INTRODUCTION

The relationship between forensic and political activity in the Roman Republic is well known. Much of what the iudicia publica dealt with were offences in public office: embezzlement, extortion, bribery and various kinds of misconduct by military commanders. The increasing prevalence of violence within domestic politics towards the end of the Republic further increased the overlap between politics and legal proceedings through the use of legislation de vi. Even if juries generally reached their decision on the basis of the evidence presented to them, rather than their pre-existing political dispositions, it is nonetheless the case that many of the trials heard by the quaestiones that dealt with the offences of repetundae, ambitio and maiestas involved defendants who were prominent in public life. This aspect of Roman public life– the fact that prominent men were vulnerable to legal proceedings arising from their public activities, whose outcome, if a conviction, could have career-ending consequences– would not necessarily lead to forensic activity on the part of politicians, particularly since the Roman legal system allowed advocacy. But in fact senators are found engaged in both prosecution and defence within the iudicia publica. This can be seen as an aspect of that distinctive lack of specialisation, or at least involvement in a range of activities, which is so characteristic a feature of the Republican elite. In addition, prosecution in Rome depended on a private individual bringing a charge, rather than any action by the state: thus prosecution was, or was often perceived to be, motivated by personal animosity between politically active individuals, and undertaken by men who were themselves engaged in a political career. Consequently, forensic ability is generally regarded in modern research on the Roman Republic as a valuable skill for a politician to possess.

The purpose of this chapter is to explore in more detail the ways in which forensic activity played a part in the public careers of late Republican politicians through a close examination of cases where prosecution was undertaken by very young men. Roman writers on rhetoric from Cicero onwards acknowledge the existence of a convention by which a young man prosecuted a senior political figure with a view to becoming known favourably in the community.