PRO MILONE: THE PURPOSES OF CICERO’S PUBLISHED DEFENSE OF T. ANNIUS MILO by ROBERT CHRISTIAN RUTLEDGE (Under the Direction of James C. Anderson, Jr.) ABSTRACT This thesis explores the trial of T. Annius Milo for the murder of P. Clodius Pulcher, which occurred in Rome in 52 BC, and the events leading up to it, as well as Marcus Tullius Cicero’s defense of Milo and his later published version of that defense. The thesis examines the purposes for Cicero’s publication of the speech because Cicero failed to acquit his client, and yet still published his defense. Before specifically examining Cicero’s goals for his publication, this thesis considers relationships between the parties involved in the trial, as well as the conflicting accounts of the murder; it then observes the volatile events and novel procedure surrounding the trial; and it also surveys the unusual topographic setting of the trial. Finally, this thesis considers the differences between the published speech and the speech delivered at trial, the timing of its publication, and possible political and philosophical purposes. INDEX WORDS: Marcus Tullius Cicero, Pro Milone, Titus Annius Milo, Publius Clodius Pulcher, Pompey, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, Quintus Asconius Pedianus, Roman Courts, Roman Trials, Roman Criminal Procedure, Ancient Criminal Procedure, Roman Rhetoric, Latin Rhetoric, Ancient Rhetoric, Roman Speeches, Roman Defense Speeches, Roman Topography, Roman Forum, Roman Philosophy, Roman Stoicism, Roman Natural Law, Roman Politics PRO MILONE: THE PURPOSES OF CICERO’S PUBLISHED DEFENSE OF T. ANNIUS MILO by ROBERT CHRISTIAN RUTLEDGE B.A. Philosophy, Georgia State University, 1995 J.D., University of Georgia, 2005 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2006 © 2006 Robert Christian Rutledge All Rights Reserved PRO MILONE: THE PURPOSES OF CICERO’S PUBLISHED DEFENSE OF T. ANNIUS MILO by ROBERT CHRISTIAN RUTLEDGE Major Professor: James C. Anderson, Jr. Committee: Mario Erasmo Richard A. LaFleur Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2006 DEDICATION VITAE MARIAE MEAE: OMNEM AMOREM MEUM SEMPER TIBI DABO! iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge my wife, Vita Maria Rutledge, whose patience, care, support, and encouragement allowed me to complete this work; my parents, Drs. Arthur and Kay Ellen Rutledge, who have encouraged me throughout this process; my brothers, Brandon and Jonathan Rutledge, who have demonstrated to me the kind dedication I need to complete tasks as daunting as this one; and my grandmother, Helen Rutledge, who always provides wisdom and love. Magnas gratias vobis! Further, I would like to acknowledge Dr. James Anderson, Jr., who nurtured my interest in pro Milone, Cicero, Asconius, Topography, Roma Aeterna, and many other classical wonders. Magnas gratias tibi! I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Mario Erasmo, who helped me understand many Latin genres, while encouraging new perspectives on these ancient works. Magnas gratias tibi! In addition, I would like to acknowledge both Dr. Anderson and Dr. Erasmo for the wonderful education and insight they provided in my first journey to Rome. Magnas gratias vobis! Finally, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Richard A. LaFleur, who kindly took on the task of reading and editing this thesis with Drs. Anderson and Erasmo, and whose enthusiasm for Latin encourages many students and many teachers. Magnas gratias tibi! Beyond these acknowledgements, I would finally like to acknowledge Dr. Marion Leathers Kuntz, from Georgia State University, who first introduced me to Cicero, via de Amicitia, and sparked my interest in this wonderful language. Magnas gratias tibi et vobis omnibus gratias maximas semper! v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................v LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 2 THE HOMICIDE AND ITS AFTERMATH.................................................................5 Relationships among Those Involved in Events Leading to the Trial of Milo .........5 The Homicide of Clodius ........................................................................................13 Events between the Homicide and the Trial of Milo...............................................23 3 ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES OF THE TRIAL.......................................28 Pompey’s Consulship and His New Legislation .....................................................28 Examination of Pompey’s New Procedure de Vi and Prior Procedure de Vi..........31 Preliminary Procedure under Existing Law ............................................................33 Procedural Wrangling in the Senate........................................................................38 Final Throes of Lex Plautia de Vi ...........................................................................45 Pretrial and Trial Procedure under Pompey’s Laws................................................46 4 THE PHYSICAL TOPOGRAPHY OF THE TRIAL..................................................55 Topographical Features Surrounding the Trial of Milo ..........................................56 Specific Layout of the Trial.....................................................................................63 Pompey’s Use of the Trial Setting ..........................................................................66 vi Cicero’s Use of the Trial Setting.............................................................................67 5 THE PUBLISHED SPEECH AND ITS PURPOSES .................................................76 Cicero’s Performance at Trial and Other Possible Versions of pro Milone............76 Timing of Publication..............................................................................................85 The Purposes of Cicero’s Published pro Milone.....................................................89 6 CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................104 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................107 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: The Forum during the Republic .....................................................................................75 viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION On April 7, 52 BC, in front of the jury, a frenetic audience, and soldiers stationed on all sides, Marcus Tullius Cicero delivered the concluding speech in the defense of his associate Titus Annius Milo, who was charged with the murder of Cicero’s enemy, Publius Clodius Pulcher.1 Although historians’ assessments of Cicero’s performance vary, one thing is certain: Cicero failed.2 Milo was convicted and subsequently exiled. Such a defeat, and such a judgment, must have weighed heavily on Cicero, since he had previously faced exile himself. Nevertheless, sometime after this signal failure, he published a version of the speech that has been praised for its power, composition, and strategy (Quint. Inst. 4.2.25).3 In this thesis, I propose to examine the historical context of Milo’s trial, the murder of Clodius, the specific legal procedure leading up to the trial, and the topography surrounding the delivery of the speech. Ultimately, I shall attempt to analyze portions of the published pro Milone and draw conclusions about its purposes. 1 See James S. Ruebel, “The Trial of Milo in 52 B.C.: A Chronological Study,” TAPhA 109 (1979): 245. Ruebel indicates that the speech may have been delivered on the 7th or 8th of April, but prefers the 7th. 2 The primary ancient historians include: Quintus Asconius Pedianus, “In Milonianam,” in Orationum Ciceronis Quinque Enarratio, ed. Albert Curtis Clark (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1907); Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Dio’s Roman History, vol. 3, trans. Earnest Cary (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1916); and Plutarch, “Cicero,” in Plutarch’s Lives, vol. 7, trans. Bernadotte Perrin (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949). All parenthetical citations to Asconius refer to Clark’s edition of the text (the citations refer to the numbered sections of the manuscript itself, rather than the pages of Clark’s book; since there are several methods for citing Asconius, hopefully this explanation will be helpful); I have provided the English translations unless otherwise noted. All parenthetical citations and translations of Plutarch and Cassius Dio are drawn from the texts cited above. 3 E.g., Marcus Fabius Quintilian, The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian, vol. 2, trans. H.E. Butler (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1921); all parenthetical citations to Quintilian refer to this text (or volume 3); I have provided the English translations unless otherwise noted. Quintilian describes the speech as oratione pulcherrima ([Cicero’s] most beautiful speech). 1 In Chapter Two, “The Homicide and Its Aftermath,” I will address the historical context of the trial. First, I intend to investigate the relationships between the significant parties involved in the matter. I shall briefly consider the interrelationships among Cicero, Milo, Clodius, and Pompey. Second, I will examine