vol. I p.2577-2582
He was granted the derisive nickname Hybrida, son of the orator M. Antonius (which means we also know his grandfather and great grandfather), the younger brother of M. Antonius (Creticus), uncle of the triumvir M. Antonius. He is called C. Antonius M. f. in CIL I p.114. Cic. ad fam. V 5. Dio ind. 1. XXXVII; C. Antonius fasti min. III and CIL XIV 2611 and very often in literature. <30> Only Pliny n. h. VIII 213 gives us his nickname Hybrida: in nullo genre aeque facilis (than in the pig) mixtura cum fero, qualiter natos antiqui hybridas vocabant ceu semiferos, ad homines quoque ut C. Antonium Ciceronis in consulatu collegam appellatione collata.
During the Civil War, he found himself in Greece, where he was robbing and pillaging nactus de exercitu Sullano equitum turmas Ascon. p. 75. 79. <40> After returning to Rome, he was able to amass quite a lot of money from the Sullan proscriptions, and received further honours during Sulla’s triumph in 671 = 83 as a charioteer in the ludi circenses, which lead Cicero to later mock him as a quadrigarius (or. in tog. cand.), Ascon. p. 79, cf. p. 83. In the year 678 = 76 Graeci qui spoliati erant eduxerunt Antonium in ius ad M. Lucullum praetorem, qui ius inter peregrinos dicebat. Egit pro Graecis C. Caesar etiam tum adulescentulus -- -- et quom Lucullus id quod Graeci postulabant decrevisset, appellavit tribunos iuravitque se id forum eiurare, quod aequo iure uti non posset Ascon. p. 75; <50> in Cic. or. in tog. cand. 2, he continues qui in sua civitate cum peregrino negavit se iudicio aequo certare posse, cf. Q. Cic. pet. cons. 8 vocem audivimus iurantis se Romae iudicio aequo cum homine Graeco certare non posse, though Plutarch’s account of this in Caes. 4 is mixed up. <60> He was tribunus plebis in 683 = 71; this can be deduced from the Lex de Termessibus which was passed in that year, CIL I p. 114, in which praescriptio C. Antonius M. f. is named first out of the tribunes proposing that bill. In the year 684 = 70, the censors L. Gellius and Cn. Lentulus kicked him out of the senate causasque subscripserunt, quod socios diripuerit, quod iudicium recusarit, quod propter aeris alieni magnitudinem praedia manciparit bonaque sua in potestate non habeat Ascon. p. 74. cf. Q. Cic. loc. cit. <page break 2577/2578> The nota censoria did not, of course, take away his right to run for office, and Antonius followed the usual path back into the senate by being elected magistrate. It is often suggested that he took on the role of aedile, but there is no evidence to back that up. <10> When Cicero p. Mur. 40 says quodsi ego, qui trinos ludos aedilis feceram, tamen Antonii ludis commovebar, tibi, qui casu nullos feceras, nihil huius (Murenae) istam ipsam quam irrides, argentam scaenam adversatam putas?, the parallels being drawn between Antonius and Murena make it clear that the games being referred to are the ones which Antonius put on as praetor; cf. Plin. n. h. XXXIII 53 L. Antonius ludos scaena argentea fecit (= Val. Max. II 4, 6), item L. Murena. He ran for praetor alongside Cicero, but since Cicero was favoured, he came last, in third place, Cic. or. in t. c. frg. 5. Ascon. p. 76. 83. Q. Cic. 8. Praetor in the year 688 = 66; quo in magistratu amicam, quam domi palam haberet, de machinis emit Q. Cic. 8. There were seven people running for consul for the year 691 = 63, four of whom had no chance of being elected from the get-go; <30> the only proper contenders were Cicero, Antonius, and Catiline, Ascon. p. 73. Cic. ad Att. I 1. A. Cic. pet. cons. passim. Catilina autem et Antonius, quamquam omnium maxime infamis eorum vita esset, tamen multum poterant. Coierant enim ambo, ut Ciceronem consulatu deicerent, adiutoribus usi firmissimis M. Crasso et C. Caesare Ascon. p. 74. Ei enim acerrimi ac potentissimi fuerunt Ciceronis refragatores, cum petit consulatum, quod eius in dies crescere dignitatem adnimadvertebant Ascon. p. 74, 17ff. This reasoning is incorrect; <40> Crassus and Caesar supported Antonius and Catiline against Cicero for entirely political reasons, not for personal ones. We do not know how deeply they were involved in Catiline’s conspiracy; they must, however, have seen the two candidates, who were heavily in debt (on Antonius cf. Ascon. p. 78, 21ff.), as useful tools against the senate and Pompeius. Catiline and Antonius manipulated the election and engaged in bribery to such a degree that the senate decreed ut lex ambitus aucta etiam cum poena ferretur Ascon. p. 74. <50> When the tribune Q. Mucius Orestinus interceded against the senatus consultum, a few days before the electoral comitia Cicero held the speech in toga candida in the senate against Antonius and Catiline, fragments of which are preserved in Asconius’s commentary. Both opponents responded with slander quod solum poterant, invecti in novitatem (Ciceronis); ferebantur quoque orationes nomine illorum editae, non ab ipsis scriptae, sed ab Ciceronis obtrectatoribus (Ascon. p. 84). <60> Cicero was elected unanimously by the comitia; Antonius pauculis centuriis Catilinam superavit, cum ei propter patris nomen paulo speciosior manus suffragata esset quam Catilinae Ascon. p. 84; cf. Sall. C. 24, 1. Plut. Cic. 11. The senate decided upon Gallia and Macedonia as provinces for the consuls of 63 (following the lex Sempronia, this must have occurred before the elections). <page break 2578/2579> When the lots were drawn for the consuls elect, Macedonia fell to Cicero, and Gallia fell to Antonius. Since Macedonia was seen as a lucrative province, and Antony had been intending to fill his pockets there, Cicero passed Macedonia over to him, so that he could take on the dangers Catiline was threatening himself, Cic. in Pis. 5. Sall. C. 26, 3. Plut. Cic. 12. Dio XXXVII 33. <10>
Consul in the year 691 = 63 with M. Tullius Cicero; C. An[tonius] f. min. III, Antoninus Chronogr. f. Idat. Chr. Pasch., C. Antonius Cassiod. Obs. 61, Γ. Ἀντώνιος Μ. υἱός Dio ind. 1. XXXVII. Dio XXXVII 10, 4. Flor. II 12. Eutrop. VI 15. Suet. Aug. 5. Plin. n. h. VIII 213. Strab. X 455. We do not know what position Antonius secretly took as consul towards the Catilinarian conspiracy. Since he was later convicted, later historians accused him of taking part directly, Plut. Cic. 12. Dio XXXVII 30. 39. <20> His stance was ambiguous, as shown by Cicero’s comments, who had his actions under strict observation via P. Sestius, Antonius’s quaestor, Cic. p. Sest. 8. 12; the praise which the senate granted him after the Catilinarians were convicted was very suspicious: quod eos, qui huius coniurationis participes fuissent, a suis et a rei publicae consiliis removisset Cic. Cat. III 14. <30> Around the end of the year, Antonius must have taken over control of the troops against Catiline. After Catiline had gathered himself an army in Etruria, he realised he was surrounded by the praetor Q. Metellus Celer, who was headed out of Picenum with three legions, and by Antonius, whose military command continued when he became proconsul in 62. He was hoping that Antonius would allow him to escape to Gallia; but Antonius was far too overpowered by keen optimates to dare to do such a thing (Cic. p. Seat. 12). <40> However, he did not want to deal the killing blow against his previous ally; excusing himself because of his gout, he passed the job over to his legate M. Petreius, who wiped out Catiline and his mass of soldiers, Sall. C. 56ff. Liv. per. 103. Obseq. 61. Flor. II 11. Eutr. VI 15. Val. Max. II 8, 7. Plut. Cic. 22. Appian. b. c. II 7. Dio XXXVII 40. Schol. Bob. p. 229. Because the victory happened under Antonius’s auspices, he was greeted by the troops as imperator, Obseq. Dio loc. cit. (hence C. Antonio imp. in the title of Cicero’s letter, Cic. ad fam. V 5). <50>
After the battle, he headed to his province Macedonia, where he badly oppressed the people and suffered shameful defeats by the Dardanii and Moesii, Liv. per. 103. Obseq. 63. Dio XXXVIII 10. Cicero’s letter to him ad fam. V 5 falls during his proconsulate (written in the year 693 = 61), a letter of recommendation for Atticus, cf. ad Att. I 13, 1, in which Cicero makes a point of sternly reminding Antonius of his own duties. <60> In Rome, the rumour spread that Antonius claimed he had to share his plunder with Cicero, and Cicero had therefore sent his freedman Hilarus to Macedonia to keep an eye on things; an example of slander blown out of proportion by Cicero’s enemies, which angered him greatly, Cic. Att. I 12 (written on 1st Jan. 693 = 61). <page break 2579/2580> In the same letter, Cicero says that people were going into the senate to demand Antonius; Pompeius took the matter into his own hands, and a praetor was going to make an appeal to the people; this is what Cicero is referring to in the letter he sent to Antonius at the same time § 3 sed reliqua, mihi crede, multo maius meum studium maioremque gravitatem et laborem desiderant. Antonius fulfilled Cicero’s demands, and helped Atticus out, leading him to receive a letter of thanks from Cicero, ad Att. I 16, 16. <10> Around the end of the year 694 = 60, he left the province, and C. Octavius took over there, Cic. ad Att. II, 1, 12, cf. Vell. II 59, 2. Suet. Aug. 1. However, he was still not back in Rome in December, Cic. ad Att. VI 2, 3.
At the beginning of the year 695 = 59 (the date comes from Cic. in Vat. 27), Antonius was brought to trial. <20> Because tradition is so bad when it comes to his trial, and modern scholars have such a broad range of ideas about what happened (cf. Drumann I 538. Zump Criminalprocess 497ff. Mommsen De sodaliciis 66; St.-R. II3 584, 1), it becomes necessary to provide a brief overview of what the tradition actually is.
I. Cicero 1) in Vat. 27-28: quaero, cum lex esset aequa promulgata initio magistratus, multas iam alias tulisses, expectarisne, dum C. Antonius reus fieret apud Cn. Lentulum Clodianum? et postea quam ille est reus factus, statim tuleris in eum ‘Qui tuam post legem rus factus esset’, ut homo consularis exclusus miser puncto temporis spoliaretur beneficio et aequitate legis tuae? Dices familiaritatem tibi fuisse cum Q. Maximo: praeclara defensio facinoris tui. Nam Maximi quidem summa laus est, sumptis iudiciis, suscepta causa, quaesitore consilioque delecto commodiorem reo reiectionis condicionem dare noluisse -- -- at the end of § 28 he mentions the conviction of C. Antonius. <40> 2) p. Cael. 74 (Caelius) accusavit C. Antonium conlegam meum, cui misero praeclari in rem p. beneficii memoria nihil profuit, nocuit opinio maleficii cogitati. 3) p. Flacc. 5 a brief mention of the trial; ibid. 94 gravia iudicia pro rei p. dignitate multa de coniuratorum scelere fecistis: non putant satis conversam esse rem p., nisi in eandem impiorum poenam optime meritos cives detruserint. Oppressus est C. Antonius. Esto: habuit quandam ille infamiam suam, neque tamen ille ipse -- -- vobis iudicibus oppressus esset, cuius damnatione sepulcrum L. Catilinae floribus ornatum hominum audacissimorum ac domesticorum hostium conventu epulisque celebratum est; iusta Catilinae facta sunt. 4) De dom. 16 cum C. Antonium conlegam meum defenderem -- --. <60>
II. Schol. Bob. p. 229 on Flacc. 5: C. Antonius -- -- M. Caelio Rufo accusante, non tantum pecuniarum repetundarum crimine, verum etiam ob hanc coniurationem non ita pridem damnatus fuerat.
III. Val. Max. IV 2, 6 Caninius Gallus reum pariter atque accusatorem admirabilem egit, et C. Antonii, quem damnaverat, filiam in matrimonium ducendo et -- --.
IV. Quintilian inst. IV 2. 123-124 quotes a relatively long piece of M. Caelius’s speech in Antonium, which attacked him for his conduct as governor of Macedonia; the quote in IX 3. 58 should be taken in conjunction with this. <page break 2580/2581>
V. Dio XXXVIII 10, after a short account of Antonius’s misconduct in Macedonia: οὐ μέντοι καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις αἰτίαν ἔσχεν, ἀλλ’ ἐγράφη μὲν ἐπὶ τῇ τοῦ Κατιλίνου συνομοσίᾳ, ἑάλω δὲ δι’ ἐκεῖνα, καὶ συνέβη αὐτῷ, ὧν μὲν ἐκρίνετο, μὴ ἐλεγχθῆναι, ὧν δ’ οὐκ ᾐτιάζετο, κολασθῆναι. <10>
First of all, there can be no doubt that there were not two different charges brought against Antonius, but one single one. Since three prosecutors M. Caelius, C. Caninius (Gallus), Q. (Fabius) Maximus are named, following well-known Roman custom one was the main prosecutor, and the other two were subscriptores. We do not know for certain who held the first role; Valerius Maximus will only be shown to suggest that Caninius was the main prosecutor by somebody who, just like the author, does not strive for the truth from a neutral standpoint, but is only interested in rhetorical antitheses. <20> Moreover, the references to the points made during the speeches of the trial do not allow us to come to a surefire conclusion about what the charge was based on: considering the unjust and nonsensical nature of Roman criminal courts at that time, in which an objective portrayal of events was put to one side in favour of a broad consideration of the entire life of the defendant, <30> it makes complete sense that in this capital charge against Antonius his participation in the Catilinarian conspiracy and his misconduct in Macedonia were discussed. Cn. Lentulus Clodianus, as less recent scholars have been correct to point out, was the praetor before whom the charge was brought. However, though it may say (I 1) quaesitore consilioque delecto, the only conclusion which we can make from this is that the trial was lead by a quaesitor. <40> This makes it impossible to suggest that the charge was extortion: there is no known case of quaestio repetundarum in which a quaesitor ever had any official role. Two other possibilities remain: either the charge was raised against his participation in the conspiracy, ie. de vi, or it was raised against Antonius’s misconduct in the province (cf. Caelius in Quintilian) for laesa maiestas populi Romani. <50> It is impossible to come to a surefire conclusion: in my opinion, the second suggestion, which has not yet been considered at all, seems by far the most probable. Despite the fact that all the prosecutors would be concerned about would be the actual matter of gaining a conviction (since in both cases the punishments were roughly the same), it is nevertheless the case that the recent crime in Macedonia would give the prosecutors a much easier foundation to go from than a dubious accusation against the man who defeated Catiline (p. Flacc. 5). <60> When Cicero p. Flacc. 95 describes Antonius’s conviction as a sacrifice for Catiline, and thereby suggests that an eventual conviction of Flaccus would mean the same for Lentulus, even this parallel - Flaccus was charged for repetundarum - shows that no conclusions about the legal side of the charge can be made from this remark. Neither can the rhetorical antithesis of such a late historian like Dio hold any weight in this particular question of the legal charge. <page break 2581/2582>
Cicero defended his colleague with a great deal of enthusiasm, both previously in the senate (ad fam. V 6, 3), but also in court; his failures against the political powerhouse upset the consul Caesar so greatly that three hours after Cicero’s speech, he passed Clodius’s adoption. Cic. de dom. 41; cf. Suet. Caes. 20. Dio loc. cit. <10> Antonius was convicted (see the evidence above) and went in exile to Kephallenia, καὶ τὴν ὅλην νῆσον ὑπήκοον ἔσχεν ὡς ἴδιον κτῆμα. οὐκ ἔφθη μέντοι κατοικίσας, ἀλλὰ καθόδου τυχὼν πρὸς ἄλλοις μείζοσιν ὢν κατέλυσε τὸν βίον Strab. X 455. His nephew M. Antonius did call back many other people from exile in 705 = 49 as a tribune and representative of Caesar, but his uncle was not one of them. Cic. Phil. II 56. Dio XLVI 15. <20> He was pardoned by Caesar, which is shown by Strabon’s account, as well as by the fact that he took part in a meeting of the senate on 1st Jan. 710 = 44, Cic. Phil. II 99, cf. 79. In the second Philippic (end of the year 711 = 43), Cicero also mocked M. Antonius for not intending to call his uncle back from exile, quem etiam ad censuram petendam impulisti eamque petitionem comparasti, quae et risus hominum et querellas moveret. <30> In actual fact, he was censor in 712 = 42 alongside P. Sulpicius. In the fragment of the fast. Colotiani CIL I p. 466, it is stated L. Munatius L. f. M. Aemilius M. f … [An]tonius P. Sulpicius Cens. Lustr. n. f.; the praenomen and therefore the attribution is confirmed by the inscription in Tusculum, CIL XIV 2611 P. Sulpicius C. Antonius cen[s] -- --. He seems to have died shortly afterwards, since he is not named since. -- His wife is unknown, but he did have at least two daughters, cf. Antonia nr. 108 and 110. <40>
([Klebs.])
This article is referenced by: T. Annius Milo (67) [reference on that page not found], M. Caelius Rufus (35)
Previous article: Antheus (1)
Next article: Q. Antullius (1)