In 59 bc, in the second half of Caesar's tumultuous year as consul, a certain Decimus Laelius brought a charge of extortion against the former praetor and ally of Cicero – L. Valerius Flaccus.Footnote ¹ Flaccus had proven instrumental in the suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy four years earlier. From the beginning of his speech pro Flacco, the orator frames the case in terms of contemporary politics. Though ostensibly about the defendant's alleged misconduct as Governor of Asia, Cicero makes the contest a ‘trial of character’ and argues that the impetus for the prosecution was actually Flaccus’ role in foiling the Catilinarian plot.Footnote ² In contrast with his own heroism as consul and that of his client in preserving the Republic, Cicero portrays the prosecution and its backers as in league with the remnants of Catiline's ill-fated putsch.

Over the last few decades, much of the scholarship on the pro Flacco has focused on Cicero's ethnic attacks on the Greek witnesses for the prosecution. While the portrait of Laelius in the speech has received some attention, analysis of his character has been driven by consideration of ethnicity at the expense of the political context.Footnote ³ In what follows, I shall argue that Cicero portrays the prosecutor not so much as a Greek but as a would-be Caesar – an ambitious and energetic individual who, in the course of his investigation (inquisitio), used a combination of bribery, coercion, and incitement to secure popular resolutions from Greek cities condemning Flaccus.Footnote ⁴ Cicero underscores the comparison with a brief digression juxtaposing the past and present practices of Greek and Roman assemblies. Both Cicero's account of Laelius’ dealings with the Greeks and the comparison of Greek and Roman assemblies contain not only explicit criticism of Greeks and democracy (a feature long recognized by scholars) but also implies criticism of Caesar's consulship and its democratic bent.

Flaccus’ trial played out against the backdrop of Caesar's consulship.Footnote ⁵ To criticize the status quo in the latter months of 59 entailed some risk. Earlier in the year, while defending his former consular colleague, C. Antonius, against charges of official misconduct, Cicero had criticized the condition of the Republic under Caesar. Whether or not, as he would later claim, his criticism actually prompted Caesar to oversee the transfer of Clodius to plebeian status, thereby setting in motion events that would lead to Cicero's exile, an atmosphere of anxiety had settled over the capital in the first months of the year.Footnote ⁶ Caesar had initially tried to work with the Senate to craft agrarian legislation, but the obstruction of Cato and the other senatorial conservatives led the consul to take his proposals directly to the people.Footnote ⁷ When the day arrived for the vote on his proposal, Caesar's opponent and consular colleague, Marcus Bibulus, forced his way to the Temple of Castor and attempted to speak in opposition to the measure. Violence erupted. Bibulus was thrown down the steps. His fasces were smashed. The tribunes with him were attacked. Caesar's supporters also forcefully ejected Cato from the Forum, when the latter attempted to stand his ground and speak in opposition to the measure.Footnote ⁸ The next day, Bibulus convened the Senate to annul the measure, but fear of the crowd paralysed the patres. Now frustrated with the Senate himself, Bibulus attempted to mount the Rostra, only to have Vatinius, a tribune and ally of Caesar, threaten him with arrest.Footnote ⁹ The consul retreated to his house and, for the remainder of the year, claimed to be watching the sky for omens in an effort to thwart Caesar's legislative programme.

These events are crucial for appreciating Cicero's strategy in the pro Flacco. He opens the speech by looking back to his own consulship, declaring that, amid the greatest dangers to the city and empire and the most severe and grievous crisis of the Republic (in maximis periculis huius urbis atque imperi, gravissimo atque acerbissimo rei publicae casu), he as consul saved the Republic with the aid of his ally and confidant, L. Flaccus (cum…socio atque adiutore consiliorum periculorumque meorum).Footnote ¹⁰ Now, almost four years later, the Republic again stands on the brink, and its one-time saviour now finds himself in peril. After declaring that the foundations of the Republic (omnia rei publicae subsidia) and everything related to the condition of the citizenry (totum statum civitatis) lies in the hands of the jury, Cicero wonders aloud, ‘Every other refuge for good men, defence of the innocent, foundation of the Republic, deliberation, protection, law, have collapsed. To whom exactly shall I appeal, entreat, implore?’Footnote ¹¹ The jury represents the last hope for Cicero and a Republic in crisis.

The effectiveness of such an appeal hinged on whether the audience accepted the premise of Rome's political unrest.Footnote ¹² Having lamented the undermining of the Republic's foundations in the exordium, Cicero observes in the peroration that he and his audience are living in times of revolution (motu temporum), amid a reordering and upheaval in affairs (conversione rerum ac perturbatione). He asserts that, ‘While certain men contrive many other schemes, they also especially want your opinions, your verdicts, and your votes to be found extremely hostile and dangerous to all the best citizens.’Footnote ¹³ He later exclaims, ‘But let them have everything else. Let them have their power, their offices, the immense store of all their other advantages. But let those who wanted to keep these things safe be safe themselves.’Footnote ¹⁴

Cicero alleges that the present case and the earlier prosecution of Antonius are part of a coordinated effort to punish himself and his allies for their suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy.Footnote ¹⁵ Though the orator largely refrains from identifying the prosecution's backers by name, in light of recent events, his allusion points to none other than Caesar and his allies. Pompey was probably the prosecution's chief proponent. Cicero refers in the first part of the refutatio to the close relationship between Pompey and Laelius, the father of the accusator. The father had served under Pompey in Spain, and the son would later serve as Pompey's subordinate in the war against Caesar.Footnote ¹⁶ In the same passage, Cicero relates a rumour (sermo), which was circulating in Asia, that Pompey had pressed Laelius to undertake the prosecution. The fact that Cicero characterizes it as a rumour allows him to report its substance without endorsing its veracity. Given the spectre of Clodius as tribune-elect and despite Pompey's repeated assurances that no harm would come to Cicero, the latter had to tread carefully.Footnote ¹⁷ Uncertainty surrounds the other members of the prosecution. Along with a certain C. Appuleius Decianus, some have argued that the elder L. Cornelius Balbus, who served under Pompey in Spain and became a familiaris of Caesar, was also one of the subscriptores.Footnote ¹⁸

Likewise, the prosecutors in the earlier trial of C. Antonius seem to have been associates of Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus.Footnote ¹⁹ Though it remains unclear to what extent Caesar and Crassus had, in fact, been allies of Catiline, rumour had – at a minimum – long associated them.Footnote ²⁰ At the time of the conspiracy, when letters surfaced identifying several of the conspirators, a witness implicated Crassus, and Caesar's enemies circulated reports that he too was involved. Caesar's subsequent opposition in the Senate to the execution of the conspirators must have only heightened suspicion. When Caesar proposed a measure of clemency, Plutarch reports that Cato accused him of being complicit and of aiming to overturn the Republic. The accusation prompted a band of young equites who were serving as Cicero's bodyguard to draw their swords and threaten Caesar as he was leaving the Senate.Footnote ²¹

Cicero builds on these rumours, characterizing the prosecution as the latest in a series of coordinated attacks on the Republic. He advances a connection between the Catilinarian conspiracy, the current political situation, and the prosecution of Flaccus in the exordium, and he returns to it in the refutatio.Footnote ²² Earlier in the trial, Laelius had, in fact, attacked Cicero over the executions of the Catilinarian conspirators,Footnote ²³ but, while the young prosecutor comes in for his share of criticism, the orator portrays him as a pawn in a much larger game. Like Caesar earlier in the year, Laelius was acting on behalf of more powerful individuals, especially Pompey. As we have seen, Cicero alleges that Laelius had circulated a rumour in Asia that Pompey had pressed him to prosecute Flaccus and that the general had thrown all of his authority, favour, resources, and power behind the effort.Footnote ²⁴ Pompey had, of course, done the same for Caesar less than two years earlier: frustrated by senatorial conservatives who refused to approve his eastern settlements and grant land to his veterans, the general threw his support behind Caesar's campaign for the consulship.Footnote ²⁵ Following his election, Caesar secured passage of Pompey's legislation with help from the general and his veterans. Likewise, Cicero accuses Laelius, armed with abundant resources and with the support of the general responsible for pacifying the region, of descending on various Asian cities with an ‘army’ (exercitus) of staffers and procuring evidence through a similar combination of incitement, bribery, and intimidation.Footnote ²⁶ Though he generally forgoes details, Cicero asks his audience to remember anything they themselves have heard ‘by way of widespread rumour or talk of violence, force, arms, or troops’ (quid ipsi audistis communi fama atque sermone de vi, de manu, de armis, de copiis).Footnote ²⁷

Like Caesar at Rome, the prosecutor had apparently bribed and stirred up the lower classes of various Asian cities, while using his magisterial authority, specifically the threat of subpoena, to intimidate wealthy citizens. While the use of such political tactics would have alienated the men of substance who comprised the jury, Cicero has framed the argument in such a way that, not only do Laelius’ means resemble those employed by the triumvirs, his ends are also the same: he and his supporters seek power at the expense of the Republic and Cicero himself.Footnote ²⁸ To achieve their ends at home and abroad, Laelius and the triumvirs marginalized the optimi – men of standing and substance to whom the people looked for counsel. Rather than consulting these optimi as was customary, those in power brought their proposals directly to the assemblies and, in the process, compromised the legitimacy of their measures.

Having accused Laelius of employing bribery, incitement, and intimidation to extract resolutions from Pergamon and Cyme, Cicero shifts the focus to contemporary Rome. He begins by criticizing popular deliberation among the Greeks and then compares democracy with both republican norms and politics as they are currently practised in the capital. Though ostensibly part of an a fortiori argument, Cicero's comments allow him to compare the chaos of democracy with the unsettled state of Roman politics and, in the process, offer veiled criticism of the triumvirs’ political tactics:

Previous scholarship has observed how the contrast between Greeks and Romans (and between the Greeks of Asia and those of the mainland) forms one of the speech's central themes.Footnote ³⁰ Cicero plays on ethnic stereotypes to discredit the testimony of the prosecution's Greek witnesses. In the passage above, the discipline of the Roman legislative process contrasts with the reckless conduct of Greek assemblies. Cicero strikes a decidedly conservative note, attributing Roman discipline to the ‘distinguished custom and order’ (morem praeclarum disciplinamque) bequeathed by the ancestors. While mos maiorum refers to the traditional way of doing things in society and politics, disciplina signifies ‘teaching’ and, like its English counterpart, can denote the method of instruction, the subject matter, or its telos. Its meaning here shades toward the last, while also carrying a connotation of severity or strictness – ‘orderly conduct based on moral training, discipline’.Footnote ³¹ The result is a disciplined society, a populus that exercises restraint. Rather than the product of shouting (clamor), Roman proposals are read out in the assemblies in the form of ‘authoritative opinions’ (hendiadys, sententiis…auctoritatibus declarata), the phrasing of which suggests that the Senate has already endorsed the measure.Footnote ³² Yet the Roman people do not cast their votes immediately. Before voting, the people put themselves in order, physically and mentally: in the period between the bill's promulgation and the actual vote, the people consider the issues and listen to those with auctoritas, and then cast their votes in a process that affirms traditional social distinctions.Footnote ³³

Yet Cicero bemoans the fact that the ancestral mos disciplinaque are in the process of slipping away. His choice of words in what immediately follows, his assertion that the ancestors desired the contio (public meeting) to have no ‘force’ (vim contionis), suggests that, in addition to its inordinate power, violence (vis) has come to plague these meetings. This, along with assertions that voting ought to occur after those with auctoritas have been heard and only after the measure has been promulgated several days in advance, almost certainly alludes to specific allegations of misconduct in connection with Caesar's legislation. Cicero would later accuse Vatinius, a tribune and ally of Caesar, of promulgating at least one law in violation of the leges Caecilia Didia and Junia Licinia, which mandated a promulgation period of a trinundinum and prohibited omnibus bills.Footnote ³⁴ In the case of the vote on Caesar's initial agrarian law, violence (vis) indeed prevented men of authority such as Bibulus, Cato, and their allies from addressing the final pre-comitial contio. In the wake of Cato's obstruction in the Senate, the evidence suggests that Caesar elected not to bring his own subsequent proposals to the Senate for consultation.Footnote ³⁵ Such measures, therefore, would not have been ‘pronounced on the basis of authoritative opinions’ (non sententiis neque auctoritatibus declarata), thereby transforming Rome into the kind of Greek democracy that had passed resolutions condemning Flaccus.

The digression on Roman republicanism is the first of two a fortiori arguments, by which Cicero seeks to undermine the credibility of the resolutions passed by Pergamon and Cyme. In the ensuing lines, the orator points to the classical Athenian democracy and argues that the Athenians were reckless even when they were at the height of their power: ‘But if these things were accustomed to happen at Athens when she was outshining not only the peoples in Greece but almost the whole world, what moderation in contiones do you suppose there to have been in Phyrgia and Mysia?’Footnote ³⁶ While he contrasts the Greeks of present-day Asia with both Romans and classical Athenians, the juxtaposition of contemporary Rome and classical Athens also allows Cicero to present the latter as a cautionary tale. Having already suggested that the passing of mos and disciplina has transformed Rome into a kind of democracy, the orator attributes the collapse of ancient Greece, ‘which once flourished in wealth, empire, and glory’ (illa vetus quae quondam opibus, imperio, gloria floruit), to one evil: the excessive freedom and licence of the contiones (hoc uno malo concidit, libertate immoderata ac licentia contionum).Footnote ³⁷

In the political vocabulary of the Republic, libertas denoted ‘freedom’, not only in its negative sense (for example, ‘freedom from slavery’) but also in a positive sense (for example, ‘freedom to vote’). As such, the term was associated with those institutions in which free citizens exercised and preserved their rights. The nexus of these institutions comprised the contio and popular assemblies, and populares who aimed to enhance the power of these institutions claimed to enhance the libertas of the Roman people. In de Republica, Scipio relates how proponents of democracy (civitas popularis) claim that

Whereas the popularis narrative of the struggle to secure the people's libertas featured episodes from the early and middle Republic, the tribunates of the Gracchi marked the beginning of the final chapter. Over the last century of the Republic, the efforts of the Gracchi and their successors produced an ideology that – by the time of the pro Flacco – could be interpreted as affirming the assembled people's power to legislate without limitation or interference from magistrates, the Senate, or convention.Footnote ³⁹

The successive critiques of contemporary Rome and classical Athens invite comparison, thereby implying that the same libertas immoderata ac licentia contionum that once doomed the Athenian democracy now threaten the Roman Republic. Caesar's disregard for the checks on the legislative process have stripped the assemblies of their institutional restraint (moderatio), transforming libertas into licentia and threatening to turn the Republic into a democracy. Where this leads becomes apparent when one considers recent events in light of Athenian history: the Athenian people who were inexperienced, uncultured, and ignorant (imperiti, rudes, ignari) put factious men in power and expelled those citizens most worthy of their respect (seditiosos homines rei publicae praeficiebant, tum optime meritos civis e civitate eiciebant).

That the phrasing here reflects the themes and vocabulary of the exordium underscores the similarities between democratic Athens and contemporary Rome. At the beginning of the speech, Cicero declares that, if there had ever been someone to disparage his client's service, to attack his courage, or to envy his praise, he believed that Flaccus would have had to submit to the judgement of an inexperienced mob (multitudinis imperitae) rather than that of the wisest and most excellent men. A few lines later, Cicero feigns disappointment in the young Laelius: in the past, the orator had often seen very distinguished men set aside their legitimate hostilities with those citizens most worthy of respect (iustissimas inimicitias saepe cum bene meritis civibus).Footnote ⁴⁰ The implication is that Laelius is a seditiosus (that is, seditious). Though young men customarily engaged in prosecution, they were expected to observe certain limits.Footnote ⁴¹ Prosecuting a bene meritus civis contravenes these norms, according to Cicero. He later explains that Laelius undertook the case against Flaccus ‘inflamed with an incredible ambition’ (inflammatus incredibili cupiditate) and ‘for the sake of glory’ (gloriae causa).Footnote ⁴² The observations serve as a prelude to the account of Laelius’ misconduct in the East, so that the young prosecutor resembles his supporters – Caesar and his allies – with regard to his motives and tactics.

Their tactics, especially their use of fear and disregard for the mos maiorum, led critics of the triumvirate to refer to it as a tyranny, and a general state of anxiety seems to have pervaded Rome in the months leading up to the trial.Footnote ⁴³ Sometime in June or July, Cicero wrote to Atticus: ‘We are constrained on all sides, and we no longer refuse to be slaves, but we fear death and exile as though greater things (sed mortem et eiectionem quasi maiora timemus), though they are really far lesser.’Footnote ⁴⁴ Cicero, in particular, had reason to fear. An occasional ally of Caesar, Clodius repeatedly threatened the former consul with violence and prosecution, since the latter had testified against him two years earlier. His attacks against Cicero appear to have intensified around the time of his election as tribune, which probably occurred a few months before the trial.Footnote ⁴⁵ Not without reason then, Cicero portrays himself as another of the bene meriti cives threatened with expulsion by factious men.

At the trial of C. Antonius in March, Cicero had defended his consular colleague and, in the process, criticized the state of the Republic under Caesar's consulship. Less than three years later, he would recall that he had ‘complained at the trial about certain things regarding the Republic that seemed relevant to the case of that poor man’ (questus sum in iudicio…quaedam de re publica, quae mihi visa sunt ad illius miseri causam pertinere).Footnote ⁴⁶ Caesar apparently took offence. Later that day, he orchestrated Clodius’ transfer to plebeian status. Suetonius offers a similar account, saying that Cicero lamented the state of the times (deplorante temporum statum), while Dio reports that the orator aimed ‘the greatest invective’ at Caesar, ‘and also even heaped certain insults upon him’ (πλείστην…καταδρομὴν ἐποιήσατο, καί τινα αὐτὸν καὶ προσελοιδόρησεν).

When undertaking the defence of Flaccus, Cicero opted for a different strategy. He certainly politicized the case, but he managed to avoid the kind of direct criticism that had earlier riled Caesar. The consul and his allies had grown more unpopular as the year progressed, and Cicero sought to capitalize. At the same time, Clodius loomed. Though Pompey assured the former consul that no harm would come to him, Cicero could not afford to alienate his great friend. To avoid giving unnecessary offence, he chose to cloak his political commentary in criticism of the prosecutor and the Greek witnesses. His portrayal of the young Laelius’ conduct in the East evokes that of Caesar and his allies at Rome, with the result that the recent political upheaval becomes the lens through which Cicero prompts his audience to view the prosecution. Given the correspondence between the prosecutor's tactics and those of the triumvirate, Cicero's condemnation of the former implies censure of the latter, of those who stand behind the prosecution and behave likewise.

The direct comparison of contemporary Rome and classical Athens, ostensibly part of an a fortiori argument aimed at undermining the credibility of the Greek witnesses, forces Cicero's audience to think of the current political situation in terms of Greek democracy, specifically its anarchy and tyrannical bent. Thus, he prepares to address the specific charges made by each of the Greek states against his client by effectively arguing that a people, unrestrained by the mos maiorum and the ‘best men’, becomes prey to ambitious demagogues. Their acta ought to be disregarded. So Cicero declares in the exordium: