View source

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

You can view and copy the source of this page:

{{LanguageBar|Lucius Licinius Crassus}} L. Licinius L. f. C. n. Crassus (born {{-140}}, died {{Sep 19}} {{-91}}) was one of the most distinguished statesmen of his day and was accounted the greatest, or at least one of the two greatest, orators in Roman history up to the time of [[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus|Hortensius]] and [[Marcus Tullius Cicero|Cicero]]. ==Family and upbringing== L. Crassus was born {{-140}}.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''' 161.</ref> He was a member of an illustrious ''[[gens]]''.<ref>The Licinii are attested as far back as the first generation of the republic, and by the time of Crassus' birth had collectively accumulated six consulates.</ref> His family is less certain: from inscriptions Crassus is known to have been the son (probably the eldest and possibly the only) of a father with the same name, but nothing is known about this father or about anyone of that name who might be identified as the same person. Indeed the ''praenomen'' Lucius is unusual among the recorded Licinii Crassi. More common is the ''praenomen'' of Crassus' grandfather, C. Crassus, who may perhaps have been [[Gaius Licinius Crassus cos. 168|the ''consul'' of that name]] who shared his consulate with [[Lucius Aemilius Paullus cos. 182|L. Paullus]]. At any rate he had curule magistrates somewhere among his direct ancestors, or so Cicero believed.<ref>Cicero always calls him by his ''praenomen'' and ''cognomen'', L. Crassus, which he only ever does with ''nobiles'' (Adams, J.N., '''Conventions Of Naming In Cicero''' (Classical Quarterly 28, 1978, pp.145-166)); moreover Cicero directly labels Crassus a ''nobilis'' in '''''pro Rabirio perduellionis reo''''', 21.</ref> Cicero describes [[Publius Licinius Crassus cos. 97|P. Crassus]] and [[Publius Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus|P. Crassus Dives]] as his relatives, but close links to other Licinii Crassi are not greatly in evidence in Crassus' life.<ref>P. Crassus: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.3.10 ("''propinquum suum''"); P. Crassus Dives: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.37.170 ("''propinquum nostrum''"). On the other hand Cicero, who usually indicates any relationship between speakers in his dialogues and other people whom they mention, fails to signal any relationship between L. Crassus and the M. Crassus mentioned in '''''de oratore''''', 1.36.166. From the chronology this is probably [[Marcus Licinius Crassus Agelastus|M. Crassus Agelastus]], but this man was the brother of P. Crassus Dives and therefore surely no less a relative of our subject than Dives.</ref> Crassus was educated by [[Lucius Coelius Antipater|L. Coelius Antipater]] the historian, jurist, and orator, whose friend he remained throughout life.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 26.102 (as a teacher); '''''de oratore''''', 2.12.54 (as a friend).</ref> It was from him or perhaps from other teachers that he learned the basics of rhetorical theory.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.31.138-32.145. The dismissive tone may say more about Cicero's attitude than Crassus'.</ref> Crassus was also to some extent self-educated, for he devised (or picked up second-hand) a number of improving exercises that he later recommended to aspiring orators.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.34.154-155.</ref> Another teacher, not of rhetoric but of law, was [[Quintus Mucius Scaevola cos. 117|Q. Scaevola]].<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.10.40.</ref> ==The young orator== As has been remarked, though technically a ''nobilis'', Crassus' was the son of a possibly obscure father and not apparently closely related to any very significant public figures; thus he built his public career not (or not only) on ancestry but on oratory. ===Military service=== The ordinary Roman political career in previous generations had begun with ten years' compulsory military service, beginning about the age of 17.<ref>Polybius, 6.19.5; Plutarch, '''C. Gracchus''', 2.5; Develin, R., '''Patterns In Office-Holding, 366-49 B.C.''' (Latomus, 1979), p.59.</ref> It appears, however, that Crassus was in Rome much of the time during his 20s, since he made a number of known speeches, both in trials and in political debates. It is not clear how this happened, but Crassus was probably not a unique case.<ref>It is worth noting a comment of Asconius on Cicero's lost '''''pro Cornelio''''' (p.68 in Clark's edition). Cicero says, "''... ut Q. Caecilio M. Iunio coss. quae leges rem militarem impedirent, ut abrogarentur''" ("... for example, when such statutes as might have been hampering military matters be abrogated, as happened when Q. Caecilius M. Iunius were ''consules''"); and Asconius comments, "''... hic Iunius male rem adversus Cimbros gessit . . . (?)ac plures leges quae per eos annos (?)quibus hec significabantur populo latae erant, quibus militiae stipendia minuebantur, abrogavit''" ("... this Iunius also conducted matters badly against the Cimbri... (?)and he [or 'it'?] abrogated many statutes which during those years (?)by which this used to be made known to the people were carried, by which ''stipendia militiae'' were reduced"). The text of Asconius' commentary seems to be slightly corrupt and lacunose, but it seems to say that [[Marcus Iunius Silanus cos. 109|M. Iunius Silanus]] abrogated statutes which had been in force for some years and whose effect had been to reduce "''stipendia militiae''". Frustratingly it impossible to say on purely linguistic grounds whether this means "the number of years of military service" or "the salary for military service", but in historical context of the national emergency that the Cimbric war had become by Silanus' consulate it would perhaps make more sense for him to be increasing the length of compulsory service than to be increasing pay, though of course either measure would tend to strengthen the army. Broughton, T.R.S., '''The Magistrates Of The Roman Republic''' (American Philological Association, 1951), vol.1 p.545, takes it to mean "military service" rather than "military pay". Williamson, C., '''The Laws Of The Roman People: Public Law In The Expansion And Decline Of The Roman Republic''' (University of Michigan, 2005), p.461, appears to agree. If this is right, then it may be that Crassus took advantage of the reductions that Silanus later abrogated. In any case it would imply that the statutory minimum period of military service was in fluctuation in this period and perhaps throughout the late republic.</ref> [[Marcus Tullius Cicero|Cicero]], born 34 years after him, apparently had the spare time to appear in court several times in his mid-twenties as well as to study under the philosopher [[Apollonius Molo]] in Rome; and [[Marcus Caelius Rufus|M. Caelius Rufus]], Cicero's younger contemporary, started his oratorical career in Rome in his late 20s. But Cicero had served under [[Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo|Cn. Pompeius Strabo]] in the [[Italian war]] when he was about 18, and Caelius had similarly served in Africa under [[Quintus Pompeius Rufus pr. 63|Q. Pompeius Rufus]] before taking his first case in the courts, so even if they did not serve a strict ten years they certainly served some time.<ref>Cicero in the Italian war: Cicero, '''''Philippica''''', 12.27; Caelius in Africa: Cicero, '''''pro Caelio''''', 73.</ref> Crassus, however, seems to have begun his oratorical career earlier than they did, for he conducted his first notable case probably at the age of only 21 and was certainly speaking in the forum and even accepting political appointments the following year. If he did no military service at all he would certainly have been very unusual both in his own generation and the next.<ref>The inference that he never served at all, or at most a year or two, might be drawn from Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.90.365: "''[Crassus] puer in forum venerim neque inde unquam diutius quam quaestor abfuerim''" ("I [Crassus] came to the forum [i.e. an oratorical career] as a boy and have never been away from it longer than when I was ''quaestor''"); but we should probably understand this to refer only to absences from the forum since his oratorical career began, and thus it does not exclude any length of military service abroad before then.</ref> Perhaps not unique: Crassus' contemporary and enemy M. Brutus, also an advocate, was accused of never having seen an army-camp; but this accusation was made by Crassus himself in the course of a sharp exchange in court, which first of all means that it may be an exaggeration and secondly may make us wonder whether Crassus could have got away with such an accusation if the very same thing could have been said about him.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.55.226.</ref> But any time Crassus did serve in the army could not have been longer than five or six years, even if he began at 15 or 16.<ref>Which some did: Develin, R., '''Patterns In Office-Holding, 366-49 B.C.''' (Latomus, 1979), p.59.</ref> ===''In C. Carbonem''=== Crassus' first notable accomplishment as an orator was his prosecution of [[Gaius Papirius Carbo cos. 120|C. Papirius Carbo]], apparently {{-119}} just after Carbo's consulate. Carbo had been an associate of [[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus|C. Sempronius Gracchus]] but distanced himself from Gracchus after the latter's death and even defended his killer in court.<ref>For details and sources see [[Gaius Papirius Carbo cos. 120|Carbo's biography]].</ref> The charge on which Carbo was prosecuted is unknown.<ref>Gruen argues that it was extortion: Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 108-109. Bauman rejects this conclusion and proposes a charge somehow implicating Carbo in the death of P. Scipio Aemilianus: Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), p.318 n.111. See below for more on the political context of the trial.</ref> In any case, Carbo anticipated conviction and killed himself, and the prosecution evidently established Crassus as a rising star of the law-courts.<ref>Carbo's suicide: Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 103; Cicero, '''''ad familiaribus''''', 9.21.3. Valerius Maximus, a less reliable source, says Carbo went into exile (3.7.6). On the trial's importance for Crassus' career, Cicero says, "''Accusavit C. Carbonem eloquentissimum hominem admodum adulescens; summam ingeni non laudem modo sed etiam admirationem est consecutus''" ("He prosecuted C. Carbo, an excellent speaker, when he was only a boy; thus he achieved not only the highest praise but also applause for his abilities"): '''''Brutus''''', 159; similar comments in Cicero, '''''de officiis''''', 2.13.47.</ref> It is not known how far, if at all, the trial had progressed before Carbo gave up hope, and his despair may have been prompted as much by the political power of his enemies as by the rhetorical powers of his accuser; nonetheless, Crassus, only 21 years old, had defeated a consular who was also a very distinguished orator, and Cicero identifies this as the case which brought him to prominence.<ref>One story told by Valerius Maximus, 6.5.6, if true, may suggest that at least some rats were deserting Carbo's sinking ship: "''scrinium eius [Carbonis] a servo allatum ad se [Crassum], complura continens quibus facile opprimi posset, ut erat signatum cum servo catenato ad eum remisit.''" ("when a case of his [Carbo's] papers was brought to him [Crassus] by a slave, containing much material with which he might easily be overcome, he sent it back to him still sealed as it had been and with the slave in chains"). Carbo's oratorical reputation: Cicero, "''Hic optimus illis temporibus est patronus habitus''" ("He was held the best advocate of those times") ('''''Brutus''''', 106); Carbo is also listed among famous orators of the period by Velleius Paterculus, 2.9.1. For Cicero's comment on the case's role in Crassus' career, see the previous note.</ref> ===''De colonia Narbonem deducenda''=== In the following year, {{-118}}, Crassus made a speech in support of the foundation of a colony, proposed by the ''[[consul]]'' [[Quintus Marcius Rex|Q. Marcius Rex]], in Gallia Narbonensis.<ref>Some have rejected this date for the debate about the colony at Narbo, but it is persuasively defended by Levick, B., '''Cicero, Brutus 43. 159 ff., and the Foundation of Narbo Martius''' (Classical Quarterly 21, 1971, pp.170-179).</ref> The political context of the debate is lost, but the issue seems to have been hotly contested, with the people in favour of the colony and the senate opposed to it, for Cicero says that Crassus "wanted to take up a popular cause in the matter of the Narbonese colony and to found that colony himself, as indeed he did", and that in his speech "he disparaged as much as he could the authority of the senate".<ref>First quotation: "''Voluit adulescens in colonia Narbonensi causae popularis aliquid attingere eamque coloniam, ut fecit, ipse deducere''" (Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 160). Second quotation: "''quantum potest de auctoritate senatus detrahit''" (Cicero, '''''pro Cluentio''''', 140).</ref> Again Crassus found himself on the winning side, although again we cannot be sure whether this success was the result of his own talents or other political factors: the colony of [[Narbo Martius]] was duly approved, and Crassus was one of the ''[[Duumvir coloniae deducendae|duumviri]]'' sent out to supervise its foundation.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 160. Cicero adds that "''exstat in eam legem senior, ut ita dicam, quam aetas illa ferebat oratio''". This could mean either "the speech about that ''lex'' survives, more mature, I should say, than his age suggests" or "the speech about that ''lex'' survives, older, I should say, than that period used to produce". If Cicero means that it sounds like the speech of an older man, then he himself proves the point, for he erroneously thinks that the speech dates from after the trial of the Vestals.</ref> ===''Pro Licinia''=== The next of Crassus' exploits that claimed the attention of history came {{-113}} when Crassus was 27.<ref>There is a minor chronological problem here. Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 160, says that Crassus was 27 at the time of his speech. This gives a date of {{-113}} or {{-112}}. But the Epitome of Livy, 63.4, and Iulius Obsequens, 37, date the trial of the Vestals to {{-114}}. One solution might be to suppose that the whole process dragged on into the following year, and that Crassus' speech was made {{-113}}. This is not very easy to sustain. The wording of both the Epitome and Obsequens seems to indicate that the whole process was completed by the end of the year. Moreover, Marcobius, '''''Saturnalia''''', 1.10.5-6, citing Fenestella, says that judgment was given against Aemilia {{Dec 16}} and Licinia's case was heard {{Dec 18}}, which must be in December {{-114}} unless we are to imagine that the whole process began {{-114}} and was still not complete by December of the following year. There were, however, two trials: one before the ''pontifices'' in which only Aemilia was condemned (Asconius on '''''pro Milone''''', 32), and a second before a special court under [[Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla|L. Cassius]]. The best solution, therefore, is to regard Fenestella, Obsequens, and the Epitome as all giving the date for the first trial, which ended in December {{-114}}, and that it was at the second trial, {{-113}}, that Crassus gave his speech, aged 27 as Cicero says. This still does not square very well with the wording of Obsequens, but it is not altogether incompatible with the Epitome (which does not specifically date the trial but merely places it between events known to have occurred {{-114}} and others known to have occurred the following year), and it does chime with Fenestella, who is clearly giving dates only for the trial before the ''pontifices''. Indeed even without Cicero's reference to Crassus' age we would probably have to assume that the special court was set up {{-113}} as there would hardly have been time to do so between the end of the pontifical trial (which cannot have finished before {{Dec 18}} and the end of the year; and indeed the trial before L. Cassius does seem to have been held early in the year since [[Marcus Antonius cos. 99|M. Antonius]] was about to set off for his province when he was summoned to appear (Valerius Maximus, 3.7.9). This chronology is found in Broughton, T.R.S., '''The Magistrates Of The Roman Republic''' (American Philological Association, 1951), vol.1 pp.534-537.</ref> The previous year a young woman named Helvia, the daughter of a Roman ''eques'', had been struck by lightning and was found lying dead in such a shocking state that it was regarded as a fearful portent.<ref>The state of the body is described in detail (and in very similar terms) by Plutarch, '''''Quaestiones Romanae''''', 83, by Iulius Obsequens, 37, and by Orosius, 5.20. Obsequens names her father P. Elvius, while Orosius calls him L. Helvius.</ref> It was interpreted as foretelling a disgrace for virgins and for the equestrian class.<ref>Obsequens' use of the word "''responsum''" shows that some religious authorities were formally consulted about the meaning of the portent and gave a formal answer; no source, however, identifies which authorities were consulted. Rasmussen, S.W., '''Public Portents In Republican Rome''' (Analecta Romana Instituti Danici Supplementum XXXIV, 2003), p.94, indicates that it was the ''[[Decemvir sacris faciundis|decemviri sacris faciundis]]'', but she appears to be conflating this with the later consultation which came after the trials. Plutarch, '''''Quaestiones Romanae''''', 83, makes it clear that there was a first consultation, of "soothsayers", after the death of Helvia and a second, of the ''decemviri'', after the trials. The gist of the ''responsum'' is given by Plutarch in the same passage, and also (perhaps verbatim) by Iulius Obsequens, 37: "''Responsum infamiam virginibus et equestri ordini portendi''" ("[It was] answered that it presaged a scandal for the virgins and for the equestrian class").</ref> This prompted a certain Manius, the slave of the Italian orator T. Betutius Barrus, to come forward with information against certain Vestal virgins whom he accused of having sexual relations with various men.<ref>The slave is mentioned by Plutarch, '''''Quaestiones Romanae''''', 83, and by Cassius Dio, 26.87.5. His name is provided by Dio, his master's name by Plutarch. According to Plutarch T. Betutius was one of the men who had been involved with the Vestals; Dio seems to say that Manius himself had been involved, or at least that he had been bribed to keep the secret by the promise of his freedom. As to the precise information which he gave, Plutarch says that he named all three of the Vestals who were later brought to book, but Dio indicates that he informed only on Aemilia and Licinia, while Marcia's indiscretion was only discovered through later inquiries. Betutius is mentioned as a notable orator from Asculum by Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 169.</ref> After further investigations, three Vestals, Marcia, Aemilia, and Licinia, were brought to trial before the ''[[pontifex maximus]]'', accused of liaisons with a number of men including ''equites''.<ref>This was not strictly a trial but a hearing before the ''pontifex maximus'', who traditionally had jurisdiction in such cases. The charge was of ''[[incestum]]'': Epitome of Livy, 63.4; Iulius Obsequens, 37; Asconius on '''''pro Milone''''', 32. Orosius, 5.20 uses the term ''stuprum'', but this is probably just sloppiness. Marcia and Licinia, as well as Aemilia, are mentioned by the Epitome of Livy, 63.4; Plutarch, '''''Quaestiones Romanae''''', 83; Cassius Dio, 26.87.5; and Asconius on '''''pro Milone''''', 32. Orosius, 5.20, and Macrobius, '''''Saturnalia''''', 1.10.5, mention only Aemilia, whose conduct was evidently regarded as the most disgraceful. As to their lovers, Plutarch names Betutius (who was apparently not a Roman citizen: Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 169) and Obsequens mentions "''aliquot equit[es]''" ("some ''equites''"). Dio says that Marcia had a relationship with an ''eques'' but was not involved in the activities of the other two, who, he says, entertained a number of men, singly and in groups, separately and together, including one another's brothers. It seems that [[Marcus Antonius cos. 99|M. Antonius]] was also alleged to have been the lover of either Marcia or Licinia (not Aemilia since he was accused in the court of L. Cassius, by which time Aemilia had already been condemned): Valerius Maximus, 3.7.9 and 6.8.1. Orosius names one of Aemilia's lovers as the ''eques'' L. Veturius (though this may be a corruption of T. Betutius) and says that she was responsible for drawing the other two Vestals into her illicit activities. The discrepancies among the various accounts may be the result of ordinary distortion as the story was passed from source to source, but they may also reflect different accounts put forward at the trial itself: the version which distances Marcia from the other two may have been Marcia's defence, while the version in Orosius would have been a suitable argument for Licinia's advocate, Crassus himself.</ref> The ''pontifex maximus'', after taking the advice of the whole ''[[collegium pontificum]]'', condemned Aemilia but acquitted the others; but this caused a public outcry, and consequently a special court was set up under the presidency of [[Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla|L. Cassius Longinus]] which condemned all three.<ref>Asconius on '''''pro Milone''''', 32.</ref> Licinia was possibly a first cousin and at any rate a relative of Crassus, who made a speech in her defence which Cicero describes as "very eloquent".<ref>The relationship, along with the possible political motives for the prosecution, is discussed by Münzer, F., '''Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families''' (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), pp. 222-223. They were first cousins if Licinia was, as seems likely, the daughter of [[Gaius Licinius Crassus tr. pl. 145|C. Crassus]] who was ''tribunus plebis'' {{-145}} and, as also seems likely, he was the son of [[Gaius Licinius Crassus cos. 168|the consular C. Crassus]] and, as seems possible, Crassus' father was also a son of that consular. Crassus' speech was probably at the trial before L. Cassius, both for chronological reasons (see note above) and because if the speech had secured an acquittal Cicero would probably have said so. Cicero's full comment on the speech is, "''In ea ipsa causa fuit eloquentissimus orationisque eius scriptas quasdam partis reliquit''" ("In that same case he was very eloquent and he has left some writings of part of his speech"): '''''Brutus''''', 160.</ref> ===Allegiances=== At this point it is perhaps worth looking back over the first five years of Crassus' public career to see what can be discerned of his political views and allegiances during that period. The time of the Gracchi had seen an alliance of the many ''equites'' with the rural ''plebs'' against the opposition of senatorial conservatism. A number of important ''nobiles'' had also supported the Gracchi. These included [[Publius Mucius Scaevola|P. Mucius Scaevola]] and his brother [[Publius Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus|P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus]], each of whom may have had links to the young L. Crassus. P. Crassus was, of course, his adoptive relative; P. Scaevola was the father of [[Quintus Mucius Scaevola Pontifex|Q. Scaevola]], with whom Crassus enjoyed a famous partnership throughout his political career: they were colleagues in every office Crassus held except the tribunate and the censorship.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 161.</ref> They must have been born within a year or so of one another and may well have grown up together. P. Scaevola and P. Crassus also had a first cousin, another [[Quintus Mucius Scaevola Augur|Q. Scaevola]], whose daughter Mucia married L. Crassus some time before {{-118}}.<ref>For the relationships among the Scaevolae and Licinii, see Münzer, F., '''Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families''' (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), pp. 238, 255. The evidence for the date of Crassus' marriage to Mucia comes from Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.171, which quotes from a satire of Lucilius on the prosecution of Q. Scaevola by T. Albucius: Lucilius depicts Scaevola as referring to Crassus as his son-in-law. The trial took place {{-119}} and may have continued into {{-118}}; it is discussed by Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), pp.321-329. Crassus and his father-in-law also seem to have had a mutual friend in Granius the herald: Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.116 with n.47.</ref> It seems, however, that Crassus' father-in-law had kept his distance from the Gracchi and their radical agenda, though he equally condemned those who murdered them and persecuted their followers.<ref>Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.112-116.</ref> He was, in fact, a member of a loose group of prominent men who had either kept quiet or steered a middle course in the Gracchan crisis and who came to dominate the political scene in the decade afterwards. This group appears to have been centred on the large and noble family of the Caecilii Metelli. It also included the Servilii Caepiones, one of whom was the [[Quintus Servilius Caepio|Q. Caepio]] whose ''lex iudiciaria'' Crassus supported {{-106}} and whose son he later praised {{-95}}; the same Caepio was also related by marriage to [[Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus cos. 96|Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus]] who was Crassus' colleague as ''[[duumvir]]'' and probably joined him in supporting the colony at Narbo.<ref>On the Metelli and the Caepiones see Münzer, F., '''Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families''' (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), pp. 226-236; Scullard, H.H., '''From The Gracchi To Nero''' (Routledge, 1988), pp.44-5.</ref> Crassus is tied to the Metelli also through his daughters: one later married the younger [[Gaius Marius cos. 82|C. Marius]], son of the famous [[Gaius Marius cos. 107|Marius]] who was a protégé of the Metelli; the other married [[Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio pr. 93|P. Scipio Nasica]], the son of a woman of the Metellan family.<ref>The marriages: Münzer, F., '''Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families''' (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), p.238. Marius and the Metelli: Scullard, H.H., '''From The Gracchi To Nero''' (Routledge, 1988), pp.44-5. Scipio and the Metelli: Guen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 117.</ref> Much later in his life Crassus was friends with [[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus|Q. Metellus Numidicus]], but we cannot tell when the friendship began.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.18.68. At some time in his life Crassus also acquired an estate at Tusculum that had previously belonged to a Q. Metellus, perhaps the same man: Cicero, '''''pro Balbo''''', 56. Crassus did not, however, acquire the property directly from this Metellus but rather from a freedman called Sotericus Marcius; it may have passed through other hands as well between Metellus and Marcius. Possibly Cicero is not even recording the owners in chronological order, in which case it may gone from Crassus to Metellus rather than the other way (in which case [[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius|Metellus Pius]] is a good candidate). By Cicero's time the estate had found its way to [[Lucius Cornelius Balbus cos. 40|L. Cornelius Balbus]].</ref> ===Policies=== It appears that, at this time, the Metelli and their allies were making efforts to capture the support of the ''equites'' and to espouse policies which, though far less radical than those of the Gracchi, were nonetheless favourable to businessmen, farmers of moderate means, and others outside the narrow senatorial elite.<ref>Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.111 and following.</ref> This provides a sensible context for Crassus' early career. Some have thought that the prosecution of C. Carbo {{-119}} was engineered by the senatorial group which had opposed the Gracchi but which disliked Carbo for unrelated reasons.<ref>Carbo had been an opponent of P. Scipio and was suspected of involvement in his death. This explanation for the prosecution is apparently thought plausible by Greun, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.107-108.</ref> This same group had, however, helped him to the consulate only the year before, and it is more likely that the prosecution was driven either by Gracchan sympathizers such as P. Crassus and P. Scaevola (in revenge for his desertion) or else by the Metellans (simply to get a dangerous and unpopular rival out of the way).<ref>Bauman thinks a pro-Gracchan motive more likely than an anti-Gracchan one: Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), p.379; but he also suggests that Crassus was pursuing a non-ideological private grudge against Carbo held by his father-in-law Scaevola: pp.320-321.</ref> Either would explain the involvement of L. Crassus, who had links to both groups. In any case the prosecution would have been a popular move among poorer citizens, which chimes with Crassus' somewhat populist stance over the Narbonese colony. The surviving fragment of Crassus' speech is framed more from an anti-Gracchan or moderate point of view, but this may well have been calculated to appeal to the jury and may tell us little about the motive of the prosecution or about Crassus' own views at the time.<ref>The full fragment: "''Non si Opimium defendisti, Carbo, idcirco te isti bonum civem putabunt; simulasse te et aliud quid quaesisse perspicuum est, quod Ti. Gracchi mortem saepe in contionibus deplorasti, quod P. Africani necis socius fuisti, quod eam legem in tribunatu tulisti, quod semper a bonis dissedisti''" ("Not even if you did defend Opimius, Carbo, are those people going to consider you a good citizen: it is obvious that you were pretending and aiming at something else, for you often bemoaned the death of Ti. Gracchus in your public speeches, you were a partner in the murder of P. Africanus, you enacted that statute in your tribunate, you have always been at variance with respectable statesmen").</ref> There is no evidence that Crassus had any personal reason to dislike Carbo, though this cannot be ruled out.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.34.154, has Crassus call Carbo "my enemy" ("''nostrum... inimicum''"). This is being said long after the prosecution but refers to Crassus' youth. The implication seems to be that they were ''inimici'' before the prosecution, but it is conceivable that Cicero is merely confused.</ref> The matter of the colony is rather obscure, but we may note that in general in this period the founding of colonies was seen as a way of providing for poor citizens and was therefore more a Gracchan than a senatorial policy.<ref>C. Gracchus himself was instrumental in the creation of two new colonies and may have contemplated a third: Scullard, H.H., '''From The Gracchi To Nero''' (Routledge, 1988), p.33.</ref> The colony at Narbo may have been a continuation of this Gracchan policy. Alternatively (or perhaps in addition) it may have been seen as a business-friendly move in the interests of the ''equites'', since it would help to protect northern trade routes and promote Romanization in southern Gaul.<ref>Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.112; Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), p.331.</ref> Traditionalists tended to resist the foundation of colonies partly because the inhabitants of a new colony would tend to become clients of the men responsible for founding it, and recent years had shown the dangers of Roman politicans having large concentrations of clients in the Italian countryside. At any rate it is clear that the Narbonese proposal was a popular one and was opposed by the senate, thus again placing Crassus in the moderate, if not Gracchan, tradition. The affair of the Vestals may have been entirely apolitical, and Crassus' involvement may have been purely on account of his family ties to Licinia. It has been suggested, however, that the prosecution of Aemilia, Licinia, and Marcia was partly in indirect retribution by members of the priestly colleges against [[Gaius Licinius Crassus tr. pl. 145|C. Licinius Crassus]] (probably the father of Licinia), [[Quintus Marcius Rex pr. 144|Q. Marcius Rex]], and [[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus Porcina cos. 137|M. Aemilius Lepidus Porcina]] (possibly the fathers of Marcia and Aemilia respectively), all of whom had recently clashed with the priestly authorities.<ref>Münzer, F., '''Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families''' (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), pp. 222-224. We also note in this connection that this Q. Marcius was probably a relative of the consul whom Crassus supported, and that the ''pontifex maximus'' who was lenient to Licinia and Marcia was a Metellus, whereas the judge who subsequently condemned them was an ally of the [[Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Aemilianus|P. Scipio]] who was in turn an opponent of the Gracchi. But all this may be pushing speculation too far.</ref> In the case of C. Crassus, the clash was over his efforts to introduce an element of popular election into the selection of priests. So if this was a factor in the prosecutions, L. Crassus' involvement is again in opposition to the entrenched powers of the political elite. Crassus' early political activity, therefore, could broadly be called progressive and even anti-establishment, though not to the same extent as the Gracchi; and he may have pursued it with the support of the Metellan group and / or the remnants of the Gracchan party.<ref>It should be noted that young politicians, particularly as ''tribuni plebis'', were fully licensed and even perhaps encouraged by tradition to be somewhat anti-establishment, and for every firebrand like the Gracchi who took things too far there was at least one populist reformer who later ended up safe and sound as a respectable senator: a progressive stance for a young politician was by no means a career-killer.</ref> It was in this mode, and with these allies, that he began the ascend the ''cursus honorum''. ==The young politician== Crassus does not seem to have sailed easily up the ''cursus honorum'': he achieved the ''[[praetor|praetura]]'' some two or three years after he first became eligible, and he first had to hold not only the ''[[tribunus plebis|tribunatus]]'' but also the ''[[aedilis curulis|aedilitas]]'', whereas many of his contemporaries were able to do without one or other of these offices.<ref>"The tenure of both posts... was practised by men who distrusted their electoral chances for the praetorship" according to Wiseman, T.P., '''New Men In The Roman Senate, 139 B.C.-A.D. 14''' (Oxford University Press, 1971), p.161.</ref> No doubt throughout these years he also continued to appear in the courts. ===''Multae causae''=== Regrettably, Crassus rather disappears from view in the five years between the trial of the Vestals and his first ordinary magistracy, the ''[[quaestor|quaestura]]'', at least in as much as none of his activities can be securely dated to this period. He made many appearances in court, about most of which we know nothing except that they established Crassus as one of the foremost orators of his generation.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 160: "''Multae deinde causae''" ("Next were many cases").</ref> A number of Crassus' court-cases are known through casual references in the sources but cannot be dated with any confidence. They are summarized here, but it must be remembered that any or all of them may belong not to this period but to other moments in his forensic career. The case against Cn. Carbo is Crassus' best attested early prosecution, but probably not his first. Cicero tells the story that when Crassus was very young ("''adulescentulus''") and opening his case in a prosecution in the court of the ''praetor'' Q. Maximus he was so nervous that he completely went to bits and had to be rescued by Maximus kindly adjourning the hearing.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.26.121. Broughton, T.R.S., '''The Magistrates Of The Roman Republic''' (American Philological Association, 1951), vol.1 p.526-527, suggests that this was the very case of Carbo, but this seems unlikely both in principle (would so nerve-wracked a young advocate have had the gumption to prosecute such a major target, and could he have defeated in the ''divinatio'' all others who would no doubt have wanted to prosecute such an unpopular politician?) and on the strength of the Ciceronian text (for the '''''de oratore''''' contains several references to the prosecution of Carbo and would surely make the connection between the two if there were one). More plausibly, Broughton identifies the ''praetor'' in question as [[Quintus Fabius Maximus Eburnus|Q. Maximus Eburnus]].</ref> Another probably criminal case concerned a certain Piso, though we do not know on which side Crassus appeared; by skilful cross-examination Crassus turned the court against a witness named Silus.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.70.289. A number of Pisones are known from this period, but this one cannot be confidently identified with any of them.</ref> Though criminal cases are more likely to be recorded by the sources, we do know of private-law cases in which Crassus appeared. One was between C. Sergius Orata and a certain Considius, in which Crassus was apparently advocate for C. Sergius.<ref>Valerius Maximus, 9.1.1.</ref> The case apparently concerned a contract related to the public water-supply and perhaps concerned rights of fishing in the ''lacus Lucrinus'', but little is recorded except Crassus' witticism that if Orata, a pioneer of artificial and indoor fisheries, could not get oysters from the lake he would be able to find them among his roof-tiles. In another private case Crassus represented his friend C. Visellius Aculeo against [[Marcus Marius Gratidianus|M. Marius Gratidianus]], who was represented by the deformed orator L. Aelius Lamia; the ''iudex'' in the case was [[Marcus Perperna cos. 92|M. Perperna]].<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.45.262.</ref> Again the case is recorded not for its contents but for a pair of jokes by Crassus at the expense of Lamia's appearance and oratorical skill. A case that can be dated slightly more confidently, perhaps {{-114}} or {{-111}}, was the trial of [[Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus cos. 112|L. Piso]], charged apparently with ''res repetundae''.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.46.265; Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.133.</ref> Crassus was Piso's advocate at the trial and appears to have secured his acquittal.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.285 records an effective piece of cross-examination by Crassus of one of the witnesses for the prosecution. The reasons for assuming an acquittal are mentioned by Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.134 note 163.</ref> ===The ''quaestor''=== The date when Crassus held his first regular magistracy, the ''quaestura'', is not directly attested, but {{-110}} is a reasonable guess (alternatives are {{-115}}, {{-111}}, {{-109}}, or, less likely, {{-117}} or {{-116}}).<ref>One's confidence in the date depends on one's views on various other unresolved questions, some about Crassus himself and others about the ''cursus honorum'' in general. If there was any statutory minimum age for election as ''quaestor'' in this period then it was probably 25, in which case Crassus could technically have been ''quaestor'' as early as the year {{-115}}; if the only requirement was that the candidate have completed his compulsory military service, and if, as has been discussed above, Crassus served no more than six years, then he could legally have run for ''quaestor'' {{-119}}. But his ancestry was not of the highest calibre, he was no military hero, and his allies and patrons were themselves still on their way to the 'Metellan ascendancy' of the next decade: it is likely that he had to spend some years establishing his status as a rising star of the courts before running for office. As to the latest possible date, it depends whether one considers any gap to have been required by law or custom between the ''quaestura'' and higher offices. There are examples of people who observed no gap at all, such as [[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus tr. pl. 123|C. Gracchus]] and [[Lucius Appuleius Saturninus tr. pl. 103|L. Saturninus]], but there is so little evidence that it is difficult to say whether these were exceptional. Even if Crassus left no gap, we know that he was probably served more than one year as ''quaestor'', so he cannot have entered that office later than the second year before his tribunate, and that gives a latest date of {{-109}}. Amidst this uncertainty, we can say with some confidence that he was not ''quaestor'' {{-113}} or {{-112}}, since in those years [[Marcus Antonius cos. 99|M. Antonius]] was ''quaestor'' in Asia: Broughton, T.R.S., '''The Magistrates Of The Roman Republic''' (American Philological Association, 1951), vol.1 p.536, 539. We can also eliminate the years {{-119}} and {{-118}}, when we have Crassus in Rome prosecuting Carbo and then supporting the colony at Narbo, and also {{-114}} and {{-113}} for the trial of the Vestals (since Crassus was apparently prorogued as ''quaestor'' he cannot have entered that office {{-114}} or he would not have been in Rome in time for the trial, which was very probably early the next year).</ref> As has been mentioned, he was elected to this office alongside Q. Scaevola.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 161.</ref> As ''quaestor'' he was sent abroad to Asia.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.75.</ref> There is no direct evidence of the identity of the magistrate under whom he served, or what they did there, nor is it easy to guess. No magistrate with ''imperium'' is known to have been assigned the province of Asia in any of the years in which Crassus could possibly have been ''quaestor'', nor is it even known what may have been going on in Asia in those years that made it worth designating as a province. Evidently something was going on, however, because Crassus' father-in-law [[Quintus Mucius Scaevola Augur|Q. Scaevola]] had been there as ''praetor'' probably {{-120}}, and [[Marcus Antonius cos. 99|M. Antonius]] served there as ''quaestor'' (again to an unknown magistrate) {{-113}} and {{-112}}.<ref>Broughton, T.R.S., '''The Magistrates Of The Roman Republic''' (American Philological Association, 1951), vol.1 pp.523-524 (Scaevola), 536-539 (Antonius).</ref> Indeed it is tempting to imagine, though unsupported by evidence, that Crassus took over directly from his later oratorical rival Antonius. In any case it appears that, like Antonius, Crassus remained in his province beyond his minimum term, remaining at least into the following year.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.90.365: "''... neque inde [ab foro] unquam diutius quam quaestor abfuerim''" ("... nor have I ever been away [from the forum] longer than when I was quaestor"). If it was the longest he had ever been away then it must have been longer than his year in Gallia Cisalpina as ''consul''.</ref> Though we know nothing of his official business in Asia, we know that he spent at least some of his leisure time learning from [[Metrodorus of Scepsis]], an orator and philosopher about the same age as Crassus himself.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.11.45, 2.90.365, 3.20.75.</ref> At the end of his service in Asia he apparently travelled via Macedonia to Athens.<ref>"''... et inde [Asia] decedens Athenis...''" ("... and leaving there [Asia] for Athens...") (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.20.75); "''... cum quaestor ex Macedonia venissem Athenas...''" ("... when, as ''quaestor'', I had come to Athens from Macedonia...") (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.11.45). It is not altogether clear whether he was on official business or simply journeying home. "''Decedens''" may indicate nothing more than the fact that he left, but the word is also often used of the departure of a magistrate from his province when his official task there has been completed or when he has been relieved of command. On the other hand "''quaestor... venissem''" implies that he was still ''quaestor'' when he arrived in Athens. The statements can perhaps be reconciled, either by conjecturing that a ''quaestor'' remained officially a ''quaestor'' even after leaving his province until he had actually returned to Rome (analogously to the way as a ''pronconsul'' or ''propraetor'' retained his ''imperium'' until he re-entered the city) or by recognizing that Romans of the late republic did not distinguish public from private activities as sharply as is often done today ([[Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix|L. Sulla]], for example, spent some recreational time in Athens while he was (at least in his own mind) ''proconsul'' {{-84}}), and Crassus' father-in-law Q. Scaevola visited Athens and Rhodes while ''praetor'' in Asia.</ref> There, too, he listened to, and even debated the nature of oratory with, a number of philosophers and orators, apparently encouraged in this by a young [[Marcus Claudius Marcellus aed. cur. 91|M. Marcellus]] who was with him there (and perhaps also at earlier stages of his journey).<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.11.45-47 (naming a number of philosophers), 1.13.57 (encouraged by Marcellus to debate with them), 3.20.75.</ref> Crassus arrived at Athens two days after the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries and apparently made the audacious request that they be repeated for his benefit; when this was refused he became disgruntled and consequently did not stay in the city very long.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.20.75. This dates his arrival to either spring, when the 'lesser mysteries' were (celebrated annually on a variable date), or the 25th of Boedromion (late summer) two days after the end of the 'greater mysteries' (celebrated every five years on a fixed date).</ref> ===The ''tribunus plebis''=== Crassus' tribunate, according to Cicero, "was so quiet that, if he had not in that magistracy dined with Granius the herald and if Lucilius had not told us that story twice, we should not have known that he had been tribune".<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 160: "''ita tacitus tribunatus ut, nisi in eo magistratu cenavisset apud praeconem Granium idque nobis bis narravisset Lucilius, tribunum plebis nesciremus fuisse''".</ref> Regrettably, though various fragments of the writings of the satirist [[Gaius Lucilius|C. Lucilius]] have been identified as coming from his account of this dinner, not enough survives to give any coherent picture of the story.<ref>The fragments are collected in Warmington, E.H. (ed.), '''Remains Of Old Latin''' (Harvard University Press, 1967), pp.186-195.</ref> ===''De lege iudiciaria''=== The following year ({{-106}}), aged 34, Crassus spoke in favour of the ''[[lex Servilia iudiciaria]]'', proposed by the ''consul'' [[Quintus Servilius Caepio cos. 106|Q. Caepio]], which proposed to abolish the ''equites''' monopoly of juries in the criminal courts.<ref>Crassus' speech: Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 161. The effect of the ''lex'': Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.199; Iulius Obsequens, 41.</ref> In that speech, which Cicero identifies as the moment when Latin speech came of age, he is known to have extolled the virtues of the senate and said some unflattering things about the ''equites''.<ref>The moment of Latin maturity: Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 161. The contents of the speech (which survived in writing in Cicero's day): Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.52.225 (probably); '''''pro Cluentio''''', 140; '''''Brutus''''', 164. Crassus' jokes at Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.66.267 and 2.59.240 may well also belong to this speech, or other exchanges on the subject of the ''lex Servilia''.</ref> The proposal, it seems, gained the approval of the assembly and passed into law.<ref>Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.158 with note 8.</ref> The composition of criminal juries was a contentious issue throughout the late republican period, and the unusual circumstance of a major legal reform being proposed by a ''consul'' rather than a ''tribunus plebis'' may demonstrate the importance and controversy of the proposal. Interestingly, the ''contio'' at which Crassus gave his speech was apparently convened and presided over by Q. Scaevola, who was ''tribunus plebis'' at the time.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 43.161. The possible significance of this, especially for Scaevola's career, is discussed by Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), pp.363-364.</ref> A magistrate holding a ''contio'' was expected to call speakers both for and against a given issue, but given Scaevola's attitudes throughout his life it is fair to assume that he supported Caepio's proposal, and this may therefore have been the beginning of his alliance with Crassus if it had not already been established earlier.<ref>They need not necessarily have been allies to have held the ''quaestura'' together, for at least eight ''quaestores'' were elected every year (Lintott, A., '''The Constitution Of The Roman Republic''' (Oxford University Press, 1999), pp.134-135; Mousourakis, G., '''The Historical And Institutional Context Of Roman Law''' (Ashgate, 2003), pp.94-95) and they cannot all have been political allies.</ref> ===''Pro Cn. Planco'' and the changing political landscape=== Another of those many cases of which we know little is that in which Crassus undertook the defence of a certan Cn. Plancus (presumably a Cn. Munatius Plancus, since the Munatii are the only ''gens'' known to have produced magisterial Planci). The date is uncertain except that it must come some time after {{-106}}; nor do we know anything about the charge or the context. What we have is the name of the prosecutor, one M. Iunius Brutus (the son of [[Marcus Iunius Brutus pr. 140?|the legal expert]]), and several anecdotes about the repartee between him and Crassus.<ref>The name and the anecdotes: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.55.222-226; Cicero, '''''pro Cluentio''''', 51.140-141; Quintilian, 6.3.43-44.</ref> Crassus' jokes at Brutus' expense will not be retailed here, but it is worth noting that Brutus, as part of his prosecution, tried to discredit Crassus as inconsistent by having some assistants read out Crassus' [[Lucius Licinius Crassus#De colonia Narbonem deducenda|speech on the colony at Narbo]] and his [[Lucius Licinius Crassus#De lege iudiciaria|speech on the ''lex Servilia iudiciaria'']] to contrast their political perspectives. We are told that Crassus, in reply, "set out the underlying facts of each occasion, so that each speech would be seen to have been made according to the circumstances and the case at hand".<ref>Cicero, '''''pro Cluentio''''', 51.141: "''exposuit utriusque rationem temporis, ut oratio ex re et ex causa habita videretur''". The precise meaning of the sentence is tricky because of the broadness of the words "''ratio''" and "''res''". The "''ratio temporis''" could be the reasoning, the explanation, a description, the business, the policy, the principles, or the nature of the time; and the "''res''" could be the subject-matter, the content, the circumstances, the factual basis, or the political background of the speech. Still, the general point is clear.</ref> This is interesting because it suggests that Crassus believed that a true understanding of the circumstances of each speech would explain any apparent inconsistencies; or, at any rate, it shows that Crassus thought he could paint a picture of those circumstances that would appear to explain the inconsistencies. It is impossible to tell from this single vague sentence whether the relevant circumstances were political, personal, or both, and thus we cannot guess whether Crassus' explanation was along the lines of 'what I said was correct on each occasion' or 'it was perfectly right and proper for me to say those things at those times even if they were not all strictly correct': a Roman audience would have been more willing than a modern audience to accept an explanation of the latter kind, but of course the former kind would have been more convincing.<ref>Cicero reports that Crassus "''aliquantum esse commotus dicitur''" ("is said to have been somewhat agitated / excited"): Cicero, '''''pro Cluentio''''', 51.140; and Cicero himself opines that "''moleste... fortasse tulerat se in eis orationibus reprehensum, quas de re publica habuisset, in quibus forsitan magis requiratur constantia''" ("perhaps he had taken offence at being censured for these speeches, which he had made concerning affairs of state, in which consistency is perhaps more justifiably looked for"): Cicero, '''''pro Cluentio''''', 51.141. We may note also that the explanation of the circumstances was not the sole, or maybe even the main, plank of Crassus' response, for he went on to use extracts from Brutus' father's books to ridicule Brutus in a manner totally irrelevant to Brutus' original accusation: Cicero, '''''pro Cluentio''''', 51.141; Quintilian in his account and Cicero in '''''de oratore''''' mention only the ridicule. Though not conclusive, all this tends to support the suspicion that Crassus felt an uncomfortable truth in the accusation.</ref> Whatever Crassus said or did not say on this occasion, however, this anecdote highlights the contrast between the speech ''de lege Servilia iudiciaria'', in which he praised the senate and disparaged the ''equites'', and the speech twelve years earlier in which he disparaged the senate and championed a popular cause in the interests of the business class and the rural poor; and his method of self-justification should prompt us to ask ourselves what, if anything, in the circumstances of those twelve years may explain the contrast. The trial of the Vestals {{-114}} was, it seems, the beginning of period under which the Metellan group came under severe pressure from its senatorial opponents. The trial itself was, on the whole, a failure for the Metellans. It seems to have done Crassus' reputation no harm, but nor did he win his case; more seriously, the ''pontifex maximus'' who had acquitted Licinia and Marcia in the first hearing was [[Lucius Caecilius Metellus Delmaticus|L. Metellus Delmaticus]], and the overturning of his verdict in the second trial must have made him look at best incompetent and at worst corrupt.<ref>Asconius on '''''pro Milone''''', 32.</ref> Then, probably {{-111}}, came the prosecution of the bright young [[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus|Q. Metellus]] for extortion.<ref>On the date see Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.132-133.</ref> But on this occasion the anti-Metellans failed dramatically: the jury was so certain of Metellus' honesty and integrity that it did not even trouble itself by considering the evidence before acquitting him.<ref>Cicero, '''''ad Atticum''''', 1.16.4; Valerius Maximus, 2.10.1.</ref> The trial of L. Piso may well also form part of this picture, since Piso was a friend and ally of [[Marcus Aemilius Scaurus cos. 115|M. Aemilius Scaurus]], a star of the Metellan group at this time.<ref>On the date see Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.133-134. Piso's friendship with Scaurus is demonstrated by the fact that the latter appeared as a witness on his behalf at the trial: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.265. For Scaurus' links to the Metelli, Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.118-123.</ref> Scaurus himself had struggled (ultimately successfully) against senatorial opposition between {{-117}} and {{-115}}.<ref>He was defeated as a candidate for the consulate; the following year he narrowly succeeded, but was promptly prosecuted for bribery. He was acquitted. See generally Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.119-123.</ref> If Piso was close to the Metelli, this is further evidence that Crassus himself was in their orbit at this time. By {{-110}} the Metellan group had emerged from this difficult period and established itself as supreme in political life. Its members were no longer opposing the senatorial elite: they had become the senatorial elite. This, together with the passing years, might in itself be enough to explain a drift toward a more conservative outlook on Crassus' part. But around {{-109}} the senatorial class as a whole came under fire over the matter of the [[war with Iugurtha]]. [[Iugurtha]] had expanded his north African kingdom at the expense of his brothers and in defiance of Roman orders, but the senate had taken no firm move against him until he finally made the mistake of executing a number of Roman merchants in the captured city of Cirta. After some fighting the wily Iugurtha surrendered, allowed himself to be summoned to Rome to explain himself, and once there not only managed to get a tribune to forbid him from speaking but took the opportunity, before returning to Africa, to assassinate a rival who had taken refuge in Italy. Once back in Africa he promptly resumed the war and inflicted a humiliating defeat on the Roman army.<ref>Sallust, '''''bellum Iugurthinum''''', 8-39; Scullard, H.H., '''From The Gracchi To Nero''' (Routledge, 1988), pp. 46-47.</ref> All this aroused great indignation in Rome among both ordinary people and ''equites'': most felt that the senate had been too lenient with Iugurtha, and many believed that ''senatores'' had been bribed.<ref>Sallust, '''''bellum Iugurthinum''''', 7.7; Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.143.</ref> {{-109}} the ''[[tribunus plebis]]'' [[Gaius Mamilius Limetanus|C. Mamilius]] set up a special court, almost certainly with a jury-panel exclusively of ''equites'' like ordinary courts at the time, and brought charges against nearly everyone involved.<ref>Sallust, '''''bellum Iugurthinum''''', 40.1.</ref> Few of the targets were close associates of the Metellan group, and most of them seem to have been targeted less for their role in the war and more for their role in the suppression of the Gracchi nearly fifteen years before.<ref>Sallust comments that the prosecutions were "''magis odio nobilitatis... quam cura rei publicae''" ("more from hatred of the nobility... than from care for the republic"): '''''bellum Iugurthinum''''', 40.3). Among the targets were [[Lucius Opimius|L. Opimius]] (the ''consul'' who killed C. Gracchus), [[Lucius Calpurnius Bestia|L. Calpurnius]] (who had recalled from exile the man who had presided over persecutions of the followers of Ti. Gracchus), and [[Gaius Sulpicius Galba|C. Galba]] (who had probably collaborated with the anti-Gracchans after the death of C. Gracchus).</ref> At least one of the victims, however, was apparently member of the group and was defended at trial by M. Scaurus, himself suspected by some of connivance with Iugurtha.<ref>For [[Lucius Calpurnius Bestia|L. Calpurnius]]' links with the Metellan group, and for Scaurus' role in the whole affair, see Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.145-149. Gruen also regards [[Gaius Sulpicius Galba|C. Galba]] and [[Gaius Porcius Cato|C. Cato]] as members of the Metellan group, but the evidence is weak (pp. 145-147; 150).</ref> The trials were apparently not a partisan move but an attack on the whole senatorial class, and naturally prompted that class, including the Metellans, to close ranks against the populist tribunes. Many ''equites'', alienated from the senate by the perceived mismanagement of the war (and thus the disruption of trade with north Africa), were now aligned with the populists against the formerly sympathetic Metellans; by {{-108}} the champion of the ''equites'', [[Gaius Marius cos. 107|C. Marius]], had completely broken with the Metelli. It is in this context that Crassus emerges with a more conservative and senatorial outlook, praising the senate and criticizing the ''equites'' (and particularly their abuse of judicial power) in his famous speech of {{-106}}. The surviving fragment of this speech (if that is indeed what it is) is also interesting in itself:<ref>The quotation in Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.52.225 is thought to belong to this speech by, among others, Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.158 n.7; Dominik, W., & Hall, J. (eds), '''A Companion To Roman Rhetoric''' (Blackwell, 2007), p.242. On the other hand, however, Cicero seems to say that the speech from which the fragment is taken was delivered when Crassus was "a very famous man and an extremely distinguished leader of the community" ("''clarissimo viro, et amplissimo princip civitatis''"), which seems rather inflated if the fragment indeed belongs to {{-106}}. There is also the fact that the fragment may imply that Crassus was a member of the senate, which would be by no means impossible but perhaps a little surprising so early in his career.</ref> "Rescue us from our distress, rescue us from the jaws of those whose cruelty cannot be satisfied even by our blood; do not allow us to be subservient to anyone except yourselves collectively, whom we can and ought to serve."<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.52.225: "''Eripite nos ex miseriis, eripite nos ex faucibus eorum, quorum crudelitas nostro sanguine non potest expleri; nolite sinere nos cuiquam servire, nisi vobis universis, quibus et possumus et debemus''". Also quoted in Cicero, '''''paradoxa Stoicorum''''', 41, with a rather different opening phrase.</ref> First, the use of "us" may perhaps suggest that by this time Crassus was himself already a ''senator'', although it is possible that this fragment comes from a speech-within-a-speech in which Crassus describes what the senate might say to the people. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, although he speaks from a pro-senatorial point of view he does so using distinctly 'democratic' language, calling the senate the slave of the people. This was by no means a standard analysis of the Roman constitution, and indeed the highly conservative [[Publius Rutilius Rufus cos. 105|P. Rutilius]] disapproved of this passage, perhaps for that reason.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.53.227.</ref> Of course in a speech to a crowd of the great unwashed any politician may perhaps express himself in democratic language for the sake of expediency, but it is also possible that this was Crassus' sincere belief about the relationship between the senate and the people.<ref>There was indeed a large crowd: "''in maxima contione''" (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.52.225).</ref> All this may not be enough to dismiss all charges of inconsistency, but it may perhaps persuade us that the inconsistency arose from a genuine change of view in light of changing circumstances rather than mere popularity-seeking disingenuity in his youth. ===''Aedilis curulis'' in a time of upheaval=== The period from {{-106}} to {{-98}} was a tumultuous one in Roman politics, but apparently a quiet one for L. Crassus. It can be sketched briefly here.<ref>A survey is provided by Scullard, H.H., '''From The Gracchi To Nero''' (Routledge, 1988), pp.50-59.</ref> {{-105}} [[Gaius Marius cos. 107|C. Marius]] returned victorious from the war against [[Iugurtha]]. Meanwhile Roman forces had suffered terrible defeat at Arausio in Gallia, and the people bypassed the senate to appoint Marius to lead the Gallic campaign. The campaign had suffered a number of setbacks under the command of noble senatorial generals, and the distaster of Arausio triggered a further backlash against the political elite in general and one member in particular. The blame for Arausio was laid by many at the door of [[Quintus Servilius Caepio cos. 106|Q. Caepio]], a leading member of the Metellan group whose ''lex iudiciaria'' had been so famously supported by Crassus. {{-104}} the ''lex Servilia iudiciaria'' was partly repealed by the ''tribunus plebis'' [[Gaius Servilius Glaucia|C. Servilius]], and Caepio himself, who had already been recalled to Rome in disgrace, was removed from the senate and brought before a special court to explain what had happened to the booty he had won during the campaign.<ref>The date of Glaucia's tribunate is not certain: see Scullard, H.H., '''From The Gracchi To Nero''' (Routledge, 1988), p.52; Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.166-167. As to the special court, the outcome is not clear but Caepio may have been fined: Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.162-163.</ref> At the same time another tribune, [[Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus cos. 96|Cn. Ahenobarbus]], launched less successful attacks against [[Marcus Iunius Silanus cos. 109|M. Silanus]], another of the unfortunate generals of the Gallic war, and against [[Marcus Aemilius Scaurus cos. 115|M. Scaurus]], a personal enemy and a leading ally of the Metelli, as well as transferring the power to choose new ''pontifices'' from the ''collegium pontificum'' to the people. The following year, {{-103}}, two more ''tribuni plebis'' continued the assault. [[Lucius Appuleius Saturninus tr. pl. 103|L. Saturninus]] proposed to exile [[Gnaeus Mallius Maximus|Cn. Mallius]], Caepio's superior at Arausio, while [[Gaius Norbanus|C. Norbanus]] prosecuted and convicted Caepio himself.<ref>Caepio went into exile. The fate of Mallius is unknown.</ref> Saturninus defied senatorial opposition and the veto of two of his colleagues to carry a ''lex agraria'', and his activities in the following years, in alliance with Glaucia and Marius, brought him into bitter opposition with the eminent and severe [[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus|Q. Metellus Numidicus]], resulting in Metellus' departure into exile {{-100}}. At the end of that year matters came to a head: after riots and bloodshed Marius turned against his former allies and, backed by the senate, arrested and imprisoned Saturninus and Glaucia, who despite his precautions were killed by the mob. Amidst all this, L. Crassus is very little in evidence. A close ally of the embattled Caepio and a member of the group whose leaders included Metellus Numidicus and M. Scaurus, he may have felt it best to keep his head down. A comment of Cicero's shows that he and Scaevola supported the arrest of Saturninus and may even have joined other leading statesmen in taking up arms against him; but he seems to have taken no major role in those events.<ref>Cicero, '''''pro Rabirio perduellionis reo''''', 21. The passage appears to be a list of people who were actually part of the lynch-mob, but this serves the purpose of Cicero's speech and should not be relied upon too heavily.</ref> He is listed by Cicero as one of [[Gaius Marius cos. 107|C. Marius]]' enemies in the period of the latter's Gallic campaigns, from {{-104}} to {{-101}}: this is not unlikely, but equally it is a rather vague reference and we may suspect some confusion (or deliberate fudging) since Crassus was hardly important enough to count as one of Marius' major opponents at this time.<ref>Cicero, '''''de provinciis consularibus''''', 19: "''Quis plenior inimicorum fuit C. Mario? L. Crassus, M. Scaurus alieni, inimici omnes Metelli. At ii non modo illum inimicum ex Gallia sententiis suis non detrahebant...''" ("Who had more enemies than C. Marius? L. Crassus and M. Scaurus were unfavourable to him, all the Metelli were his enemies. But these not only did not vote to recall their enemy from Gaul..."). Similarly Scaurus may have been averse to Marius before {{-100}} but was apparently, like Crassus, more friendly in the following years.</ref> We also know that at some point during his career he made at least one speech in which he ridiculed [[Gaius Memmius pr. 104|C. Memmius]], a frequent critic of senatorial policy and an enemy of M. Scaurus; this most likely belongs to this period or perhaps slightly earlier.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.59.240-241 and 2.66.267. Memmius was active {{-111}} to {{-100}}; the latter joke suggests a time when Memmius was popular and successful, but we do not really know enough about his career to narrow this down.</ref> Some time between {{-105}} and {{-100}} he held the office of ''aedilis curulis'' with his old ally Q. Scaevola. Though the ''aedilitas'' was not a highly political post, it is nevertheless unlikely that both men would have been elected during the anti-senatorial backlash of the years {{-103}} to {{-100}}; on the other hand, it is hard to see Scaevola, a pillar of the establishment and a lawyer to boot, breaking the custom of leaving two years between offices (he was tribune {{-106}}), so {{-103}} (having been elected the previous year, before the full anti-senatorial storm broke) seems most likely. Cicero, and probably his audience too, remembered their ''aedilitas'' as one of outstanding splendour.<ref>Cicero, '''''in Verrem''''', 4.59.133: "''L. Crasso, Q. Scaevolae, C. Claudio, potentissimis hominibus, quorum aedilitates ornatissimas vidimus''" ("L. Crassus, Q. Scaevola, and C. Claudius, men of great power, whose very elaborate ''aedilitates'' we have seen"); '''''de officiis''''', 2.16.57: "''L. Crassus cum omnium hominum moderatissimo Q. Mucio magificentissima aedilitate functus est''" ("L. Crassus, together with that most restrained of men Q. Mucius, discharged the most magnificent ''aedilitas''"); '''''de oratore''''', 3.24.92: "''apparatu nobis opus est et rebus exquisitis undique et collectis, arcessitis, comportatis, ut tibi, Caesar, faciendum est ad annum, ut ego [Crassus] in aedilitate laboravi, quod quotidianis et vernaculis rebus satisfacere me posse huic populo non putabam''" ("We need magnificence and refined things, collected, discovered, and accumulated from all sources, as you shall have to do, Caesar, in a year, and as I [Crassus] tried to do as aedile, since I thought I would not be able to satisfy the people with everyday and household things").</ref> In particular we know that Crassus brought over four or six pillars of marble from Mount Hymettus near Athens, about twelve feet high, which he used as part of the stage-set of a temporary theatre: this was the first time imported marble had been used in Rome.<ref>Pliny, '''''historia naturalis''''', 17.1 (four pillars); 36.3 (six pillars); Valerius Maximus, 9.1.4 (ten pillars).</ref> Scaevola imported not pillars but lions, becoming the first to show a lion-fight in Rome.<ref>Pliny, '''''historia naturalis''''', 8.20.</ref> All this magnificence may well be another indication that extreme measures were needed to counteract the unpopularity of Crassus, Scaevola, and their allies at this time.<ref>Wiseman, T.P., '''New Men In The Roman Senate, 139 B.C.-A.D. 14''' (Oxford University Press, 1971), pp.160-161.</ref> ==The ''praetor''== ===The date=== Crassus' next office, again held with Scaevola, was the ''praetura''. The date is again uncertain. If ''aedilis curulis'' {{-103}}, he would have been eligible to be ''praetor'' {{-100}}. With his reputation as an orator, and with his popularity enhanced by such splendid games and displays, he should in ordinary times have been a shoo-in for the ''praetura''; in that period of hostility toward the nobility in general and the Metellan group in particular, however, it may be that his success, and perhaps even his candidacy, was delayed.<ref>We know of one other member of the Metellan group, about the same age as Crassus, who tried to run for ''praetor'' {{-101}} or {{-100}} and failed: [[Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix cos. 88|L. Sulla]].</ref> Moreover, Cicero seems to indicate that he was not yet ''praetor'' when Saturninus was killed {{-100}}.<ref>Cicero, '''''pro Rabirio perduellionis reo''''', 21: "''cum omnes praetores, cuncta nobilitas ac iuventus accurreret, Cn. et L. Domitii, L. Crassus, Q. Mucius, C. Claudius, M. Drusus''" ("when all the ''praetores'', the whole nobility and youth hastened forth, Cn. and L. Domitius, L. Crassus, Q. Mucius, C. Claudius, M. Drusus"). He has already mentioned the men of consular rank and goes on to mention still younger men, so evidently this is a list in order of seniority. None of the men with whom Crassus is mentioned are likely to have been ''praetor'' by {{-100}}, and this is presumably why they are mentioned after the ''praetores''. C. Claudius must be [[Gaius Claudius Pulcher cos. 92|C. Pulcher]] who was ''praetor'' {{-95}}, and [[Marcus Livius Drusus tr. pl. 91|M. Drusus]] was only a former ''quaestor'' at the time.</ref> It is certain, at any rate, that at some point in his career he suffered electoral setbacks (whether actually rejected at the polls or merely postponing his candidacy), for he reached the consulate five or six years later than he might have done. At least one of those years of delay was probably voluntary, to allow Scaevola to catch up with him, but the rest can only indicate a period when his popularity (or that of the people he relied on for support) was low, and such a period is more likely to be found in the unfriendly times of Saturninus and Glaucia than before his ''aedilitas'' or after his ''praetura''. ===The political climate=== If he was ''praetor'' {{-99}} or {{-98}}, that would fit very well with the character of those years.<ref>A survey in Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.188-190. The date {{-98}} is suggested by Broughton, T.R.S., '''The Magistrates Of The Roman Republic''' (American Philological Association, 1951), 2.4-5.</ref> Saturninus' legislation (or at least some of it) was delcared invalid, and his remaining sympathizers were steadily pushed aside by the senatorial aristocracy. One, a certain [[Publius Furius|P. Furius]] who had deserted Saturninus at the last moment but had nonetheless continued to block the recall of Metellus from exile, was prosecuted by another, a relative of Saturninus, [[Gaius Appuleius Decianus|C. Appuleius]]. The trial degenerated into a riot in which Furius was lynched. A third populist, [[Sextus Titius tr. pl. 99|Sex. Titius]], tried to propose a ''lex agraria'' but was defeated by the oratory of [[Marcus Antonius cos. 99|M. Antonius]], ''consul'' in that year. In the consular elections the victors were a Metellus ([[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Nepos cos. 98|Q. Metellus Nepos]]) and a man who had tried to veto the prosecution of Q. Caepio ([[Titus Didius|T. Didius]]); it is easy to imagine Crassus and Scaevola being elected ''praetores'' as part of this same Metellan resurgence. ===Duties=== Crassus was, then, ''praetor'' perhaps {{-99}} or {{-98}}, or at any rate no later than the latter year, with Q. Scaevola his colleague. His official activities as ''praetor'' are not recorded: it was a quiet year both at home and abroad, and it is difficult to say whether he was sent out to govern a province or kept in Rome to carry out judicial functions.<ref>His skills and experience would, of course, have suited him well for a judicial duty, but such duties were, at least in theory, awarded by lot and not by merit.</ref> ===Relations with C. Marius=== It may have been about this time that Crassus betrothed his daughter Licinia to the young son of [[Gaius Marius cos. 107|C. Marius]].<ref>On the date, Gruen, E.S., '''Political Prosecutions In The 90's B.C.''' (Historia, 1966, pp.32-64), p.43. But Badian, E., '''Caepio And Norbanus''' (Historia, 1957, pp.318-346), p.329, argues that it cannot have been until after {{-95}}.</ref> The marriage itself was contracted within the next five or six years.<ref>Certainly before September {{-91}}: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.66; 3.8. Apparently before the trial of T. Matrinius around {{-94}}: Cicero, '''''pro Balbo''''', 49. Probably soon after the younger Marius came of age, which must have been about {{-93}} since he was born {{-109}}.</ref> It seems that Marius was at this time patching up relations with at least the more open-minded members of the Metellan group: {{-97}} he collaborated with Crassus' friend [[Marcus Antonius cos. 99|M. Antonius]], and he may also have cooperated in a business venture with [[Marcus Aemilius Scaurus cos. 115|M. Scaurus]].<ref>Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.192-193.</ref> This reconciliation may have brought some little advantage to Crassus and his associates in the form of the general's lingering prestige and popularity, but Marius himself was politically impotent at this time, and the political reward must have been at least cancelled, if not outweighed, by the strain it must have put upon Crassus' friendship with Marius' firm enemies like [[Publius Rutilius Rufus|P. Rutilius]] and [[Quintus Lutatius Catulus cos. 102|Q. Catulus]].<ref>Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.195.</ref> By bringing Marius back in from the cold, Crassus and his like-minded friends showed both personal generosity and a political desire to reach out to the ''equites'' and the people, many of whom still regarded Marius with respect and affection. ===The ''augur''=== Crassus was an ''augur'' by the time of his death and probably long before.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.10.30.</ref> It was not unusual for ''nobiles'' to attain such prestigious priesthoods while still young; surely Crassus must have become an ''augur'' at latest by the time of his ''praetura''. ==The ''consul'' and leading advocate== ===Candidacy=== {{-96}} L. Crassus was a candidate for the consulate. Like most (if not all) candidates for high office, he had to go about asking for votes in what was, for a highly successful politician of noble birth, an embarrassingly undignified business: so much so that he could not bear to let his very eminent and rather severe father-in-law [[Quintus Mucius Scaevola Augur|Q. Scaevola]] see him do it, and had to ask the latter to leave the forum so that Crassus could continue his canvass.<ref>Valerius Maximus, 4.5.4; Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.24.112.</ref> ===''Lex Licinia Mucia''=== He was duly elected along with his friend, the other [[Quintus Mucius Scaevola Pontifex|Q. Scaevola]]. Together they enacted the ''[[lex Licinia Mucia de civibus redigundis]]''. This statute was aimed at people, particularly Italians, who were passing themselves off as Roman citizens.<ref>Cicero, '''''de officiis''''', 3.11.47.</ref> Some had been legitimately given citizenship by Roman generals like Marius acting with statutory authority, but others were no doubt spurious. Crassus and Scaevola returned such people to their original status, and gave the standing treason court powers to hear accusations against alleged false citizens.<ref>For detailed discussion of the provisions see [[lex Licinia Mucia de civibus redigundis|the article on the ''lex'']].</ref> The legislation was later criticized as contributing to the outbreak of the [[Italian war]].<ref>Asconius on Cicero, '''''pro Cornelio''''': "''Verum ea lege ita alienati animi sunt principum Italicorum populorum ut ea vel maxima causa belli Italici quod post triennium exortum est fuerit''" ("Indeed the leaders of the Italian peoples were so alienated by that statute that it was even the greatest cause of the Italian war which broke out three years later").</ref> At the time it was perhaps not meant, however, as an anti-Italian measure, for it did not seek to cancel legitimate grants of citizenship, merely to stop those who were trying to acquire it illegally.<ref>On the origins of the statute there is a puzzling item from Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.44.257: "''Statius Scauro stomachanti ex quo sunt nonnulli qui tuam legem de civitate natam Crasse dicant: St, tacete, quid hoc clamoris? Quibus nec mater, nec pater, tanta confidentia? Auferte istam enim superbiam''". This can be translated either as "Statius said to an angry Scaurus [the following quotation], from which there are some who say your own ''lex de civitate'', Crassus, was born: Shh, be quiet, what is this racket? No mother, no father, but such arrogance? Take your pride away", or else "Statius said to an angry Scaurus, from whom there are some who say your own ''lex de civitate'' was born: Shh, be quiet, what is this racket? No mother, no father, but such arrogance? Take your pride away". The former would seem to suggest that this quotation inspired the statute. It is hard to see why, unless the implication is that the quotation encapsulates Crassus' own hostility to 'parentless' (i.e. foreign) people and their 'racket' (perhaps their bad Latin). The latter implies that M. Scaurus was a driving force behind the ''lex''.</ref> ===''Pro Q. Caepione''=== As ''consul'' Crassus was also called upon to defend the young [[Quintus Servilius Caepio qu. 100|Q. Caepio]], son of his old ally.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 44.162.</ref> The charge was of ''maiestas'', and was based upon events of that tumultuous year {{-100}} when Caepio forcibly broke up the meeting at which [[Lucius Appuleius Saturninus tr. pl. 103|Saturninus]] tried to pass his ''lex agraria''. Though Crassus' speech was brief (and perhaps unenthusiastic, given Caepio's disruptive behaviour and hostility to Crassus' allies M. Scaurus and M. Drusus), Caepio was acquitted.<ref>Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.195-196. Though the outcome of the trial is not explicitly recorded, Caepio was still around and making trouble again a few years later.</ref> Intriguingly, the prosecutor was T. Betutius Barrus, who was also involved in the trial of the Vestals in which Crassus had appeared for the defence.<ref>See [[Lucius Licinius Crassus#Pro Licinia|discussion above]].</ref> The '''''rhetorica ad Herennium''''' appears to preserve the line of argument used against Caepio, and Crassus' defence that Caepio had not impaired the ''maiestas'' of the Roman people by his actions against Saturninus but had in fact protected it.<ref>'''''Rhetorica ad Herennium''''', 2.12.17; a similar passage is found in Cicero, '''''de partitione oratoria''''', 30.105. M. Antonius used the same defence at the trial of Norbanus, which fell at about the same time. Cicero appears at '''''de oratore''''', 2.25.107, to suggest that Antonius was the originator of the defence, though this may be simply because the issue of disputed definitions of offences falls during Antonius' part of the dialogue; the other possibility, that Crassus was the first to use it, is at first glance more plausible since he was more a lawyer than Antonius and was close to a number of lawyers including his father-in-law, and may also be suggested by the fact that it was, to judge from the '''''rhetorica ad Herennium''''' and Cicero, '''''de partitione oratoria''''', 30.105, the use of the defence at Caepio's trial that came to be used as the classic example. The technical aspects of the defence are discussed by Bauman, R.A., '''The Crimen Maiestatis In The Roman Republic And Augustan Principate''' (Witwatersrand University Press, 1967. Elsewhere Bauman seems to consider that the defence was Crassus' invention: Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), p.335.</ref> ===''Gallia Cisalpina''=== Crassus' consular province was ''[[Gallia Cisalpina]]''.<ref>Cicero, '''''de inventione''''', 2.111.</ref> There he hunted down and defeated some bandits who had been distressing the province.<ref>Cicero, '''''de inventione''''', 2.111.</ref> These bandits were, it seems, few, disorganized and lacking leadership, and were in general not worthy of official designation as ''hostes populi Romani'' (enemies of the Roman people).<ref>Cicero, '''''de inventione''''', 2.111.</ref> Consequently, when he asked the senate for a triumph on account of his victory, his friend and colleague Q. Scaevola vetoed the motion, maintaing the traditional rule that a triumph could only be granted in recognition of a victory over a ''hostis''.<ref>Cicero, '''''de inventione''''', 2.111; '''''in Pisonem''''', 26, with Asconius' commentary.</ref> Some have seen this as a result, or as the start, of a breach between the two men, but the evidence is not clear.<ref>Discussed in Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), p.347; see also [[Lucius Licinius Crassus#Friends and allies|discussion above]]</ref> It may be that the unimpressive nature of Crassus' victory was reported to Rome by [[Gaius Papirius Carbo Arvina|C. Carbo]], son of the [[Gaius Papirius Carbo cos. 120|Carbo]] whom Crassus had prosecuted in his youth. Carbo went to visit Crassus' province, reportedly with the sole aim of discrediting the man he blamed for his father's death; Crassus, however, immediately took him in, gave him a place on his senior staff, and made a point of seeking his advice on all matters.<ref>Valerius Maximus, 3.7.6.</ref> This was perhaps merely a clever way of neutralizing a hostile intruder, but Crassus is said to have regretted the elder Carbo's suicide and may have genuinely wished the young man well.<ref>Cicero, '''''in Verrem''''', 2.3.3.</ref> Nonetheless Carbo apparently remained Crassus' bitter enemy until the latter's death.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.3.10 ("''inimicissimi''").</ref> ===''In M. Marcellum''=== At the height of his powers, and perhaps therefore around the time of his consulate, Crassus brought a prosecution against one M. Claudius Marcellus, a personal enemy of his.<ref>Cicero, '''''pro Fonteio''''', 24; Valerius Maximus, 8.5.3. On the date see also Gruen, E.S., '''Political Prosecutions In The 90s B.C.''' (Historia, 1966), p.51. This Marcellus was perhaps the [[Marcus Claudius Marcellus pr. by 73|Marcellus]] who was later L. Caesar's lieutenant in the Italian war.</ref> Little is known of the background of this case, or of the reason for the enmity between Crassus and Marcellus. The defendant was acquitted, and it may be that Crassus allowed his anger to overcome his restraint for he began authoritatively but ended impotently.<ref>Valerius Maximus, 8.5.3: "''impetu gravis, exitu vanus apparuit''".</ref> ===''Pro T. Matrinio''=== Within a few years after Crassus' consulate, a citizen of Spoletum named T. Matrinius was prosecuted for an offence under the ''[[lex Licinia Mucia de civibus redigundis|lex Licinia Mucia]]''.<ref>There is no specific evidence of the date except that it must obviously have been after {{-95}} when the ''lex'' was passed and before {{-91}} when Crassus died. Gruen, E.S., '''Political Prosecutions In The 90s B.C.''' (Historia, 1966), pp.48-49, suggests placing the trial in a political context which would put it closer to {{-95}}.</ref> Matrinius had been given Roman citizenship by [[Gaius Marius cos. 107|C. Marius]], who had been authorized to do so by a ''[[lex Appuleia de coloniis deducendis]]''; the prosecutor L. Antistius challenged the validity of the grant on what appears to have been a technical point of law.<ref>Cicero, '''''pro Balbo''''', 48.</ref> Marius himself appeared and said a few words in support of Matrinius, and it is said that by his great authority he secured an acquittal.<ref>Cicero, '''''pro Balbo''''', 49.</ref> There is a difficulty, however, about Crassus' involvement, for the source is ambiguous: it has been read as saying that Crassus undertook the defence, and it has also been read as saying that he did not.<ref>The crucial sentence is: "''Tanta auctoritas in C. Mario fuit ut non per L. Crassum, adfinem suum, hominem incredibili eloquentia, sed paucis ipse verbis causam illam gravitate sua defenderit et probarit''". It can be translated as "C. Marius had such authority that he defended and vindicated the case not by L. Crassus, his relative and a man of incredible eloquence, but by his own few words and his seriousness". The meaning may be that C. Marius did not even trouble to ask for Crassus' help, or it may be that although Crassus conducted the defence it was Marius who carried the day. Gruen, E.S., '''Political Prosecutions In The 90s B.C.''' (Historia, 1966), pp.48-49, supports the latter interpretation. Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), p.368, rejects this possibility apparently on the grounds that it would have been inconsistent for Crassus, who had legislated against false citizens, to defend someone who was being accused of false citizenship under his own statute; but if Matrinius was not guilty then he was not a false citizen and it would not have been at all inconsistent for Crassus to defend him.</ref> If Crassus did defend Matrinius, it was presumably because Marius had called upon the bond of loyalty created by the marriage of their children. Although from a legal and logical standpoint there was no inconsistency between Crassus' opposition to false citizens and his defence of a man accused of being a false citizen, it could nonetheless have been a slightly uncomfortable position for him. The prosecution may even have been engineered partly to achieve this result, as well as to create tension between Crassus and those of his allies who were no friends of Marius.<ref>This is the suggestion of Gruen, E.S., '''Political Prosecutions In The 90s B.C.''' (Historia, 1966), pp.48-49.</ref> But in view of the uncertainty about Crassus' involvement, little can confidently be built on it. ===''Causa Curiana''=== Some time between {{-93}} and {{-91}} Crassus was involved in one of the most famous private-law cases in Roman legal history, the ''causa Curiana''.<ref>On the date, and the cases' possible implications for the relationship between Crassus and Scaevola and for Scaevola's legal and political views, see Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), pp.344-351; for more technical legal discussion of the case, with full quotations from the main sources, see Watson, A., '''The Law Of Succession In The Later Roman Republic''' (Oxford University Press, 1971), pp.44, 53-55, 94-96, and Watson, A., '''Law Making In The Later Roman Republic''' (Oxford University Press, 1974), pp.129-131.</ref> In his will, a man had appointed his son as his heir, with the proviso that if his son died before reaching puberty then a certain M'. Curius should be heir in stead. The problem was that the man never had a son at all. When he died, therefore, his family claimed the inheritance on the basis that the will was invalid, while M'. Curius argued that the intention of the deceased was that he should inherit in the absence of a son, even though this had not been said explicitly in the will. The case excited public interest perhaps partly because it raised wider questions of literal or broad interpretation of wills and other legal documents, but probably also because of the advocates representing the two sides: Crassus, at the height of his fame and powers, represented Curius, while his former consular colleague, Q. Scaevola, the most famous lawyer of the day, represented the family.<ref>The case aroused much anticipation and drew a considerable crowd: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.39.180: "''quo concursu hominum, qua exspectatione''".</ref> It appears that Crassus deployed every argument at his disposal, ranging from technical arguments about the meanings of particular words to broad appeals to justice and the public interest.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 53.197-198; Watson, A., '''Law Making In The Later Roman Republic''' (Oxford University Press, 1974), pp.129-131.</ref> He was successful, and the inheritance was awarded to M'. Curius. ===''Causa Sergiana''=== Another private-law case in which Crassus appeared in this period found him acting on behalf of C. Sergius Orata (for whom he also [[Lucius Licinius Crassus#Multae causae|acted gainst Considius]]), and was suing M. Marius Graditianus (whom he also [[Lucius Licinius Crassus#Multae causae|sued on behalf of]] [[Gaius Visellius Aculeo|C. Visellius Aculeo]]).<ref>The date is to be inferred from Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.39.178, saying that the case happened "''nuper''" ("recently"). The same word is used in the same text, at 1.39.180, to refer to the ''causa Curiana''.</ref> Marius was on this occasion represented by Crassus' great rival [[Marcus Antonius cos. 99|M. Antonius]]. Sergius had sold Marius a house which Marius later sold back to Sergius; but in the second transaction Marius omitted to state that the land was subject to a ''[[servitus]]'' (a legal liability owed by the owner of the property to the owner of a neighbouring property, roughly similar to en easement in modern common-law jurisdictions). The law made a seller liable to pay compensation for any defects he failed to declare, and Crassus argued in favour of the letter of the law, while Antonius argued for an exception in this case since Sergius already knew perfectly well about the ''servitus'' when he bought the house back from Marius.<ref>Crassus' argument here is in interesting contrast to his case in the ''causa Curiana'', but the task of a lawyer, in those days as today, was to present the argument that favoured his client, not the one he himself believed in.</ref> The outcome is not recorded, though possibly Crassus was the victor.<ref>The case is described by Cicero, '''''de officiis''''', 3.16.67, and '''''de oratore''''', 1.39.178. A victory for Crassus is perhaps implied by the sentence introducing the anecdote in '''''de officiis''''': "''Sed huius modi reticentiae iure civili comprehendi non possunt; quae autem possunt, diligenter tenentur''" ("But such witholdings of information cannot be comprehensively dealt with by law; those which can, however, are kept scrupulously in check").</ref> ===Friends and allies<ref>Friendships and associations not mentioned in the text are listed here for the sake of completeness. He was a friend of [[Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus|Q. Metellus Numidicus]] (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.18.68), [[Quintus Pompeius Rufus cos. 88|Q. Pompeius Rufus]] (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.37.168), [[Marcus Bucculeius|M. Bucculeius]] (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.39.179), [[Gaius Velleius|C. Velleius]] (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3..21.78), [[Marcus Vigellius|M. Vigellius]] (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.21.78), his childhood teacher [[Gaius Coelius Antipater|C. Coelius Antipater]] (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.12.54; '''''Brutus''''', 26.102), [[Marcus Claudius Marcellus aed. cur. 91|M. Marcellus]] (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.13.57), [[Numerius Furius|N. Furius]] (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.23.87), and [[Quintus Granius|Q. Granius]] (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.61.253. His appearance on two different occasions as advocate for [[Gaius Sergius Orata|C. Sergius Orata]] may imply a friendly relationship (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.39.178; Valerius Maximus 9.1.1; Cicero, '''''de officiis''''', 3.16.67). He was a close friend of [[Gaius Visellius Aculeo|C. Visellius Aculeo]], whom he greatly admired, with whom he shared his home, and whom he at least once represented in court (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.43.191; 2.1.2; 2.65.262). [[Quintus Lutatius Catulus cos. 102| Q. Catulus]] and [[Gaius Iulius Caesar Strabo|C. Caesar Strabo]] were "very dear friends" of Crassus according to Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.4.15. On the other hand, we hear that he was less friendly with [[Gaius Lucilius|C. Lucilius]] than the latter wished, on account of the poet's animosity to Crassus' father-in-law (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.16.72).</ref>=== The matter of Crassus' triumph, and the ''causa Curiana'' soon afterward, raises the question of Crassus' relationship with Q. Scaevola at this time. Some have seen these incidents as marking an end of their friendship and even a hostile relationship thereafter.<ref>A good survey of the arguments in Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), pp.346-348.</ref> We may doubt whether their appearance on opposing sides in a private-law trial, where neither stood to gain or lose anything personally from the outcome, need involve any loss of friendliness: it is true that trials often triggered or perpetuated ''inimicitiae'', but most recorded trials are criminal ones and often highly political at that.<ref>Epstein, D.F., '''Personal Enmity In Roman Politics, 218-43 B.C.''' (Croom Helm, 1987), pp.90-126</ref> There is no evidence of ''inimicitiae'' ever arising from or being acted out by the mere appearance of individuals as advocates for opposing parties in a private-law case.<ref>Indeed we know that Crassus referred to his opponent in another private-law case as his friend: Valerius Maximus, 9.1.1.</ref> Moreover we may note that [[Quintus Mucius Scaevola Augur|Q. Scaevola the ''augur'']], Crassus' father-in-law and Q. Scaevola's cousin, seems to have advised Crassus on his conduct of the case.<ref>Cicero, '''''pro Caecina''''', 69. We should of course be careful of assuming that Scaevola the ''augur'' and Scaevola the ''pontifex'' enjoyed consistently good relations merely because they were cousins.</ref> More significant, and earlier in time, is the matter of the triumph. Opposing another senator's application for a triumph was a classic feature of ''inimicitiae'' and we should be astonished if Scaevola's veto did not put some strain on his relationship with Crassus.<ref>Opposition of triumphs as a feature of ''inimicitiae'': Epstein, D.F., '''Personal Enmity In Roman Politics, 218-43 B.C.''' (Croom Helm, 1987), pp.59-60, 77-78.</ref> We may also observe that there is no record of Crassus and Scaevola cooperating or associating thereafter. In particular, they did not share the ''censura'' as they had every other ordinary magistracy except the tribunate; but this tells us nothing since Scaevola never sought that office and may even have been prevented from seeking it by a family custom.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 43.161: "''... censuram sine Saceola gessit; eum enm magistratum nemo umquam Scaevolarum petivit''."</ref> Outright hostility, at any rate, appears to be ruled out by Cicero's statement that in his conduct of the ''causa Curiana'' Crassus restrained his famous cutting wit and proceeded in a respectful and cheerful tone.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.54.221-55.222. In one preserved fragment he lightly teases Scaevola's perfectionism while acknowledging his legal expertise: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.6.24.</ref> Nor in fact do Crassus' many recorded jokes at the expense of others include any at Scaevola's. Perhaps Bauman in close to the mark in suggesting that "the partnership did not survive the consulship, and though relations remained formally correct they were never again as cordial as they had been".<ref>Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), p.347. We may also note that Scaevola is never referred to as Crassus' friend (''amicus'', ''familiaris'', &c.) in Cicero's ''de oratore'', set in the last year of his life: e.g. 1.37.170; 1.39.180; 1.53.229; 1.57.244; and in particular 3.3.10.</ref> Of greater importance in tracing Crassus' movements through the larger political currents of these years is his relationship with C. Marius. Regrettably there is little firm evidence to grasp. Certainly the betrothal between Crassus' daughter and Marius' son was not broken off, and there is some evidence that the marriage itself was contracted about {{-93}} or at least by late in the year {{-91}}.<ref>A betrothal contracted before the groom comes of age would normally lead to a marriage soon after the coming of age: the young Marius will have come of age about {{-93}}. Also, Cicero's use of the word "''adfinis''" ("relative by marriage) to describe Crassus' relationship to Marius at the time of the trial of T. Matrinius suggests that the marriage had taken place by then; but the date of the trial itself is uncertain, except that it must have been between {{-95}} and {{-91}} and may have been earlier rather than later: Gruen, E.S., '''Political Prosecutions In The 90s B.C.''' (Historia, 1966), pp.48-49. At any rate all this tends to confirm continuing amicable relations between Crassus and Marius around {{-95}} at the earliest. The marriage had clearly taken place by {{Sep 13}} {{-91}} for at that date Marius was Crassus' "''affinis''": Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.15.66.</ref> Meanwhile, Crassus' student [[Publius Sulpicius Rufus tr. pl. 88|P. Sulpicius]], who was a firm adherent of Marius by {{-88}}, may already, perhaps through Crassus, have been on friendly terms with him by {{-91}}.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.15.66, implies that Sulpicius would be likely to turn to Marius for military advice. See discussion by Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.225.</ref> We may observe that Q. Scaevola the ''augur'', Crassus' father-in-law and thus the grandfather of Marius' new son-in-law, was still a supporter of Marius, at least in preference to the alternative, in the year {{-88}}.<ref>Valerius Maximus, 3.8.5.</ref> C. Visellius Aculeo, an ''eques'', was for many years a member of Crassus' household and remained so until the end of Crassus' life, and he was also probably related to Marius; similarly the Tullii Cicerones, a powerful family in Arpinum but not yet notable in Rome, had links to both Marius and Crassus.<ref>Aculeo and Crassus: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.43.191; 2.1.2. Crassus and the Cicerones: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.1.2. Other links: Wiseman, T.P., '''New Men In The Roman Senate''' (Oxford University Press, 1971), pp.31, 55-57, with sources cited there.</ref> On the other hand, some have seen an estrangement between Crassus and Marius by {{-92}}, though perhaps not entirely convincingly.<ref>Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), p.346 with n.36. But Bauman cites Cicero, '''''pro Archia''''', 20, which has no apparent bearing on the point, and Cicero, '''''de provinciis consularibus''''', 19, which clearly refers to the Gallic campaigns before {{-100}}, not to this period.</ref> It seems impossible to say anything with confidence about Crassus' relations with Marius in this period, but such evidence as there is seems to weigh against a serious falling-out. It may be that they simply had little to do with one another either way, since in this period Marius was of relatively little importance in the daily politics of the republic. Two mentions have been made of Crassus' connection by marriage to Q. Scaevola the ''augur'', and it is important therefore to note the possibility that at some stage before late in the year {{-91}} Crassus' marriage to Scaevola's daughter came to an end. This is implied by Cicero's statement that {{Sep 13}} {{-91}} Scaevola "used to be his father-in-law".<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.7.24: "''socer eius... fuerat''".</ref> The very point being made in that passage is that Scaevola and Crassus were still on good terms, however, and this may lead us to suppose that the marriage ended with Mucia's death rather than divorce.<ref>Thus Münzer, F., '''Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families''' (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), p.380. It is worth mentioning that elsewhere in the same dialogue Scaevola is called "''socer''" and Laelia, his wife, is called "''socrus''" ("mother-in-law") in the present tense: 3.18.68; 3.12.45.</ref> On the other hand, Cicero claims to have conversed with Mucia, or at least to have heard her converse: even if she had died only shortly before Crassus, Cicero cannot have been older than 16 at the time, and it is difficult to assess how likely this is.<ref>'''''Brutus''''', 58.211. The phrase is "''sermo mihi fuit notus''", which could mean either that he talked to her or that he heard her, though either way it implies more than a few occasions.</ref> It is true that he was in his youth a student of her father's and could have met her through him, but Cicero only began to study under Scaevola {{-90}}, the year after Crassus' death, and it is not known that his family was on familiar terms with Scaevola's before then; nor does Cicero seem to have met Crassus, which he would probably have done if he had met his wife while he was still alive.<ref>Date of Cicero's attachment to Scaevola: Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 89.306.</ref> Cicero comments that Mucia inherited a pleasing and refined style of speech from her parents (her mother was Laelia, the daughter of [[Gaius Laelius cos. 140|C. Laelius]]), and that this elegance of expression was also passed on to her two daughters by Crassus.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 58.211: "''Auditus est nobis Laeliae C. f. saepe sermo; ergo illam patris elegantia tinctam vidimus et filias eius Mucias ambas, quarum sermo mihi fuit notus, et neptes Licinias...''" ("We have heard the speech of Laelia the daughter of Gaius; thus we have seen her touched with her father's elegance and also both her daughters, the Muciae, whose conversation I knew, and her granddaughters the Liciniae...") The specific wording of the sentence suggests inheritance from the father (thus Laelia from Laelius, the Muciae from Scaevola, and the Liciniae from Crassus), but at the same time the sequence of individuals is matrilineal and the whole point of the passage is to illustrate that eloquence can be inherited not only from one's father but also from one's mother ("''patres paedagogi matres etiam''" ("fathers, teachers, and indeed mothers"), says the preceding section), so it is not altogether clear to whom Cicero is crediting the pleasant speech of Mucia and her daughters.</ref> Nothing else is recorded of Mucia's life or character, but Münzer notes that the relationship between Crassus and Scaevola the ''augur'' was apparently closer than that between many Roman ''nobiles'' and their fathers-in-law and suggests that this is a sign that Mucia was especially close to both men.<ref>Münzer, F., '''Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families''' (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), p.380; though the two men may equally have become friends when Crassus studied law under Scaevola, presumably before the marriage: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.10.40.</ref> Meanwhile, having established himself as one of Rome's pre-eminent orators, Crassus had naturally acquired disciples. One, P. Sulpicius, who has been mentioned above, was devoted to him.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.21.97; 3.3.11.</ref> He launched his oratorical career {{-94}} with a prosecution of [[Gaius Norbanus|C. Norbanus]], a move with no discernible personal motivation and therefore probably motivated by a desire on the part of the Metellan group, such as it was by this date, to rake over the events of {{-100}}; Norbanus was defended, rather reluctantly, by [[Marcus Antonius cos. 99|M. Antonius]], Crassus' only real oratorical rival, and was acquitted; but Sulpicius evidently made a sufficient impression, and was sufficiently helped by Crassus and his friends, to be elected ''quaestor'' for the following year.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.47.197-2.50.204; Valerius Maximus, 8.5.2 (indicating M. Scaurus as the instigator of the prosecution).</ref> Another of Crassus' students was [[Gaius Aurelius Cotta cos. 75|C. Cotta]], the eldest of three brothers whose father apparently died undistinguished but whose grandfather and uncle were ''consules''.<ref>Münzer, F., '''Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families''' (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), pp.295-296. Cotta is said to have been devoted to Crassus: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.311.</ref> {{-92}} Cotta was one of the advocates for the defence in the trial of his uncle [[Publius Rutilius Rufus cos. 105|P. Rutilius Rufus]], though he took only a small part; another was Q. Scaevola the ''pontifex'', Crassus' colleague in many magistracies.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.53.229.</ref> Both Crassus and Antonius offered their own services as well, but Rutilius seems to have refused not for any lack of warmth toward either man but out of a general moral objection to the use of emotive rhetoric in court-cases.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.53.230; Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.204-205. Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), p.347 rather stretches Rutilius' disapproval of Crassus' style when he says that Rutilius "did not like Crassus", and uses Crassus' failure to take part in the trial as evidence of a coolness between Crassus and Scaevola without addressing Cicero's clear implication that Crassus offered and was refused.</ref> [[Gaius Papirius Carbo pr. 62|C. Carbo]]'s prosecution, much later, of Cotta's younger brother may (in the absence of any other evidence as to the origin of this feud) have something to do with the old enmity between the Carbones on the one hand and Crassus and M. Antonius on the other.<ref>Cassius Dio, 36.40.3-4; Valerius Maximus, 5.4.4; Münzer, F., '''Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families''' (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), p.296. This Carbo is not, it seems, the same C. Carbo Arvina who went to spy on Crassus in his consular province, and his relationship to the latter is not clear: he is probably too old to be the son of Arvina, unless he began his political career very young; Arvina was probably the eldest grandson of [[Gaius Papirius Carbo pr. 168|C. Carbo]] who was ''praetor'' {{-168}}, and it is therefore hard to imagine that this Carbo can be any closer than a second cousin. The connection to Arvina's grudge against Crassus may therefore appear too remote to be credible.</ref> Cotta and Sulpicius were themselves friends, and both were friends of [[Marcus Livius Drusus tr. pl. 91|M. Drusus]], who was also the friend and brother-in-law of [[Quintus Servilius Caepio pr. 91|Q. Caepio]] (son of Crassus' [[Quintus Servilius Caepio cos. 106|old ally]] of the same name) and apparently on good terms with Crassus himself.<ref>The relationship among Cotta, Sulpicius, Drusus, and Crassus is evidenced by, for example, Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.21.97; 1.7.25 ("''maximi familiares''"). Drusus and Cotta both had P. Rutilius as an uncle: Münzer, F., '''Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families''' (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), p.288. Crassus was certainly behind Drusus during the early part of the latter's tribunate: Cicero, '''''de domo suo''''', 50; Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.1.2-3.2.6. Drusus and Caepio: Münzer, F., '''Roman Aristocratic Parties And Families''' (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), pp.268-273.</ref> Such were the young men with whom Crassus associated. There was also [[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus cos. 69|Q. Hortensius]], who entered public life at the age of 19 in the year when Crassus was ''consul'': both Crassus and his colleague Scaevola are said to have been impressed by his first speech.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 64.229; Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.61.229.</ref> Gruen calls him a protégé of Crassus, but the closest the sources come to this is when Cicero calls him Crassus' "''sodalis''", which may mean a friend or associate but more probably refers to the fact that they were both ''augures''.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.61.228.</ref> It is important to mention that other great orator [[Marcus Antonius cos. 99|M. Antonius]], Crassus' elder by about three years.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 43.161.</ref> He and Crassus encountered each other in their late 20s, if not before, for it appears that Antonius was accused of involvement in the scandal of the three Vestal virgins {{-113}} and defended himself while Crassus defended Licinia.<ref>No source is explicit, but the incident mentioned in Valerius Maximus, 3.7.9 and 6.8.1, must surely be the same as that discussed [[Lucius Licinius Crassus#Pro Licinia|above]]. Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.129, proceeds on this basis.</ref> Some years after Crassus made his name by prosecuting [[Gaius Papirius Carbo cos. 120|C. Carbo]] Antonius successfully prosecuted the latter's brother, [[Gnaeus Papirius Carbo cos. 113|Cn. Carbo]].<ref>Cicero, '''''ad familiaribus''''', 9.21.3; Apuleius, '''''apologia''''', 66; Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.131.</ref> He also shared with Crassus an interest in the development of C. Cotta's oratorical talent, and indeed Cotta may have adhered more closely to Antonius than to Crassus.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 55.203, '''''de oratore''''', 2.3.12.</ref> His later activities show him more or less in political alignment with Crassus, and Cicero depicts them as being on friendly terms, indeed saying that Antonius was "joined to Crassus in very close friendship.<ref>For his political activities see, for example, Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.192-193 (associating with C. Marius after the latter's return from exile), 194-195 (forensic work {{-97}}), 218 (attacked by the enemies of M. Drusus). For Cicero's depiction see '''''de oratore''''' throughout. "Very close friendship" ("''summa cum Crasso familiaritate coniunctus''"): Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.7.24-25.)</ref> A last important ally was [[Marcus Aemilius Scaurus cos. 115|M. Scaurus]], who had been ''princeps senatus'' continuously since {{-108}} and was later reaffirmed in that position by Crassus when he was ''censor''. He dominated the political scene throughout this period, consistently opposed populists and agitators, and was not always popular with the most conservative and upright members of the senate either. Crassus often found himself on the same side of an issue as Scaurus, and they appear to have worked together on a number of occasions, including perhaps the attempt to absorb Marius into the senatorial aristocracy.<ref>Crassus also worked with Scaurus during the trial of [[Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus cos. 112|L. Piso]], whom Crassus defended and for whom Scaurus appeared as a witness, and he and Crassus shared the distinction of being disapproved of by [[Publius Rutilius Rufus cos. 105|P. Rutilius]], who prosecuted Scaurus after his first election to the ''consulatus''.</ref> Again it is difficult to say whether they were much in each other's company socially, but they remain associated, at least intermittently, throughout Crassus' career.<ref>They were also, for what it is worth, neighbours: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.49.214.</ref> In all, then, Crassus had become a pillar of the establishment and had accordingly become somewhat more conservative than in his youth. His consular legislation, if not deliberately anti-Italian, was certainly aimed at enforcing the restrictions on Roman citizenship that many in the next generation (such as M. Drusus), and even a few in the previous generation (such as C. Gracchus) had thought too harsh. He, who himself had been among the opponents of [[Lucius Appuleius Saturninus tr. pl. 103|L. Saturninus]], was prepared (though perhaps not keen) to defend those who had gone to violent and arguably illegal lengths to stop Saturninus. He was an ally of the anti-populist M. Scaurus and the later Sullan partisan M. Antonius. But he also perhaps maintained good relations with C. Marius, appeared in a landmark private-law case arguing in favour of a broad and progressive interpretation of the law, and his later support of M. Drusus shows that he was not absolutely opposed to reform. ==Last years== ===''Censor''=== {{-92}} Crassus crowned his political career by becoming ''censor'' with his distinguished contemporary [[Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus cos. 96|Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus]] the ''pontifex maximus''. The two men appear to have had an early association as ''[[Duumvir coloniae deducendae|duumviri coloniae]] Narbonis Martii deducendae'' {{-118}} and were both, at least some of the time, allies of the Servilii Caepiones; but it is not clear how close they had been in the intervening years, and on one reconstruction of events they may have been members of rival political groupings in the period after the war with Iugurtha.<ref>See the brief survey of this period [[Lucius Licinius Crassus#Aedilis curulis in a time of upheaval|above]].</ref> At some time, either before or during their joint tenure of the ''censura'', they fell out spectacularly, and the sources preserve many (often undated) anecdotes concerning their bad relationship. It is impossible to trace the cause of their mutual dislike, but the tenor of many of the anecdotes is that Ahenobarbus disapproved of Crassus' luxurious lifestyle and of his frivolity,<ref>Ahenobarbus on Crassus: Valerius Maximus, 9.1.4: "''Cn. Domitius L. Crasso collegae suo altercatione orta obiecit quod columnas Hymettias in porticu domus haberet. Quem continuo Crassus quanti ipse domum suam aestimaret interrogavit, atque ut respondit 'sexagies sestertio,' 'quanto ergo eam' inquit 'minoris fore existimas si decem arbusculas inde succidero?' 'Ipso tricies sestertio' Domitius. Tunc Crassus: 'uter igitur luxuriosior est, egone, qui decem columnas centum milibus nummum emi, an tu, qui decem arbuscularum umbram tricies sestertii summa compensas?'''" ("Cn. Domitius, when a quarrel arose, accused L. Crassus of having columns of Hymettian marble in the portico of his house. Without hesitating, Crassus asked how he valued his own house; when he replied, 'Six million ''sestetii'',' Crassus said, 'How much less, then, would it be worth if I cut down ten of the saplings there?' 'Three million ''sestertii'',' said Domitius. Then Crassus replied, 'Which of us, then, is the more extravagant: I, who bought ten columns for a hundred thousand pieces, or you, who equate the shade of ten saplings with a value of three million ''sestertii''?'") A somewhat different version is given by the elder Pliny, '''''historia naturalis''''', 17.1-6, according to which Ahenobarbus rebukes Crassus for having a house worth ten million ''sestertii'', to which Crassus replies that Ahenobarbus can have the property at that price so long as Crassus can remove six trees; when Ahenobarbus rejects the offer, Crassus calls him extravagant for valuing six trees at ten million ''sestertii''; the columns do not feature, though Pliny goes on to mention them shortly afterwards. Also Macrobius, '''''Saturnalia''''', 3.15.4-5: "''Is tamen Crassus, vir censorius, nam cum Cn. Domitio censor fuit, cum supra ceteros disertus haberetur essetque inter clarissimos cives princeps, tamen murenam in piscina domus suae mortuam atratus tamquam filiam luxit. Neque id obscurum fuit, quippe collega Domitius in senatu hoc ei quasi deforme crimen obiecit: neque id confiteri Crassus erubuit, sed ultro etiam, si dis placet, gloriatus est censor, piam affectuosamque rem fecisse se iactitans.''" ("But this Crassus, for instance, a former ''censor'', was ''censor'' with Cn. Domitius, when he was considered eloquent above everyone else and was foremost among the most illustrious citizens, and nonetheless showed himself in mourning at the death of an eel in the fish-pond at his house as if it were his daughter who had died. Nor was this a secret: indeed his colleague Domitius reproached him with it in the senate as a disgraceful charge: nor was Crassus ashamed to admit it, but moreover, if it please the gods, the ''censor'' even took pride in it, boasting that his behaviour had been dutiful and tender.")</ref> whereas Crassus criticized Ahenobarbus' severity and lack of feeling.<ref>Crassus on Ahenobarbus: Suetonius, '''''Nero''''', 2.2: "''In hunc [Cn. Ahenobarbum] dixit Licinius Crassus orator non esse mirandum, quod aeneam barbam habret, cui os ferreum, cor plumbeum esset.''" ("Of him [Cn. Ahenobarbus] the orator Licinius Crassus said it was no wonder that he had a beard of bronze since he also had a face of iron and a heart of lead.") Aelian, '''''de natura animalium''''', 8.4, mentions that in response to the accusation made by Domitius concerning Crassus' pet eel (see note above), Crassus replied that while he himself had mourned the death of an eel, Ahenobarbus, by contrast, had shown no sorrow at the death of his three wives.</ref> Whatever triggered it, Pliny puts the quarrel down to the difference in their characters.<ref>Pliny the elder, '''''historia naturalis''''', 17.1.3-4.</ref> Crassus even went so far as to make a speech during their ''censura'' in which he denounced Ahenobarbus, and this speech was still known and read in the time of Cicero.<ref>It is mentioned, for example, by Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.11.45, and '''''Brutus''''', 44.162-164.</ref> The chief political event for which Crassus' ''censura'' was remembered by later generations was his measure, taken jointly with his colleague, against the "''rhetores Latini''" at Rome.<ref>The full text of the edict is quoted by Gellius, '''''noctes Atticae''''', 15.11.2, and by Suetonius, '''''de rhetoribus''''', 1. The incident is also mentioned by Tacitus, '''''dialogus de oratoribus''''', 35, and Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.24.93-95</ref> The ''censores'' accused these teachers of setting up new schools on a model different from that prescribed by Roman tradition and inducing boys to "sit idle day in and day out"<ref>Gellius, '''''noctaes Atticae''''', 15.11.2: "''dies totos desidere''". According to Cicero ('''''de oratore''''', 3.24.94), Crassus felt that these schools made their students not only idle but disrespectful.</ref> The precise effect of this edict is unclear: Tacitus reports it as an order to close the schools, and Cicero says that it "did away with" them.<ref>Tacitus, '''''dialogus de oratoribus''''', 35: "''a Crasso et Domitio censoribus claudere, ut ait Cicero, 'ludum impudentiae' iussi sunt''"; Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.24.93: "''quos ego censor edicto meo sustuleram''".</ref> It is arguable whether the ''censores'' had any formal power to close schools, and indeed the edict itself does not purport to close them, merely saying that "we do not like them", but the effect of this condemnation may well have been to reduce their popularity and force them to close for lack of demand.<ref>Gellius, '''''noctes atticae''''', 15.11.2: "''visum est faciendum, ut ostenderemus nostram sententiam, nobis non placere''".</ref> This measure has been seen as a continuation of an anti-Italian policy on the part of Crassus, or at least of a concern to avoid the dilution of Roman customs by excessive Italian influence, previously exemplified by the [[Lucius Licinius Crassus#Lex Licinia Mucia|''lex Licinia Mucia'']].<ref>The anti-Italian link with the ''lex Licinia Mucia'' is made, for example, by Gruen, '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.203.</ref> It is worth noting, however, that the ancient sources make very little comment on the fact that the ''rhetores'' were ''Latini'', treating as relevant only the fact that they were professional teachers of rhetoric; and indeed the only contemporary criticism we know of is the allegation that Crassus wanted out of jealousy to prevent the next generation sharpening their talents.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.24.93.</ref> Another anecdote about Crassus appears to belong in the year when he was ''censor'': it seems that [[Gnaeus Papirius Carbo cos. 85|Cn. Carbo]] (nephew of the [[Gaius Papirius Carbo cos. 120|C. Carbo]] whom Crassus had prosecuted in his youth, and therefore cousin of the latter's [[Gaius Papirius Carbo Arvina|son]], who had tried and failed to find evidence of Crassus' impropriety in the latter's consular province), as [[Tribunus plebis|''tribunus plebis'']] in that year, held a meeting of the assembly during which a veto was exercised; Carbo did not dissolve the meeting but persisted, and some kind of violent disorder resulted. It further seems that Carbo was prosecuted [[Quaestio de vi|''de vi'']] over the incident, or at least his prosecution was discussed; he claimed immunity (presumably because he was a sitting magistrate), and the question was referred to the senate by the [[Consul|''consul'']] [[Gaius Claudius Pulcher cos. 92|C. Claudius Pulcher]]. During the debate, the senate adopted the recommendation of Crassus that if, when a meeting of the assembly had been vetoed and had begun to descend into disorder, the presiding magistrate refused to dissolve the meeting but persisted with it, that magistrate could properly be held responsible for any violence that occurred and should therefore not benefit from the usual statutory immunity.<ref>The only passage to refer to this incident is Cicero, '''''de legibus''''', 3.19.42: "''Quod vero actoris iubeo esse fraudem, id totum dixi ex Crassi, sapientissimi hominis, sententia; quem est senatus secutus, cum decrevisset C. Claudio consule de Cn. Carbonis seditione referente, invito eo, qui cum populo ageret, seditionem non posse fieri, quippe cui liceat concilium, simul atque intercessum turbarique coeptum sit, dimittere. Quod qui permovet, cum agi nihil potest, vim quaerit, cuius inpunitatem amittit hac lege.''" ("What I lay down about the culpability of the presiding magistrate I take entirely from the opinion of Crassus, that wisest of men, which was followed by the senate when it decreed, on the question of the ''consul'' C. Claudius about the rebellious behaviour of Cn. Carbo, that there can be no violent disturbance without the acquiescence of the magistrate who is presiding over the assembly, since he has the power to dissolve the meeting as soon as the undertaking has been vetoed and things are falling into disorder. For whoever excites things when no business can be transacted is inviting violence, in which case the statute does not provide immunity.") The Cn. Carbo in question is evidently the presiding magistrate of an assembly, probably the plebeian assembly since Cicero uses the word "''concilium''". Since he is apparently claiming immunity as a magistrate, this suggests that the senate is discussing the matter in the same year in which the disturbance itself occurred, and the best fit is the year {{-92}}, when we have a C. Claudius as ''consul'', a Cn. Carbo as ''tribunus plebis'', and a Crassus as a significant figure in the senate. This date and these identifications are accepted by Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.232, pushing the incident perhaps further than is merited by inferring ''inimicitia'' between Crassus and Carbo; Smith, W., '''A Dictionary Of Greek And Roman Biography And Mythology''' (Taylor, Walton, and Maberly, 1853), entry on Cn. Papirius Cn. f. C. n. Carbo; Keyes, C.W., '''Cicero, ''de re publica'', ''de legibus''''' (Harvard University Press, 1928), note on p.508.</ref> Nothing more is known about the assembly, the veto, the prosecution (if there ever was one), or the circumstances. This Carbo went on to become a significant supporter of C. Marius from around {{-87}} but, apart from this incident, nothing is known of him before then. 47 years old when he was ''censor'', Crassus is referred to at this period, by a late source, as one of the leading citizens in Rome;<ref>Macrobius, '''''Saturnalia''''', 3.15.4, calls him "''inter clarissimos cives princeps''" ("foremost among the most illustrious citizens").</ref> other ancient writers maintain that he was the leading orator of his time but seem to concede that his influence as a politician was perhaps not of the first rank.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.2.7, remarks that "''privatis magis officiis et ingenii laude floruit quam fructu amplitudinis aut rei publicae dignitate''" ("he flourished more in his private business and the repute of his talent than in the profits of his greatness or his position in the state"). Similarly Valerius Maximus contrasts Crassus' supremacy in the law-courts with Scaurus' supremacy in the senate: Valerius Maximus, 8.5.3.</ref> Nonetheless he had crowned his ''cursus honorum'' with the highest ordinary magisracy in the state and had achieved higher distinction than many of his contemporaries. With his taste for luxurious living it is possible to imagine him at this point withdrawing from active public life; but, unlike [[Lucius Licinius Lucullus|L. Lucullus]] for example in the next generation, his career had not been significantly frustrated, and indeed he had reached the age when his relative lack of military talent should have largely ceased to matter and his oratorical ability should have placed him in a position of greater influence than his more soldierly peers. In the following year, certainly, he showed no sign of intenting to retire from the political stage. ===The tribunate of M. Drusus and the death of L. Crassus=== The year after Crassus was ''censor'' was the year of the legislative programme of [[Marcus Livius Drusus tr. pl. 91|M. Drusus]]. Drusus was a friend of Crassus' students [[Gaius Aurelius Cotta cos. 75|Cotta]] and [[Publius Sulpicius Rufus tr. pl. 88|Sulpicius]] and the son-in-law of his old ally [[Quintus Servilius Caepio cos. 106|Q. Caepio]]. {{-91}} as ''tribunus plebis'' he proposed a series of ''leges'' beginning with several popular measures to distribute land and provide cheap corn and going on to attempt to break the ''equites''' monopoly of criminal juries.<ref>Quick summaries can be found in, among others, Scullard, H.H., '''From The Gracchi To Nero''' (Routledge, 1982), pp. 62-63; Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), pp.207-210.</ref> Drusus was not without powerful backing: in particular, Crassus is mentioned alongside M. Scaurus as his adviser.<ref>Cicero, '''''de domo sua''''', 50: "''... tamenne arbitraris id quod M. Drusus in legibus suis plerisque, perbonus ille vir, M. Scauro et L. Crasso consiliariis non obtinuerit..?''" ("... but do you think that what that excellent man M. Drusus with his legislation, and with M. Scaurus and L. Crassus as his advisers, could not achieve..?"); Crassus may also have been one of the ''decemviri agris dandis assignandis'' appointed to implement Drusus' agrarian scheme: Cichorius, '''Römische Studien''' (Berlin, 1922), pp.116-125, discussed by Broughton, T.R.S., '''The Magistrates Of The Roman Republic''' (American Philological Association, 1952), vol.2 pp.23-24.</ref> This is not a surprising combination: Drusus' father had been Scaurus colleague as ''censor'', but more importantly both Crassus and Scaurus had great experience of the courts (Scaurus mostly as a defendant and a witness) over the years, and Crassus had indeed made one of his great speeches in support of the similar proposal of Q. Caepio {{-106}}. Drusus also brought forward a proposal designed to prevent judicial corruption. Regrettably the detail of Drusus' proposals about the law-courts is not clear, so we do not know for certain what it was that aroused the opposition of some members of the senate. One fervent opponent, the son of Q. Caepio, may have been motivated primarily by personal enmity; the motives of another, [[Lucius Marcius Philippus cos. 91|L. Marcius]], ''consul'' in that year, are inscrutable.<ref>Enmity between Drusus and Caepio, formerly friends and brothers-in-law: Pliny the elder, '''''historia naturalis''''', 33.1.6; Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.195.</ref> The opposition was strenuous, and even produced violence and threats of violence.<ref>Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.211.</ref> The chronology of the year is unclear, but it was probably before September's ''ludi Romani'' that Drusus began to propose the extension of Roman citizenship to the Italians.<ref>Velleius Paterculus, 2.14.1, indicates that he only added this proposal when his programme had already run into implacable opposition, which is difficult to imagine before the middle of the year.</ref> This caused still greater consternation, and during the ''ludi Romani'' Crassus withdrew to his home in Tusculum with P. Sulpicius and C. Cotta and was joined by Q. Scaevola the ''augur'' and M. Antonius to discuss the situation.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.7.24-27.</ref> They were joined the following day by [[Quintus Lutatius Catulus cos. 102|Q. Catulus]] and [[Gaius Julius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus|C. Caesar Strabo]].<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.3.12.</ref> The mood, according to Cicero (who claimed to have heard it from Cotta), was gloomy. While Crassus was in Tusculum he received news of a speech made by Philippus rejecting the counsel of the senate (which continued to support Drusus) and declaring that he could not cooperate with it.<ref>For this and what follows see Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.1.2-2.6.</ref> Drusus called a meeting of the senate and sent to Crassus asking him to lend his support. {{Sep 13}} in the morning the senate met and Crassus delivered a speech denouncing the ''consul'''s conduct. Philippus, losing his temper, made the apparently unprecedented and certainly disproportionate threat to confiscate some of Crassus' property as security for his good behaviour, whereupon Crassus refused to be silenced and made a proposal reasserting the loyalty and sagacity of the senate, which was adopted by the senate.<ref>Valerius Maximus, probably exaggerating or misunderstanding his source, says that Philippus ordered that Crassus himself be arrested: 6.2.2.</ref> The speech he made on this occasion, which had been prepared in advance, was apparently widely thought to be among his finest.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.1.3.</ref> It was also his last: while speaking, he was afflicted with a pain and a fever, and died seven days later, {{Sep 19}} {{-91}}. Crassus was apparently survived by his two daughters, and certainly by at least one, the wife of [[Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica pr. 93|P. Scipio Nasica]].<ref>Cicero had heard the conversation of both (Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 58.211), which was perhaps more likely after Crassus' death than before since Cicero was only 15 or 16 at that time and seems (to judge from '''''de oratore''''', 2.1.2-3) to have had no personal memories of Crassus. '''''Brutus''''', 58.211 also says that [[Marcus Iunius Brutus pr. 44|M. Brutus]] had heard the wife of Scipio speak, which can only have been long after Crassus' death since Brutus was only born {{-85}}.</ref> They were both themselves eloquent speakers.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 58.211.</ref> Having no sons (or at least none that we know of and almost certainly none who survived him), Crassus in his will adopted his grandson, the younger son of Licinia and Scipio, as a son, the child thereafter bearing the name L. Licinius Crassus Scipio.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 58.212.</ref> This son, "said to have great talent", appears to have died in his youth.<ref>"''Summo... dicitur ingenio fuisse''": Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 58.212. The past tense places his death certainly before the year {{-46}}, but it was probably considerably before then because, first, when Brutus is asked his opinion of him he is unable to produce any first-hand comment but merely reports what is said of him, and second, he held no known political office, which is barely explicable for a man of "great talent" and impeccable lineage unless he died young or, conceivably, chose a life of quiet obscurity.</ref> ===Implications=== Pliny may well have been right to regard Crassus' clashes with Ahenobarbus as mainly down to their incompatible characters and approaches to life, but it may well be that Crassus, himself an ''augur'' and for many years a close ally of both Q. Scaevola the ''augur'' and Q. Scaevola the ''pontifex'' (who later became ''pontifex maximus'' after Ahenobarbus' death), objected to Ahenobarbus' transfer of the choice of new ''pontifices'' to popular election, especially since the popularity he won by this measure allowed him to become ''pontifex maximus'', quite possibly defeating Scaevola the ''pontifex'' and / or M. Scaurus for the position.<ref>Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), p.381-382.</ref> Moreover Ahenobarbus had a long-standing feud with Scaurus.<ref>Valerius Maximus, 6.5.5.</ref> More broadly, however, the tension between the colleagues reflects not only Crassus' character but his outlook on the society and community in which he lived: he embraced Greek learning and the cultural and material luxuries that Rome's empire brought, Hymettian columns and all; he was a man of great feeling, even extending his affection to a pet eel,<ref>Aelian, '''''de natura animalium''''', 8.4, records that Crassus used to dress the eel with jewellery, that it used to eat from his hand, and that it recognized his voice and would swim to him when he called.</ref> and was offended by Ahenobarbus' old-fashioned emotional reticence; and he may well, as a man who apparently built his career largely upon his own talent and effort, have reacted badly to the way Ahenobarbus regarded the role of ''pontifex'' as his by birthright. The measure against the new rhetorical schools may show the limits of Crassus' cultural open-mindedness, but since we know so little about these schools it is difficult to say whether Crassus' concern that they encouraged idleness and impertinence was reactionary or simply correct. His ''sententia'' on magisterial immunity seems to be in line with his advocacy in the ''causa Curiana'' of a non-literal interpretation of the law designed to achieve a just outcome. But more than this, it is a sign that Crassus, even at this late stage of his career, was no unthinking conservative: his interpretation had the effect both of reinforcing tribunician veto, one of the principal weapons of the ''tribuni plebis'' who so often promoted reform and not infrequently opposed senatorial policies, and also of encouraging magistrates to dissolve public meetings at the first signs of disorder, thus asserting that not only the disruptive tribune but also the stubborn presiding magistrate must take responsibility for violent disturbances. Finally, Crassus' support of Drusus is significant. It draws a line of continuity back to his early career and his support of the ''lex Servilia iudiciaria''. It also shows continuing concern over miscarriages of justice such as the conviction of [[Publius Rutilius Rufus cos. 105|P. Rutilius]] the year before, just as he had reacted against the equestrian ''quaestio Mamilia'' all those years previously (though admittedly one might suggest that his concern was over any senator, innocent or guilty, being convicted by an equestrian jury), and shows that he continued to be interested in positive structural reforms (quite radical ones, in fact, if Drusus' proposal was indeed to double the size of the senate as many sources suggest).<ref>Proposal to double the senate: Appian, '''''bellum civile''''', 1.35; anon., '''''de viris illustribus''''' 66.4, 66.10.</ref> And it reminds us of his political pragmatism and flexibility, since he was prepared to endorse (and may well have helped to plan) a legislative programme including populist measures such as corn-distributions; he even exerted himself to defend, although he perhaps had not contemplated and did not entirely approve, the proposal to enfranchise the Italians. Moreover it is notable that he was able, through force of argument, personality, and oratory, to carry the senate with him in his support of Drusus despite what must have been the considerable misgivings of many members at the time. ==Overview of character and achievements== ===As an orator=== Crassus was much admired by Cicero, who tends to regard him as the greatest orator not only of his generation but of any generation up to his own;<ref>E.g., Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 38.143.</ref> and Cicero's admiration is confirmed, to a greater or lesser extent, by every source that mentions him. He was also perhaps the first to build so successful a career almost exclusively on oratorical prowess without any significant military achievements.<ref>In this, too, he prefigures Cicero, and indeed was in a way more successful than the latter in that he reached the office of ''censor''. Others had previously built political success without military victories, but generally these were based on fields of distinction other than oratory, such as law ([[Tiberius Coruncanius|Ti. Coruncanius]]) or religion ([[Gaius Servilius Geminus cos. 203|C. Servilius Geminus]], perhaps).</ref> His contribution to the development of Roman oratory was by all accounts considerable, not so much for any particular technical or stylistic innovations as for a greater finesse, elegance, and command of rhythm and sound, as well as subtler and more carefully chosen strategies of argument and persuasion. He may well have been among the first to publish speeches in written form.<ref>Dominik, W., & Hall, J. (eds), ‘’’A Companion To Roman Rhetoric’’’ (Blackwell, 2007), p.242-243.</ref> Among the many qualities in his oratory praised by the sources, those that stand out most are its dignity, wit, and charm.<ref>See, for example, Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 38.143.</ref> His very quick and cutting sense of humour is attested by the large number of his jokes that the sources have preserved, and Cicero says that he was particularly gifted in ''altercatio'', the rapid and spontaneous exchange of repartee with an opponent.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 43.159. His barbed wit is mentioned, and examples provided, in Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.54.220-2.56.227 and 2.59.240-242. In the same work, at 2.71.289, is a hint that his comic delivery was usually dead-pan.</ref> Though in this way his mind evidently worked quickly, he also spent time in intense thought and could often be seen to gaze fixedly in meditation before making speeches.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.5.17.</ref> He chose his words carefully and avoided clichés and well-worn phrases.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.9.33. Rackham, H., '''Cicero ''De Oratore''''' (Harvard University Press, 1942), vol. 2 p. 29, translates "''obsoletior''" as "old-fashioned" but it surely has its more usual meaning of "worn-out" or "hackneyed" (compare the '''Oxford Latin Dictionary''', which in fact cites this passage as an example of this meaning).</ref> In comparison with M. Antonius he is said to have been less vigorous and less effective in evoking a mood of instinctive sympathy for a client, but more skilled in logical argumentation in court and more effective in persuading crowds in his political speeches.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 39.144 (logical argument); 44.165 (effectiveness in public meetings).</ref> With respect to political speeches he seems to have been the first, or at least among the first, to adapt populist language and rhetorical tactics to pro-senatorial use.<ref>As has been mentioned with respect to the [[Lucius Licinius Crassus#Pro Cn. Planco and the changing political landscape|speech on the ''lex Servilia'']]; see also Dominik, W., & Hall, J. (eds), '''A Companion To Roman Rhetoric''' (Blackwell, 2007), p.243.</ref> Although he was a pleasant conversationalist, it was not his voice so much as his delivery (forceful and passionate in his youth, gentler and smoother in his later years) that marked him out.<ref>Cicero, '''''de officiis''''', 1.37.133, saying that the Lutatii Catuli were equally pleasing in ordinary conversation; '''''de oratore''''', 1.60.255, saying he spoke "''remissius et lenius''" in comparison to his earlier "''summa vis et contentio''".</ref> Not only his vocal delivery but also his movements and facial expressions were such that he seemed to be genuinely moved but whatever emotion he was seeking to evoke in his audience.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.45.188. His movements, however, were restrained, and he always stood on the same spot throughout a speech: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.9.33.</ref> Though he had studied rhetoric in Greece and Asia, Crassus was apparently not enormously interested in the theoretical side of oratory and disliked excessive dissection of rhetorical technique and craft.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.21.97; 1.35.163; and throughout.</ref> His natural talent, albeit augmented by conscious study and exercise, was so great that he found it difficult to tolerate some of the instances of bad advocacy he encountered and tended to assume these must be deliberate acts of sabotage rather than mere incompetence.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.34.154-155 (exercises); 2.73.297-75.303 (intolerance of poor advocacy).</ref> The fact that his oratorical brilliance was largely innate rather than consciously generated may explain why he was always reticent when asked to explain how he did it.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.21.97-99.</ref> ===As a lawyer=== He was clearly knowledgeable about law (not a universal quality in Roman advocates), for he knew three different books by the jurist [[Marcus Iunius Brutus pr. 140?|M. Brutus]] well enough to find, in the middle of a trial, a number of passages in them that he could use to make fun of the author's son; and he was closely connected to three legal experts: Scaevola his friend, Scaevola his father-in-law, and C. Visellius Aculeo.<ref>Books by M. Brutus: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.55.223-224; Cicero, '''''pro Cluentio''''', 51.141. Aculeo's legal expertise: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.43.191. Cicero also attests Crassus' interest in law: '''''de oratore''''', 1.44.199; 2.33.143.</ref> Though not among the great legal thinkers, he was involved in at least two different attempts to reform the judicial system (those of Q. Caepio and M. Drusus), made at least one recorded original contribution to criminal statutory interpretation (the matter of Cn. Carbo and the responsibility of the presiding magistrate for disorder at a meeting of the assembly), and won a landmark case concerning the interpretation of private legal documents (the ''causa Curiana'').<ref>Cicero mentions Crassus as particularly strong in arguing points of legal interpretation and definition: '''''Brutus''''', 39.144. Another contribution to statutory interpretation may perhaps be the defence he used at the trial of Q. Caepio based on the definition of the ''crimen maiestatis'': see the footnote to the [[Lucius Licinius Crassus#Pro Q. Caepione|discussion above]].</ref> His participation in the courts was not only as an advocate, for in the last month of his life (and perhaps on many other occasions before) he had acted as a legal advisor to the ''praetor urbanus''.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.37.168. He and his former father-in-law were "''in tribunali... sedent[es]''": this must have been as members of the ''consilium'' of the ''praetor'', who was a friend of theirs.</ref> He may even have planned to write a law-book of his own in his retirement.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.42.190; 2.33.142-144. But this may be Cicero projecting himself onto the character of Crassus: Bauman, R.A., '''Lawyers In Roman Republican Politics''' (C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung München, 1983), pp.343-344.</ref> He refused to give legal advice, however, deferring in that area to his frequent colleague Q. Scaevola; and even though he clearly spent a great deal of time in court he is said to have been more choosy in accepting cases than was M. Antonius.<ref>Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 42.155 (refusal to give advice); 57.207 (selection of cases).</ref> ===As a politician=== Not the most significant figure in the political history of his time, Crassus did not live to see perhaps the most important event to which he contributed: the [[Italian war]].<ref>Crassus is, however, identified by Gruen as one of the five leading members, in the last decade of his life, of what had formerly been the Metellan group: Gruen, E.S., '''Roman Politics And The Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C.''' (Harvard University Press, 1968), p.194 n.28.</ref> His ''lex Licinia Mucia'' was later blamed for arousing the resentment among the Italian allies that led to the war, while on the other hand he was a leading supporter of M. Drusus, whose proposal for Italian enfranchizement and subsequent (and probably consequent) death were the immediate triggers for the war. We may also wonder how the history of the subsequent decade if he, a pillar of the senatorial establishment but also the father-in-law of C. Marius, had remained alive. But Crassus died before the civil war of Marius and Sulla, for which Cicero thought him lucky; contemplating the fates of many of his friends and contemporaries, we may agree.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.2.8-3.3.12.</ref> ===Lifestyle and outlook=== Crassus enjoyed fine and expensive things and was criticised for it; nonetheless there must have been some restraint in his extravagance or Cicero could not with a straight face have called him "the most thrifty among people of refined tastes".<ref>"''parcissimus elegantium''": Cicero, '''''Brutus''''', 40.148; this attracts comment from Gellius, '''''noctes Atticae''''', 11.2.4.</ref> We have heard about his marble columns and pet eel; he also left behind him a good number of dining-couches with brass decorations (evidently items of sufficient rarity to draw comment), which his heirs sold.<ref>Pliny the elder, '''''historia naturalis''''', 34.8.14.</ref> He had at least one country estate, at Tusculum; but so did many of his peers, and it is not said to have been more luxurious than average.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.7.24; in the grounds was a plane-tree with benches beneath (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 1.7.28-29) and a grove with seating in it (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 3.5.18). The estate later ended up in the hands of [[Lucius Cornelius Balbus cos. 40|L. Cornelius Balbus]] (Cicero, '''''pro Balbo''''', 56); regrettably it is not possible to guess with any confidence how it made that journey.</ref> Crassus also valued leisure, and remarked, "He seems to me no free man who does not occasionally do nothing at all".<ref>"''Mihi enim liber esse non videtur, qui non aliquando nihil agit''": quoted in Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.6.24, from part of his speech in the ''causa Curiana''. He gave short shrift to someone who asked permission to visit him before dawn (Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.64.259), but we cannot say for sure whether this was a general objection to getting up early or a dislike of the visitor in question.</ref> Despite spending time with philosophers in Greece and Asia in his youth, he appears to have espoused no particular philosophical doctrine (and indeed affected to look down on philosophy) but to have taken a homely approach to life that tempered an acceptance of his natural limitations with a certain ambition and drive to excel: he claimed that "he could contentedly put up with being surpassed in respect of whatever comes to people by chance or by nature, but he could not put up with being outdone in respect of whatever people can achieve for themselves".<ref>"''Quae natura aut fortuna darentur hominibus, in eis rebus se vinci posse animo aequo pati; quae ipsi sibi homines parare possent, in eis rebus se pati non posse vinci''": Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.11.45. A similar contrast of nature with achievement is exploited in Crassus' joke at the expense of the unbeautiful and unskilled orator L. Aelius Lamia in Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.65.262. Crassus' pose of disdain for philosophy: Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.1.4.</ref> One of the qualities he may have had particularly in mind among those denied to him by birth and fortune is the possession of an illustrious ancestry, for we know that he made fun of others who were overly proud of their lineage.<ref>Cicero, '''''de oratore''''', 2.59.242.</ref> Most of our evidence about Crassus' character comes from his admirer Cicero and it is not easy therefore to assess his faults, though one has the impression that impatience and high-handedness may have been among them. Nonetheless he seems to have been more widely liked than disliked, and Cicero's depiction may not be far wrong. ==[[Cursus honorum|''Cursus honorum'']]<ref>For sources see Broughton, T.R.S., '''The Magistrates Of The Roman Republic''' (American Philological Association, 1951), and discussion above.</ref>== * [[Duumvir coloniae deducendae|''Duumvir coloniae deducendae'']] :{{-118}} * [[Quaestor|''Quaestor'']] :by {{-109}} * [[Tribunus plebis|''Tribunus plebis'']] :{{-107}} * [[Aedilis curulis|''Aedilis curulis'']] :by {{-100}} * [[Praetor|''Praetor'']] :by {{-98}} * [[Consul|''Consul'']] :{{-95}} * [[Consul|''Proconsul'']] :{{-94}} (Gallia Cisalpina) * [[Censor|''Censor'']] :{{-92}} * Perhaps [[Decemvir agris dandis assignandis|''decemvir agris dandis assignandis'']] :{{-91}} * [[Augur|''Augur'']] :from unknown date :to {{-91}} ==References== <references/> {{DEFAULTSORT: Licinius}} [[Category: Magistrates]] [[Category: Consulars]] [[Category: Augures]] [[Category: Gens Licinia|Crassus]]

Return to Lucius Licinius Crassus.