¹ Most date the trial to either August or September on the basis of Cic. Att. 2.25.1. For arguments in favour of August, see Marinone, N., Cronologia ciceroniana, second edition (Rome, 2004), 99Google Scholar; A. D. Kurke, ‘Theme and Adversarial Presentation in Cicero's Pro Flacco’, PhD thesis, University of Michigan (1989), 69; Taylor, L. R., ‘The Date and Meaning of the Vettius Affair’, Historia 1 (1950), 48Google Scholar. For August–September, see Du Mesnil, A., Ciceros Rede für L. Flaccus (Leipzig, 1883), 34–5Google Scholar. For September, see Alexander, M. C., The Case for the Prosecution in the Ciceronian Era (Ann Arbor, MI, 2002), 79Google Scholar. For October–November, see Webster, T. B. L., M. Tulli Ciceronis Pro L. Flacco Oratio (Oxford, 1931), 111Google Scholar.

² May, J. M., Trials of Character. The Eloquence of Ciceronian Ethos (Chapel Hill, NC, 1988), 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Riggsby, A., Crime and Community in Ciceronian Rome (Austin, TX, 1999), 136–9Google Scholar. In the trial of Flaccus, however, this was only part of the overall strategy: Cicero twice remarks that Hortensius spoke in greater detail about various charges, suggesting that Hortensius dealt more with the facts of the case, leaving Cicero to make the final emotional appeal. See Flac. 41, 54; see also Cic. Att. 2.25.1; Brut. 190.

³ Steel, C. E. W., Cicero, Rhetoric, and Empire (Oxford, 2001), 53–73Google Scholar; Vasaly, A., Representations. Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory (Berkeley, CA, 1993), 198–205Google Scholar; Kurke (n. 1); May (n. 2), 79–87; Classen, C. J., Recht, Rhetorik, Politik. Untersuchungen zu Ciceros rhetorischer Strategie (Darmstadt, 1985), 180–217Google Scholar. An exception is Soós, I., ‘M. T. Ciceros Betrachtungen über die Institutionen der Athenischen Demokratie’, Oikumene 4 (1983), 71–9Google Scholar, who contends that contemporary Roman political practice influences Cicero's treatment of Greek, and especially Athenian, democratic institutions. As the title suggests, however, his analysis emphasizes the orator's depiction of Athenian democracy at the expense of the Roman political context.

⁴ See Steel (n. 3), 69: ‘The listener…is given a strong though illogical impression that Laelius’ activities in Greece are a manifestation of the disastrous abandonment of the wisdom of the maiores.’

⁵ On Caesar's first consulship, see Canfora, L., Julius Caesar. The Life and Times of the People's Dictator, trans. Hill, M. and Windle, K. (Berkeley, CA, 2007), 78–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Taylor, L. R., ‘The Dating of Major Legislations and Elections in Caesar's First Consulship’, Historia 17 (1968), 173–93Google Scholar; Meier, C., ‘Zur Chronologie und Politik in Caesars erstem Konsulat’, Historia 10 (1961), 68–98Google Scholar; Taylor, L. R., ‘On the Chronology of Caesar's First Consulship’, AJPh 72 (1951), 254–68Google Scholar.

⁶ At Dom. 41, Cicero claims to have made certain complaints related to the Republic (questus sum…quaedam de re publica) during the trial of Antonius, which then led to Clodius’ adoption. See also Cass. Dio 38.10.1–4. Mitchell, T. N., Cicero. The Senior Statesman (New Haven, CT, 1991), 114–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is sceptical. On the anxiety caused by Caesar and his allies, see Cic. Att. 2.16.2, 2.18.1–3, 2.19.1–3, 2.20.3; Cass. Dio 38.4.4–5; Plut. Vit. Caes. 14.4–5; Vit. Pomp. 47.4–5; Suet. Jul. 20.4.

⁷ App. B Civ. 2.10; Cass. Dio 38.3.2–4.1; Plut. Vit. Caes. 14.2.

⁸ App. B Civ. 2.11; Cic. Vat. 5; Dio 38.6.2–3, Plut. Vit. Cat. Min. 32.2; Vit. Pomp. 48.1; Suet. Jul. 20.1. There is a tradition that Pompey deployed his veterans (App. B Civ. 2.10, Plut. Vit. Caes. 14.10; Vit. Luc. 42.6; Vit. Pomp. 48.1) and that he threatened to use arms, albeit defensively, to secure passage of the measure (Plut. Vit. Caes. 14.4–5, Vit. Pomp. 47.4–5). Cic. Att. 2.16.2 relates that Pompey threatened to hold his opponents in check ‘with Caesar's army’ (Oppressos vos…tenebo exercitu Caesaris), probably a reference to Caesar's gangs. See Lintott, A. W., Violence in Republican Rome, second edition (Oxford, 1999), 75Google Scholar.

⁹ Cic. Att. 2.20.6; Vat. 21–3; Cass. Dio 38.6.4–6.

¹⁰ Flac. 1. All translations are my own.

¹¹ Flac. 3: Omnia alia perfugia bonorum, praesida innocentium, subsidia rei publicae, consilia, auxilia, iura ceciderunt. Quem enim appellem, quem obtester, quem implorem?

¹² In the first Verrine, Cicero used a similar topos when he cited a perception of rampant judicial corruption and claimed that Verres’ conviction had the potential to restore the lost reputation of the courts and, with it, the stability of the Republic itself. Ver. 1.1, 2; Vasaly, A., ‘Cicero, Domestic Politics, and the First Action of the Verrines’, CA 28 (2009), 104–8Google Scholar.

¹³ Flac. 94: Videtis quo in motu temporum, quanta in conversione rerum ac perturbatione versemur. Cum alia multa certi homines, tum hoc vel maxime moliuntur ut vestrae quoque mentes, vestra iudicia, vestrae sententiae optimo cuique infestissimae atque inimicissimae reperiantur.

¹⁴ Flac. 104: Sed cetera sint eorum; sibi habeant potentiam, sibi honores, sibi ceterorum commodorum summas facultates; liceat eis qui haec salva esse voluerunt ipsis esse salvis.

¹⁵ Flac. 5.

¹⁶ On D. Laelius, the father, see Cic. Flac. 14; Schol. Bob. 98St.; Frontin. Str. 2.5.31. On the son, see Caes. B Civ. 3.5.3, 7.1; Cic. Att. 8.11d.1, 12a.3.

¹⁷ Alexander (n. 1), 82–3. Classen (n. 3), 190, contends that Cicero is here accusing Laelius of having misused Pompey's name in order to intimidate the Greeks. The accusation is implicit. The fact that the orator does not accuse Laelius explicitly suggests either that there was some truth to the rumour or that Cicero wanted to create the impression there was. Elsewhere in the speech, Cicero praises Pompey (Flac. 29–30, 67–8), who had assured him on multiple occasions that Clodius would not harm him (Att. 2.19.4, 2.20.1, 2.21.6).

¹⁸ Alexander (n. 1), 80–1; Classen (n. 3), 180 n. 2; Du Mesnil (n. 1), 15–17. Sources: Cic. Flac. 5 (frag. Schol. Bob. iii), 77, 81–2; Schol. Bob. 93, 95St. For the identification of L. Cornelius Balbus as subscriptor, see Münzer, ‘Cornelius’ no. 69, RE iv.1262–3; see also Cic. Att. 9.6.1; Balb. 6, 19, 38; Plin. HN 5.36; Val. Max. 7.8.7.

¹⁹ Gruen, E. S., ‘The Trial of C. Antonius’, Latomus 32 (1973), 305–6Google Scholar.

²⁰ On the ‘First Catilinarian Conspiracy’ and the years leading up to Cicero's consulship, see Seager, R., ‘The First Catilinarian Conspiracy’, Historia 13 (1964), 338–47Google Scholar; Hardy, E. G., ‘The Catilinarian Conspiracy in Its Context: A Re-Study of the Evidence’, JRS 7 (1917), 153–78Google Scholar. Sources: Asc. 83.2–4, 18–25C (in Toga Candida); Suet. Jul. 9.1–2.

²¹ Canfora (n. 5), 39–53; Hardy (n. 20), 207–28; see also Marshall, B., ‘Cicero and Sallust on Crassus and Catiline’, Latomus 33 (1974), 805–9Google Scholar. Sources: Cic. Off. 2.84; Plut. Vit. Caes. 8.1–2; Vit. Cat. Min. 23.1–2; Vit. Crass. 13.2–3; Sall. Cat. 48.3–49.4

²² On the structure, see Kurke (n. 1), 77–82; Classen (n. 3); Webster (n. 1), xii–xix; Du Mesnil (n. 1), 46–54. Reconstructing the original text is hampered by its unconventional arrangement and a lacuna of unknown length near the beginning. Several fragments from the lost portion of the speech have been identified, and modern editors have typically printed them in various arrangements at §5: the Milan fragment = ‘frag. Mediolanense’; the Cusan fragments = ‘frag. Cusana’ (not included in the OCT); the lemmata of the Bobbio Scholiast = ‘frag. Schol. Bob.’ See Stangl, T. (ed.), Ciceronis Orationum Scholastiae (Hildesheim, 1964), 93–108Google Scholar; Webster, T. B. L., ‘The Gap in the Pro Flacco’, CR 44 (1930), 221–4Google Scholar. The continuous portion of the speech breaks off near the end of the exordium (1–5) and resumes in the course of an argumentum probabile ex vita – probably the first section of the argumentatio (6–8). Fragments of the lost portion of the speech confirm that the speech included a fuller defence of Flaccus based on his family and career, suggesting a kind of ethical confirmatio. What follows is the refutatio: Cicero makes general criticisms of the prosecution and its Greek witnesses (9–26), then addresses the specific charges of the Greek communities of Asia (27–69) and Roman citizens (70–93), before proceeding to the conclusion (94–106).

²³ Schol. Bob. 95St. (on Flac. 5, frag. Schol. Bob. i).

²⁴ Flac. 14: primum quod sermo est tota Asia dissipatus Cn. Pompeium…contendisse a Laelio…ut hunc hoc iudicio arcesseret, omnemque ei suam auctoritatem, gratiam, copias, opes ad hoc negotium conficiendum detulisse. On Pompey's acta in Asia Minor (his suppression of piracy, his defeat of Mithridates, and his organization of the eastern provinces), see Seager, R., Pompey. A Political Biography, second edition (Malden, MA, 2002), 40–62Google Scholar.

²⁵ App. B Civ. 2.9.

²⁶ Flac. 13: Qui comitatus in inquirendo! Comitatus dico? Immo vero quantus exercitus! The allegation is one in a series in which Cicero uses hyperbole to humorous effect. Bribery: Flac. 3, 14–15. Incitement: Flac. 5 (frag. Mediolanense), 6, 9; cf. 54, 66. Intimidation: Flac. 13–15, 18, 36; see also Schol. Bob. 98St.

²⁷ Flac. 13.

²⁸ Steel (n. 3), 54, 67–9; Kurke (n. 1), 68, 112–14. That Cicero considered this an effective strategy may be attributed, in part, to his belief that the triumvirs had made themselves unpopular by the time of the trial: Att. 2.19.2–3; 2.20.3–5; 2.21.1–5; 2.22.6; 2.25.2.

²⁹ Flac. 15–16.

³⁰ Lintott, A. W., Cicero as Evidence (Oxford, 2008), 103–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Steel (n. 3), 53–72; Riggsby (n. 2), 129–36; Vasaly (n. 3), 198–205; Kurke (n. 1), 163–9; May (n. 2), 81–7; Classen (n. 3) esp. 185–90, 199–200; Petrochilos, N., Roman Attitudes to the Greeks (Athens, 1974), 19Google Scholar, 40–6, 63–5; Guite, H., ‘Cicero's Attitude to the Greeks’, G&R 9 (1962), 146Google Scholar; M. A. Trouard, ‘Cicero's Attitude towards the Greeks’, PhD thesis, University of Chicago (1942), 24–6. See also Quint. Inst. 11.1.89.

³¹ On disciplina, see OLD s.v. 4a. See also TLL 5.1.1317.28–1323.6 (method or content of teaching); 1323.7–1325.74 (‘severity’ or ‘severe training’); 1325.75–1326.73 (‘order’, ‘custom’, ‘laws’). On mos and mos maiorum, see Hölkeskamp, K.-J., Reconstructing the Roman Republic. Ancient Political Culture and Modern Research (Princeton, NJ, 2010) 17–18Google Scholar; Lintott, A. W., The Constitution of the Roman Republic (Oxford, 1999), 4–7Google Scholar.

³² On the symbolic dimension of the comitia in Roman political culture, see Sumi, G. S., Ceremony and Power. Performing Politics in Rome between Republic and Empire (Ann Arbor, MI, 2005), 7–13Google Scholar, 22–5; Flaig, E., Ritualisierte Politik. Zeichen, Gesten und Herrschaft im Alten Rom (Göttingen, 2003), 155–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jehne, M., ‘Integrationsrituale in der römischen Republik: zur einbindenden Wirkung der Volksversammlungen’, in Urso, G. (ed.), Integrazione, mescolanza, rifiuto. Incontri di popoli, lingue e culture in Europa dall’ Antichità all'Umanesimo (Rome, 2001), 89–113Google Scholar. On auctoritas and the Senate, see Hellegouarc'h, J., Le Vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République, second edition (Paris, 1972), 299–306Google Scholar; see also Cic. Leg. 3.28, where Cicero states that the ideal constitution exists cum potestas in populo, auctoritas in senatu sit. On sententiae and senatorial deliberation, see Bonnefond-Coudry, M., Le Sénat de la République romaine. De la guerre d’ Hannibal à Auguste (Rome, 1989), 472–520Google Scholar.

³³ In a legislative context, auctor usually refers to a measure's supporter (OLD s.v. 5), but, given Cicero's emphasis here on institutional restraints and that those opposed to a measure were customarily called upon to speak prior to voting, the more generic meaning is to be preferred here (OLD s.v. 4). Voting took place not by show of hands but with voters proceeding to a templum by electoral unit and there casting ballots individually: Lintott (n. 31), 46–9.

³⁴ Cic. Att. 2.9.1; Sest. 135; Vat. 18, 23, 33. Pocock, L. G., A Commentary on Cicero in Vatinium (Amsterdam, 1967), 169–75Google Scholar, argues that it was probably the law confirming Pompey's eastern settlements. On the leges Caecilia Didia and Junia Licinia, see Schol. Bob. 140St.; Cic. Dom. 53. On the trinundinum, probably a period of seventeen to twenty-five days, see Polo, F. Pina, ‘Procedures and Functions of Civil and Military Contiones in Rome’, Klio 77 (1995), 208CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 25.

³⁵ App. B Civ. 2.10; Cass. Dio 38.4.1; see also Suet. Jul. 20.2.

³⁶ Flac. 17: Quod si haec Athenis tum cum illae non solum in Graecia sed prope cunctis gentibus enitebant accidere sunt solita, quam moderationem putatis in Phrygia aut in Mysia contionum fuisse?

³⁷ Flac. 16. Cicero opts for the more generic ‘that Greece of old’ (illa vetus) in order to make his comparison with contemporary Greece (hanc Graeciam) more effective.

³⁸ Cic. Rep. 1.48: si vero ius suum populi teneant, negant quicquam esse praestantius, liberius, beatius, quippe qui domini sint legum, iudiciorum, belli, pacis, foederum, capitis unius cuiusque, pecuniae. See also 1.42: ‘However, the “popular” polity (so indeed they call it) is that in which everything is in the hands of the people’ (illa autem est civitas popularis (sic enim appellant), in qua in populo sunt omnia).

³⁹ Arena, V., Libertas and the Practice of Politics in the Late Roman Republic (Cambridge, 2012), 116–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brunt, P. A., The Fall of the Republic and Related Essays (Oxford, 1988), 338–49Google Scholar; Wirszubski, C., Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate (Cambridge, 1968), 17–18Google Scholar, 47–50; see also Wiseman, T. P., ‘Roman History and the Ideological Vacuum’, in Remembering the Roman People. Essays on Late Republican Politics and Literature (Oxford, 2009), 5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The programme of Clodius, initiated the following year, demonstrates these trends: the lex de agendo cum populo (‘law on voting assemblies’) seems to have abolished the right of a magistrate to ‘veto’ proceedings due to the observation of an unfavourable omen, and made it possible to pass legislation on dies fasti (business days on which assemblies could not be convened). See Tatum, W. J., The Patrician Tribune. Publius Clodius Pulcher (Chapel Hill, NC, 1999), 125–33Google Scholar, 150–62.

⁴⁰ Flac. 2; see also §5 (frag. Cusana).

⁴¹ Cic. Off. 2.50–1.

⁴² Flac. 13: sed certe inflammatus incredibili cupiditate hanc causam accusationemque suscepit…timide tamen dico, quod vereor ne Laelius ex his rebus quas sibi suscepit gloriae causa putet aliquid oratione mea sermonis in sese aut invidiae esse quaesitum.

⁴³ Cic. Att. 2.12.1; 2.13.2 (regnum, ‘tyranny’); 2.14.1 (ἐντυραννεῖσθαι, ‘to live under a tyranny’); 2.17.1 (τυραννίς, ‘tyranny’); 2.18.2 (oppressio, ‘oppression’); 2.21.1 (dominatio, ‘despotic regime’); Q. Fr. 1.2.15 (<C.> Cato…in contionem ascendit et Pompeium ‘privatum dictatorem’ appellavit, ‘C. Cato…addressed a public meeting and called Pompey an “unofficial dictator”’). See also Cass. Dio 38.4.5, 8.2; n. 8 above.

⁴⁴ Att. 2.18.1: Tenemur undique neque iam, quo minus serviamus, recusamus, sed mortem et eiectionem quasi maiora timemus, quae multo sunt minora.

⁴⁵ Tatum (n. 39), 111 n. 135, notes that there is no evidence that the tribunician elections were delayed like the consular elections. Cicero first mentions attacks by Clodius in July (Att. 2.19.1–4, 2.20.2), around the time that tribunician elections were ordinarily held.

⁴⁶ Cic. Dom. 41; see also Cass. Dio 38.10.4; Suet. Jul. 20.4. Judging from Cicero's subsequent correspondence and the general criticism of the triumvirate at the time, it would not be surprising if he referred to Caesar as a tyrant and the Republic as having become a tyranny, albeit one that was ‘pleasing to the many’ (quae iucunda esset multitudini, Att. 2.21.1).

⁴⁷ Flac. 3: Non estis de Lydorum aut Mysorum aut Phrygum, qui huc compulsi concitatique venerunt, sed de vestra re publica iudicaturi, de civitatis statu, de communi salute, de spe bonorum omnium.