CICERO
5 PRO CORNELIO I
This was the second trial of C. Cornelius for treason (maiestas),1 based on his action as plebeian tribune of 67 in reading out his law in defiance of the veto of his colleague P. Servilius Globulus. The first trial, in 66, was marked by irregularities: on the appointed day the praetor failed to appear, and the prosecutors P. and C. Cominius fled before a threatening mob; on the next day, with the praetor present but the prosecutors absent, the charge was dropped (TLRR 203, 209; T 11.4).2 In early 65, C. Manilius, whose- 1The term maiestas is difficult to render in English. As a charge, we have generally used “treason” as the equivalent, but more literally it is the “majesty” or “grandeur” sc. of the Roman people, which could be “diminished” (imminuta: T 11.6, or minuta: 5 F 29 and *30), “damaged” (laesa: 5 F 18), or violated (violari: T 18), an offense that took shape in the late Republic under a Lex Appuleia of 100 (cf. on T 12), a Varian Law (on 5 F 58), and a Cornelian Law (4 T 5 n.). The scope of maiestas was much expanded under the empire as a kind of catchall for offenses against the emperor and the state. See the detailed studies by Gundel 1963; Drexler 1988, 31–48; Thomas 1991, esp. 365–77 on developments during the Republic; Ferrary 2009; Williamson 2016, 335–42.
- 2On the dismissal of charges and on the Cominii, see on T 11.4.
5 ON BEHALF OF CORNELIUS I
5 ON BEHALF OF CORNELIUS I
earlier trial for extortion (de repetundis) had been disrupted, had been convicted of maiestas (TLRR 205, 210), so P. Cominius took up the case again in the hope that he could prevail now that the public mood had shifted.3 The trial is likely to have occurred circa February or March, 65.4 In this speech, Cicero works to separate his client from- 3On the question whether Gaius again participated as assistant prosecutor (subscriptor), see above, on T 11.5.
- 4This assumes that Manilius’ second trial occurred in late January/early February and that Cominius acted quickly to indict Cornelius, so as to take advantage of the public mood; see further note on introduction to no. 7. It is also relevant, as Khrustalyov 2022, 101n15, points out, that M. Crassus is attested as a juror in this trial (Asc. 76.10C) and that he could not have served as such once he entered office as censor (MRR 2:157). The evidence for the election of censors in the post-Sullan period is limited (cf. Mommsen 1887–1888, 2.1:352, who places such elections circa April) and pertains to Appius Claudius (cos. 54): in the first half of April 50, Cicero, writing from Cilicia, knew of his candidacy but not yet of his election as censor (Fam. 3.10[73].3); by ca. June 26 (Shackleton Bailey’s dating with a query) Cicero expresses the hope that Appius is by now installed in the censorship (ibid. 3.11[74].5); he is first attested as exercising the office ca. August 8 (Caelius, Fam. 8.14[97].4). Since Crassus was still censor as late as December 5,
DOI: 10.4159/DLCL.marcus_tullius_cicero-fragmentary_speeches.2024