 A bust of Cicero, who delivered thePro Plancio, from the 1st century CE | |
| Date | September 54 BCE |
|---|---|
| Location | Roman Forum, Rome |
| Motive | Defence speech for Cnaeus Plancius |
| Participants | Marcus Tullius Cicero |
 Text of the speech at Latin Wikisource | |
ThePro Plancio, sometimes named as thePro Cn. Plancio,[a] or thePlanciana,[2] was a speech given by the Roman lawyer and statesmanCicero in September 54 BCE. In the speech, delivered in theRoman Forum, Cicero defendedGnaeus Plancius [la], who had been elected asaedile the previous year, against a charge of electoral malpractice (ambitus) levelled byMarcus Iuventius Laterensis [la], one of his defeated opponents. The outcome of the trial is not known, though it is often suggested that Cicero won.
Plancius was prosecuted under thelex Licinia de sodaliciis, which criminalised the improper use of electoral associations (sodalitates); the prosecution, conducted by Laterensis with the assistance ofLucius Cassius Longinus, appears to have offered little evidence that Plancius had specifically committed this crime, rather than more general electoral infractions. In thePro Plancio, Cicero defends Plancius's character and alleges the legitimacy of his election, claiming that Laterensis had made his prosecution under thelex Licinia in order to benefit from its unusual process of jury selection, which advantaged the prosecution. Throughout the speech, Cicero emphasises his twofold friendship with Laterensis and Plancius, who had both assisted him during a period of exile in 58–57 BCE. The bulk of the speech deals not with the charges against Plancius, but with asserting his personal merits and those of Cicero himself.
The speech was described byJames Smith Reid as "a thoroughly artistic handling of a somewhat ordinary theme".[3] Cicero makes reference to works of early Latin literature, such as the poetry ofEnnius, and to the philosopherPlato'sCrito, and makes extensive use of the rhetorical technique ofsermocinatio. Cicero edited and published the speech; it is known from sporadic references in classical literature and survivingpapyrus manuscripts, but was relatively neglected by ancient rhetoricians in comparison to the rest of Cicero's speeches. However, it was widely copied in manuscripts from the early modern period, and was known to the fourteenth-century humanistPetrarch.
ThePro Plancio was delivered in September 54 BCE,[4] in theRoman Forum.[5] In the speech,Cicero attempted to defendGnaeus Plancius [la] against a charge of electoral malpractice (ambitus) levelled byMarcus Iuventius Laterensis [la], whom Plancius had defeated in elections for the post ofcurule aedile.[6] Plancius was defended by Cicero, probably in addition toQuintus Hortensius.[7][b] Laterensis was, in turn, assisted byLucius Cassius Longinus.[5]
Asconsul in 63 BCE, Cicero had revealedthe conspiracy ofLucius Sergius Catilina (Catiline), a failed consular candidate who had attempted to seize power in a coup.[9] On 5 December of that year, Cicero had Catiline's supporters in Rome executed without trial, a decision which was widely condemned.[10] Cicero's political enemy,Publius Clodius Pulcher, passed a law astribune in February 58 BCE condemning anyone who had executed Roman citizens without a trial. The law was seen as an attack on Cicero, who fled Rome into exile shortly after its passage;[11] Clodius in turn secured a formal proclamation of exile (aquae et ignis interdictio[c]) against him in early April.[12] Cicero's exile proved an enduring source of reputational damage to him, and he referred to it frequently in his subsequent speeches.[13]
After his return from exile in 57 BCE, Cicero's legal work largely consisted of defending allies of the rulingtriumvirs and his own personal friends and allies;he defended his former pupilMarcus Caelius Rufus against a charge of murder in 56.[14] Under the influence of the triumvirs, he had also defended his former enemiesPublius Vatinius (in August 54 BCE) andMarcus Aemilius Scaurus (between July and September), which weakened his prestige and sparked attacks on his integrity: Luca Grillo has suggested these cases as the source of the poetCatullus's double-edged comment that Cicero was "the best defender of anybody".[15]
Gnaeus Plancius was a member of theequestrian class, the son of a tax collector (publicanus) from theLucanian town ofAtina.[7] In 61–60 BCE, Cicero had represented an association (societas) of tax-collectors, including Plancius's father,[d] in their attempt to reduce their financial obligations to the Roman state.[16] The younger Plancius was a supporter ofPompey the Great.[17]
When the exiled Cicero arrived atDyrrachium in western Greece late in April 58 BCE, Plancius was serving as aquaestor (a junior financial official) on the staff ofLucius Appuleius Saturninus, the governor ofMacedonia. Plancius travelled to meet Cicero, and took him to stay in his official residence (quaestorium) inThessalonica,[18] where Cicero remained until the following November,[19] at which point Plancius was soon to return to Rome following the appointment of a new governor,Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus.[20] As Cicero later recounted their meeting in thePro Plancio, Plancius took off his official insignia, put on mourning garb, and embraced Cicero, too overcome by tears to speak.[21]
Plancius was subsequently elected as a plebeian tribune in 56 BCE.[17] He then successfully ran for curule aedile in 55 BCE,[22] in an election thatLily Ross Taylor has described as "a travesty of Roman free institutions".[23] The election results were declared void,[24] following corruption and violence during the campaign,[25] and the election repeated in 54: Plancius was again elected, alongsideAulus Plautius.[26] His election as aedile made Planciusthe first in his family to enter the senate.[27] It is debated whether Plancius served as aedile in 55 BCE, or was due to begin his year of office when prosecuted in 54.[28]
Marcus Iuventius Laterensis was from an ancient noble family of Rome.[29] He had served as a quaestor andproquaestor inCyrene, where Michael Alexander judges that he was "more than usually upright" in his dealings.[30] Christopher Craig has written that Laterensis's more elevated social background would have favoured his case, asambitus trials customarily involved comparing the social standing (dignitas) of the respective parties.[31]
During Cicero's exile, Laterensis had protected his relatives who remained in Italy, and made petitions for Cicero to be recalled.[31] Like Cicero, Laterensis had been an early opponent of the triumvirs – he had withdrawn his candidacy fortribune in 59 BCE, because those elected were obliged to swear to uphold the laws ofJulius Caesar. However, unlike Cicero, Laterensis had maintained this opposition: he used Cicero's change of sides to attack the latter's integrity during Plancius's case.[32]
Laterensis made the prosecution a few weeks after the election of 54 BCE:[33] the trial was held around the time of theludi Romani, which took place in late August or early September.[34][e] The prosecution was made under thelex Licinia de sodaliciis, a law put forward by thetriumvirMarcus Licinius Crassus in 55 BCE.[36] As neither the prosecution speech against Plancius nor the text of the relevant, the precise accusations made against Plancius are uncertain: Laterensis may have accused Plancius of forming an illicit coalition to secure his election, of giving or receiving bribes, or of several of these offences.[37] ThePro Plancio is itself the main source of evidence for the terms of thelex Licinia de sodaliciis.[36][f]
Thelex Licinia specifically criminalised organised bribery through the use of associations (sodalicia) of supporters,[38] categorising such conduct asambitus infinitus ('aggravatedambitus').[39] It also specified that the jury would be selected in a manner advantageous to the prosecution: while most trials allowed both the prosecutor and defender to veto any juror they considered unsuitable,[40] trials under thelex Licinia required the prosecutor to nominate fourvoting tribes from which the jurors would be chosen, from which the defence could eliminate one.[31] Laterensis's arguments appear to have generally been more appropriate to a trial for conventionalambitus than onede sodaliciis ('concerningsodalicia'), and Cicero argued that he had only made his prosecution under thelex Licinia to benefit from its distinctive jury-selection procedure.[41]
Plancius's case was the fourth that Cicero had defended on a chargede sodaliciis, after those ofGaius Messius andMarcus Livius Drusus Claudianus in 54 and ofMarcus Cispius earlier in 46.[42][g] Taylor has characterised the prosecution as politically-motivated revenge: Laterensis was an ally ofCato the Younger, who had been elected aspraetor for 54 and whose ally,Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, had been elected consul. Catonian candidates had been defeated in the voided elections of 55, partly due to manoeuvring from the triumvirs Pompey andCaesar.[43]
Cicero edited his speeches, including thePro Plancio, before publication, and they were subsequently affected by losses of text in the transmitted manuscripts.[44] Andrew Lintott has suggested, following an argument presented by Jules Humbert in 1925, that the transmitted text of the speech may combine parts of multiple orations given by Cicero at different points in the trial.[h][45]
Structurally, the speech divides into three unequal parts: an introductoryexordium (sections 1–6a), a development of the speech's argumentation (argumentatio; sections 6b–100) and a concludingperoratio (sections 101–104).[46] The speech largely focuses on Cicero, rather than Plancius or the charges against him.[5] Only around a fifth deals with the charge ofsodalicia directly.[23] In respect of this, Cicero makes a twofold argument that Laterensis cannot prove the allegations of misconduct against Plancius, and that Laterensis's defeat can be easily explained without any suggestion of electoral irregularity.[47] Cicero accepts that Plancius had made use ofsodalitates (political associations), but argued that they were merely groups of friends, aimed at mutual support rather than to improperly influence the election.[36]
In theexordium, Cicero expresses his grief that Plancius has been accused, claiming that the latter's support for him during his exile brought the case about by influencing patriotic Romans to vote for him, and bemoans the conflicting obligations he feels towards Plancius and Laterensis on account of each party's good qualities and previous support for him.[48] The first part of theargumentatio forms acontentio dignitatis (a comparison of the two candidates' merits).[49] Cicero contrasts Plancius and Laterensis, highlighting Plancius's relative social disadvantage by comparison with his prosecutor, but breaks the usual rhetorical convention of attacking his opponent's character, instead proclaiming his respect for and gratitude towards Laterensis, despite the insults that he says the latter deployed against him in his own speech.[50] In sections 58–71, he contrasts the characters of Plancius, Laterensis and Cassius, Laterensis's junior partner (subscriptor), claiming that Cassius lacks both Plancius's moral uprightness and Laterensis's rhetorical skill.[51] From section 86 onwards, Cicero reminds the jury of Plancius's service to him, and argues that to attack Plancius is therefore to attack him, and justifies his own political and personal actions to assert his own good character.[52] As May puts it, Cicero's argument is that "support for Plancius is support for Cicero; tears shed for Plancius are tears for Cicero ... acquittal for Plancius is acquittal for Cicero".[53]
On the charges ofambitus, Taylor judges that "the arguments are specious and the case is obviously weak".[23] Andrew Riggsby has characterised Cicero's primary strategy as attempting to establish, separate from the precise legal matters at hand, that Plancius's conduct fitted the norms of Roman society: in Riggsby's formulation, that he was "one of us". He characterises Cicero's narrative of Plancius's life and career, as emphasising the latter'spietas, particularly towards Cicero himself.[54] Cicero also claimed that Plancius was popular among and supported by citizens of his native Atina, which he used as evidence of Plancius's good character and upstanding status.[55] James M. May sees thePro Plancio as similar to thePro Sestio, delivered by Cicero in 56 BCE, in that both speeches aim to persuade by establishing the good character (ethos) of Cicero, and by extension of his client.[56] Cicero consistently draws parallels between himself and Plancius, and between their respective political careers, in what May calls "patron–client identification".[57]
Craig has described Cicero's approach as a "strategy of embarrassment", similar to that which he employed in thePro Murena of 63 BCE.[58] Cicero claims to be embarrassed at having to oppose Laterensis, given the latter's previous friendship and support towards him.[59] As such, he refuses to reciprocate theattacks on his integrity that Laterensis had made in his own speech.[50] Throughout the speech, Cicero emphasises the bonds of friendship and obligation (amicitia) between himself and the prosecutor, Laterensis. Cicero had previously used this tactic extensively in three speeches, and would do so again in thePro Ligario of 46 BCE, but it is not attested elsewhere in Roman oratory or in Greek rhetorical manuals. Craig suggests that it was an invention of Roman orators, perhaps of Cicero himself.[61] Craig has called Cicero's response to Laterensis's attacks on his character "both ingenious and unique".[2]
In 1882,James Smith Reid described thePro Plancio as "a thoroughly artistic handling of a somewhat ordinary theme".[62] Cicero twice uses the device ofsermocinatio, an imagined dialogue with an interlocutor, following the practice of contemporary rhetoricians in using it to add interest and persuasive power to his speech.[63] In section 59, Cicero quotes the tragedyAtreus by the early Latin playwrightLucius Accius, describing his own fatherly mentorship of his son,Cicero the Younger.[64] Elsewhere in the speech, he makes possible allusions to two other works of early Latin literature: theAnnales, a historicalepic poem byEnnius, and theSatires ofGaius Lucilius.[65] He also alludes to theCrito, a philosophical dialogue byPlato, contrasting the philosopherSocrates's absolute submission to the rule of law in that dialogue with what he alleges to be Laterensis's refusal to accept the popular verdict against his election.[66]
It is unknown for certain whether Plancius was acquitted or convicted, though often stated that Cicero's defence was successful.[67][i] Cicero wrote two letters to Plancius in 46 BCE, when the latter was living on the Greek island ofCorcyra; this would be consistent with a guilty verdict and the consequent punishment of exile, but Plancius may equally have been exiled for his support of Pompey by Julius Caesar after the latter'smilitary defeat of Pompey.[71] Cicero wrote to his brother,Quintus, on 28 September 54 BCE that he was sending him a copy of thePro Plancio, along with thePro Scauro, at Quintus's request.[72] In December of the same year, Cicero drew on the arguments he had made in thePro Plancio in a letter toPublius Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, defending his collaboration with the triumvirs.[73]
Parts of thePro Plancio are preserved on a fifth-century parchment fragment fromHermopolis Magna in Egypt.[75] The second-century authorAulus Gellius mentions it twice in hisAttic Nights, a miscellany of notes on various scholarly topics, to illustrate Cicero's use of rhetoric and grammar.[77] Unlike most of the surviving speeches of Cicero, thePro Plancio was not used or quoted in the manuals of rhetoric published during the Roman period and late antiquity.[78] Giuseppe La Bua suggests that it may have been seen as a school-level text, and that it may have been read out of biographical interest in Cicero as well as for its perceived rhetorical quality.[79]
An ancient commentary (scholia) on thePro Plancio was preserved in the Bobbiopalimpsest (Codex Ambrosianus), a late fifth-century manuscript overwritten in the seventh century with an account of theCouncil of Chalcedon.[80] The commentary is generally believed to have been assembled in the third or fourth century CE, possibly by a scholiast named Volcacius,[j] and to be a summary of a longer commentary dating to the second century, which may itself have drawn on a first-century work.[82] The speech was known to the fourteenth-century humanistPetrarch, and frequently attested after his death.[83]
Around forty manuscripts of thePro Plancio are known, though in 1897 H. W. Auden judged that all but two were below usable quality. The older of the two manuscripts was written in the eleventh century, and is known by thesiglumT afterTegernsee Abbey inBavaria, where it was discovered.[84]T was lost during the 1795French invasion of Bavaria, but rediscovered in Paris byJohann Georg Baiter in 1853.[85] The second, known as theCodex Erfurtensis (E) orCodex Thuringicus, after its previous locations inErfurt and inThuringia, dates to the fifteenth or sixteenth century and collates Ciceronian texts from various sources. BothT andE probably derive their texts of thePro Plancio from a single original, which in turn probably descends from an edition of Cicero's works made in the ninth or tenth century.[86]T andE are generally considered the most authoritative manuscripts,[87] though for her 1981 recension of the manuscripts of thePro Plancio, Elżbieta Olechowska identified a total corpus of 154 manuscripts; she followed the 1911 edition ofAlbert Clark in considering two additional manuscripts –F, a fourteenth-century manuscript from Florence, andC1, a fifteenth-century manuscript held in Cambridge – among the most useful.[88]