For Publius Sestius
Pro P. Sestio
Headnote
Cicero for P. Sestius, delivered at Rome in March 56 BC. Sestius — the tribune of the plebs of 57 BC, the “actor and defender of my cause” as Cicero calls him here (§75) — had been indicted under the lex Plautia de vi for the political violence of his year. The actual violence had been directed at him: in the first half of 57 BC, while pushing the bill for Cicero’s recall, he was attacked by Clodius’s gangs in the temple of Castor and left for dead, with more than twenty wounds. The prosecution, mounted by Clodius’s circle (with the new aedile, P. Albinovanus, as accuser, and the witness Vatinius taken on by Cicero in cross-examination as the surviving In Vatinium), was less an attack on Sestius than the second half of the campaign that had failed against Cicero. The defence team was the optimate front — Hortensius opening (§3, 14), Crassus, M. Licinius Calvus also speaking; Cicero closing. The acquittal was unanimous on the fifth day before the Ides of March (11 March), as Q.fr. 2.4 reports.
The speech sets the case in the form of a great narratio of the year of exile (§15–71). The first set-piece is the joint portrait of the two consuls of 58 BC, Gabinius and Piso, “two whirlwinds of the commonwealth” (§15–35) — the perfumed Gabinius of the Puteal moneylenders’ arcade and the curled hair, the shaggy Piso of the schooled brow, sold the provinces in advance for letting Clodius’s bill against Cicero pass. §36–52 is the apology for not fighting: Cicero’s account, set against Marius’s exile and Metellus Numidicus’s, of why a private armed defence would have brought slaughter and not preservation. §53–63 returns to the year, with the publication of the Cyprian king (Ptolemy of Cyprus’s auctioned kingdom; the Cyprian commission that fell on Cato as the most-conspicuous moderator of the year that needed moderating); §64–71 the recall campaign, Pompey’s late stirring, the Sestius journey to Caesar (§71). §72–85 is the narrative of Sestius’s tribunate proper, with the violence on 8 K. Feb. and the near-death in the temple of Castor, the famous narrow escape of the Clodian hireling Numerius who was almost killed for the unfortunate near-coincidence of name with Q. Numerius Rufus (Gracchus). §86–95: the parallel with Milo, who is here the great companion figure — Cicero’s defence of guarding-by-private-force is explicitly grounded in Milo’s precedent.
The peroration, §96–143, is the great political digression of Cicero’s whole career: the famous analysis of the optimates as not a party but a disposition — “all are optimates who are neither guilty, nor wicked by nature, nor furious, nor hindered by domestic evils” (§97), the “cum dignitate otium” formula at §98 (peace with standing as the goal of statecraft), and the catalogue of the foundations of that peace: religion, the auspices, the powers of the magistracies, the authority of the Senate, the laws, the custom of the ancestors, the courts, jurisdiction, good faith, the provinces, the allies, the praise of empire, military affairs, the treasury (§98). The optimate digression then catalogues the proofs that the true Roman people — the populus as opposed to the contio packed with hired claqueurs — has been plainly with Cicero: the consular contio under Lentulus (§107), the centuriate-assembly recall vote (§109), the games at the Apollonian ludi where Aesopus the actor pleaded Cicero’s case from the lines of Accius’s Eurysaces and Brutus (§120–123), the gladiatorial show of Scipio Nasica where Sestius’s appearance from the column of Maenius brought roars of approval “from the railings of the Forum” (§124). §132–135 is the answer to the prosecutor’s gibe about “the nation of the optimates” and the close-in of C. Cato, the gladiator-flouter and friend of the act-of-Caesar-rescinders. §136–143 closes on the seven-times praise of the optimas vita for the young men of Rome — the example of Themistocles, Aristides, Miltiades, Hannibal cast out by their own cities and yet immortal in the memory of their adversaries — and the final list of the Roman forefathers (Bruti, Camilli, Ahalae, Decii, Curii, Fabricii, Maximi, Scipiones, Lentuli, Aemilii) whose place in the coetus deorum immortalium the speech sets as the goal. The sight-stopping close (§144–147) returns to the persons present in the court — Sestius, Milo, the boy in the praetexta, the young P. Lentulus pleading for his father — and the imploration of the jury that, having wanted Cicero safe, they preserve those through whom he was recovered.
The speech was the political founding-document of the post-exile Cicero. It is also the speech in which the optimate consensus of late 57 BC at last finds its theory: the formula cum dignitate otium would be quoted back at Cicero by his successors and by his prosecutors for the rest of his life. The unanimous acquittal of 11 March (Q.fr. 2.4 §1) was the high-water mark of the optimate-Pompeian-Sestian front — which would break apart within five weeks at the conference of Luca, when Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus reset the terms.