Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T19:47:37.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Primus, Murena, and Fides: Notes On Cassius Dio Liv. 3

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Barbara Levick
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The trial (undoubtedly for maiestas) of Marcus Primus, former proconsul of Macedonia, is described only by Cassius Dio—and his account is unsatisfactory in more than one respect. According to Dio, Primus was accused of making war upon the Odrysae, a friendly Thracian tribe, during his governorship. His defence was that he had acted at the behest of Augustus, though sometimes he named Marcellus. When Augustus of his own accord came into court and, asked by the presiding praetor whether he had given the order, denied it, Primus' advocate Licinius Murena demanded what he was doing there and asked who had summoned him. Augustus' brief reply—‘the interest of the state’—won him the approval of people of good sense; but a considerable number of jurymen voted for Primus' acquittal all the same, and the trial was followed by the conspiracy of Fannius Caepio, in which Murena was alleged to be implicated.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Greece & Rome , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , October 1975, pp. 156 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

NOTES

1. Atkinson, Kathleen M. T., ‘Constitutional and Legal Aspects of the Trials of Marcus Primus and Varro Murena’, Historia ix (1960), 440 ff.Google Scholar; Stockton, D. L., ‘Primus and Murena’, Historia xiv (1965), 18 ff.Google Scholar; Bauman, R., ‘Tiberius and Murena’, Historia xv (1966), 420 ff.Google Scholar; Swan, M., ‘The consular Fasti of 23 B.c. and the Conspiracy of Varro Murena’, HSCP lxxi (1967), 235 ff.Google Scholar; Jameson, Shelagh A., ‘22 or 23?’, Historia xviii (1969), 204 ff.Google Scholar

2. So Stockton and Jameson, artt. citt.; Dio liv. 3. 3: ἔπὶοὖν τούτοις … ἐπῃνεῑτο, 耶ॣ।ॉ2॔αὶ τὸ τὴν βουλὴν ἀθροίζειν ὁσάκις ἂν ἐθελήσῃ λαβεῑν. This right is an indispensable complement to the tribunicia potestas granted in 23 (so Jameson, 225).

3. Atkinson, 's attempt, art. cit. 443 ff.Google Scholar, to show that the Marcellus mentioned at the trial of Primus was not Augustus' nephew but the consul of 22, M. Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus, is rightly rejected by Stockton, , 36 ff.Google Scholar, and by Jameson, , 205 f.Google Scholar

4. For the time of year, see Mommsen, , St. 11. i3. 255 f.Google Scholar; if the trial contributed to the constitutional changes of 23, Primus' year of office must be 25–24 (Atkinson, 445, thinks of 23–22).

5. Cic. Phil. iv. 9Google Scholar; ad Att. viii. 15. 3Google Scholar (‘more maiorum’); but cf. ad Fam. xiii. 26. 3.Google Scholar

6. ‘Bellum sua sponte gerere’ was already forbidden under the Lex Cornelia maiestatis: Cic. in Pis. 50.Google ScholarAtkinson, 453 ff.Google Scholar, argues for special privileges granted after 23; even that will not do: see Stockton, , 39, n. 66Google Scholar, and Allison, J. E. and Cloud, J. D., ‘The Lex Julia Maiestatis’, Latomus xxi (1962), 711 ff. Claudius: Dio lx. 23. 6.Google Scholar

7. See Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1952), 333 ff.Google Scholar

8. For Marcellus as transmitter of the orders, see Atkinson, , 442Google Scholar (rejecting the possibility), and Stockton, , 35.Google Scholar

9. See Frei-Stolba, Regula, Untersuchungen zu den Wahlen in der rönusehen Kaiserzett (Zürich, 1967), 80 ff.Google Scholar, and sober discussion by Millar, F. G. B., JRS lxiii (1973), 51 ff.Google Scholar

10. The Odrysae: Dio li. 25. 5. For the spolia opima and the corslet, see Livy iv. 20. 7 and PIR 2 i. 186 and (for political implications) Syme, R., The Roman Revolution, 398 f.Google Scholar It was reading an unpublished paper by Mr. E. W. Gray that caused me to look at patrons of the Odrysae (he mentions Crassus). I have benefited greatly from hearing Mr. Gray's views; they are different from mine and he is to be held responsible neither for my theories nor for my errors. For speculation on the activities of Crassus and Primus, see Bowersock, G. W., Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford, 1955), 155.Google Scholar

11. Cic. pro Cael. 73Google Scholar; Il Verr. 3. 3.Google Scholar Defence was always more reputable: Div. in Q. Caec. 1.Google Scholar

12. For the Fannii and their politics, see Broughton, T. R. S., Magistrates of the Roman RepublicGoogle Scholar, index. Caepio's father survived him: Dio liv. 3. 6.

13. See Jameson, , 228 f.Google Scholar

14. So also Jameson, , and Treggiari, Susan, Phoenix xxvii (1973), 253 ff.Google ScholarContra, M. Swan, art. cit., and Weinrib, E. J., Phoenix xxii (1968), 50.Google Scholar The names: Vell. Pat. ii, 91. 2; Tac. Ann. i. 10. 3.Google Scholar

15. Vell. Pat., loc. cit.

16. So Stockton, 19.

17. Praevaricatio: Dig. xlvii. 15. 1Google Scholar; Cic. pro Clu. 58Google Scholar: ‘non defendere sed praevaricari’. The suicide: Tac. Ann. xi. 5. 2Google Scholar, with Furneaux ad loc.; Nipperdey's interpretation of this passage, which Koestermann (ad loc.) seems inclined to accept, does not account for the measures proposed to remedy the abuse, which were concerned with honoraria, not plain bribes.