5 May 43 BCE: To Brutus (at Dyrrachium) from Cicero (at Rome)
'It really is total chaos.' And Cicero gets into the minutiae of elections for the priesthood
From Cicero to Brutus, greetings.
On April 27th, during a debate about waging war against the men who have been judged public enemies, Servilius said various things about Ventidius, as well as that Cassius should wage war on Dolabella. I agreed with him, and decreed this in addition: that if you think it useful and advantageous to the Republic, you should wage war on Dolabella; but that if you cannot do so in a way that benefits the Republic, or if you do not think it advantageous to the Republic, that you should keep your army where it is now.
The Senate could not have honoured you more than by leaving what you feel is the best course for the Republic up to your own judgement. For my part, I feel that if Dolabella has the men, the camp, or any place where he can make a stand, you should attack him for the sake of loyalty and dignity.
We know nothing about our dear Cassius’ forces. We have received no letters from him, nor have we had any reliable reports. But you understand how important it is that Dolabella be crushed, both so that he is punished for his crime,1 and so that the leaders of the villains seeking refuge after Mutina do not rally around him.2
You can recall from my earlier letters that I held this opinion before—although at that time your camp was our harbour of refuge and your army was our last line of defence. Now that we are free—I hope—from danger, we ought to be all the more concerned with crushing Dolabella. Think carefully on this, come to a wise decision, and let us know what you have decided and what you are doing, if you think it right.
I would like my son Cicero to be co-opted into your college.3 I suppose that candidates for election to the priesthoods can be admitted in absentia; for it has been done before. Gaius Marius was made an augur under the Domitian Law while he was in Cappadocia, and no other law has prohibited this from being allowed since.4
The Julian Law also, which is the most recent law on the priesthoods, contains the phrase ‘whoever seeks election or whose candidature is accepted.’ This clearly indicates that it is possible for one’s candidature to be accepted even when one is not seeking election. I have written to my son about this matter, telling him to go with your judgement in this and all other things.
You must decide about Domitius, and about our dear Cato.5 Although, even though it is possible for candidates to be admitted in absentia, still, everything is easier for those who are there in person. But if you decide that you must go to Asia, there will be no opportunity to summon our friends to the election.
Really, I think everything would be dealt with more quickly if Pansa was still alive. For he would have held an election for a colleague6 at once; then elections for the priesthood would have been held before those for the praetorship. As it is, I predict that there will be a long delay because of the auspices. For as long as there is one patrician magistrate, the auspices cannot revert back to the Senate.7
It really is total chaos. Please let me know how you feel about the whole situation.
Written May 5th.
Latin text of Cic. ad Brut. 1.5 | Glossary | Historia Civilis video overview of 44-43 BCE
The murder of Trebonius earlier in the year.
i.e. Antony and his men.
The College of Pontiffs, of which Brutus was a member.
Footnote borrowed from Shackleton Bailey: ‘Available knowledge on the matter of elections to priesthoods is admirably stated by Linderski (Harv. Stud. Cl. Phil. 76 (1972), 191 f.): ‘The popular election of the members of the great priesthoods, replacing the earlier cooptatio, was introduced by the lex Domitia of 104 b.c., abolished by Sulla, restored by a lex of T. Labienus in 63, and retained by a lex Iulia, passed by Caesar after 49. These elections were assigned to a special assembly (which already in the third century elected the pontifex maximus), the comitia of seventeen tribes, constituting formally the minor pars populi. This represented a compromise between the democratic principle of popular election and the religious principle of the augural law that the priesthoods cannot be given by the people. The electoral procedure. . . was complicated and cumbersome. It consisted of three stages. The first was the nominatio. Each member of the college in which there was a vacant place had the right to nominate one candidate, but, at least until the Lex Iulia, no candidate could be nominated by more than two members. The nominatio took place publicly, in a contio. The second stage was the popular election by seventeen tribes, chosen by lot, with the people having the choice only between the nominated candidates. As the third stage, the cooptatio followed, the members of the college being obliged to coopt by their vote the candidate (or candidates) returned by the popular assembly. The election and cooptation were complemented and made formally valid by the religious ceremony of inauguratio performed by an augur.’ Simple!
Both were Brutus’ younger cousins, whose fathers had died in Caesar’s civil war, and who had accompanied Brutus to Greece.
i.e. the other consul.
Footnote borrowed from E.S. Shuckburgh: ‘The same difficulty had occurred in B.C. 49, when both consuls were abroad (see vol. ii., pp.331, 349). The lesser magistrate cannot ‘create,’ i.e., hold the election for, the greater. In old times, when the consuls were the only curule magistrates, in case of their disappearance by death or otherwise, the auspicia—the right of taking the auspices, without which there could be no valid election-were said to revert to the patres of the senate. The senate then nominated interreges, who held the election. But the question is now complicated by the fact that there are other curule magistrates who possess the auspicia, which therefore cannot revert to the patres unless they abdicate. In B.C. 52 the question did not arise, for the elections having been all prevented till after the 1st of January, all curule magistrates had vacated their offices, and therefore the auspicia had reverted to the patres. By a ‘patrician magistrate,’ Cicero practically means a curule magistrate, originally confined to the patricians: the term is still used, though the old ‘patrician’ monopoly of the auspicia had long disappeared.’ Again, very simple.