Trial of Caius Rabirius

[alibegoa]

Did it take place before or after the execution of Catalinian conspirators most notably P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura?

[G-Manicus]

I'm pretty sure it took place after.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The two events occurred in the same year. In Cassius Dio's history (Dio Cass 37.26'1-28'4, 37'2), the trial of Rabirius comes first, thereby setting up the rationale for suspecting Caesar's involvement in the Catilinarian conspiracy. Same in Suetonius (Suet:Caes_12'1).

[Primus Pilus]

The two events occurred in the same year. In Cassius Dio's history (Dio Cass 37.26'1-28'4, 37'2), the trial of Rabirius comes first, thereby setting up the rationale for suspecting Caesar's involvement in the Catilinarian conspiracy. Same in Suetonius (Suet:Caes_12'1).

 

Just for further confirmation Sura was executed on the 5th of December. Cic. Pro. Flacc. 40, Sallust. Cat. 55 The trial of Rabirius predates such other events in the same year as Caesar's election as Pontifex Maximus (early to mid year) and Crassus receiving the anonymous letter regarding the Catiline conspiracy (October).

[G-Manicus]

Like I said .... I'm pretty sure it took place before.

[alibegoa]

But if it took place before what was Caesar hoping to accomplish?

What was the point of this unortodox business with bizarre conclusion?

If Caesar was involved in Catilinarian conspiracy and was setting up a warning against extreme interpretation of the Final Act, that still sounds to me he fully expected the plot to fail, and besides this powerfull warning with Rabirius convicted and all but about to be executed would go unnoticed since the later conspirators were executed.

I say there is no way Cicero and other senators would act as they did having this powerful previous warning.

Edited January 19, 2008 by alibegoa

[P.Clodius]

...or, he wasn't involved in the slightest!

[M. Porcius Cato]

...or, he wasn't involved in the slightest!

 

You don't think Caesar was involved in the trial of Caius Rabirius? Not surprising--it's only attested to by all our sources.

[P.Clodius]

...or, he wasn't involved in the slightest!

 

You don't think Caesar was involved in the trial of Caius Rabirius? Not surprising--it's only attested to by all our sources.

...no, in the Catiline conspiracy. Take cover, there's sniping in the trenches!

[M. Porcius Cato]

You don't think Caesar was involved in the trial of Caius Rabirius?

...no, in the Catiline conspiracy.

 

Sure, that's possible. Cicero didn't seem to think Caesar was involved, though Catulus charged him. It's possible that Catulus was just sore about recently losing to Caesar in the election for pontifex maximus. It's also possible that Catiline, who approached Crassus, also approached Caesar, who said nothing about the event despite its importance. Secondary sources typically report that Caesar was under a cloud of suspicion, but nothing more definitive is ever raised. Not that I'd put it past Caesar.

[G-Manicus]

In her "Author's Notes" for "Caesar's Women" Colleen McCullough lays out a pretty detailed argument for why she thinks the trial of Gaius Rabirius occurred after Catiline. She argues a number of points, including what possible rationale would there be for trying Rabirius out of the blue 37 years after the fact? Rabirius was a nobody, so what purpose would it serve to take him down so long afterwards? She indicates that one of the biggest reasons why folks think his trial took place before Cataline is because that when Cicero sent his speeches to Atticus, that they were laid out in (supposedly) chronological order. She believes that Cicero may have purposely inserted his Rabirius speech at an earlier point in time for self centered "revisionist" reasons (as hard as that may be to believe).

[M. Porcius Cato]

Thanks for pointing this out. Though it's better than this, McCullough's argument, "To place the trial of Rabirius before Catilina smacks of, if not caprice, at least pure naughtiness on Caesar's part" (p. 635), made me laugh. Oh, no! Caesar naughty?? Say it isn't so! Not the deified catamite of Bithynia! Nothing naughty about the Venereal butcher of Gaul! Oh, no--we must fix the chronology to save Caesar's reputation from being naughty. LOL.

 

Worse, she even admits "That I have preferred December 6 to December 9 --four days altogether--lies in my interpretation of Caesar's character" (p. 637).

[G-Manicus]

Thanks for pointing this out.

You are most welcome!

[alibegoa]

I still object to the foul language used by MPC regarding Caesar, this forum can be used you know by minors and civilized adults, and permitting such kind of language while at the same time deleting my entirely civilized reply in defense does not work well in establishing a positive reputation of this forum, but quite the opposite, at the very least shows that anyone willing to justify Caesar has nothing to look for on this forum.

Goodbye, and you can keep MPC and his extremely imaginative foul language.

[P.Clodius]

I still object to the foul language used by MPC regarding Caesar, this forum can be used you know by minors and civilized adults, and permitting such kind of language while at the same time deleting my entirely civilized reply in defense does not work well in establishing a positive reputation of this forum, but quite the opposite, at the very least shows that anyone willing to justify Caesar has nothing to look for on this forum.

Goodbye, and you can keep MPC and his extremely imaginative foul language.

Wow...the thread was deleted? Why? This is a first I think to occur to an MPC hijacked thread, correct me if I'm wrong someone. Well, is this a new tone of UNRV that I am unaware of, censorship? To MPC, I know for a fact that you are capable of better, your post was nothing less than fanatical and hackneyed in its tone. Please lets get back to to-ing and fro-ing as usual and leave the inflammatory rhetoric behind. To Alibegoa, don't leave because of this misunderstanding, you'd be missing out and so would we me thinks!