum, condemned Aemilia but acquitted the others; but this caused a public outcry, and consequently a special court was set up under the presidency of L. Cassius Longinus which condemned all three.[14]

 Licinia was probably a cousin of Crassus, who made a speech in her defence which Cicero describes as "very eloquent".[15]

Allegiances

At this point it is perhaps worth looking back over the first five years of Crassus' public career to see what can be discerned of his political views and allegiances during that period. The time of the Gracchi had seen an alliance of the many equites with the rural plebs against the opposition of senatorial conservatism. A number of important nobiles had also supported the Gracchi. These included P. Mucius Scaevola and his brother P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus, each of whom may have had links to the young L. Crassus. P. Crassus was, of course, his adoptive relative; P. Scaevola was the father of Q. Scaevola, with whom Crassus enjoyed a famous partnership throughout his political career: they were colleagues in every office Crassus held except the tribunate and the censorship.^[16]

 They must have been born within a year or so of one another and may well have grown up together.  P. Scaevola and P. Crassus also had a first cousin, another Q. Scaevola, whose daughter Mucia married L. Crassus some time before M. Catone Q. Rege cos.‡ (DCXXXVI a.u.c.).[17]

It seems, however, that Crassus' father-in-law had kept his distance from the Gracchi and their radical agenda, though he equally condemned those who murdered them and persecuted their followers.^[18]

 He was, in fact, a member of a loose group of prominent men who had either kept quiet or steered a middle course in the Gracchan crisis and who came to dominate the political scene in the decade afterwards.  This group appears to have been centred on the large and noble family of the Caecilii Metelli.  It also included the Servilii Caepiones, one of whom was the Q. Caepio whose lex iudiciaria Crassus supported Q. Caepione C. Serrano cos.‡ (DCXLVIII a.u.c.) and whose son he later praised L. Crasso Q. Scaevola cos.‡ (DCLIX a.u.c.); the same Caepio was also related by marriage to Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus who was Crassus' colleague as duumvir and probably joined him in supporting the colony at Narbo.[19]

 Crassus is tied to the Metelli also through his daughters: one later married the younger C. Marius, son of the famous Marius who was a protege of the Metelli; the other later married P. Scipio Nasica, the son of a woman of the Metellan family.[20]

Policies

It appears that, at this time, the Metelli and their allies were making efforts to capture the support of the equites and to espouse policies which, though far less radical than those of the Gracchi, were nonetheless favourable to businessmen, farmers of moderate means, and others outside the narrow senatorial elite.^[21]

 This provides a sensible context for Crassus' early career.

Some have thought that the prosecution of C. Carbo L. Metello L. Cotta cos.‡ (DCXXXV a.u.c.) was engineered by the senatorial group which had opposed the Gracchi but which disliked Carbo for unrelated reasons.^[22]

 This same group had, however, helped him to the consulate only the year before, and it is more likely that the prosecution was driven either by Gracchan sympathizers such as P. Crassus and P. Scaevola (in revenge for his desertion) or else by the Metellans (simply to get a dangerous and unpopular rival out of the way).  Either would explain the involvement of L. Crassus, who had links to both groups.

The matter of the colony at Narbo is obscure, but we may note that in general in this period the founding of colonies was seen as a way of providing for poor citizens and was therefore more a Gracchan than a senatorial policy.^[23]

 The colony at Narbo may have been a continuation of this Gracchan policy.  Alternatively (or perhaps in addition) it may have been seen as a business-friendly move in the interests of the equites, since it would help to protect northern trade routes and promote Romanization in southern Gaul.[24]

 Traditionalists tended to resist the foundation of colonies partly because the inhabitants of a new colony would tend to become clients of the men responsible for founding it, and recent years had shown the dangers of Roman politicans having large concentrations of clients in the Italian countryside.  At any rate it is clear that the Narbonese proposal was a popular one and was opposed by the senate, thus again placing Crassus in the moderate, if not Gracchan, tradition.

The affair of the Vestals may have been entirely apolitical, and Crassus' involvement may have been purely on account of his family ties to Licinia. It has been suggested, however, that the prosecution of Aemilia, Licinia, and Marcia was partly in indirect retribution by members of the priestly colleges against C. Licinius Crassus (probably the father of Licinia), Q. Marcius Rex, and M. Aemilius Lepidus Porcina (possibly the fathers of Marcia and Aemilia respectively), all of whom had recently clashed with the priestly authorities.^[25]

 In the case of C. Crassus, the clash was over his efforts to introduce an element of popular election into the selection of priests.   So if this was a factor in the prosecutions, L. Crassus' involvement is again in opposition to the entrenched powers of the political elite.

Crassus' early political activity, therefore, could broadly be called progressive and even anti-establishment, though not to the same extent as the Gracchi; and he may have pursued it with the support of the Metellan group and / or the remnants of the Gracchan party. It was in this mode, and with these allies, that he began the ascend the cursus honorum.

The young politician

Multae causae

Regrettably, Crassus rather disappears from view in the five years between the trial of the Vestals and his first ordinary magistracy, the quaestura. Besides the trials and political debates mentioned above there were many more of which we know nothing except that they established Crassus as one of the foremost orators of his generation.^[26]

 We know that he was elected quaestor some time before Q. Metello M. Silano cos.‡ (DCXLV a.u.c.), and went on to other offices.  Even so, he does not seem to have sailed easily up the cursus honorum: he achieved the praetura some two or three years after he first became eligible, and he first had to hold not only the tribunatus but also the aedilitas, whereas many of his contemporaries were able to do without one or other of these offices.

Tribunus plebis

Crassus' tribunate, according to Cicero, "was so quiet that, if he had not in that magistracy dined with Granius the herald and if Lucilius had not told us that story twice, we should not have known that he had been tribune".^[27]

 Regrettably, though various fragments of the writings of the satirist C. Lucilius have been identified as coming from his account of this dinner, not enough survives to give any coherent picture of the story.[28]

De lege iudiciaria

The following year (Q. Caepione C. Serrano cos.‡ (DCXLVIII a.u.c.)), aged 34, Crassus spoke in favour of the lex Servilia iudiciaria which proposed to abolish the equites' monopoly of juries in the criminal courts.^[29]

 In that speech, which Cicero identifies as the moment when Latin speech came of age, he is known to have extolled the virtues of the senate and said some unflattering things about the equites.[30]

The changing political landscape

If his speech on the lex Servilia signified Crassus' new maturity as an orator, it must also make us stop and wonder whether it marked a new political outlook. The contrast is striking between this speech, in which he praised the senate and disparaged the equites, and the speech twelve years earlier in which he disparaged the senate and championed a popular cause in the interests of the business class and the rural poor. It is therefore necessary to look at the changes in the political climate in the intervening decade, and to consider what may have happened to Crassus himself in those years.

The trial of the Vestals M'. Balbo C. Catone cos.‡ (DCXL a.u.c.) was, it seems, the beginning of period under which the Metellan group came under severe pressure from its senatorial opponents. The trial itself was, on the whole, a failure for the Metellans. It seems to have done Crassus' reputation no harm, but nor did he win his case; more seriously, the pontifex maximus who had acquitted Licinia and Marcia in the first hearing was L. Metellus Delmaticus, and the overturning of his verdict in the second trial must have made him look at best incompetent and at worst corrupt.^[31]

 Then, probably P. Scipione L. Bestia cos.‡ (DCXLIII a.u.c.), came the prosecution of the bright young Q. Metellus for extortion.[32]

 But on this occasion the anti-Metellans failed dramatically: the jury was so certain of Metellus' honesty and integrity that it did not even trouble itself by considering the evidence before acquitting him.[33]

 Also around this time probably fell the trial of L. Piso, who was linked to the Metelli through his friend and ally M. Aemilius Scaurus, a star of the Metellan group at this time.[34]

 Scaurus himself had struggled (ultimately successfully) against senatorial opposition between L. Metello Q. Scaevola cos.‡ (DCXXXVII a.u.c.) and M. Scauro M. Metello cos.‡ (DCXXXIX a.u.c.).[35]

 Crassus was Piso's advocate at the trial and appears to have secured his acquittal.[36]

By M. Rufo Sp. Albino cos.‡ (DCXLIV a.u.c.) the Metellan group had emerged from this difficult period and established itself as supreme in political life. Its members were no longer opposing the senatorial elite: they had become the senatorial elite. This, together with the passing years, might in itself be enough to explain a drift toward a more conservative outlook on Crassus' part. But around Q. Metello M. Silano cos.‡ (DCXLV a.u.c.) the senatorial class as a whole came under fire over the matter of the war with Iugurtha. Iugurtha had expanded his north African kingdom at the expense of his brothers and in defiance of Roman orders, but the senate had taken no firm move against him until he finally made the mistake of executing a number of Roman merchants in the captured city of Cirta. After some fighting the wily Iugurtha surrendered, allowed himself to be summoned to Rome to explain himself, and once there not only managed to get a tribune to forbid him from speaking but took the opportunity, before returning to Africa, to assassinate a rival who had taken refuge in Italy. Once back in Africa he promptly resumed the war and inflicted a humiliating defeat on the Roman army.^[37]

 All this aroused great indignation in Rome among both ordinary people and equites: most felt that the senate had been too lenient with Iugurtha, and many believed that senatores had been bribed.[38]

 Q. Metello M. Silano cos.‡ (DCXLV a.u.c.) the tribunus plebis C. Mamilius set up a special court and brought charges against almost everyone involved.[39]

 Few of the targets were close associates of the Metellan group, and most of them seem to have been targeted less for their role in the war and more for their role in the suppression of the Gracchi nearly fifteen years before.[40]

 At least one of the victims, however, was apparently member of the group and was defended at trial by M. Scaurus, himself suspected by some of connivance with Iugurtha.[41]

 The trials were apparently not a partisan move but an attack on the whole senatorial class, and naturally prompted that class, including the Metellans, to close ranks against the populist tribunes.  Many equites, alienated from the senate by the perceived mismanagement of the war (and thus the disruption of trade with north Africa), were now aligned with the populists against the formerly sympathetic Metellans; by Ser. Galba L. Hortensio cos.‡ (DCXLVI a.u.c.) the champion of the equites, C. Marius, had completely broken with the Metelli.  It is in this context that L. Crassus emerges with a more conservative and senatorial outlook, praising the senate and criticizing the equites in his famous speech of Q. Caepione C. Serrano cos.‡ (DCXLVIII a.u.c.).

Aedilis curulis in a time of upheaval

The period from Q. Caepione C. Serrano cos.‡ (DCXLVIII a.u.c.) to Q. Metello T. Didio cos.‡ (DCLVI a.u.c.) was a tumultuous one in Roman politics, but apparently a quiet one for L. Crassus. It can be sketched briefly here.^[42]

 P. Rufo Cn. Maximo cos.‡ (DCXLIX a.u.c.) C. Marius returned victorious from the war against Iugurtha.  Meanwhile Roman forces had suffered terrible defeat at Arausio in Gallia, and the people bypassed the senate to appoint Marius to lead the Gallic campaign.  The campaign had suffered a number of setbacks under the command of noble senatorial generals, and the distaster of Arausio triggered a further backlash against the political elite in general and one member in particular.  The blame for Arausio was laid by many at the door of Q. Caepio, a leading member of the Metellan group whose lex iudiciaria had been so famously supported by Crassus.  C. Mario (II) C. Fimbria cos.‡ (DCL a.u.c.) the lex Servilia iudiciaria was partly repealed by the tribunus plebis C. Servilius, and Caepio himself, who had already been recalled to Rome in disgrace, was removed from the senate and brought before a special court to explain what had happened to the booty he had won during the campaign.[43]

 At the same time another tribune, Cn. Ahenobarbus, launched less successful attacks against M. Silanus, another of the unfortunate generals of the Gallic war, and against M. Scaurus, a personal enemy and a leading ally of the Metelli, as well as transferring the power to choose new pontifices from the collegium pontificum to the people.  The following year, C. Mario (III) L. Oreste cos.‡ (DCLI a.u.c.), two more tribuni plebis continued the assault.  L. Saturninus proposed to exile Cn. Mallius, Caepio's superior at Arausio, while C. Norbanus prosecuted and convicted Caepio himself.[44]

 Saturninus defied senatorial opposition and the veto of two of his colleagues to carry a lex agraria, and his activities in the following years, in alliance with Glaucia and Marius, brought him into bitter opposition with the eminent and severe Q. Metellus Numidicus, resulting in Metellus' departure into exile C. Mario (VI) L. Flacco cos.‡ (DCLIV a.u.c.).  At the end of that year matters came to a head: after riots and bloodshed Marius turned against his former allies and, backed by the senate, arrested and imprisoned Saturninus and Glaucia, who despite his precautions were killed by the mob.

Amidst all this, L. Crassus is very little in evidence. A close ally of the embattled Caepio and a member of the group whose leaders included Metellus Numidicus and M. Scaurus, he may have felt it best to keep his head down. A comment of Cicero's shows that he and Scaevola supported the arrest of Saturninus and may even have joined other leading statesmen in taking up arms against him; but he seems to have taken no major role in those events.^[45]

Some time between P. Rufo Cn. Maximo cos.‡ (DCXLIX a.u.c.) and C. Mario (VI) L. Flacco cos.‡ (DCLIV a.u.c.) he held the office of aedilis curulis with his old ally Q. Scaevola. Though the aedilitas was not a highly political post, it is nevertheless unlikely that both men would have been elected during the anti-senatorial backlash of C. Mario (III) L. Oreste cos.‡ (DCLI a.u.c.) to C. Mario (VI) L. Flacco cos.‡ (DCLIV a.u.c.); on the other hand, it is hard to see Scaevola, a pillar of the establishment and a lawyer to boot, breaking the custom of leaving a year between offices (he was tribune Q. Caepione C. Serrano cos.‡ (DCXLVIII a.u.c.)), so C. Mario (II) C. Fimbria cos.‡ (DCL a.u.c.) seems most likely. Cicero, and probably his audience too, remembered their aedilitas as one of outstanding splendour.^[46]

 In particular we know that Crassus brought over four or six pillars of marble from Mount Hymettus near Athens, about twelve feet high, which he used as part of the stage-set of a temporary theatre: this was the first time imported marble had been used in Rome.[47]

 Scaevola imported not pillars but lions, becoming the first to show a lion-fight in Rome.[48]

Candidate for praetor

Crassus' next office, again held with Scaevola, was the praetura. The date is again uncertain. If aedilis curulis C. Mario (II) C. Fimbria cos.‡ (DCL a.u.c.), he would have been eligible to be praetor C. Mario (IV) Q. Catulo cos.‡ (DCLII a.u.c.). With his reputation as an orator, and with his popularity enhanced by such splendid games and displays, he should in ordinary times have been a shoo-in for the praetura; in that period of hostility toward the nobility in general and the Metellan group in particular, however, it may be that his success, and perhaps even his candidacy, was delayed.^[49]

 Moreover, Cicero seems to indicate that he was not yet praetor when Saturninus was killed C. Mario (VI) L. Flacco cos.‡ (DCLIV a.u.c.).[50]

 It is certain, at any rate, that at some point in his career he suffered several electoral setbacks, for he reached the consulate five or six years late.  At least one of those years of delay was probably voluntary, to allow Scaevola to catch up with him, but the rest can only indicate a period when his popularity was low, and such a period is more likely to be found in the unfriendly times of Saturninus and Glaucia than before his aedilitas or after his praetura.

If he was praetor M. Antonio A. Albino cos.‡ (DCLV a.u.c.) or Q. Metello T. Didio cos.‡ (DCLVI a.u.c.), that would fit very well with the character of those years.^[51]

 Saturninus' legislation (or at least some of it) was delcared invalid, and his remaining sympathizers were steadily pushed aside by the senatorial aristocracy.  One, a certain P. Furius who had deserted Saturninus at the last moment but had nonetheless continued to block the recall of Metellus from exile, was prosecuted by another, a relative of Saturninus, C. Appuleius.  The trial degenerated into a riot in which Furius was lynched.  A third populist, Sex. Titius, tried to propose a lex agraria but was defeated by the oratory of M. Antonius, consul in that year.  In the consular elections the victors were a Metellus (Q. Metellus Nepos) and a man who had tried to veto the prosecution of Q. Caepio (T. Didius); it is easy to imagine Crassus and Scaevola being elected praetores as part of this same Metellan resurgence.

The higher magistracies

Praetor

Crassus was, then, praetor perhaps M. Antonio A. Albino cos.‡ (DCLV a.u.c.) or Q. Metello T. Didio cos.‡ (DCLVI a.u.c.), or at any rate no later than the latter year, with Q. Scaevola his colleague. His official activities as praetor are not recorded: it was a quiet year both at home and abroad, and it is difficult to say whether he was sent out to govern a province or kept in Rome to carry out judicial functions.^[52]

It may have been about this time that Crassus betrothed his daughter Licinia to the young son of C. Marius.^[53]

 The marriage itself was contracted within the next five or six years.[54]

 It seems that Marius was at this time patching up relations with at least the more open-minded members of the Metellan group: Cn. Lentulo P. Crasso cos.‡ (DCLVII a.u.c.) he collaborated with Crassus' friend M. Antonius, and he may also have cooperated in a business venture with M. Scaurus.[55]

 This reconciliation may have brought some little advantage to Crassus and his associates in the form of the general's lingering prestige and popularity, but Marius himself was politically impotent at this time, and the political reward must have been at least cancelled, if not outweighed, by the strain it must have put upon Crassus' friendship with Marius' firm enemies like P. Rutilius and Q. Catulus.[56]

 By bringing Marius back in from the cold, Crassus and his like-minded friends showed both personal generosity and a political desire to reach out to the equites and the people, many of whom still regarded Marius with respect and affection.

Consul

Cn. Ahenobarbo C. Longino cos.‡ (DCLVIII a.u.c.) Crassus was a candidate for the consulate. Like most (if not all) candidates for high office, he had to go about asking for votes in what was, for a highly successful politician of noble birth, an embarrassingly undignified business: so much so that he could not bear to let his very eminent and rather severe father-in-law Q. Scaevola see him do it, and had to ask the latter to leave the forum so that Crassus could continue his canvass.^[57]

He was duly elected along with his friend, the other Q. Scaevola. Together they enacted the lex Licinia Mucia de civibus redigundis. This statute was aimed at people, particularly Italians, who were passing themselves off as Roman citizens. Some had been legitimately given citizenship by Roman generals like Marius acting with statutory authority, but others were no doubt spurious. Crassus and Scaevola returned such people to their original status, and gave the standing treason court powers to hear accusations against alleged false citizens.^[58]

 The legislation was later criticized as contributing to the outbreak of the Italian war.[59]

 At the time it was perhaps not meant, however, as an anti-Italian measure, for it did not seek to cancel legitimate grants of citizenship, merely to stop those who were trying to acquire it illegally.

As consul Crassus was also called upon to defend the young Q. Caepio, son of his old ally.^[60]

 The charge was of maiestas, and was based upon events of that tumultuous year C. Mario (VI) L. Flacco cos.‡ (DCLIV a.u.c.) when Caepio forcibly broke up the meeting at which Saturninus tried to pass his lex agraria.  Though Crassus' speech was brief (and perhaps unenthusiastic, given Caepio's disruptive behaviour and hostility to Crassus' allies M. Scaurus and M. Drusus), Caepio was acquitted.[61]

Crassus' consular province was in Gaul, perhaps Gallia Cisalpina.

Cursus honorum^[62]

• Duumvir coloniae deducendae

M. Catone Q. Rege cos.‡ (DCXXXVI a.u.c.)

• Quaestor

by Q. Metello M. Silano cos.‡ (DCXLV a.u.c.)

• Tribunus plebis

L. Longino C. Mario cos.‡ (DCXLVII a.u.c.)

• Aedilis curulis

by C. Mario (VI) L. Flacco cos.‡ (DCLIV a.u.c.)

• Praetor

by Q. Metello T. Didio cos.‡ (DCLVI a.u.c.)

• Consul

L. Crasso Q. Scaevola cos.‡ (DCLIX a.u.c.)

• Proconsul

C. Caldo L. Ahenobarbo cos.‡ (DCLX a.u.c.) (perhaps Gallia Cisalpina)

• Censor

C. Pulchro M. Perperna cos.‡ (DCLXII a.u.c.)

• Perhaps decemvir agris dandis assignandis

L. Philippo Sex. Caesare cos.‡ (DCLXIII a.u.c.)

• Augur

from unknown date

to L. Philippo Sex. Caesare cos.‡ (DCLXIII a.u.c.)

References

1. ↑ Cicero, Brutus 161.
2. ↑ For details and sources see Carbo's biography.
3. ↑ Gruen argues that it was extortion: Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 108-109. See below for more on the political context of the trial.
4. ↑ Carbo's suicide: Cicero, Brutus, 103. Valerius Maximus, a less reliable source, says Carbo went into exile (3.7.6). On the trial's importance for Crassus' career, Cicero says, "Accusavit C. Carbonem eloquentissimum hominem admodum adulescens; summam ingeni non laudem modo sed etiam admirationem est consecutus." ("He prosecuted C. Carbo, an excellent speaker, when he was only a boy; thus he achieved not only the highest praise but also applause for his abilities.") (Brutus, 159).
5. ↑ Carbo's oratorical reputation: Cicero, "Hic optimus illis temporibus est patronus habitus" ("He was held the best advocate of those times") (Brutus, 106); Carbo is also listed among famous orators of the period by Velleius Paterculus, 2.9.1. For Cicero's comment on the case's role in Crassus' career, see the previous note.
6. ↑ Some have rejected this date for the debate about the colony at Narbo, but it is persuasively defended by Levick, B., Cicero, Brutus 43. 159 ff., and the Foundation of Narbo Martius (Classical Quarterly, 1971, pp.170-179).
7. ↑ First quotation: "Voluit adulescens in colonia Narbonensi causae popularis aliquid attingere eamque coloniam, ut fecit, ipse deducere" (Cicero, Brutus, 160). Second quotation: "quantum potest de auctoritate senatus detrahit" (Cicero, pro Cluentio, 140).
8. ↑ Cicero, Brutus, 160. Cicero adds that "exstat in eam legem senior, ut ita dicam, quam aetas illa ferebat oratio". This could mean either "the speech about that lex survives, more mature, I should say, than his age suggests" or "the speech about that lex survives, older, I should say, than that period used to produce". If Cicero means that it sounds like the speech of an older man, then he himself proves the point, for he erroneously thinks that the speech dates from after the trial of the Vestals.
9. ↑ There is a minor chronological problem here. Cicero, Brutus, 160, says that Crassus was 27 at the time of this trial. This gives a date of C. Metello Cn. Carbone cos.‡ (DCXLI a.u.c.) or M. Druso L. Pisone cos.‡ (DCXLII a.u.c.). But the Epitome of Livy, 63.4, and Iulius Obsequens, 37, clearly date the trial to M'. Balbo C. Catone cos.‡ (DCXL a.u.c.). One solution might be to suppose that the whole process dragged on into the following year, and that Crassus' speech was made C. Metello Cn. Carbone cos.‡ (DCXLI a.u.c.). This is not very easy to sustain. The wording of both the Epitome and Obsequens seems to indicate that the whole process was completed by the end of the year. Moreover, Marcobius, Saturnalia, 1.10.5, citing Fenestella, says that the penalty against Aemilia was handed down a.d. XV Kal. Ian. ‡, which must be a.d. XV Kal. Ian. ‡ M'. Balbo C. Catone cos.‡ (DCXL a.u.c.) unless we are to imagine that the process dragged on for more than a year. There were, however, two trials. It is therefore possible that Fenestella, Obsequens, and the Epitome are all giving the date for the first trial, which ended a.d. XV Kal. Ian. ‡ M'. Balbo C. Catone cos.‡ (DCXL a.u.c.), and that it was at the second trial, C. Metello Cn. Carbone cos.‡ (DCXLI a.u.c.), that Crassus gave his speech, aged 27 as Cicero says. This still does not square well with the wording of Obsequens and the Epitome, but it does chime with Fenestella, who refers only to the condemnation of Aemilia: as we know from Asconius on pro Milone, 32, at the first trial Aemilia was condemned but the others acquitted. It is equally possible, however, that Cicero, or one of his transcribers, has accidentally added a numeral I to Crassus' age in Brutus 160, and that both trials took place M'. Balbo C. Catone cos.‡ (DCXL a.u.c.) when Crassus was 26.
10. ↑ The state of the body is described in detail (and in very similar terms) by Plutarch, Quaestiones Romanae, 83, by Iulius Obsequens, 37, and by Orosius, 5.20. Obsequens names her father P. Elvius, while Orosius calls him L. Helvius.
11. ↑ Obsequens' use of the word "responsum" shows that some religious authorities were formally consulted about the meaning of the portent and gave a formal answer; no source, however, identifies which authorities were consulted. Rasmussen, S.W., Public Portents In Republican Rome (Analecta Romana Instituti Danici Supplementum XXXIV, 2003), p.94, indicates that it was the decemviri sacris faciundis, but she appears to be conflating this with the later consultation which came after the trials. Plutarch, Quaestiones Romanae, 83, makes it clear that there was a first consultation, of "soothsayers", after the death of Helvia and a second, of the decemviri, after the trials. The gist of the responsum is given by Plutarch in the same passage, and also (perhaps verbatim) by Iulius Obsequens, 37: "Responsum infamiam virginibus et equestri ordini portendi" ("[It was] answered that it presaged a scandal for the virgins and for the equestrian class").
12. ↑ The slave is mentioned by Plutarch, Quaestiones Romanae, 83, and by Cassius Dio, 87.5. His name is provided by Dio, his master's name by Plutarch. According to Plutarch T. Betutius was one of the men who had been involved with the Vestals; Dio seems to say that Manius himself had been involved, or at least that he had been bribed to keep the secret by the promise of his freedom. As to the precise information which he gave, Plutarch says that he named all three of the Vestals who were later brought to book, but Dio indicates that he informed only on Aemilia and Licinia, while Marcia's indiscretion was only discovered through later inquiries. Betutius is mentioned as a notable orator from Asculum by Cicero, Brutus, 169.
13. ↑ This was not strictly a trial but a hearing before the pontifex maximus, who traditionally had jurisdiction in such cases. The charge was of incestum: Epitome of Livy, 63.4; Iulius Obsequens, 37; Asconius on pro Milone, 32. Orosius, 5.20 uses the term stuprum, but this is probably just sloppiness. Marcia are Licinia, as well as Aemilia, are mentioned by the Epitome of Livy, 63.4; Plutarch, Quaestiones Romanae, 83; Cassius Dio, 87.5; and Asconius on pro Milone, 32. Orosius, 5.20, and Macrobius, Saturnalia, 1.10.5, mention only Aemilia, whose conduct was evidently regarded as the most disgraceful. As to their lovers, Plutarch names Betutius (who was apparently not a Roman citizen: Cicero, Brutus, 169) and Obsequens mentions "aliquot equit[es]" ("some equites"). Dio says that Marcia had a relationship with an eques but was not involved in the activities of the other two, who, he says, entertained a number of men, singly and in groups, separately and together, including one another's brothers. Orosius names one of Aemilia's lovers as the eques L. Veturius (though this may be a corruption of T. Betutius) and says that she was responsible for drawing the other two Vestals into her illicit activities. The discrepancies among the various accounts may be the result of ordinary distortion as the story was passed from source to source, but they may also reflect different accounts put forward at the trial itself: the version which distances Marcia from the other two may have been Marcia's defence, while the version in Orosius would have been a suitable argument for Licinia's advocate, Crassus himself.
14. ↑ Asconius on pro Milone, 32.
15. ↑ The relationship, along with the possible political motives for the prosecution, is discussed by Münzer, F., Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), pp. 222-3. It is not clear whether Crassus' speech was made at the first hearing or at the trial before L. Cassius; perhaps he spoke at both. Cicero significantly does not mention that Crassus' speech secured Licinia's acquittal, however, and this may suggest that he is talking about the unsuccessful defence of Licinia before Cassius. On the timing of the speech see also the note above concerning the date of the trial. Cicero's comment on the speech is, "In ea ipsa causa fuit eloquentissimus orationisque eius scriptas quasdam partis reliquit" ("In that same case he was very eloquent and he has left some writings of part of his speech") (Brutus, 160).
16. ↑ Cicero, Brutus, 161.
17. ↑ For the relationships among the Scaevolae and Licinii, see Münzer, F., Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), pp. 238, 255. The evidence for the date of Crassus' marriage to Mucia comes from Cicero, de oratore, 3.171, which quotes from a satire of Lucilius on the prosecution of Q. Scaevola by T. Albucius: Lucilius depicts Scaevola as referring to Crassus as his son-in-law. The trial took place L. Metello L. Cotta cos.‡ (DCXXXV a.u.c.) and may have continued into M. Catone Q. Rege cos.‡ (DCXXXVI a.u.c.) and is discussed by Bauman, R.A., Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983). Crassus and his father-in-law also seem to have had a mutual friend in Granius the herald: Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.116 with n.47.
18. ↑ Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.112-116.
19. ↑ On the Metelli and the Caepiones see Münzer, F., Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), pp. 226-236; Scullard, H.H., From The Gracchi To Nero (Routledge, 1988), pp.44-5.
20. ↑ The marriages: Münzer, F., Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), p.238. Marius and the Metelli: Scullard, H.H., From The Gracchi To Nero (Routledge, 1988), pp.44-5. Scipio and the Metelli: Guen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 117.
21. ↑ Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.111 and following.
22. ↑ Carbo had been an opponent of P. Scipio and was suspected of involvement in his death. This explanation for the prosecution is apparently thought plausible by Greun, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.107-108.
23. ↑ C. Gracchus himself was instrumental in the creation of two new colonies and may have contemplated a third: Scullard, H.H., From The Gracchi To Nero (Routledge, 1988), p.33.
24. ↑ Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.112.
25. ↑ Münzer, F., Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), pp. 222-224. We also note in this connection that this Q. Rex was probably a relative of the consul whom Crassus supported, and that the pontifex maximus who was lenient to Licinia and Marcia was a Metellus, whereas the judge who subsequently condemned them was an ally of the P. Scipio who was in turn an opponent of the Gracchi. But all this may be pushing speculation too far.
26. ↑ Cicero, Brutus, 160: "Multae deinde causae" ("Next were many cases").
27. ↑ Cicero, Brutus, 160: "ita tacitus tribunatus ut, nisi in eo magistratu cenavisset apud praeconem Granium idque nobis bis narravisset Lucilius, tribunum plebis nesciremus fuisse".
28. ↑ The fragments are collected in Warmington, E.H. (ed.), Remains Of Old Latin (Harvard University Press, 1967), pp.186-195.
29. ↑ Crassus' speech: Cicero, Brutus, 161. The effect of the lex: Cicero, de oratore, 2.199; Iulius Obsequens, 41.
30. ↑ The moment of Latin maturity: Cicero, Brutus, 161. The contents of the speech (which survived in writing in Cicero's day): Cicero, de oratore, 1.225; pro Cluentio, 140; Brutus, 164.
31. ↑ Asconius on pro Milone, 32.
32. ↑ On the date see Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.132-133.
33. ↑ Cicero, ad Atticum, 1.16.4; Valerius Maximus, 2.10.1.
34. ↑ On the date see Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.133-134. Piso's friendship with Scaurus is demonstrated by the fact that the latter appeared as a witness on his behalf at the trial: Cicero, de oratore, 2.265. For Scaurus' links to the Metelli, Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.118-123.
35. ↑ He was defeated as a candidate for the consulate; the following year he narrowly succeeded, but was promptly prosecuted for bribery. He was acquitted. See generally Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.119-123.
36. ↑ Cicero, de oratore, 2.285 records an effective piece of cross-examination by Crassus of one of the witnesses for the prosecution. The reasons for assuming an acquittal are mentioned by Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.134 note 163.
37. ↑ Sallust, bellum Iugurthinum, 8-39; Scullard, H.H., , From The Gracchi To Nero (Routledge, 1988), pp. 46-47.
38. ↑ Sallust, bellum Iugurthinum, 7.7; Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.143.
39. ↑ Sallust, bellum Iugurthinum, 40.1.
40. ↑ Sallust comments that the prosecutions were "magis odio nobilitatis... quam cura rei publicae" ("more from hatred of the nobility... than from care for the republic"): bellum Iugurthinum, 40.3). Among the targets were L. Opimius (the consul who killed C. Gracchus), L. Calpurnius (who had recalled from exile the man who had presided over persecutions of the followers of Ti. Gracchus), and C. Galba (who had probably collaborated with the anti-Gracchans after the death of C. Gracchus).
41. ↑ For L. Calpurnius' links with the Metellan group, and for Scaurus' role in the whole affair, see Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.145-149. Gruen also regards C. Galba and C. Cato as members of the Metellan group, but the evidence is weak (pp. 145-147; 150).
42. ↑ A survey is provided by Scullard, H.H., From The Gracchi To Nero (Routledge, 1988), pp.50-59.
43. ↑ The date of Glaucia's tribunate is not certain: see Scullard, H.H., From The Gracchi To Nero (Routledge, 1988), p.52; Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.166-167. As to the special court, the outcome is not clear but Caepio may have been fined: Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.162-163.
44. ↑ Caepio went into exile. The fate of Mallius is unknown.
45. ↑ Cicero, pro Rabirio perduellionis reo, 21. The passage appears to be a list of people who were actually part of the lynch-mob, but this serves the purpose of Cicero's speech and should not be relied upon too heavily.
46. ↑ Cicero, in Verrem, 4.59.133: "L. Crasso, Q. Scaevolae, C. Claudio, potentissimis hominibus, quorum aedilitates ornatissimas vidimus" ("L. Crassus, Q. Scaevola, and C. Claudius, men of great power, whose very elaborate aedilitates we have seen"); de officiis, 2.16.57: "L. Crassus cum omnium hominum moderatissimo Q. Mucio magificentissima aedilitate functus est" ("L. Crassus, together with that most restrained of men Q. Mucius, discharged the most magnificent aedilitas"); de oratore, 3.24.92: "apparatu nobis opus est et rebus exquisitis undique et collectis, arcessitis, comportatis, ut tibi, Caesar, faciendum est ad annum, ut ego [Crassus] in aedilitate laboravi, quod quotidianis et vernaculis rebus satisfacere me posse huic populo non putabam" ("We need magnificence and refined things, collected, discovered, and accumulated from all sources, as you shall have to do, Caesar, in a year, and as I [Crassus] tried to do as aedile, since I thought I would not be able to satisfy the people with everyday and household things").
47. ↑ Pliny, historia naturalis, 17.1 (four pillars); 36.3 (six pillars).
48. ↑ Pliny, historia naturalis, 8.20.
49. ↑ We know of one other member of the Metellan group, about the same age as Crassus, who tried to run for praetor C. Mario (V) M'. Aquillio cos.‡ (DCLIII a.u.c.) or C. Mario (VI) L. Flacco cos.‡ (DCLIV a.u.c.) and failed: L. Sulla.
50. ↑ Cicero, pro Rabirio perduellionis reo, 21: "cum omnes praetores, cuncta nobilitas ac iuventus accurreret, Cn. et L. Domitii, L. Crassus, Q. Mucius, C. Claudius, M. Drusus" ("when all the praetores, the whole nobility and youth hastened forth, Cn. and L. Domitius, L. Crassus, Q. Mucius, C. Claudius, M. Drusus"). He has already mentioned the men of consular rank and goes on to mention still younger men, so evidently this is a list in order of seniority. None of the men with whom Crassus is mentioned are likely to have been praetor by C. Mario (VI) L. Flacco cos.‡ (DCLIV a.u.c.), and this is presumably why they are mentioned after the praetores. C. Claudius must be C. Pulcher who was praetor L. Crasso Q. Scaevola cos.‡ (DCLIX a.u.c.), and M. Drusus was only a former quaestor at the time.
51. ↑ A survey in Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.188-190. The date Q. Metello T. Didio cos.‡ (DCLVI a.u.c.) is suggested by Broughton, T.R.S., The Magistrates Of The Roman Republic (American Philological Association, 1951), 2.4-5.
52. ↑ His skills and experience would, of course, have suited him well for a judicial duty, but such duties were, at least in theory, awarded by lot and not by merit.
53. ↑ On the date, Gruen, E.S., Political Prosecutions In The 90's B.C. (Historia, 1966, pp.32-64), p.43. But Badian, E., Caepio And Norbanus (Historia, 1957, pp.318-346), p.329, argues that it cannot have been until after L. Crasso Q. Scaevola cos.‡ (DCLIX a.u.c.).
54. ↑ Certainly before September L. Philippo Sex. Caesare cos.‡ (DCLXIII a.u.c.): Cicero, de oratore, 1.66; 3.8. Apparently before the trial of T. Matrinius around C. Caldo L. Ahenobarbo cos.‡ (DCLX a.u.c.): Cicero, pro Balbo, 49. Probably soon after the younger Marius came of age, which must have been about C. Flacco M. Herennio cos.‡ (DCLXI a.u.c.) since he was born Q. Metello M. Silano cos.‡ (DCXLV a.u.c.).
55. ↑ Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.192-193.
56. ↑ Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.195.
57. ↑ Valerius Maximus, 4.5.4.
58. ↑ For detailed discussion of the provisions see the article on the lex.
59. ↑ Asconius on Cicero, pro Cornelio: "Verum ea lege ita alienati animi sunt principum Italicorum populorum ut ea vel maxima causa belli Italici quod post triennium exortum est fuerit" ("Indeed the leaders of the Italian peoples were so alienated by that statute that it was even the greatest cause of the Italian war which broke out three years later").
60. ↑ Cicero, Brutus, 44.162.
61. ↑ Gruen, E.S., Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.195-196. Though the outcome of the trial is not explicitly recorded, Caepio was still around and making trouble again a few years later.
62. ↑ For sources see Broughton, T.R.S., The Magistrates Of The Roman Republic (American Philological Association, 1951)

Warning: Default sort key "Licinius" overrides earlier default sort key "Lucius Licinius Crassus".