I
In his De figuris sententiarum et elocutionis liber, Iulius Rufinianus reproduces two excerpts from speeches by Cicero and Caesar, and a verse from Vergil’s Third Eclogue as examples of ἀπόφασις and αἰτιολογία:
ἀπόφασις sive αἰτιολογία, venustum schema ubi, quasi alio interrogante nobis ipsis respondemus et rationem reddimus. Cicero pro Tullio: si qui furem occiderit, iniuria occiderit. Quam ob rem? quia ius constitutum nullum est. Quid si se telo defenderit? non iniuria. Quid ita? quia constitutum est. Caesar pro Bithynis: Quid ergo? syngraphae non sunt, sed res aliena est.Footnote 1
Apophasis or aitiologia is a cunning figure of speech where, as if someone was asking us a question, we reply to ourselves and offer a justification. So Cicero in his speech on behalf M. Tullius: ‘If someone murders a thief, he slays him unlawfully. Why? Because there is no law which permits it. And what if he defended himself with a weapon? Then he did not slay him unlawfully. Why so? Because there is a law that allows it’ . . . And Caesar in the speech on behalf the Bithynians: ‘And what then? Promissory notes do not exist, but a debt does exist.’Footnote 2
While the first example that Iulius Rufinianus provides is taken from Cicero’s Pro Tullio,Footnote 3 the second example comes from an almost completely lost speech from Caesar, the Pro Bithynis. The speech is believed to have been delivered in late 75 or 74BC, after the death of Nicomedes,Footnote 4 possibly in a prosecution repetundarum.Footnote 5 This would not have been the first occasion on which Caesar acted as a patronus in a trial de repetundis, as in 77-76BC he had already prosecuted Cn. Cornelius Dolabella, the former governor of Macedonia, for provincial maladministration.Footnote 6
The speech for the Bithynians is generally considered to be an expression of a good relationship between Caesar and King Nicomedes of Bithynia, which had started in 80BC when Caesar was sent to Bithynia to accept a fleet for M. Thermus (Suet. Iul. 2.1).Footnote 7 Both the alleged sexual relationship between Caesar and King Nicomedes (Suet. Iul. 2) and the kidnapping of Caesar by a band of pirates (Vell. 2.41-43; Suet. Iul. 4.1-2; Plut. Caes. 13) have been interpreted as the possible causes that could have led Caesar to defend the Bithynians, perhaps against M. Iunius Iuncus, who served as the governor of the province of Asia during the period in which Bithynia was annexed.Footnote 8 However, none of these references explains the exact meaning of Iulius Rufinianus’s fragment of the Pro Bithynis.Footnote 9 In particular, one crucial fact has been regularly ignored, although it could shed light on the meaning of Caesar’s speech: in his Pro Bithynis, Caesar appears to have used technical financial expressions such as syngraphae and res aliena. Can this language provide us with some hints for better understanding the oration in depth? Certainly, the adoption of such specific terms suggests that the speech must have been delivered in a trial that directly involved the Bithynians as plaintiffs. Starting from a study of Iulius Rufinianus’s excerpt, this article aims at providing a new analysis and interpretation of Caesar’s Pro Bithynis and of its historical context.
II
The first term that needs further analysis is syngraphae. Syngrapha is a transliteration of the Greek term συγγραφή and designates a written agreement between two individuals, in the Roman world mostly between two peregrini or between a Roman citizen and an alien. Even if the term sometimes simply indicates a type of contract, text evidence suggests that syngraphae could also refer to monetary instruments adopted for lending and borrowing (Cic. Att. 6.1.15). Syngraphae frequently appear as forms of credit between Romans (especially, but not exclusively, negotiatores) and foreign individuals (including kings) or communities. For instance, by means of a syngrapha Deiotarus paid Antonius for Roman recognition of his claim to kingship (Phil. 2.95); Brogitarus became king thanks to a loan from P. Clodius Pulcher (Har. Res. 29); M. Scaptius, negotiator and Brutus’s agent, made a loan by means of a syngrapha to the community of Salamis on Cyprus (Att. 5.21.10; 6.27).Footnote 10
All these passages imply that Caesar’s fragment was part of a speech referring to some financial relationship between Rome, King Nicomedes and other groups of clients in Bithynia whose affairs appear to be linked to Nicomedes. This hypothesis is supported by the second extant fragment from the Pro Bithynis (Gell, NA 5.13.6):Footnote 11
vel pro hospitio regis Nicomedis vel pro horum necessitate quorum res agitur, refugere hoc munus, M. Iunce, non potui. nam neque hominum morte memoria deleri debet quin a proximis retineatur neque clientes sine summa infamia deseri possunt, quibus etiam a propinquis nostris opem ferre instituimus.
Marcus Iuncus, in view of both my guest-friendship with King Nicomedes and my ties with those whose affairs are under examination, I could not run away from this duty. For neither ought the memory of men be obliterated by death to the extent that it is not retained by their friends, nor can clients be forsaken without the greatest disgrace when it is our custom to render assistance to them even through our kinfolk.
In this fragment Caesar stresses both the existence of bonds of hospitium between himself and Nicomedes and the relationship of clientela with the men ‘whose business is at issue’. The interpretation which views this fragment as proof of the bond of hospitium between Caesar and other people living in Bithynia neither tells the whole story nor explains the nature of the clientela mentioned by Caesar.Footnote 12 It is certain that Caesar must have begun to form his Bithynian clientela at the time of his arrival in Bithynia. That these clients were Bithynian, and not Roman, is clearly shown by the last sentence of the passage in which Caesar claims to prefer them to his propinqui.Footnote 13 But why did Caesar feel obligated to defend the Bithynians? And above all, what was the subject of the trial in which the speech was delivered?
A possible answer to these questions is provided by the continuation of Iulius Rufinianus’s excerpt, which indicates a contraposition of the concepts of syngraphae and res aliena. Like syngraphae, res aliena is also a technical expression. However, their meanings are completely opposite: whereas syngraphae designates something that someone does not own properly, res aliena recurs widely in Roman juridical texts to indicate someone else’s property. The juxtaposition of these two concepts is not accidental, but rather reveals the true nature of the trial in which Caesar was involved as patronus of the Bithynians. In light of these considerations and since the Pro Bithynis was probably delivered in a trial de repetundis, we could hypothesize that Caesar aimed to show that the item in question had not been borrowed by the plaintiffs, but had already belonged to them. Accordingly, someone had already stolen – or was going to steal – something from the Bithynians by claiming that it was subject to a contract of syngraphae.
The above-mentioned examples of syngraphae as a form of lending and borrowing money between Roman negotiatores and foreign kings would appear to be particularly relevant to the case of Nicomedes. Not only did he obtain the throne of Nicomedia thanks to Rome’s assistance, but he also borrowed money for this purpose from Roman negotiatores. An excerpt from Appian makes it clear that Nicomedes owed money to certain Romans: in 88BC, Nicomedes borrowed large amounts from Roman negotiatores in Bithynia (App. Mithr. 11-12). That the Roman creditors who lent the money to Nicomedes aimed at recovering it as quickly as possible is shown by the continuation of Appian’s narration of the Mithridatic War. According to Appian, the Romans pushed the Bithynian king to declare war on Mithridates in order to recover their investment (App. Mithr. 11-16); accordingly, Mithridates blamed the Romans for having induced Nicomedes to declare war merely on the basis of their avidity (App. Mithr. 56).Footnote 14 On the one hand, this episode confirms the existence of financial relationships between the Bithynian kingdom and Roman negotiatores which could be implied in the trial where the Pro Bithynis was delivered;Footnote 15 on the other hand, it stresses the importance of a theme – Roman greed – which significantly recurs in the history of Roman-Bithynian relationships. Indeed, already in 104BC Nicomedes had complained to the Roman Senate that many of his subjects had been sold as slaves by Roman negotiatores; as a result, he could not supply the soldiers requested by Rome (Diod. Sic. 36.31).Footnote 16
Roman greed also arose on the occasion of Nicomedes’s death and the subsequent Roman inheritance of the kingdom of Bithynia (App. Mithr. 71). In addition to the short reference by Festus (320 L. s.v. rutrum) about Pompeius Bithynicus for having seemingly sacked Nicomedes’s palace after the king’s death, it is remarkable that accusations of corruption, bribery and avidity frequently recur during the period of organization of Bithynia as a Roman province. A passage from Cassius Dio sheds light on the situation of the former kingdom of Bithynia during the first stages of Roman control (36.40)Footnote 17:
τό τε σύμπαν οὕτως ἐπιμελὲς τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις κατὰ τὸν χρόνον ἐκεῖνον τὸ μηδὲν δωροδοκεῖσθαι ἐγένετο ὥστε πρὸς τῷ τοὺς ἐλεγχομένους κολάζειν καὶ τοὺς κατηγοροῦντας αὐτῶν ἐτίμῶν. τοῦ γοῦν Κόττου τοῦ Μάρκου τὸν μὲν ταμίαν Πούπλιον Ὄππιον ἐπὶ τε δώροις καὶ ἐπὶ ὑποψίᾳ ἐπιβουλῆς ἀποπέμψαντος, αὐτοῦ δὲ πολλὰ ἐκ τῆς Βιθυνίας χρηματισαμένου, Γάιον Κάρβονα τὸν κατηγορήσαντα αὐτοῦ τιμαῖς ὑπατικαῖς καίπερ δεδημαρχηκότα μόνον, ἐσέμνυναν. καὶ οὗτος μὲν τῆς τε Βιθυνίας καὶ αὐτὸς ὔστερον ἂ̓́ρξας, καὶ ματριώτερον οὐδὲν τοῦ Κόττου πλημμελήσας, ἀντικατηγορήθη ὑπό τοῦ υἱέος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνθεάλω.
In fine the Romans were so concerned at that time with preventing bribery that in addition to punishing those convicted, they even honoured the accusers. For instance, after Marcus Cotta had dismissed the quaestor Publius Oppius because of bribery and suspicion of conspiracy although Cotta himself had made great profit out of Bithynia, they elevated Gaius Carbo, his accuser, to consular honours, although he had served only as a tribune. But when Carbo himself later became governor of Bithynia and erred no less than Cotta, he was in turn accused by Cotta’s son and convicted.
Three different people were thus accused of some kind of corruption or bribery during their appointments in Bithynia. The accusations moved against the quaestor P. Oppius are not completely clear as sources provide us with different details concerning the trial that was pursued by M. Aurelius Cotta against his quaestor. While Quintilian mentions the crime of bribery and corruption (Inst. 5.13.1), Cassius Dio refers also to one of conspiracy against M. Aurelius Cotta (36.40.3-4).Footnote 18 This trial was particularly famous as on this occasion Cicero, who acted as patronus of P. Oppius, wrote his Pro Oppio.Footnote 19 As to the date of the trial, it should have taken place either at some point between 74 and 70BC – the period in which M. Aurelius Cotta acted as proconsul in Bithynia – or shortly thereafter.Footnote 20 There is no reason to date the suit to 67BC solely on the basis of Cassius Dio’s passage: it is true that Cassius Dio assigns the affair to the year 67BC, but in chapters 40-41 he simply condenses episodes of different chronology that are quoted starting in chapter 38 as examples of prosecution for bribery. Therefore, even though 67BC remains a possible date for P. Oppius’s trial, there is no compelling reason to place it exactly in that year.Footnote 21
According to Cassius Dio, also M. Aurelius Cotta was guilty of corruption: he was accused by C. Papirius Carbo of making great profit out of Bithynia.Footnote 22 More details on this accusation are provided by Memnon of Heraclea (39):Footnote 23
ὁ δὲ δὴ Κόττας ὡς εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην ἀφίκετο, τιμῆς παρὰ τῆς συγκλήτου τυγχάνει Ποντικὸς αὐτοκράτωρ καλεῖσθαι, ὅτι ἔλοι τὴν Ἡράκλειαν. διαβολῆς δὲ εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην ἀφικνουμένης, ὡς οἰκείων κερδῶν ἕνεκα τηλικαύτην πόλιν ἐξαφανίσειε, μῖσός τε δημόσιον ἐλάμβανε, καὶ ὁ περὶ αὐτὸν τοσοῦτος πλοῦτος φθόνον ἀνεκίνει. Διὸ καὶ πολλὰ τῶν λαφύρων εἰς τὸ τῶν Ῥωμαίων εἰσεκόμιζε ταμιεῖον, τὸν ἐπὶ τῷ πλούτῳ φθόνον ἐκκρούων, εἰ καὶ μηδὲν αὐτοὺς πραοτέρους ἀπειργάζετο, ἀπὸ πολλῶν ὀλίγα νέμειν ὑπολαμβάνοντας. ἐψηφίσαντο δὲ αὐτίκα καὶ τοὺς αἰχμαλώτους τῆς Ἡρακλείας ἀφίεσθαι. Θρασυμήδης δὲ τῶν ἐξ Ἡρακλείας εἷς κατηγόρησεν ἐπʼ ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Κόττα . . . ἀπῳκτίζετο δὲ τόν τε τῆς πόλεως ἐμπρησμόν καὶ ὅσα τὸ πῦρ ἀφανίσοι, ὅπως τε τὰ ἀγάλματα Κόττας καθῄρει καὶ λείαν ἐποιεῖτο τούς τε ναοὺς κατέσπα, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα διʼὠμότητος ἐλθὼν ἐπεπράγει, τόν τε χρυσὸν καὶ τὸν ἄργυρον τῆς πόλεως ἀναγράφων ἀναρίθμητον καὶ τὴν ἄλλην τῆς Ἡρακλείας ἣν ἐσφετερίσατο εὐδαιμονίαν. τοιαῦτα τοῦ Θρασυμήδους μετʼ οἰμωγῆς καὶ δακρύων διεληλυθότος, καὶ τῶν ἡγεμόνων ἐπικλασθέντων τῷ πάθει (καὶ γὰρ παρῆλθε καὶ τὸ τῶν αἰχμαλώτων πλῆθος, ἄνδρες ὁμοῦ καὶ γυναῖκες μετὰ τέκνων, ἐν πενθίμοις ἐσθήσεσι θαλλοὺς ἱκεσίους μετʼ ὀλοφυρμῶν προτείνοντες), ἀντιπαρελθὼν ὁ Κόττας βραχέα τῇ πατρίῳ διελέχθη γλώττῃ, εἶτα ἐκαθέσθη. καὶ Κάρβων ἀναστὰς ‘Ἡμεῖς, ὦ Κόττα,’ φησί, ‘πόλιν ἑλεῖν ἀλλʼ οὐχὶ καθελεῖν ἐπετρέψαμεν.’ μετʼ αὐτὸν δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι ὁμοίως Κότταν ᾐτιάσαντο. πολλοῖς μὲν οὖν ἄξιος ὁ Κόττας ἐδόκει φυγῆς· μετριάσαντες δʼ ὅμως ἀπεψηφίσαντο τὴν πλατύσημον αὐτοῦ. Ἡρακλεώταις δὲ τήν τε χώραν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τοὺς λιμένας ἀποκατέστησαν, καὶ μηδένα δουλεύειν ψῆφον ἔθεντο.
When Cotta arrived in Rome, he was honoured by the Senate with the title of Ponticus Imperator because he had captured Heraclea. But then the accusation reached Rome that he had destroyed the great city merely for his personal gain, and his enormous wealth aroused envy, so that he became an object of public hatred. In an attempt to avoid the jealousy which his wealth provoked, he handed over much of the plunder from the city to the treasury, but this did not mollify the others, who assumed that he was giving up just a little and keeping the greatest part for himself. They immediately voted to release the prisoners from Heraclea. Thrasymedes, one of the Heracleans, accused Cotta in the assembly. . . . He complained about the devastation which the burning of Heraclea had caused, and how Cotta had taken away the statues as booty and had ransacked the temples, and all the other atrocities he had committed after he entered the city. Thrasymedes also described the immense quantity of the city's gold and silver, and the other treasures of Heraclea which Cotta had taken away for himself. The Roman leaders were moved by this speech, which Thrasymedes delivered with wailing and tears while a crowd of captives stood nearby, both men and women with their children dressed in mourning clothes and sorrowfully holding forth olive branches in supplication. In reply, Cotta gave a short speech in his language and then sat down. Carbo stood up and exclaimed, ‘Cotta, we instructed you to capture the city, not to destroy it’, and afterwards speakers repeatedly censured Cotta in a similar way. Therefore many of them thought that Cotta should be sent into exile; but instead they expelled him from the Senate as a lesser punishment. They restored to the Heracleans their territory on land and sea, and their harbours; they also voted that none of the Heracleans should be enslaved.
Both Cassius Dio and Memnon are referring to the same episode, although the latter provides us with a more detailed picture of the whole affair. However, while in Cassius Dio’s version we find a reference to Bithynia, in Memnon’s we find a description of what happened in Heraclea Pontica as if the city had always belonged to the kingdom of Bithynia even before M. Aurelius Cotta’s successful siege (72BC).Footnote 24 This means that in ancient sources the sack of the city by M. Aurelius Cotta was presented as an incident relevant to Bithynia. In reality, M. Aurelius Cotta’s siege was not the first instance of a ‘sack’ of the city by the Romans; indeed, already in the early stages of the Third Mithridatic War, Heraclea was the object of requisitioning because of the support it provided to Mithridates’s fleet (Memn. 27):
τὸ δὲ Μιθριδάτου ναυτικὸν παραπλέον τὴν Ἡράκλειαν, παρ’ αὐτῆς οὐκ ἐδέχθη, ἀλλ’ ἀγορὰν μὲν αἰτησαμένων παρέσχον. οἷα δὲ εἰκὸς ἐπιμιξίας γενομένης, Ἀρχέλαος ὁ τοῦ ναυτικοῦ στρατηγὸς συνέλαβε Σιλῆνον καὶ Σάτυρον, ἐπιφανεῖς τῆς Ἡρακλείας ἄνδρας, καὶ οὐκ ἀνῆκεν ἕως ἂν ἔπεισε λαβεῖν πέντε τριήρεις συμμαχίδας εἰς τὸν κατὰ τῶν Ῥωμαίων πόλεμον. καὶ ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς πράξεως (ὅπερ καὶ Ἀρχέλαος ἐμηχανᾶτο) τῆν Ῥωμαίων ἀπέχθειαν ὁ Ἡρακλεώτης δῆμος ἐκτήσατο. Δημοσιωνίας δὲ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἐν ταῖς ἄλλαις πόλεσι καθιστώντων, καὶ τὴν Ἡράκλειαν διὰ τὴν εἰρημένην αἰτίαν ταύταις ὑπέβαλλον. οἱ δὲ δημοσιῶναι πρὸς τὴν πόλιν ἀφικόμενοι παρὰ τὰ ἔθη τῆς πολιτείας καὶ ἀργύριον ἀπαιτοῦντες τοὺς πολίτας ἐλύπουν, ἀρχήν τινα δουλείας τοῦτο νομίζοντας. οἱ δὲ διαπρεσβεύσασθαι δέον πρὸς τὴν σύγκλητον ὥστε τῆς δημοσιωνίας ἀπολυθῆναι, ἀναπεισθέντες ὑπό τινος θρασυτάτου τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει, τοὺς τελώνας ἀφανεῖς ἐποίησαν, ὡς καὶ τὸν θάνατον αὐτῶν ἀγνοεῖσθαι.
Mithridates’s navy sailed past Heraclea; it was not admitted into the city, but the Heracleans provided supplies when they were asked for them. While the sailors and inhabitants were mingling, as was natural, Archelaus, the commander of the navy, seized Silenus and Satyrus, two distinguished Heracleans, and did not release them until he had persuaded them to provide five triremes to assist in the war against the Romans. . . . Therefore the Romans, who were exacting requisitions from the other cities, demanded contributions from Heraclea as well. When the money-collectors arrived in the city, they disregarded the laws of the state, and their demands for money distressed the citizens, who regarded this as the beginning of slavery. They wanted to send a delegation to the Senate to ask to be released from the requisitions, but they were persuaded by one of the most audacious men in the city to do away with the money-collectors in secret, in such a way that no one would be sure how they had died.
Thus, M. Aurelius Cotta was not the only one guilty of sacking the city; furthermore, it is possible that the two events were connected.Footnote 25 In any case, they both offer evidence of the punitive treatment of the city at the hands of the Romans.Footnote 26
As to the chronology of M. Aurelius Cotta’s prosecution, Memnon makes it clear that the proconsul was accused of devastating the city on the occasion of his triumphal arrival in Rome, which should be dated to 71/70BC.Footnote 27 This date would thus contrast with Cassius Dio’s excerpt, which seemingly places the accusation of C. Papirius Carbo in 67BC. However, not only is Cassius Dio’s passage not useful in dating M. Aurelius Cotta’s affair – as the author summarises episodes of differing chronology in a single chapter – but also it would not make sense for C. Papirius Carbo to have chosen to accuse M. Aurelius Cotta three or four years after the incident which was at the centre of the accusation.
The date of 70/69BC would be more consistent with the date of Cicero’s Pro Oppio (69BC): after his return to Rome, M. Aurelius Cotta prosecuted his former quaestor, P. Oppius, who had already been dismissed and sent to Rome between 74 and 70BC; shortly thereafter, M. Aurelius Cotta himself was accused of a similar crime.Footnote 28 In addition, Cicero’s Pro Oppio itself suggests that the at the time of P. Oppius’s trial rumours about M. Aurelius Cotta’s misconduct must have been already circulating in Rome, as an excerpt from Quintilian clearly shows (11.1.67)Footnote 29: itaque Cicero, quamquam erat in Cottam gravissime dicturus neque aliter agi P. Oppi causa poterat, longa tamen praefatione excusavit officii sui necessitatem (‘Consequently Cicero, although he intended to speak against Cotta with the utmost vehemence, and indeed the case of Publius Oppius was such that he could not do otherwise, prefaced his attack by pleading at some length the necessity imposed upon him by his duty to his client’). What did Cicero mean with the adverb gravissime? To what exactly did Cicero refer, when apologizing for what he was going to say about M. Aurelius Cotta? In light of Cassius Dio’s passage, it seems possible that Cicero is here referring to M. Aurelius Cotta’s malpractice during his office in Bithynia, which would soon be stigmatised by C. Papirius Carbo’s accusations.
III
The Pro Bithyiis, therefore, could have been delivered at any moment during the early stages of Roman control over Bithynia, possibly in connection with one of the above-mentioned episodes in which the Romans appeared to have made an attempt on Bithynian property. The possible involvement of M. Iunius Iuncus, who is allegedly mentioned in one of the fragments belonging to the Pro Bithynis, could provide us with further information as to the historical context of the trial. It has been indeed proposed that M. Iunius Iuncus himself could have been the defendant because of his questionable behaviour in the affair of the pirates who had kidnapped Caesar.Footnote 30 However, this last argument is highly speculative as we do not have proof of any accusation of corruption against M. Iunius Iuncus; furthermore, the mention of the governor in Caesar’s fragment is the result of a philological emendation of the text where one manuscript’s reading is M. vince The whole question concerning the name of the governor is particularly complicated as it involves a double emendation of Aulus Gellius’s M. vince (NA 5.13.6) and Velleius Paterculus’s Iunium cum (2.41-43).Footnote 31 Nevertheless, even if we accept that the emendation of Aulus Gellius’s passage to M. Iunce, it does not mean that M. Iuncus was the defendant in the trial at which the Pro Bithynis was delivered; according to Ward, for instance, since Aulus Gellius tells us that the quoted fragment came from the beginning of Caesar’s speech (Gell. NA 5.13.6), ‘it is quite unlikely that Caesar would have addressed Iuncus at this point if that man were the accused. Not only was it Cicero’s custom always to address the court at the beginning of his speeches . . . but that was the standard practice among ancient orators in general.’Footnote 32 It is thus possible – although this is not the only interpretation – that the speech was delivered before M. Iunius Iuncus as governor of Asia (and not as a defendant) was relieved by M. Aurelius Cotta between 74-73BC.Footnote 33
On the other hand, Aulus Gellius provides us with another detail that further suggests that M. Iunius Iuncus was not the defendant in the trial. In Aulus Gellius’s excerpt, Caesar affirms that nam neque hominum morte memoria deleri debet quin a proximis retineatur neque clientes sine summa infamia deseri possunt, quibus etiam a propinquis nostris opem ferre instituimus (‘For neither ought the memory of men be obliterated by death to the extent that it is not retained by their friends, nor can clients be forsaken without the greatest disgrace when it is our custom to render assistance to them even through our kinfolk’). Who are these nostri propinqui? As already mentioned, scholars take it for granted that this term refers to ‘Romans’, in contrast to clientes, clearly Bithynians whose affairs are at the centre of the trial. Does this interpretation tell the whole story? A survey of the use of the term propinquus provides us with an alternative and more plausible explanation.
In ancient sources, the term propinquus and its combination with noster do not indicate a mere kind of superficial relationship, such as belonging to a common civic body, but rather a specific and close bond between two or more people similar to a sort of kinship. Caesar himself shows the semantic closeness between propinqui and consanguinei in a passage from the De Bello Gallico (7.77.8). The same meaning, with few and unimportant diverging nuances, occurs frequently in Cicero’s works, where the meaning of propinquus and propinquus noster ranges from ‘friend’ to ‘very close friend’ and ‘almost relative’.Footnote 34 In all cases, a propinquus is not just a friend, but a person with a special connection with someone’s family, often a relative.Footnote 35
In the light of these considerations, it seems difficult to accept that in Caesar’s fragment the expression propinquis nostris simply means ‘Romans’, since it appears to indicate something more precise and specific than the mere fact of being Roman. Accordingly, the problem is to determine the meaning of this specific term in Caesar’s words.
While in the history of the relationship between Caesar and the Bithynians nothing arises that could justify such usage, the trial of M. Aurelius Cotta seems to offer a possible explanation for Caesar’s obscure reference. Indeed, M. Aurelius Cotta could be considered to be a relative of Caesar, as he was the half-brother of Caesar’s mother, Aurelia Cotta. Therefore, if Caesar had had to defend M. Aurelius Cotta in a trial, he could undoubtedly have called him a propinquus noster. Significantly, Suetonius (Iul. 1.1) defines L. Aurelius Cotta as a propinquus of Caesar. In the present case, the emphatic meaning of the sentence neque clientes sine summa infamia deseri possunt, quibus etiam a propinquis nostris opem ferre instituimus (‘nor can clients be forsaken without the greatest disgrace when it is our custom to render assistance to them even through our kinfolk’) would have been perceived as even more explicit: Caesar did not hesitate to act as patronus of Bithynians, even though the defendant was a relative, or rather a propinquus of his. Caesar’s benevolence was, therefore, particularly striking: Caesar preferred defending the rights of the Bithynians against the interests of his family rather than allowing M. Aurelius Cotta’s crime to go unpunished. This was, especially in the eyes of foreign clientelae, a wonderful example of self-promotion as a political leader and patronus.Footnote 36
We could hypothesise that M. Aurelius Cotta’s devastation of the city could also have damaged specific interests of Bithynians and Romans in that area (cf. the presence of publicani in Heraclea before the sack of the city by M. Aurelius Cotta). Alternatively, Caesar might have been referring to the inhabitants of Heraclea tout court by calling them ‘Bithynians’, since Cassius Dio also simply refers to Bithynia in describing the sack of Heraclea. Furthermore, the fact that in the trial against M. Aurelius Cotta the plaintiffs recovered all the possessions which had been confiscated previously is perfectly consistent with the sense of the fragment quid ergo? syngraphae non sunt, sed res aliena est. It is not accidental, therefore, that afterwards the Heracleans tried to obtain the status of free city for Heraclea directly from Caesar.Footnote 37
This hypothesis contrasts with the usual dating of the Pro Bithynis, which is believed to have been delivered around 74BC, thus before the possible date of the M. Aurelius Cotta affair. As we have seen, however, there are no compelling reasons to accept 74BC for the Pro Bithynis, both because the mention of M. Iunius Iuncus in Caesar’s fragment is the result of modern conjecture and because the reference to M. Iunius Iuncus – if accepted – does not imply that he was still governor of Asia at the time the speech was delivered;Footnote 38 as has been proposed, for instance he could have taken part in the trial as a sort of ‘expert’ in Asian affairs.Footnote 39 Therefore, while there are no secure elements that support the traditional interpretation, ancient sources suggest a clear connection between the M. Aurelius Cotta episode and the Pro Bithynis: in other words, M. Aurelius Cotta might have been the defendant in the trial in which the Pro Bithynis was delivered.
On the other hand, it could be objected that Caesar would not have accused an Aurelius Cotta, especially in the light of both his political and personal relationships with the members of that gens. In addition, Caesar was co-opted into the college of pontiffs in replacement of C. Aurelius Cotta in 73BC (Vell. 2.43.1).Footnote 40 However, the hypothesis that M. Aurelius Cotta was the defendant in the trial Pro Bithynis and Caesar’s co-optation into the college of pontiffs must be considered as two different issues. Indeed, not only was Caesar elected prior to his return to Rome from Asia (and accordingly before the trial occasioning the Pro Bithynis), but it is impossible to say, on the basis of the available evidence, whether the Aurelii Cottae played a crucial role in Caesar’s appointment as a pontifex. Velleius Paterculus simply reports that Caesar was nominated pontifex while he was still in Asia and in replacement for L. Aurelius Cotta and does not provide any further detail.Footnote 41
Furthermore, it should be stressed that M. Aurelius Cotta, who was accused by C. Papirius Carbo as well, was eventually sentenced for corruption and maladministration during his appointment as governor in Bithynia. If we consider the sentence as evidence of M. Aurelius Cotta’s crime, Caesar could have accused his propinquus without compromising his relationships with the gens of the defendant.Footnote 42 Indeed, either M. Aurelius Cotta had been sentenced before Caesar delivered the Pro Bithynis, or his crime was so patent that Caesar could not avoid accusing him: both cases could have made it easy for Caesar to accuse his relative without putting his relationships with the Aurelii Cottae at risk.Footnote 43
The reasons which might have led Caesar to defend the Bithynians – or those who had been damaged by M. Aurelius Cotta’s misconduct – are evident: as already emphasised in several studies, at that point of his life Caesar still needed a clientela as wide as possible – also international – to support his political career. Since he already had good relations with the kingdom of Bithynia at the time of the sack of Heraclea, he probably grasped the occasion to further spread and strengthen his contacts in Asia Minor.Footnote 44 Indeed, we can be sure that around the same years and using the same method Caesar was seeking clients in Macedonia (thanks to Dolabella’s prosecution) and in Greece (Caesar represented some Greeks in a process against C. Antonius, probably in 79BC).Footnote 45 Therefore, I would suggest dating the Pro Bithynis and the corresponding trial to 70/69BC, in connection with C. Papirius Carbo’s accusations against M. Aurelius Cotta (and immediately after P. Oppius’ trial).
In light of these considerations, Bithynian affairs would thus have represented a perfect occasion for Caesar to win over friends and allies among foreign communities.Footnote 46
