|
His brother L. Caesar (consul 90) was the author of the lex Iulia granting citizenship to those Italian ciuitates that wished to have it;[1] Lucius was also censor in the following year. Strabo addressed an oration to the censors of 89, i.e. to his brother and P. Crassus (consul 97), in which he movingly canvassed the state of Italy.[2] It is most likely, therefore, that some of his contiones of 90 will have been about the issue of allied citizenship under his brother’s proposal; the confinement of new citizens within a limited number of electorates (tribus) was not illiberal, nor regarded as such by the new citizens, until Sulpicius outbid this offer in 88.[3] It was originally a way of securing the assent of old citizens to a programme that might, if not channeled, swamp them.[4] Caesar Strabo was also a courageous and effective opponent of the monstrous Q. Varius,[5] author of the lex that initiated a purge against those, above all the friends of the late Drusus, alleged to have conspired with and incited the secessionist allies.[6] Which cases Caesar was involved with is not known except one—Varius’ own condemnation under his law early in 89. In 87 on Marius’ re-entry of Rome with L. Cinna the expelled consul, Strabo was killed in expiation of Varius’ death.[7] From this flows easy identification of Varius’ backer, the ultimate organiser of Varius’ equestrian support, the great man who valued Varius highly enough to avenge his death a little short of three years later, when so much more recent claims to vengeance had to be attended to: C. Marius himself. In 90—89 B.C., therefore, it was Caesar Strabo who stood up to Marius’ power and turned the tide: he was one of the few available to defend the accused; and since Antonius and Sulpicius were absent and Cotta exiled, he was the best;[8] he may have got some of them off; his attested public meetings cannot but have addressed the broader issues of Varius’ violence and backing.; he will have been among the nobiles who supported the lex Plautia which broke the equestrian control of the Varían quaestio and made it possible to accuse and convict Varius himself.[9] It is not difficult to discern in Caesar Strabo the uniquely subtle intelligence that constructed a charge against Varius under his own legislation. Varius, after all, had to cultivate connections with Italian allies in order to secure evidence of conspiracy by Roman nobles.[10] [1] Cicero Pro Balbo 21; backed by the Senate, Appian BC 1.49. [2] Varro RR 1.7.10: “Caesar Vopiscus aedilicius, causam cum ageret apud censores, campos Roseae Italiae dixit esse sumen, in quo relicta pertica postridie non appareret propter herbam.” Prima facie this is merely rhetoric on the fertility of a tract of land in dispute before a court. But this is not before a civil law court but before the censors; Caesar has been retained as patronus, not for his vehemence, but for his intellectual stature and/or his being brother to one of the censors. Though the details are elusive, the case would seem to have a broad and public dimension. [3] On this Appian BC 1.49 ad fin. [4] Cf. the structure of argument adopted by C. Fannius (consul 122) against C. Gracchus’ proposal to extend citizenship (E. Malcovati Oratomm Romanorum Fragmenta 3rd edn. [1966], C. Fannius, p. 144, no. 3). [5] Cicero De oratore 1.117: “uastum hominem atque foedum”; cf. Catiline’s “uas- tus animus” (Sallust BC 5.5). [6] Asconius In Scaurimam 22C; Valerius Maximus 8.6.4. [7] Valerius Maximus (9.2.2) records his death through Marius’ cruelty, though with his brother Lucius’ consular and censorial titles wrongly attributed to him, as a sacrifice at Varius’ tomb; he continues “. . . id enim malorum miserrimae tunc rei publicae deerat, ut Vario Caesar piaculo caderet.” There is a clear differentiation between the branch of the Iulii Caesares victimised by Marius and their collaterals, Sextus (consul 91) and Gaius (praetor in uncertain year), brothers of Marius’ wife. The future dictator exploited the Marian connection of his own branch but appropriated the oratory of Strabo (Suetonius Julius 55.2). [8] Not in Cicero’s view (or memory?) in the Brutus’, cf. n. 29 above. This is at odds with all other information, including Cicero’s. Cicero may not have witnessed the condemnation of Varius. Caesar’s oratorical effectiveness was not just streetpower (cf. n. 40 below). [9] Asconius In Comelianam 79C: “M. Plautius Silvanus tribunus plebis Cn. Pompeio Strabone L. Porcio Catone coss., secundo anno belli Italici cum equester ordo in iudiciis dominaretur, legem tulit adiuuan&bus nobilibus. . .” The reference is to coordinated political activity presumably by continuing elements of the group around Drusus. Nobiles /nobilitas was to be the label of Sulla’s party (e.g. Cicero Pro Roscio Amerino, esp. 135-42). [10] Cicero Brutus 305: Q. Varius sua lege damnatus excesserat”; Valerius Maximus 8.6.4: “. . . sua (sc. Varii) lex eum domesticis laqueis constrictum absump- sit.” That Varius’ law would include clauses against seditious violence or usurpation of citizenship is highly unlikely: why frame a crime as though with oneself in mind? “Domestic nooses” do not work even in Valerius Maximus’ ill-directed rhetoric as a description of what happened to Varius after his departure from Rome\ they serve well, however, as a metaphor of entrapment by the adroit Caesar. More information please go to Structure
Related Articles -
Caesar,
|
