The Plot To Kill Pompey

[M. Porcius Cato]

After a year of stiffening resistance to the triumvirate--starting with Cato and the consul Bibulus and then spreading to the younger generation (Cic., Ad Att, 2.8.1), the equites (2.19.3), the municipia (2.13.2, 2.21.1), even to the former officers, friends, and family of Pompey (Metellus Celer, Metellus Nepos, Lentulus Niger, Lentulus Crus, Servilius Isauricus, the Scribonii Curiones, the Sullae, the Memmii, L. Gellius Publicola, L. Valerius Flaccus, and M. Petreius)--the municipalities and leading magistrates of the Roman republic united in common purpose for perhaps the first time since the conspiracy of Catiline.

 

Against this backdrop, in the midsummer of 59. L. Vettius (who had implicated Caesar in the Catilinarian conspiracy of 62) made a jaw-dropping announcement: there was a conspiracy of nobiles to kill Pompey Magnus. Among those named in the plot were Bibulus, Aemilius Paullus, Curio the elder, Curio the younger, two Lentuli, and M. Brutus (yes, that M. Brutus).

 

The story of course held no water whatever. Paullus, for example, was not even in Italy.

 

With his confused story discredited, L. Vettius was hauled away to the carcer, where he spent his time until rescued by Caesar and P. Vatinius. Under questioning by them, Vettius' story abruptly changed: young Brutus, the son of Caesar's mistress, suddenly found the accusation against him dropped, but his name was immediately replaced by still more opponents of Pompey: Lucullus, Domitius Ahenobarbus, C. Fannius, C. Piso, M. Laterensis, and even dark hints were dropped about Cicero.

 

The insinuations were never believed, no charges were brought against the accused, and Vettius was soon found dead in prison.

 

Now comes the question--why would Vettius concoct such a story? Was it at the instigation of Caesar, who perhaps had hoped to frighten Pompey and thereby detach him from his few remaining friends in the senate, or some friend of Caesar, such as Vatinius? Was it at the instigation of Pompey or Pompeian partisans, hoping to rid themselves of their enemies (Plut. Luc. 42.7-8)? Or was Vettius acting alone? Or--was the plot real and an unfinished prelude to the Ides of March?

[phil25]

Could one offer "none of the above"?

 

It is entirely possible that there WAS no conspiracy.

 

In any case, the surviving evidence makes it impossible to judge.

 

Phil

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Or--was the plot real and an unfinished prelude to the Ides of March?

Perhaps it was to rid the world of the triumvirate. Is there a book on this? I never really heard of this incident so thank you for the enlightenment.

 

 

Edit: Heh, Lee Harvey Oswald is not a good choice of comparison for we can have a whole debate about that...

Edited August 9, 2006 by Antiochus of Seleucia

[Primus Pilus]

Suetonious seems to implicate Clodius in the "Life of Lucullus":

Because Cicero, while pleading in court, deplored the state of the times, Caesar transferred the orator's enemy Publius Clodius that very same day from the patricians to the plebeians [59 B.C.], a thing for which Clodius had for a long time been vainly striving; and that too at the ninth hour [That is, after the close of the business day, an indication of the haste with which the adoption was rushed through]. Finally taking action against all the opposition in a body, he bribed an informer to declare that he had been egged on by certain men to murder Gnaeus Pompeius, and to come out upon the rostra and name the guilty parties according to a pre-arranged plot. But when the informer had named one or two to no purpose and not without suspicion of double-dealing, Caesar, hopeless of the success of his over-hasty attempt, is supposed to have had him taken off by poison.

 

I certainly wouldn't put it past Caesar to stage something for political gain, but in this case, like Phil, I am leaning more towards no conspiracy at all (at least nothing involving Caesar). 59 BC (presumably before Caesar even left for Gaul) just seems to early because so many critical events had not yet taken place.

 

Quoting Plutarch for comparative purposes...

Thus, the dispositions which Pompey made after his conquest of the kings, Lucullus made null and void, and his proposal for a generous distribution of lands to his soldiers, Lucullus, with the co-operation of Cato, prevented from being granted. Pompey therefore took refuge in an alliance, or rather a conspiracy, with Crassus and Caesar, and by filling the city with his armed soldiery and expelling from the forum the partisans of Cato and Lucullus, got his measures ratified.

 

As these proceedings were resented by the nobles, the partisans of Pompey produced a certain Vettius, whom, as they declared, they had caught plotting against the life of Pompey. So the man was examined in the Senate, where he accused sundry persons, but before the people he named Lucullus as the man who had engaged him to kill Pompey. However, no one believed his story, nay, it was at once clear that the fellow had been put forward by the partisans of Pompey to make false and malicious charges, and the fraud was made all the plainer when, a few days afterwards, his dead body was cast out of the prison. It was said, indeed, that he had died a natural death, but he bore the marks of throttling and violence, and the opinion was that he had been taken off by the very men who had engaged his services.

 

Plutarch clearly leaves much more open to speculation. His timing of events make it seem as if a staged event by Caesar would certainly have helped draw Pompey closer to him (as it appears to be taking place before the formation of the so called triumvirate.) I doubt that an informer was acting of his own volition (this was a risky business and I suspect that these people would certainly rather "inform" based on payment already received rather than volunteer such information with the hope of reward, but I suppose anything is possible). However, Plutarch also ties the event much more closely to Lucullus than to other members of the opposition to the triumviri.

 

Dio Cassius (book 38, 9) is far more exciting however, and explicity blames Cicero and Lucullus:

But fearing even then that Pompey might make some change during his absence, inasmuch as Aulus Gabinus was to be consul, he attached to himself both Pompey and the other consul, Lucius Piso, by ties of kinship: upon the former he bestowed his daughter, in spite of having betrothed her to another man, while he himself married Piso's daughter. Thus he strengthened himself on all sides. Cicero and Lucullus, however, little pleased at this, undertook to kill both Caesar and Pompey through the help of a certain Lucius Vettius; but they failed of their attempt and all but lost their own lives as well. For Vettius, upon being exposed and arrested before he had accomplished anything, denounced them; and had he not charged Bibulus also with being in the plot against the two, it would certainly have gone hard with them. But as it was, owing to the fact that in his defence he accused this man who had revealed the plan to Pompey, it was suspected that he was not speaking the truth in the case of the others either, but had been prompted in the matter as a result of a plot of the other side to calumniate their opponents. Concerning these matters various reports were current, since nothing was definitely proven. Vettius was brought before the populace, and after naming only those whom I have mentioned, was thrown into prison, where he was treacherously murdered a little later.

 

In consequence of this affair, Cicero became suspected by Caesar and Pompey, and he confirmed their suspicion in his defence of Antonius.

 

The continuing story is actually quite worth a read http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roma...us_Dio/38*.html. Dio seems quite convinced that Cicero is the main culprit, but as to be expected his evidence is quite circumstancial.

[Primus Pilus]

By the way Cato, I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of adding a few more choices. And Phil, I'd susepect that "Vettius acted alone" will do just fine as a "no conspiracy" choice.

[P.Clodius]

He acted alone...Why would Caesar profit from such an episode this early in the triumvirate? Pompey had recently become his son in law, it makes NO sense, the triumvirs were 'tight' at this stage of the game. Clodius is also unlikely as he was still a pat, it would be 5 or more years before he tested his metal against Pompey. Vettius had a history of wild accusations...!

[Virgil61]

I sort of like Plutarch's mention that his charge was a creation of Pompey's followers, but in the end who really knows. Whatever the answer, I get the sense he wanted to be a big 'player' but got in way over his head.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Actually, of all the candidates listed, the only one with no clear motivation was Vettius himself.

 

Caesar would have benefitted from the 'discovery' of the conspiracy by cementing the rift between Pompey and his former friends. Ditto Vatinius (whom Cicero suspected after changing his mind that Caesar had been responsible). Clodius too would have benefitted by obtaining a favor from Caesar, and that Caesar was involved somehow seems indicated by the sudden reversal regarding Brutus. Further, Pompey and the Pompeians may have been drumming for the sympathy vote, which is exactly the card that Bibulus had so successfully played against them.

 

Thus, to my mind, motivation isn't the key to the mystery, which leaves only means and opportunity. It seems likely that whoever put Vettius up to making the charges was behind his murder. So the question is who would have had access to him while he was safely imprisoned in the carcer?

 

EDIT: OK, I guess Vettius' motivation could have been to be a 'big player,' as Virgil suggests. Still, that just underscores how little diagnostic value motivation has in cracking this (admittedly uncrackable) case.

Edited August 8, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[Rameses the Great]

I don't think Caesar truly wanted a plot to kill Pompey. When he fled to Egypt after his defeat at Pharsalus, the Ptolomies chopped off his head. Caesar was said to be really angry and distressed.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Why would Caesar profit from such an episode this early in the triumvirate? Pompey had recently become his son in law, it makes NO sense, the triumvirs were 'tight' at this stage of the game.

 

I did a search in JSTOR, and both of the papers I found on the topic come to the same conclusion: It was Caesar, or one of his lackeys, who suborned Vettius' perjury.

 

The first paper, "Vettius ille, ille noster index," written by William C. McDermott and published in the Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association (v. 80, 1949, pp. 351-367), indicates that most historians view Caesar as the instigator of Vettius' contio. Here's the abstract from the paper:

In 63 Lucius Vettius was an informer for Cicero, in 62 he accused Caesar of implication in the Catilinarian conspiracy, and in 59 he gave testimony in the senate and before a contio of a plot by optimates to assassinate Pompey. In the last case it has been assumed in the sources and by modern historians that the plot was fictitious and that the informer was hired by Caesar or followers of the triumvirs to cast odium on the optimates. The sources are conflicting or incomplete, and modern reconstructions leave many details unexplained. The assumption that Caesar instigated the activity of Vettius from 63 to 59 solves these problems.

 

The second paper, "The 'Vettius Affair' Once More," written by Walter Allen and also published in TAPA (v. 81, 1950, 153-163, agrees that Caesar hired Vettius, and it clarifies the role of Cicero in the affair. Again, the abstract:

The obscure "Vettius affair" of 59 BC has recently been the object of renewed scholarly explanation and illumination. The intention of the present paper is, in the light of these new interpretations, to consider Cicero's relation to the whole affair. The conclusions are: that Caesar instigated Vettius for a variety of purposes, on of them being to alienate Pompey from Cicero; and that one reason why Caesar aimed to discredit the younger Curio (Curio filius) was because Curio, as the leader of the young nobles, was in communication with Cicero and possibly acting under his influence.

 

Now you're right that Pompey had recently become Caesar's son-in-law (in May 59), which would have preceded the Vettius affair (15-16 or 16-17 July 59) by about two months. But there is nothing about this that would cast suspicion away from Caesar. The Vettius accusations--which promised to launch a witch-hunt against the opponents of the triumvirs--would have been a great service to Pompey, which is why Plutarch (contra Cicero and Suetonius) even placed the blame on the Pompeians. Thus, the very 'tightness' you propose would more strongly support the accusations against Caesar rather than undermine them.

 

Furthermore, consider Caesar's place in 59. He's about to run off to Gaul, and he doesn't want Rome to turn against him while he's gone. This is, as I'm sure you know, why he was so eager to get Clodius in power before he left: to have someone to remove his opponents while he was gone and couldn't do the job himself. Thus, hiring Vettius would have simply been the first salvo in Caesar's broader attack on the competition.

 

BTW, I'm somewhat surprised by how little known this event is. It isn't mentioned in Rubicon, for example, which is a pretty good narration of events leading up to Caesar's putsch. Nor is there any mention of the witch hunt in Everitt's Cicero nor the grand old Annals of Caesar by E. G. Sihler. The normally comprehensive Christian Meier devotes a paragraph to the topic (p. 221), claiming that Caesar both commissioned Vettius to spin the tale of the plot and had Vettius murdered in the carcer. Gruen's masterful The Last Generation of the Roman Republic devotes three paragraphs to the affair (95-96), but he offers no opinion of his own on the meaning or cause of the affair, presumably because it doesn't fit his pet-thesis about the first triumvirate (essentially that the triumvirate wasn't great, but it wasn't as bad as the second one, and that everything was really business-as-usual in Rome).

 

By the way, here's the full list of ancient sources on the Vettius affair so you can make up your own mind:

Cic., Att 2.24, Flac 96, Sest 132, Vatin 24-26; Suet., Iul. 17, 20.5; Plut., Luc 42; App., BCiv 2.2.12; Cass Dio, 37.41.2-4; 38.9; Schol. Bob. Sest. 132; Vatin. 24.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I don't think Caesar truly wanted a plot to kill Pompey. When he fled to Egypt after his defeat at Pharsalus, the Ptolomies chopped off his head. Caesar was said to be really angry and distressed.

 

You're misunderstanding the events entirely. The question isn't whether Caesar was behind a plot to kill Pompey. The plot to kill Pompey didn't really exist; Vettius made it up to get Pompey's opponents in trouble; the question is who asked Vettius to tell these lies.

[Guest CJC]

What is the original source that mentions the plot and or implicates Caesar in it. Christian Meier mentions it in his book CAESAR. He accuses Caesar, uniquivocally, of both instigating the plot and having Vettius murdered in prison. I think his source is Cicero but he doesn't say where he said it or to whom he was writing when he did.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I like Dio Cassus's theory that PP posted which points the finger at Cicero and Lucullus.

Cicero as we all know was a very intelligent and at times clandestine man, the plot against Pompey would certainly have done his own political ambitions no harm at all.

Lucullus could well still have been holding a grudge against Pompey who was an old political enemy of his, and he may still have been bitter about what happened in Armenia in 68bc when pompey was one of the main instigators (from afar) of the mutiny that occur in his army which subsequently led to Pompey taking over his command which i'm sure would have been a major embarrasment to Lucullus.

[Primus Pilus]

I like Dio Cassus's theory that PP posted which points the finger at Cicero and Lucullus.

Cicero as we all know was a very intelligent and at times clandestine man, the plot against Pompey would certainly have done his own political ambitions no harm at all.

Lucullus could well still have been holding a grudge against Pompey who was an old political enemy of his, and he may still have been bitter about what happened in Armenia in 68bc when pompey was one of the main instigators (from afar) of the mutiny that occur in his army which subsequently led to Pompey taking over his command which i'm sure would have been a major embarrasment to Lucullus.

 

The problem with the Cicero theory is that he was personally quite close to Pompey. It makes more sense that the plot was devised somewhere else perhaps in order to separate Pompey from Cicero.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I like Dio Cassus's theory that PP posted which points the finger at Cicero and Lucullus.

Cicero as we all know was a very intelligent and at times clandestine man, the plot against Pompey would certainly have done his own political ambitions no harm at all.

 

I think you're misunderstanding the events completely. There was no plot to kill Pompey. The "plot" was a complete (and laughably absurd) fabrication. For example, Vettius claimed that to kill Pompey, he was given a dagger by Bibulus, as if Vettius couldn't have found one on his own without the consul's supplying him one! Moreover, Bibulus had earlier saved Pompey from an attack by assassins, for which Pompey had thanked him.

 

The outstanding questions are: who invented this fabrication? who could have benefitted from it? and why was the fabrication put forward when it was?

 

For what it's worth, there have been two scholarly articles on this topic:

McDermott, W. C. (1949). Vettius Ille, Illne Noster Index. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 80, 351-367.

Allen, W. (1950). The "Vettius Affair" once more. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 81, 153-163.

 

(If you PM me, I'd be happy to send you a copy of each.)

 

You can judge the evidence for yourself, but both articles take Caesar to be complicit in the affair, either as an accessory after the fact (e.g., by twisting Vettius' arm to drop the charge against young Brutus) or as the author of the witch hunt itself. The authors also take Cicero's chronology to be the most reliable of the ancient sources (which is unsurprising, since it was the only one that provided contemporary testimonia).

 

Dio's account of the affair, by the way, suffers from a confused chronology on many points, including when the consulur comitia took place and when Cicero defended Gaius Antonius.