The dark side of the Roman judiciary: poisoning and the political intrigues in ancient Rome

The widespread assumption that women in particular often resorted to poisonous holds in antiquity were not only nurtured by popular myths, but was also used in the rhetorical strategies of important speakers and politicians. A prominent example of this is Cicero, who not only addressed the topic of poisoning in his speeches, but also specifically for his ownused for political purposes. The well-known Roman orator, politician and writer of the late republic worked in his function as a lawyer in several spectacular litigation in which his clients were accused of poisoning. These cases highlight the complex intertwinings of justice, politics and public opinion in ancient Rome.

Cicero and the charge against Caelius Rufus: Political intrigue

In the spring of 56 BC, young senator Marcus Caelius Rufus, a close disciple and protégé Ciceros, was on trial. The charge against him was serious: he was accused of being involved in a complex plot behind the scenes, which included murder, unrest and theft. The main opponent was probably none other than Clodius, a demagogic onepolitician who had a significant influence on the case. The charge was to incite political unrest, assassinate Egyptian diplomats, theft and attempt to kill Clodia, Clodius’ sister. The supposed use of poison played a central role. Cicero, who refers to the alleged crimes in his speech, speaks of “Auri etVeneni” – Gold and Poison – and emphasizes that Potentially Possible was involved in attempted murder against Clodia.

Roman Empire – Antiquity Mixer in Ancient

In his defense speech, Cicero initially argued that Clodia had handed over the gold to Caelius voluntarily and without compulsion. So why would Caelius try to kill her if he had entrusted her with the gold in good faith? He asked the question of a motive that could drive Caelius to do such an act. Cicero also directed the suspicion to other characters, namelyon Clodia herself and her husband Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer, a respected politician who served in the war against Mithradates. Cicero cleverly played with his listeners’ emotions: He accused Clodia of being a notorious adulteress, and at the same time reported on her sudden and unexpected death. With an almost eerily speech, he described howVery he mourned the loss of her husband, Metellus. He described in detail the dramatic moment of his death, reported that Metellus died in the Senate just three days after his political heyday and that his death was a heavy blow to Rome.

Dark times for Rome are imminent

Cicero described the scene in which Metellus prophesied with a broken voice that dark times were approaching for Rome and tried to captivate the audience with the emotional elements of his speech. The question of why this highly respected man was so suddenly taken away from his life was floating in the room. With this emotionally charged representation, Cicero wanted the impressionAwaken that Clodia, the alleged poisoner, is responsible for her husband’s death. As the speech progressed, Cicero directed herself against Clodia, although she herself did not sit in the dock, but was only invited as a witness. He took the opportunity to associate her with her husband’s death, which inevitably made the audience believe she was guiltybe With sharp insinuations, Cicero alluded to her alleged immorality and her potential involvement in the poison crime to give the impression that she was a dangerous person who would do everything for power and influence.

Early trials of poisoning: The Cluentius case and the dark history of the Roman poison murders

As early as 69 BC, Cicero had taken over another known case revolving around the charge of poisoning. Aulus cluentius habitus, a citizen of Larinum in Samnium, was accused. He was involved in a scandal that shook the Roman public: He accused his stepfather, respected senator Statius Abbius oppianicus, of poisoning him.The prosecution was based on reports that both parties had tried to influence the judges by bribery. Although only Oppianicus could prove illegal influence, he was found guilty, banished and died three years later. But the scandal continued: In 69 BC, Sassia, the widow of Cluentius, raised revenge and accused the deceasedOppianicus posthumously of poisoning her son. In his defense speech, Cicero first began presenting Cluentius as a young man with impeccable reputation to protect him from false accusations.

Illegal influence proven

He then devoted himself to the person Oppianicus, who had a reputation as an extremely unscrupulous criminal. Cicero described in detail the numerous crimes attributed to this: He is said to have committed several murders to get his victims’ assets. He particularly emphasized the murders of Oppianicus’ mother-in-law Dinaea, her son and othersrelatives to inherit their possessions. Oppianicus used poison to kill the victims. Cicero described the individual acts in impressive detail: Oppianicus is said to have murdered the mother-in-law shortly before birth, while Gaius, another victim, had drunk a cup of poison and could hardly stop his end. The dramatic moment in which GaiusStill trying to change his will before the poison worked, was vividly described. Cluentia’s cause of death, the daughter-in-law, was also proven to be clear: Traces of the poison were found in her body, which confirmed an autopsy. Despite this evidence, Oppianicus remained largely untouchable because of its political connections. Cicero argued that theonly because Oppianicus had influential contacts that protected him from the judiciary.

The legal basis against poisoning in ancient Rome

In order to understand the relevance of these processes, a look at the legal framework conditions is necessary. In his defense speech, Cicero referred to a law by dictator Sulla from 81 BC, which was specifically designed for dealing with murders and poisoning. The so-called “Lex Cornelia de Sicariis et Veneficiis” provided for the death penalty for all, the toxicproduced or dealt with substances. It was punishable to produce poison, sell or use to kill someone. The law also examined cases in which soldiers or officials tried to convict innocent people of poisoning through false proving or manipulation in court proceedings. The importance of this scheme becomes clear, considering that poisoning murders in theancient Rome were apparently widespread.

The social and legal importance of the poison processes

Already in the early 2nd century BC, reports of numerous trials before magistrates were involved in the accusation of poisoning. The Roman historian Titus Livius mentions four of such “Quaestiones veneficii” in his writings, in which the jurisdiction ruled on poisoning. These processes were not only a question of justice, but also reflectedThe social fear of secret killing by poison. At the same time, the multitude of processes also shows that abuse has repeatedly occurred: A few unscrupulous elements used the fear and the laws to pursue political opponents or fellow citizens with false allegations of poisoning. The image that results from this is that of a society in whichThe poison was used as both a crime and political intrigue.

Poison Murders in Ancient Rome – Between Law, Politics and Society

The cases that Cicero describes in his speeches make it clear how deeply the topic of poisoning was rooted in Roman society. They also show how law and politics were closely intertwined in order to either create justice or to discredit political opponents. The legal framework, in particular the “Lex Cornelia”, served to prevent criminal abuseand curb political actors. At the same time, the trials revealed how great the fear of secret killing was and how much poison became a symbol of power, betrayal and madness. The stories about poisoning in ancient Rome are not only criminal cases, but also reflections of a society that torn between the rule of law and political intrigueswas.