P. Clodius Pulcher 48
vol. IV p.82-88
48) P. Clodius Pulcher,
Brother of Clodius number 297 and 303, the infamous tribune of the plebs from the time of the first triumvirate. About the form of his name cf. in contrast to Drumann II 200 Lindsay D. lat. Sprache (Leipzig 1897) 46: Cicero’s rival Clodius was the first of the gens, <30> who changed his name Claudius to the plebeian form Clodius to win over the common people.
His military service in the east
He had already revealed an unrestrained tendency for provocative conduct in his younger years, when he served under Lucullus in the third Mithridatic war at the same time as brother Appius. Since he did not find the honour in this war which he claimed as Lucullus’ brother-in-law, he didn’t shy away from bringing the army into a revolt against Lucullus with his inflammatory speeches (Plut. Luc. 34. Dio XXXVI 14. Cic. de har. resp. 42). <40> He immediately went to the governor of Cilicia, Q. Marcius Rex, whom the senate instated against Lucullus, and who was also his brother-in-law, and was entrusted by him with leading the fleet; in fact, pirates captured him, but they left him again out of fear for Pompey (Dio XXXVI 17. XXXVIII 30. Appian. bell. civ. II 23. Strab. XIV 684, cf. Cic. loc. cit.). <50> Subsequently, he went to Antioch to fight with the Syrians against the Arabs; but he also began unrest here and would have almost lost his life (Dio loc. cit. 19).
His first appearance in Rome
Having returned to the capital city, in accordance with Roman custom he began his public career with a prosecution, in which he summoned Catilina to court because of extortion; the prosecution was, however, such that Catilina was acquitted <60> (Cic. loc. cit. and in Pis. 23. Ascon. p. 8, 24. 58, 18ff. 76, 8. 78, 7ff.: ita quidem iudicio est absolutus Catilina, ut Clodius infamis fuerit praevaricatus esse). In the following year (690 = 64) he went with the pro-praetor L. Murena into trans-alpine Gaul and looked to make a lot of money there through extortion. Also, following his return, his greed drove him to embezzlement of money that had been entrusted to him, according to Cicero’s allegations. (loc. cit.). <page break 82/83>
His relationship with the Catiline conspiracy
According Asconius’ report, he was suspected of having taken part in the Catiline conspiracy (p. 44, 20 -- to Milon. 55 --, where he refers to other places in Cicero, cf. de har. resp. 5; pro Mil. 37), but Plutarch’s account is more believable (Cic. 29): that he was still Cicero’s friend at the time <10> and belonged to those who had protected him with their weapons.
His misdemeanor against the Bona Dea
First, his crime against the Bona Dea brought him and Cicero completely apart. In the December of 692 = 62, as he was about to be named quaestor for the following year (Cic. de har. resp. 43), he snuck to the festival in Caesar’s house in women’s clothing, to get near Caesar’s wife Pompeia <20> (Cic. ad Att. I 12, 3; in Clod. et Cur. c. 5 and related to that Schol. Bob. p. 336 Orelli; de har. resp. 37. 44; pro Mil. 72; Paradox. IV 2 and elsewhere, St. Plut. Caes. 10; Cic. 28. App. Sic. 7. Dio XXXVII 45). Because of this crime, he was charged in the following year (693 = 61) on the basis of a senate decision, but was acquitted by the judges who had been bought off for money and dubious favours (Cic. ad Att I 13. 14. 16. 18, 3; ad fam. I 9, 15; in Pis. 95; pro Mil. 86. Liv. per. CIII. Dio XXXVII 46. Plut. Caes. 10; Cic. 29. Val. Max. XI, 1, 7. Senec. ep. 97.) <30>
His enmity with Cicero
Cicero, angered by an insult from Clodius, had already attacked him and his friends before the opening of the court trial (ad Att. I 16, 1); in the trial itself he had testified against him (ad Att. I 16, 2. 4 and related to that Schol. Bob. p. 330. Plut. Cic. 29. Val. Max. VIII 5, 5), and after the judges had acquitted him, <40> he stood up against him in the senate prepared with all weapons of eloquence (ad Att. I 16, 8ff.; or. in Clod. et Cur.). Cicero’s famous letter to Atticus I 16, which has already been mentioned many times before, reports about how the whole conflict progressed very nicely.
His quaestorship in the year 693 = 61
The consequence of this conflict was a deadly enmity between them both. To begin with, Clodius went to Sicily as a quaestor (in Clod. et Cur. c. 3, 2) <50> and explained there that he would apply for the aedileship after his service [as quaestor] (ad Att. II 1, 5); after his return, however, he was quite frank about his intention to become tribune of the plebs (ad Att. loc. cit.). Even though Cicero would be in danger if his enemy’s intentions were fulfilled, he still didn’t stop provoking him through insults (ad Att. II 1, 5. 6), until at last the disobedience which he had shown to the triumvirate determined his undoing. <60>
His transferal into the common people
In the year 695 = 59, on the same day that Cicero had lamented the state of the republic in a speech at 12 o’clock midday, Caesar put forward a senate law at 3 o’clock, through which Clodius was adopted by a pleb (Cic. pro domo 77; pro Sest. 16; ad Att. II 12, 1. VIII 3, 3. Suet. Caes. 20; Tib. 2 Plut. Cat. 33. Dio XXXVII 51. XXXVIII 12 and others, St., related to that Mommsen R. F. I 124. 397). <page break 83/84>
Tribunus plebis in the year 696 = 58
The rumour that arose soon after - that he was supposedly going to take over an embassy to the king Tigranes - turned out to be false, just like Cicero’s hopes that he would fall apart with the triumvirate (ad Att. II 7, 2. 3. 12, 1); under the influence of the triumvirate, Clodius was actually elected to tribune of the plebs <10> (Dio XXXVIII 12. Plut. Cat. 33; Caes. 14; Cic. 30. Appian. bell. civ. II 14. Vell. Pat. II 45).
His revolutionary legislation
Before he struck his big blow against Cicero and Cato as Caesar’s henchman, he sought to bring the people onto his side through a sequence of laws, in order to make sure he could carry out what he had intended (Dio XXXVIII 13. 14. Ascon. p. 7, 22ff.).
The first law decreed free grain to be distributed to the people <20> (Ascon. loc. cit. Dio XXXVIII 13. Cic. pro Sest. 55 and on that Schol. Bob. p. 300).
The second forbade the consultation of auguries on dies comitialis by repealing the Lex Aelia Fufia, and therefore made it difficult to postpone a consultation or raise objections against a law (not against an election), cf. Cic. post red. in sen. 11; pro Sest. 56; Phil. II 81; ad Att. IV 16, 5. Dio loc. cit.).
<30> The third reinstated street-unions (collegia compitalicia) which had been closed down in the year 690 = 64, and got rid of the barriers put in place against the formation of political associations (pro Sest. 33. 55; post red. in sen. 33. Dio loc. cit. Plut, Cic. 30).
The fourth and final law forbade the censors from removing somebody from their rank and discrediting them, if they hadn’t been formally charged by them and found guilty by both of them <40> (Cic. and. Ascon. loc. cit. pro Sest. 55. Dio loc. cit. and XL 57).
Clodius won over the consuls of the year, Gabinius and Piso, through an agreement according to which they would receive the provinces which were convenient to them from him (pro Sest. 24). The first thing he did following this was to move towards his own tasks: the removal of the two men whom Caesar disliked, that is, Cicero and Cato. <50>
He allowed the following law to pass against Cicero, in view of his legal action against Catilina’s comrades: Anyone who kills a Roman citizen without conviction or law should be exiled. (Vell. Pat. II 45. Dio XXXVIII 14. Plut. Cic. 30. Liv. CIII. App. II 15). Cicero wasn’t called out in the proposal by name, but nobody doubted that the proposal was directed against him. He put on mourning clothes <60> and sought help by turning to the, but where he appeared, Clodius mocked him and abused him with his gang (Plut. loc. cit. Appian. II 15). Thousands put on mourning clothes with Cicero, and the senate itself decided to put on mourning robes; but the consuls forbade the proceedings from being stopped, and stood by and watched as Clodius used armed violence against Cicero’s friends (Plut. Cic. 31. Cic. post red. ad Quir. 13; pro domo 54; pro Sest. 25--2, 32--33; pro Mil. 37). <page break 84/85> In order to make his actions appear legal, Clodius called a popular assembly and asked Caesar what he thought about the law; this turned out how you would expect it to have done (Dio XXXVIII 17). On the same day as Cicero, who had been abandoned by everyone, had escaped from the city following the advice of his friends, Clodius passed a law in the tribes which meant earth and water should be denied to him <10>, because he killed Roman citizens illegally, since it was on the basis of a foisted senate decree; [he said that] the same sentence should be applied to those who would take him in. (Cic. pro Sest. 53; pro domo 43. 47. 50. 51. 85, cf. Dio XXXVIII 17; post red. in sen. 4; ad Att. III 15, 6). The law was, however, made less strict by limiting the exile to 400 miles (ad Att. III 4, cf. Dio XXXVIII 17. Plut. Cic. 32). <20> On the same day and at the same hour that Cicero’s demise was determined, the consuls Gabinius and Piso obtained the provinces of Syria and Macedonia with extreme power (pro Sest. 53, cf. 55; ad Att. III 1; de prov. cons. 3, 7; pro domo 23. 24. 55. 61. Plut. Cic. 30).
After Cicero, Cato was also exiled from Rome, and, in fact, in a way that seemed honourable: Clodius gave him the job of taking over the kingdom of Cyprus, <30> to bring the royal assets to Rome, and to bring the Byzantine exiles back (Cic. pro domo 65. 52. 53; pro Sest. 56--57. 60--63. Vell. II 45. Liv. CIV. Plut. Cat. 34. Dio XXXVIII 30, in the two last sources, the dates must be corrected according to Cicero)
His reign of terror in the capital city
Immediately after Cicero was exiled, Clodius set his house on the Palatine on fire, destroyed his villas near the city <40> and handed over the spoils to the consuls (Cic. pro domo 59--64. 142--143; pro Sest. 54; post red. in sen. 18; in Pis. 26; pro Mil. 87; ad Att. IV 2, 5. 7. Plut. Cic. 33. Appian. II 15. Dio XXXVIII 17). He put the land on which the house stood up for sale straight away, and because he found no buyers, he had it bought for himself through a third party (Cic. pro domo 116, cf. 108. Plut. 33). Shortly before, he had acquired Q. Seius Postumus’ house on the Palatine, <50> after he got rid of the owner who had refused to sell it by poisoning him. He was intending to combine it with another house he already owned into a grand house. Next to that, he was supposed to have built a hall of fitting splendour and size. To that end, he destroyed Q. Catulus’ hall which was standing next to it, he built another with his name inscribed on it, and merged it with a section of Cicero’s house, <60> which he had dedicated to the goddess of freedom by a high priest, and an image of the goddess was put up inside there (pro domo 51. 100--116. 137; de har. resp. 30. 33; ad Att. VI 2, 3. 5; de leg. II 42. Plut. 33. Dio XXXIX 11). <page break 85/86> It seemed as though he felt like he was the lord of Rome, and met everyone who opposed him with unbearable violence (pro domo 81. 129; de har. resp. 27; pro Sest. 56. 64--66; pro Mil. 87). In general, we learn what he got up to as a tribune from the following works of Cicero: his speech post red., pro domo, de har. resp., pro Sest., in Pis., pro Mil. and his letters.
His attacks on Pompey
He went so far in his audacity that he even insulted the triumvir Pompey, by helping the young Tigranes from Armenia escape, whom Pompey had brought to Rome as a captive (ad Att. III 8, 3). <10> In short, he acted openly as an enemy of Pompey. The consul Gabinius, who was on Pompey’s side, was wounded by a mob, and Pompey himself eventually found it necessary, following continuous harassment, to remove himself from the forum and the curia, and to shut himself in his house the whole time, since Clodius was still in office <20> (post red. in sen. 4; post red. ad Quir. 14; pro domo 64--67; de har. resp. 48--49; pro Sest. 69; in Pis. 27--28, cf. pro domo 122--126; pro Mil. 18ff. 37 and relating to that Ascon. p. 41, 24ff. Dio XXXVIII 30. Plut. Cic. 33; Pomp. 48. 49). Clodius even turned himself against Caesar around the end of his time as tribune, by challenging the validity of his laws (pro domo 39--41).
The dispute over Cicero’s return
Clodius’ provocative attitude had, of course, the repercussion that the leaders were allowed to bring Cicero back (Dio XXXVIII 30). <30> In the following year (697 = 57), when Clodius’ time in office came to an end, after the first hearings had gone ahead without success, the tribune Q. Fabricius dared to propose the return of Cicero on the 25th January to the people, but Clodius, who was still moving yet more unrestrained, got in his way by means of armed violence. About the gangs of gladiators that he used for this, cf. vol. I page. 2271. Soon afterwards, he attacked the tribune P. Sestius, <40> when he was interrupting the consul Metellus Nepos during a hearing, and abused him so much that he barely came out with his life. (pro Sest. 79ff.; post red. in sen. 7. 30; pro Mil. 38). He besieged another tribune in the same year, T. Annius Milo, who had done the most for Cicero’s return. [He besieged him] in his house and threatened him, where he publicly appeared (pro Sest. 85. 88. 90; pro Mil. 38). He burned the temple of the nymphs, in which the censors’ documents were looked after <50> (pro Sest. 84; pro Mil. 73; p. red. ad Quir. 14; de har. resp. 27. 57; pro Cael. 78 [corrected from: pro Coel.]); furthermore, he disrupted the praetor L. Caecilius’ games for Apollo, and besieged him in his house (pro Mil. 38 and on that, Ascon. p. 43, 3ff.). Of course, Clodius couldn’t thwart Cicero’s return in the long term, since Milo had set up a rival gang himself in the interests of the senate party (vol. I page. 2271), but after his return, he did at least harass him in every conceivable way <60> (ad Att. IV 3; pro Sest. 88).
More street-fights
He blamed Cicero for the inflation that was rife at the time, in order to incite turmoil (pro domo 3. 7), and when Cicero, in order to make his plight less severe, gave the advice that they should transfer the overall control of the supplies to Pompey through exceptional power, he accused him of betraying the state <page break 86/87> (pro domo 2). Because of a decision of the senate, Cicero got the place where his house was back, and Clodius’ hall was pulled down; but when Cicero began building again, he drove away the workers and set Q. Cicero’s house on fire from the building site out (ad Att. IV 3, 2). A few days later, he ambushed Cicero on an open street, and the day after he stormed Milo’s house on the Germalus, although he was fought back against (ad Att. IV 3, 3). <10>
Aedilis curulis in the year 698 = 56
When Clodius put himself forward for the aedileship for the following year (698 = 56), Milo sought to destroy him through the courts; but Clodius was elected, and he himself brought Milo to trial. When, in the second hearing, on 7th February, Pompey appeared in order to defend Milo, he attacked him in his rough way, but was in the end forced to flee (for a more precise account of the story of his election and the trial against Milo, see vol. 1 p. 2272). <20> At the beginning of April he put on the megalese games as an aedile; he defiled them by admitting a large mob of slaves, which meant that the outside had to give way to them (de har. resp. 22--26). Soon afterwards, a report from the haruspices was given, at the request of the senate, about certain signs which had occurred that year. Clodius made a connection between the haruspices’ statement that holy places had been defiled, and Cicero’s house; <30> he defended himself in the speech de haruspicum responsis, cf. Dio XXXIX 20. When Clodius began attacking Cicero’s house again, Milo acted successfully against him (Dio loc. cit.). With this help, Cicero then began to try to get rid of Clodius’ legal tablets from the capital; but the first try was unsuccessful, but later, during Clodius’ absence, he was successful (Dio XXXIX 21). According to Plutarch (Cic. 34; Cato 40) <40> Cicero had already taken the tablets earlier, just after his return from exile.
How he acted following the discussions at Lucca (698 = 56)
When Cicero made his speech de. harusp., Clodius had already gone and joined up with Pompey again (de har. resp. 51f.); which Caesar had about worried during discussions at Lucca. He had been supporting Pompey since he applied for the consulship with Crassus, and almost lost his life during that (Dio XXXIX 29). <50> He was being guided by the hope that he would get an extraordinary embassy from Pompey and Crassus when they became consuls (Cic. ad Q. fr. II 9, 2); however, such a thing wasn’t mentioned further, and as it seems, Clodius stayed in Rome. In the next years, he was calm; we only learn that in the year 700 = 54 he acted as a prosecutor for the tribune Procilius, and also as a defense for M. Aemilius Scaurus (among others, at the same time as Cicero) <60> (ad Att. IV 15, 4. Ascon. p. 18, 9. 10). For Cicero, of course, he was still a constant image of terror (ad Q. fr. II 15 b 2. III 1, 11. 4, 2).
A candidate for praetor in the year 702 = 52
He first renewed the role he had previously played, <page break 87/88> when he himself was applying for praetor and his enemy Milo for consul; he figured he could give the freedmen the same political rights as free-born citizens (pro Mil. 87, relating to that Ascon. p. 46, 20; cf. Mommsen R. G. III 308; St.-R. III 440, 2). But the year 702 = 52 began before the consuls and praetors had been elected; the disputes over the elections hadn’t come to a close yet, so one day, on a road and in a sudden brawl that broke out between the two gangs, Clodius was first wounded and then killed at Milo’s explicit command. For the exact details about his murder and about his funeral, see vol. I. p. 2273-74. Clodius was married twice, to Pinaria and Fulvia (see there.)
[Fröhlich]
This article is referenced by: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (296), P. Clodius Pulcher (49), Clodia (66), Fulvia (Cornelius) (113), Pinaria (29)
This person is on the following family trees: The patrician branch of the Claudii