CICERO
3 PRO P. OPPIO
While serving as quaestor in 74 under M. Aurelius Cotta, who, as consul, was waging war in Bithynia-Pontus (MRR 2:101, 103), P. Oppius was charged with crimes committed during the siege of Heraclea on the Black Sea, including embezzlement of monies earmarked for troops’ rations and attempting to organize a mutiny (T 3 and 8). At a hearing before his commander, Oppius pulled out a dagger and was restrained by Cotta and Vulcius, one of his officers (T 1, F 1). Thereupon Cotta dismissed him from service and sent him back to Rome (T 2). His trial was initiated by a letter sent by Cotta (T 4) and probably occurred either toward the end of 70, after the equites had been empanelled (again) as jurors under the Aurelian Law (LPPR 369),
3 T 1 Sall. Hist. 3.80R (= Non. Comp. doct. 889L)
At Oppius, postquam orans nihil proficiebat, timide veste tectum pugionem expedire conatus a Cotta Vulcioque inpeditur.
3 ON BEHALF OF P. OPPIUS
3 ON BEHALF OF P. OPPIUS (end of 70/early 69 bc)
or early in 69.1 If F 7 is correct in attesting two speeches, presumably for two sessions (actiones), then the primary charge may have been extortion (see ad. loc.). It is not clear why Cicero took on the case (no ties to Oppius are known). His pleading was notable for the care but also the sarcasm with which he treated Cotta, who was, in effect, the prosecutor (T 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, F 5–6). The outcome is not attested (though the disappearance of Oppius from the subsequent historical record is sometimes taken as an indicator of conviction).
3 T 1 [= T 3] Sallust, Histories
But when his pleas failed to make an impression, Oppius was nervously trying to remove a dagger concealed in his clothing when he was hindered by Cotta and Vulcius.1
- 1Stroh 1975, 202n32, would date the trial between 72 and 70 on the grounds that M. Aurelius Cotta had not yet returned to Rome by the date of the trial (T 4) and that Cotta was back in Rome by 69, citing MRR 2:128; he would refer T 5 to a different trial; see ad loc. TLRR 187 refers the trial to 69 in view of T 5.
- 1Vulcius, who is otherwise unknown (not in the RE; cf. MRR 3:223), was evidently another officer present at the hearing.