Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/683

Rh RUFUS. RUFUS. 671 COIN OF AURELIUS RUFUS. RUFUS, BASS AEUS, praefectus praetorii under the emperor M. Aurelius, was raised to this dignity on account of his virtues, though he had received no education in consequence of his rustic origin. (Dion Cass. Ixxi. 5.) He is alluded to in a letter of Avidius Cassias, preserved by Vulcatius Gallicanus (" audisti praefectum praetorii nostri philosophi, ante triduum quam fieret, mendicum et pauperem, sed subito divitem factum," c. 14). The name of Bassaeus Rufus occurs in inscriptions. (See Rei- marus, ad Dion. Cass. Ixxi. 3. § 25, p. 1 179.) RUFUS, CA'DIUS, was condemned on the charge of repetundae, at the accusation of the Bithynians in a. d. 49, but was restored by Otho in A. D. 69 to his rank as senator. (Tac. Ann. xii. 22, Hist. i. 77.) RUFUS, CAECI'LIUS. 1. L. Caecilius Rufus, the brother of P. Sulla by the same mo- ther, but not by the same father, was tribune of the plebs, b. c. 63, and proposed soon after he had entered upon the office that his brother P. Sulla and Autronius Paetus, both of whom had been condemned on account of bribery in the consular comitia of B. c. 66, should be allowed to become candidates again for the higher offices of the state, but dropt the proposal at the suggestion of his brother. In the course of his tribunate he ren- dered warm support to Cicero and the aristocratical party, and in particular opposed the agrarian law of Servilius Rullus. In his praetorship, b. c. 57, he joined most of the other magistrates in pro- posing the recall of Cicero from banishment, and incurred in consequence the hostility of P. Clo- dius, whose hired mob attacked his house in the course of the same year. In b. c. 54, he supported the accusation against Gabinius. (Cic. pro Sull. 22, 23 ; comp. Dion Cass, xxxvii. 25 ; Cic. post Red. in Sen. 9, pro Mil. 14 ; Ascon. in Mil. p. 48, ed. Orelli ; Cic. ad Q. Fr. iii. 3. § 2.) 2, C. Caecilius Rufus, consul a. d. 17, with L. Pomponius Flaccus. (Tac. Ann. ii. 41 ; Dion Cass. Ivii. 17.) RUFUS, M. CAE'LIUS, was the son of a wealthy Roman eques of the same name, who ap- pears to have obtained his property as a negotiator in Africa. He was accused of parsimony, especially ill reference to his son, but the extravagant habits of the latter required some degree of restraint. He was alive at the trial of his son in b, c. 56 (Cic. pro Cael. 2, 15, 30, 32.) The younger Cae- lius was born at Puteoli on the 28th of May, b. c. 82, on the same day and the same year as the orator C. Licinius Calvus, in conjunction with wliom his name frequently occurs (Plin. H.N. vii. 49. s. 50 ; Quintil. x. 1. § 115, x. 2. § 25, xii. 10. § 11). His ftither was enabled to procure him introductions to M. Crassus and Cicero, who gave him the advantage of their advice in the prosecu- tion of his studies, especially in the cultivation of oratory. During Cicero's praetorship (u. c. 66)., and the two following years, Caelius was almost always at his side ; but in the consulship of the great orator (b. c. 63), he became intimate with Catiline, whose society had such extraordinary fascinations for all the wealthy Roman youths ; although he took no part in the conspiracy, if we may trust Cicero's positive assurance. In b. c. 61, he accompanied the proconsul Q. Pompeius Rufus to Africa, partly to become acquainted with the mode of administering a province, but probably still more in order to look after his father's property in that country. On his return to Rome he accused in B. c. 59 C. Antonius, Cicero's colleague in the consulship, of having been one of Catiline's con- spirators ; and notwithstanding Cicero spoke in his behalf, Antonius was condemned. The oration which Caelius delivered against Antonius possessed considerable merit, and was read in the time of Quintilian (Quintil. iv. 2. § 123, ix. 3. § 58). Not long afterwards he obtained the quaestorship, and was charged with having purchased the votes at his election, an accusation from which Cicero en- deavoured to clear him when he defended him in B. c. 56. In B. c. 57, Caelius accused L. Sempronins Atra- tinus of bribery, and when the latter, who was defended by Cicero, was acquitted, he accused him again of the same crime in B. c. 56. But while the second suit was in progress, and had not yet come on for trial, Caelius himself was accused of vis by Sempronius Atratinus the younger. Caelius had for some time been living in the house of P. Clodius on the Aventine, and was one of the avowed paramours of his notorious sister Clodia Quadran- taria. He had, however, lately deserted her ; and she, in revenge, induced Sempronius Atrati- nus to bring him to trial. The two most important charges in the accusation arose from Clodia's own statements ; she charged him in the first place with having borrowed money from her in order to murder Dion, the head of the embassy sent by Ptolemy Auletes to Rome ; and declared, in the second place, that he had made an attempt to carry her off by poison. Caelius spoke on his own be- half, and was also defended by M. Crassus and Cicero: the speech of the latter is still extant. Caelius had done great damage to his character, not only by his intrigue with Clodia, but still more by the open part he had taken both at Baiae as well as at Rome in the extravagant debaucheries of herself and her friends ; and Cicero therefore exerts himself to show that the reports respecting the character of his client were unfounded, or at least grossly exaggerated ; that he was not the extravagant spendthrift and luxurious debauchee that he had been represented, but had devoted much of his time to serious occupations, especially to the study of oratory. The judges acquitted him ; and a second accusation, which the Claudii brought against him two years afterwards (Cic. ad Q. Fr. ii. 13), appears likewise to have failed. In B. c. 52, Caelius was tribune of the plebs. He warmly supported Milo, who murdered P. Clodius at the beginning of th;? year, and he opposed the measures brought forward by Pompey. But his efforts were all in vain, and Milo was condemned. (Comp. Cic. pro Mil. 33.) In the same year he proposed a bill in conjunction with his nine colleagues to allow Caesar to become a candidate for a second consulship in his absence. To this measure no serious opposition was oiFered