vol. I p.2271-2276
From Lanuvium (Ascon. p.27, 15), <10> the biological son of a Papius and an Annia, was adopted by T. Annius (the mss. wrongly C. Annius), his grandfather on his mother's side, Ascon. p. 47. He was tribune of the plebs in the year 697 = 57 (Cic. ad Q. fr. I 4, 3; p. red. in sen. 19. 30; p. red. ad Q. 15. Appian b. c. II 16. Dio XXXIX 6). At that time, the conflicts over Cicero's return from exile were raging: Pompey, who saw that he was despised and harassed by P. Clodius, had given <20> his agreement to Cicero's return in the previous year; but the attempts to obtain the repeal of his exile undertaken by his friends still remained unsuccessful. Most of the magistrates of the year 57, the head of whom being the consul P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, were reasonably in favour of Cicero's return (Cic. p. Mil. 39); the other, Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos, was in fact a personal enemy of Cicero, but he didn't openly bring his followers against him <30>.The tribunes of the year were, amongst others, P. Sestius and Milo (Cic. ad Q. fr. I 4, 3). The first negotiations in the senate about the matter, which began immediately on 1st January, weren’t conclusive, because of the tribune's objections (Cic. p. Sest. 72-14). In the same way, the tribune Q. Fabricius' attempt to bring the matter before the people on 25th January was thwarted violently by Clodius (ibid. 76-77). <40> For that purpose, Clodius needed a band of gladiators, which his brother Appius Claudius, then a praetor, had hired for funeral games; from that point onward, they formed the army, with which he enacted his slaughtering in the streets of the capital, Dio XXXIX 7 (cf. apparatum patricium et praetorium Cic. p. Sest. 77). Soon after that, the tribune Sestius, once he had confronted the consul Nepos, was almost struck dead by the Clodiani (Cic. p. Sest. 79ff.). This is why Clodius' opponents <50> felt that they were forced to get the same weapons for themselves, in order to defend themselves; Milo likewise recruited bands of gladiators, with which he triumphantly struck back against Clodius' continued attempts to delay Cicero's return. Dio XXXIX 7. Appian b. c. II 16. Cic. p. red. in sen. 19. 30; p. red. ad Q. 15; p. Sest. 86ff. Ascon. p. 26.
The street-fights between Milo and Clodius and both of their followings continued unchanged even after Cicero's return (September 57) (Cic. ad Att. IV 3; p. Sest. 88). <60> Milo sought to annihilate his enemy, who was applying himself for the aedileship for the following year, during a trial (just as Cic. p. Mil. 40, cf. ad Att. IV 3, 2 he had already brought forth a charge against Clodius earlier, about which the details aren't known) and brought forth a charge against Clodius at the beginning of December, in accordance with the Lex Plautia de vi. <page break 2271/2272> According to the law, the selection of the jury-collegium was the duty of the quaestors, whose year in office expired at that time on 4th December. In that year, however, the elections were delayed, and there were still no new quaestors chosen when the old ones retired. Because of this, the consul Metellus Nepos instructed the praetor, whom the charges had been brought to, to leave the charges to rest, until new quaestors were chosen. <10> The elections for the aediles, however, were done beforehand on 22nd January 698 = 56, and Clodius was elected to the position of aedile curulis. Owing to this, for the duration of his period of office, Clodius was cut off from court action. These are the facts according to Dio XXXIX 7; Cicero p. Sest. 89 on the other hand portrays the intervention of the consuls and praetors as outrageous: ecce tibi consul, praetor, tribunus pl. nova novi generis edicta proponunt: ne reus adsit -- --'. <20> Actually, we find out from Cicero ad Q. fr. II 1. that in a senate meeting in the second half of September (sub dies festos S 1 = Saturnalia), when the new tribunes had just begun their service, one of them, Racilius, de iudiciis referre coepit. Is, cum graviter de Clodianis incendiis -- -- questus esset, sententiam dixit, ut ipse iudices per praetorem urbanum sortiretur, iudicum sortitione facta comitia haberentur; qui iudicia impedisset, eum contra rem p. esse facturum. <30> The senate parted, without having come to any kind of conclusion (ibid. S 3). In the same way, after taking office as an aedile curulis, P. Clodius charged Milo de vi before the people (so, in a magistrate's rather than in a quaestor's court), Cic. p. Sest. 95; p. Mil. 40; in Vat. 40. Ascon. p. 43, 9. Dio XXXIX 18. The first meeting took place calmly on 2nd February 698 = 56. During the second, on 7th February (because a. d. VII Id. Febr. is what Med. Cic. ad Q. fr. II 3, 2, cf. Baiter on this source), <40> Clodius and Milo appeared with their gangs; Pompey spoke in favour of Milo and was therefore attacked most violently by Clodius; the day ended with all kinds of fights, because of which Clodius was forced into flight. He set up the third meeting on 17th February (Cic. ad Q. fr. II 3), the final date for the hearing before the people was set up to be 7th May (Cic. ad Q. fr. II 5, 4; <50> it is impossible to apply these statements to another unknown trial, as they often have been since Drumann II 326, 33; it's rather that this fourth meeting was the well-ordered conclusion to the magistrate's court trial), but it seems that the former final date didn't actually take place. Perhaps Clodius let things fall through, because it wasn’t actually a serious allegation for him at all (Dio loc. cit.). Milo got his revenge on Clodius' followers, as well as on the tribune of the plebs L. Cato. <60> This man had bought a band of gladiators. When he couldn't maintain them anymore, Milo bought them in secret, and the tribune Racilius, who had formed an alliance with him, tabulam proscripsit se familiam Catonianam venditurum; in eam tabulam magni risus consequebantur Cic. ad Q. fr. II 4, 5. At the same time (March 56), Milo brought charges against Sex. Clodius because of violent activities; <page break 2272/2273> but he was acquitted, because the jury wanted to show their dissatisfaction with Pompey, Milo’s protector, through his acquittal (Cic. ad Q. rf. II 4, 6; p. Cael. 78). It can’t be concluded for certain from Cic. ad Att. IV 12 inde domum cenatus, ut sim mane praesto Miloni that Milo was charged again in the year 699 = 55 and was defended by Cicero. These words can be used to refer to any kind of favour. <10>
In November of the year 700 = 54, Milo prepared brilliant games; ludos adparat magnificentissimos -- -- stulte bis terque, non postulatus, vel quia munus magnificum dederat, vel quia facultates non erant [vel quia magister] vel quia potuerat magistrum se non aedilem putare, Cic. ad Q. fr. III 8, 6, cf. 9, 2. The last words are unclear, but in no case can it be gathered from this that Milo had been the aedile. This is because he would have been able to do this at the earliest in the year 55; <20> he would have been praetor at the earliest in the year 53 and been able to apply for the consulship in the year 50 at the earliest. This is because there was a legal requirement to have a year without service between being a praetor and an aedile, and two years without service between being praetor and consul at the time. However, since he had applied for the consulship in the year 52, he must have been praetor in the year 55. The games, which Cicero was thinking about, Milo put on as a private citizen, not as a magistrate, <30> and perhaps they were funeral games. He is supposed to have squandered tria patrimonia with his games (Cic. p. Mil. 95. Ascon. p. 27, 7. 47, 11; cf. Cic. ad fam. II 6, 3). In the summer of the year 54 he provided for the defendant in the trial of M. Aemilius Scaurus (Aemilius Nr. 141) (Ascon. p. 25, 11).
In the year 701 = 53, he applied for the consulship with P. Plautius Hypsaeus and Q. Metellus Scipio, while Clodius was applying for the praetorship at the same time. Ascon. p. 26. Clodius was working <40> against his campaign as best as he could. Pompey too, who had favoured him to begin with (Appian b. c. II 16), stood up for his competitors (Ascon. p. 31, 6). Cicero, out of fear for Pompey, didn’t dare to help Milo openly, but he sought to support his campaign in secret (cf. ad fam. II 6). When the consuls Domitius Calvinus and Valnerius Messalla wanted to hold the election-comitia, they were delayed by force through Clodius’ gangs. When the senate assembled because of this, <50> Clodius directed strong attacks against Milo de aere alieno, de vi, de ambitu (Schol. Bob. p. 343. 345); Cicero responded to this with the interrogatio de aere alieno Milonis (cf. Baiter-Kayser XI p.31). Under the support of Pompey, Milo’s opponents were successful in stopping the elections from being held in such a way that in the January of the year 52 neither consuls nor praetors would have been around (Ascon. p. 27, 2). <60> On 20th January, Milo made a journey with a large entourage to his home city of Lanuvium, where he was dictator at that time, ad flaminem prodendum (Ascon. p. 27, 16. Cic. p. Mil. 27. 46). Near Bovillae, on the Appian way, Milo met Clodius, who was turning back from Aricia to Rome. Both were accompanied by armed men. Milo and Clodius were peacefully passing each other, when Milo’s slaves, who were at the back of his procession, begun conflict with the Clodiani. <page break 2273/2274> Clodius turned around menacingly and was wounded on the shoulder by Birria, a gladiator of Milo’s; his own men brought him into a nearby inn. Milo ut cognovit vulneratum Clodium, cum sibi periculosius illud etiam vivo eo futurum intellegeret, occiso autem magnum solacium esset habiturus, etiamsi subeunda esset poena, exturbari taberna iussit, Ascon. p. 28 <10> Clodius was then dragged out and killed. This was the way it happened according to Asconius’ credible account (cf. Plut. Cic. 35. Appian. b. c. II 21. Dio XL 48. Liv. per. 107), while Cicero p. Mil. 27ff. looks to make Milo the attacked party. Clodius’ body was brought to Rome in the evening and was placed in the forum the next day, where the tribunes Plancus and Q. Pompeius, Milo’s opponents, <20> held provocative speeches to the people. Lead by the writer Sex. Clodius, the crowd brought the body into the curia and set it on fire as a funeral pyre for the fallen public hero; other buildings nearby also fell victim to the flames. This arson provoked all kinds of outrage against the Clodiani in Rome. Loyal to them, Milo turned back in the same night to Rome. He resumed his campaign for the consulship, <30> also by distributing money to the tribes. A few days later, the tribune M. Caelius gave him a contio, in which Milo explained his deed as self-defence (Ascon. p. 29). The rest of the tribunes however appeared with armed masses at the market place, Caelius and Milo had to take refuge in slave’s clothing, and the gangs of Clodiani celebrated the memory of their home-gone hero respectfully, through the fact that they committed theft and murder regardless of who their victim was (Appian. b. c. II 22. Dio XL 49). <40>
Immediately after Clodius’ murder, the senate ordered M. Lepidus to be the interrex (Dio loc. cit.; cf Ascon. p. 29, 6. 37, 35). Other interreges followed him, because in the general confusion, holding consul-comitia didn’t seem possible. In order to control the absolute anarchy, the senate decided ut interrex et tribuni plebis et Cn. Pompeius, qui pro cos. ad urbem erat, viderent ne quid detrimenti res publica caperet, dilectus autem Pompeius tota Italia haberet (Ascon. p. 29. 46). <50> Pompey quickly recruited a military force and restored peace to the city. The family and friends of Clodius brought him the first charges, which supposedly initiated Milo’s legal trial; Milo’s followers thwarted them with counter-attacks. In addition, Milo is supposed to have sought to win the favour of Pompey, <60> by explaining that he would be willing to give up his campaign for consulship if Pompey wanted. Pompey however dismissed every influence calmly. (Ascon. p. 29, 27-31, 12).
Pompey brought the terrible chaos of the political state to his long-hoped-for goal: he was elected sole consul V Kal. Mart. mense intercalario. <page break 2274/2275> He introduced two laws after the senate committee: alteram de vi, qua nominatim caedem in Appia via factam et incendium curiae -- -- comprehendit, alteram de ambitu, poena graviore et forma iudiciorum breviore, Ascon. p. 31. The laws contained a series of drastic exceptions for legal trials, which put the defence at a disadvantage (Ascon. loc. cit. Dio XL 52). The tribunes, who were enemies to Milo, provoked the people by raising multiple charges against him; <10> Pompey stated that Milo had threatened his life and expressed this (surely fictional) worry openly in the senate. This is how Pompey’s proposals became laws (Ascon. p. 32. 45. Dio loc. cit.). Right after that, in accordance with the new law, charges were raised against Milo from both Appii Claudii, the sons of C. Claudius, the brothers of Clodius (Ascon. p. 30, 1): itemque de ambitu ab isdem Appiis et praeterea a C. Cethego (Ceteio the mss.) et L. Cornificio, de sodaliciis a P. Fulvio Nerato, <20> Ascon. p. 34 (correctly following the reading of Halms before his issue of the Miloniana S. 8, incorrectly the publisher of Asconius, who put praeterea instead of de vi and drastically changed C. Ceteio to Q. Patuleio). The trial first followed the lex Pompeia de vi; L. Domitius Ahenobarbus led this as quaestor, for which cause he was chosen by the public from the group of consuls, as the law prescribed. (Ascon. p. 33. Cic. p. Mil. 22) <30> The trial lasted five days from 4th-8th April (cf. Halm loc. cit. p.11 on Ascon. p. 35, 27); on the last days were the pleas to the jury. As well as the older Appius Claudius, the prosecution was made up of M. Antonius, and P. Valerius Nepos; Cicero acted as a single defender, limited to three hours through the law. The speech which Cicero made was recorded and was available in Asconius’ time; <40> the one that we have was later worked on by Cicero (Ascon. p. 36. Dio XL 54), as M. Brutus also published a speech for Milo which hadn’t actually been held (Ascon. p. 36, 11). After the plea to the jury was the reiectio iudicum, there were 81 (= 3 x 27) iudices present, each party dismissed 5 out of each of the 3 groups of senators, judges, tribuni aerarii. From the remaining 51 jurors, who stepped up to vote, 38 condemned him, while 13 acquitted him. On the following days, <50> Milo charged absent on the basis of ambitus, a little while later de sodaliciis, and finally de vi and took himself to Massalia into exile. Ascon. p. 48. Liv. per. 107. Vell. II 47, 4. Plut. Cic. 35. Appian. b. c. II 24. Dio XL 54.
Milo was in quite a bit of debt from financing of the costs of his games, the upkeep of his gladiators, and the bribery. (Plin. n. h. XXXVI 104. Cic. ad Q. fr. III 9, 2. Schol. Bob. p. 341). <60> His assets was got rid of for a very low price after the sentencing (Ascon. p. 48, 15). Cicero bought some of it through his freedman Philotimus, whose fraudulent behaviour Milo complained about to Cicero; he feared the dangers with regards to his reputation and satisfied Milo’s demands (Cic. ad Att. V 8. VI 4, 3. 5, 1--2. Caelius ad fam. VIII 3, 2) <page break 2275/2276>
Although Caesar had disapproved of Milo’s sentencing (Cic. ad Att. IX 14, 2), he still didn’t grant him the permission to return, like others who had been exiled, already in the year 705 = 49 (Vell. II 68, 2. Appian b. c. II 48. Dio XLI 36. XLII 24). When in the year 706 = 48 M. Caelius, then a praetor, acted against Caesar and was appalled at the senate (the one during his time in office), he called on Milo as an ally to Italy atque eum in Thurinum ad sollicitandos pastores praemisit, Caes. b. c. III 21. <10> Milo stated that he acting under Pompey’s orders, and turned himself without success to the nearby municipalities. During the siege of Cosa in agro Thurino, he was killed by a thrown stone; Caelius fell in Thurii (ibid. III 22). Dio’s account (XLII 24-25) differs from Caesar’s considerably in the details, he says Milo’s place of death was Apulia; according to Vell. II 68, 3 Milo fell Compsam in Hirpinis oppugnans, <20> according to Pliny n. h. II 147 he fell at the castellum Compsanum (the mss. capsanum and carisanum); Hieronymus a. Abr. 1969 says vaguely M. Caelius praetor et T. Annius Milo exul oppressi res novas in Thyriano Bruttioque agro simul molientes, Orosius VI 15 says wrongly cum ambo -- -- Capuam oppugnare molirentur, occisi sunt, without further information is Liv. per. 111. It cannot be doubted that Milo fell at Compsa; Dio’s general indication “in Apulia” is easily understandable with regards to the geographical location of Compsa, <30> and in terms of Caesar 22, 2 interpreters suspect, correctly, a corruption of the text for the original Compsam in agro Hirpino, which in Thurinum c. 21, 4 gives cause for (in Vell. II 16, 3 too, Cosam is given by the tradition instead of the correct Compsam).
At the end of November in the year 699 = 55, Milo got married to Fausta (Cic. ad Att. IV 13, 1), <40> the daughter of the dictator L. Sulla; she was married to C. Memmius before, who had divorced her (Ascon. p. 25, 11. 27, 25; cf. Cic. ad Att. V 8, 2). Varro, following Gell. XVII 18, had reported that Milo had caught C. Sallustius, the historian, in the middle of his adultery, and had flogged him with whips. The Scholia to Horace’s sat. I 2, 48 report a similar story, in a misinterpretation of the author in reference to Asconius. Since the Pompeiani often spoke badly about Sallust, the story is doubtful despite Fausta’s many love affairs. <50>
[Klebs.]
This article is referenced by: M. Caelius Rufus (35), P. Clodius Pulcher (48), Fausta (Cornelia) (436), L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (27)
Previous article: C. Annius Asellus (31)
Next article: Annia (102)