From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (63 page)

21 THE SO-CALLED LEX IULIA MUNICIPALIS. This is partly preserved in a long inscription found at Heraclea in south Italy. It contains Caesar’s proposed legislation about the corn-dole and roads in Rome, and the regulations for the Italian municipalities. Cf.
CAH
, IX, 698 ff. For the text see Riccobono,
FIRA
, n. 13. For translation and commentary see E. G. Hardy,
Six Roman Laws
, 149 ff.; Lewis and Reinhold,
Rn. Civ.
i, 408 ff. [p. 122]

22 PROVINCIAL ARRANGEMENTS. Further measures include the limitation of ‘free legations’ to one year: these were roving commissions which had been much abused by the nobility at the expense of provincials. The five-year interval between the consulship and proconsulship established by Pompey (p. 103) lapsed. A law stopped senators’ sons leaving Italy and Roman citizens of military age living abroad for more than three years. [p. 123]

23 CAESAR’S COLONIES. See F. Vittinghoff,
Römische Kolonisation … unter Caesar und Augustus
(1952), esp. 49–95, with a list on p. 148. For the charter of Urso (Riccobono,
FIRA
, n. 21) see translation and commentary by E. G. Hardy,
Three Spanish Charters
, 23 ff.; Lewis and Reinhold,
Rn. Civ.
i., 420 ff. For the evidence afforded by coins for colonial foundations see M. Grant,
From Imperium to Auctoritas
(1946). Cf. also P. A. Brunt,
Italian Manpower
(1971), 255 ff., 319 ff. [p. 123]

24 CAESAR’S GRANTS OF CITIZENSHIP AND LATIN RIGHTS. See A. N. Sherwin-White,
Rom. Citizenship
, 136 ff. On Latin rights in Spain (extensive in Ulterior, limited in Citerior) see M. I. Henderson,
JRS
, 1942, pp. 1 ff. It is uncertain whether Caesar planned to survey the whole empire for census purposes, because this view depends on the sole authority of a fifth-century geographer. [p. 124]

25 CAESAR’S PARTY AND THE SENATE. On his supporters see R. Syme,
Rom. Rev.
, ch. v; for his senators, Syme, ch. vi, and in
Papers Brit. Sch. Rome
, 1938, pp. 1 ff. (=
Roman Papers
(1979), i, 88 ff.). On the attitude of Etruria to Caesar see E. Rawson,
JRS
, 1978, 132 ff. [p. 125]

25a LEX ANNALIS. The magistracies and the working of the lex annalis from 49 to 44 are discussed by G. V. Sumner,
Phoenix
, 1971, 246 ff. [p. 125]

26 CAESAR’S TRIBUNICIA POTESTAS. See F.E. Adcock,
CAH
, IX, 900. [p. 126]

27 CAESAR IMPERATOR. That Caesar used Imperator as a permanent title and (as Mommsen believed) to designate his extraordinary position, has been disproved by D. McFayden,
The History of the title Imperator under the Roman Empire
(1920). The coins with Caesar’s portrait and the title Imperator, which were struck in 44, were not an ordinary civilian issue of the state but a military issue for the Parthian war and were signed by Caesar as commander-in-chief (see C. M. Kraay,
Numism. Chron.
, 1954, 18 ff.). On the nomenclature ‘Imperator Caesar’ see R. Syme,
Historia
, 1958, 172 ff. [p. 126]

28 PORTRAIT COINAGE OF 44. Two recent attempts have been made to date more closely these interesting issues and to draw from them conclusions about Caesar’s constitutional and monarchic intentions: see A. Alfoldi,
Stüdien über Caesars Monarchie
(1953) and K. Kraft,
Der goldene Kranz Caesars
(
Jahrb, f. Num.3/4
). The latter argues that Caesar’s golden wreath represents part of the regalia of the early kings of Rome: but it was also worn by triumphators. For a criticism of these views see R. A. G. Carson,
Gnomon
, 1956, 181 ff.,
Gr. and R.
, 1957, 46 ff. and Kraay,
op. cit.
, n. 27 and M. Crawford,
RRC
, p. 488 (for the coins, Crawford n. 480). [p. 126]

29 CAESAR AND MONARCHY. The view that Caesar regarded monarchy as the cure for Rome’s troubles and early in his career deliberately determined to secure it by force if need be, was advanced with great brilliance by Mommsen, who regarded Caesar as a superman and a potential saviour of Roman society. More recently it has been championed by J. Carcopino,
Histoire romaine
, ii (1936). The belief that Caesar aimed at monarchy on Hellenistic lines has been advocated by Ed. Meyer,
Caesars Monarchie
³
(1922), who sought to contrast Caesar’s monarchic rule with both the Principate of Augustus and the ‘Principate of Pompey’ (i.e. Pompey, not Caesar, was the true predecessor of Augustus). These views have been criticized by F. E. Adcock (
CAH
, IX, 718 ff.), who examines the difficult evidence at length and reaches the conclusion that Caesar had not finally resolved to end the Republic. Cf. also R. Syme,
Rom. Rev.
, ch. iv and
JRS
, 1944, 99 ff., and H. Last,
JRS
, 1944, 119 ff. W. Burket (
Historia
, 1962, 356 ff.) returns to the view that even before the First Triumvirate Caesar thought of Roman monarchy, linked to the idea of Romulus-Quirinus. In ‘Caesar’s Final Aims’ (
Harvard Stud. Class. Phil.
, 1964, 149 ff.), V. Ehrenberg concludes ‘that Caesar intended to create his own form of monarchy – neither Roman nor Hellenistic but Caesarean’, p. 157. K. W. Welwei,
Historia
, 1967, 44 ff., also rejects a pattern of Roman or Hellenistic monarchy but is less definite about the more positive form in which Caesar might have clothed his power; in particular Welwei examines the meaning of the Lupercalia episode, as also does G. Dobesch,
Caesars Apotheose zu Lebzeiten und sein Ringen um den Konigstitel
(1966), who reaches the opposite conclusion that Caesar wished for monarchy, the diadem and the title of king. E. Rawson (
JRS
, 1975, 148 ff.) examines the Roman attitude to Hellenistic kings and kingship and concludes that in the light of this tradition Caesar did not want the glorious but hated title
rex
. H. Gescher (
Historia
, 1973, 468 ff.) has argued for the view that Caesar did appoint Octavian Magister Equitum. In
Divus Julius
(1971) S. Weinstock argues that Caesar was a religious reformer who created new cults, stimulated the grant of extraordinary honours to himself and was about to become a divine ruler when he was assassinated; after his death his plan was taken up by his supporters and the new cult of Divus Iulius inherited most of its features. The case is presented with great learning and ingenuity, but may not convince all (e.g. those who think that the author is too credulous in accepting some of the evidence of Dio Cassius). The book is discussed by J. North,
JRS
, 1975, 171 ff. Cf. also Z. Yavetz,
Julius Caesar and his Public Image
(forthcoming).

On the child Caesarion see ch. viii, n. 20 below, and on other rumoured sons of Caesar see R. Syme,
Historia
, 1980, 422 ff. [p. 128]

30 CAESAR’S HEALTH. This was good, except that he twice suffered from epileptic seizures during his campaigns and from fainting fits towards the end of his life (see e.g. Suetonius,
Iulius
, 45), but there is no reason to believe that his mental vigour was in any way impaired. For the view that during his last phase Caesar’s character underwent a major change, that he was corrupted by power and suffered from megalomania see J.H. Collins,
Historia
, 1955, 445 ff. On the increasing disapproval felt by his contemporaries towards Caesar, including his partisans as well as enemies, see
H. Strasburger,
Hist. Zeitschrift
, 1953, 225 ff., revised as
Caesar im Urteil seiner Zeitgenossen
(1968). On the last phase of his life see also J. P. V. D. Balsdon,
Historia
, 1958, 80 ff. [p. 128]

31 THE CONSPIRATORS. The motives of the conspirators were no doubt mixed. Some had private quarrels with Caesar, and some (e.g. Q. Ligarius) were Pompeians who had suffered in the civil war, but the conspiracy was in no way a resurrection of the Pompeian cause. Ex-Pompeians, as M. Brutus and Cassius, were actuated by loyalty to the Senate and constitution, Brutus being influenced by Greek ideas of the duty of tyrannicide. There is no contemporary evidence, or basis in fact, for the later legend that M. Brutus was Caesar’s son: Caesar had an intrigue with Brutus’ mother Servilia, but probably long after the birth of Brutus (which was probably in 85 or possibly 78). The conspirators included many Caesarians (as Decimus Brutus and C. Trebonius) who had much to hope for from Caesar (these two men had been allotted good provinces for 44); their motives must therefore have been disinterested. Cicero was not approached by the conspirators, but he approved the deed. On their choice of the Ides of March see N. Horsfall,
Gr. and R.
, 1974, 191 ff. [p. 129]

32 CAESAR. Of the two ancient Lives of Caesar that by Suetonius has been edited by H. E. Butler and M. Cary (1927; a very useful work) and that by Plutarch by A. Garzetti (in Italian; 1954). Modern biographies include W. Warde Fowler,
Julius Caesar
(1904); a welcome translation of M. Gelzer,
Caesar. Politician and Statesman
(1968); a briefer sketch by J. P. V. D. Balsdon,
Julius Caesar and Rome
(1967) and M. Grant,
Julius Caesar
(1969). H. Collins has provided ‘A Selective Survey of Caesar Scholarship since 1935’,
Classical World
, 1963, 45 ff., 81 ff. Various aspects of Caesar are discussed in a special bimillenary volume of
Greece and Rome
, March 1957 (IV, i), and in a volume of lectures entitled,
Caesare nel bimellenario della morte
(1956). Caesar’s ‘luck’ is discussed by F. Boemer,
Gymnasium
, 1966, 63 ff., his honours by G. Cogrossi,
Contrib. Istit. Stor. ant. Univ. S. Cu. Milan
, 1975, 136 ff., his private fortune by A. Ferrill,
Indiana Soc. Studies Quar.
, 1977, 101 ff., his attitude to Epicureanism by F. C. Bourne,
Cl. W.
, 1977, 417 ff. and his writings by L. Radists,
Aufstieg
, I, iii (1973), 457 ff. H. Gesche’s
Caesar
(1976) is a useful bibliographical review of works on Caesar. On his portraiture see J. M. C. Toynbee,
Roman Historical Portraits
(1978), 30 ff. [p. 129]

1 SOURCES FOR 44–31 B.C. The main narrative for these years is given by Appian (
BC
, iii–v; down to 35 B.C.) and Dio Cassius (xlv–liii). Appian is the more valuable; he made use of the
History
of Asinius Pollio (who fought on the side of Antony and later maintained a reserved attitude towards Augustus). Until his death in 43 B.C. Cicero’s
Letters
and
Philippics
are an invaluable source. The poets, Horace and Virgil, begin to throw light on their age, although their major work falls after 31. The
Memoirs
of Augustus (not extant) were used by Livy (whose work here survives merely in the
Periochae
) and by Velleius Paterculus (who gives a brief narrative). Plutarch’s
Life of Antony
is valuable; though not sympathetic to Antony, it provides a stirring account of his Parthian campaign (which derives from Dellius, one of Antony’s officers who was an eye-witness of the campaign) and at the end (from ch. 77) it makes use of the
Memoirs
of Cleopatra’s physician, Olympus. Suetonius’
Life of Augustus
and Augustus’ own
Res Gestae
begin to be of service. One difficulty of the later part of the period, when Appian’s narrative fails, is that both Antony and Octavian and their supporters indulged in a vicious propaganda campaign against each other: in particular by
representing his cause as that of Italy and the western tradition, Octavian overemphasized the orientalizing of Antony’s character and the influence of Cleopatra. The finest literary expression of this view, which became official with the victory of Octavian, may be found in Virgil’s description of the battle of Actium (
Aeneid
, viii); it is also represented in less lofty forms. On this confusing political propaganda see K. Scott,
Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome
, 1933, pp. 1 ff.; M. P. Charlesworth,
Cl. Qu.
, 1933, 172 ff. Modern authorities for 44–31 B.C. include T. Rice Holmes,
The Architect of the Roman Empire
, i (1928); M. A. Levi,
Ottaviano Capoparte
(1933);
CAH
. X, chs. i–iii (1934); R. Syme,
Rom. Rev.
, chs. vii–xxi; H. Frisch,
Cicero’s Fight for the Republic
(1946); J. M. Carter,
The Battle of Actium
(1970), which covers the period 44–31 B.C. F. Millar (
JRS
, 1973, 50 ff.) has surveyed the Triumviral period in relation to the emergence of the principate, and in particular assesses the extent to which the institutions of the
res publica
remained active during this period when the Triumvirate was superimposed upon them but did not replace them. In the process he examines the triumviral documents from the Greek East, including some hitherto unpublished documents from Aphrodisias (among them two letters of Octavian). On this extremely important group of documents see J. Reynolds,
Aphrodisias and Rome
(1982). [p. 131]

2 ANTONY’S FUNERAL ORATION. According to Suetonius (
Iul.
84, 2) Antony in place of a
laudatio
had read out a decree of the Senate honouring Caesar and the oath by which the Senate had pledged his safety; Antony then ‘added a very few words of his own’. Appian (
BC
, ii, 144–5) attributes a short speech to him which is more conciliatory than his actions. Dio Cassius (xliv, 36 ff.) gives a very long speech. M. E. Deutsch (
Univ. California Publ. Cl. Arch.
1928) has argued in support of Suetonius, but Cicero,
Phil.
2, 91, may support the traditional view of a longer formal speech. [p. 132]

3 CAESAR’S ADOPTION OF OCTAVIAN. For the content of Caesar’s will see above, pp. 150, 155, 156, 157. Suetonius (
Iul.
83) records that Octavian was named first heir to three-quarters of the estate and his two cousins received the rest; then at the end of the will (‘in ima cera’) Octavian was adopted ‘in familiam nomenque’. At best Octavian’s adoption must have been conditional upon Calpurnia not bearing Caesar a posthumous son, a contingency for which Caesar had provided in his will: and there are doubts about the precise legal meaning of testamentary adoption. Such doubts have therefore led W. Schmitthenner (
Oktavian und das Testament Cäsars
²
, 1973) to suggest that Octavian’s adoption was achieved by him through the
lex curiata
as a political master-stroke. But although there are technical difficulties, it is probable that Suetonius is right and that in any case it was Caesar’s intention that Octavian should be his adopted son as well as his heir. Cf. G. E. F. Chilver,
JRS
, 1954, 126 ff. On Octavian’s rise see A. Alföldi,
Oktavians Aufstieg zur Macht
(1976). [p. 133]

4 THE PROSCRIPTIONS. Some exciting stories are told by Appian (
BC
, iv, 11–30). An inscription, the so-called
Laudatio Turiae
, commemorates the devotion of a wife to her husband (proscribed now or exiled earlier) and exposes the cruelty of Lepidus. There is an edition by M. Durry (
Éloge d’une matrone romaine
, 1950) and a translation in Lewis and Reinhold,
Rn. Civ.
i, 484 ff. [p. 135]

5 CICERO. Biographies include G. Boissier,
Cicero and his Friends
(1897); J. L. Strachan-Davidson,
Cicero and the Fall of the Roman Republic
(1894); E. G. Sihler,
Cicero of Arpinum
(1914); T. Petersson,
Cicero
(1920); H. J. Haskell,
This was Cicero
(1942); R. E. Smith,
Cicero the Statesman
(1966); and, in German, M. Gelzer,
Cicero
(1969).
Cicero
, edited by T. A. Dorey (1965), contains chapters by seven scholars on aspects of Cicero’s life and work. R. J. Rowland in ‘A Survey of selected Ciceronian Bibliography, 1953–1965’ (
Cl. W.
, 1965, 51 ff., 101 ff.) provides a useful account and a wider one than the title might suggest. F. R. Cowell,
Cicero and the Roman Republic
(1948; Pelican
ed. 1956) is a general survey of the later Republic rather than a strict biography of Cicero. J. Carcopino,
Cicero; the Secrets of his Correspondence
(1951), is an unsuccessful attempt to undermine the historical value of Cicero’s letters and to blacken Cicero’s character. Two further biographies of Cicero appeared in 1971:
Cicero
by D. R. Shackleton Bailey (with emphasis on the later part of his life, from which so many of his letters survive) and
Cicero
by D. L. Stockton. E. Rawson’s
Cicero
(1975) is a more balanced portrait of the whole man. His early career until 63 B.C. is handled by T. W. Mitchell,
Cicero, the Ascending Years
(1979) and his whole life is sketched by W. K. Lacey,
Cicero and the End of the Roman Republic
(1978). On Cicero’s portraits see J. M. C. Toynbee,
Roman Historical Portraits
(1978), 28 ff. [p. 135]

6 CICERO’S POLITICAL THEORIES. Much has been written on the monarchical emphasis in Cicero’s later writings: see, e.g. W. W. How,
JRS
, 1930, 24 ff.; E. Lepore,
Il princeps Ciceroniano
(1954). For an interpretation of his philosophic works see H. A. K. Hunt,
The Humanism of Cicero
(1954). See also S. E. Smethurst, ‘Cicero’s Rhetorical and Philosophical Works, 1957–1963’,
Cl. W.
, 1964, 36 ff. [p. 135]

6a BRUTUS. See M. L. Clarke,
The Noblest Roman, Marcus Brutus and his Reputation
(1981). On his relations with Cassius see W. Huss,
Würzburger Jahrb. für die Alterturnswiss
, 1977, 115 ff. [p. 137]

6b THE PERUSINE WAR. See E. Gabba,
Harvard Stud. Class. Phil.
, 1971, 139 ff. for an analysis of the activities of Octavian and Antony until 36 B.C. On the Perusine war see P. Wallmann,
Talanta
, 1974, 58 ff. [p. 138]

7 THE CHILD OF VIRGIL’S FOURTH ECLOGUE. This subject has caused much speculation. For the view in the text (a future son of Antony and Octavia) see W. W. Tarn,
JRS
, 1932, 135 ff. Less likely ‘candidates’ are a son of Antony and Cleopatra; Asinius Gallus, son of Asinius Pollio, or his younger brother allegedly called Asinius Saloninus (whose existence has been questioned by R. Syme,
Cl. Qu.
, 1937, 39). [p. 138]

8 SEXTUS POMPEIUS. See M. Hadas,
Sextus Pompey
(1930). [p. 138]

9 AGRIPPA. See M. Reinhold,
Marcus Agrippa
(1933). Impressive remains survive of the tunnels constructed by Agrippa’s architect and engineer, L. Cocceius Auctus (Strabo, 5. 4. 5): the ‘Grotta di Cocceio’ connected Lake Avernus with Cumae, running under Monte Grillo. Another long gallery, under the hill of Cumae itself, belongs to this system; until the real Grotto of the Sibyl was discovered in 1932, it was confused with this other work (see A. Maiuri,
I Campi Flegrei
, 1949, pp. 127 ff.). These tunnels were of course only supplementary to the vast main work of creating Portus Iulius, a major feat of engineering. See further R. F. Paget,
JRS
, 1968, 163 ff. (with plan). [p. 138]

10 RENEWAL OF THE TRIUMVIRATE. The sources are contradictory, e.g. Appian even contradicts himself (
BC
, v, 95 and
Illyr
. 28) as to whether it was legally sanctioned. See Rice Holmes,
Architect Rom. Emp.
i. 231 ff.;
CAH
, X, 59 and 902. [p. 138]

11 SELEUCUS OF RHOSUS. It was probably for services in this campaign that one of Octavian’s admirals, a certain Seleucus of Rhosus in Syria, was rewarded with a grant of Roman citizenship and other privileges (immunity from taxation, etc.). Letters and an edict of Octavian to Rhosus, between 41 and 30 B.C., record this; see Ehrenberg and Jones,
Documents
, n. 301, Sherk,
Rom. Documents from Greek East
(1969), n. 58 and translation in Lewis and Reinhold,
Rn. Civ.
i, 389 ff. [p. 140]

12 OCTAVIAN’S SACROSANCTITAS. So Dio Cassius, 49, 15, 5,
contra
Appian
BC
, v, 132. See H. Last,
Rendiconti, Ist. Lombardo
, 1951, 95 ff. On Octavian’s constitutional hopes in 36 see R. E. A. Palmer,
Athenaeum
, 1978, 315 ff. [p. 140]

13 TERRAMARIQUE. On this formula, A. Momigliano,
JRS
, 1942, 63. [p. 140]

14 OCTAVIAN’S ILLYRIAN CAMPAIGN. See R. Syme,
JRS
, 1933, 66 on E. Swoboda,
Octavian und Illyricum
. N. Vulic (
JRS
, 1934, 163 ff.) argues for wide conquests. See also
W. Schmitthenner,
Historia
, 1958, 189 ff., who considers it in relation to Octavian’s struggle for power, and J. J. Wilkes,
Dalmatia
(1969), 46 ff. Syme’s article is reprinted, with addendum, in
Danubian Papers
(1971), 135 ff. [p. 140]

15 Q. LABIENUS. He even issued a silver coinage, depicting his portrait and, on the reverse, a Parthian horse; the legend ran ‘Q. Labienus Parthicus Imperator’ (see E. A. Sydenham,
CRR
, n. 1356–7; Crawford,
RRC
, n. 524). [p. 141]

16 C. SOSIUS. He commemorated his victory with a coinage depicting Antony’s portrait and a military trophy at the base of which sat two captives, Judaea and Antigonus (Sydenham,
CRR
, n. 1272). [p. 141]

17 THE MARRIAGE OF ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. The date is much disputed. W. W. Tarn (
CAH
, X, 66 ff.) and others place it in 37: a new supplementary dating era started in Alexandria in 37, which may denote the regnal years of the joint reign of Cleopatra and Antony. Other possible (though less likely?) explanations of this double dating, which appears on some coins and papyri, refer it to the territorial expansion of Egypt in 37 or to Cleopatra and Ptolemy Caesar. Other historians place Antony’s marriage later, after he had formally divorced Octavia. See Rice Holmes,
Architect Rom. Emp.
i, 227 ff. On Antony see R. F. Rossi,
Marco Antonio nelle lotta politica della tarda repubblica romana
(1959) and H. Buchheim,
Die Orientpolitik des Triumvirn M. Antonius
(1961). H. Bengston,
Marcus Antonius, Triumvir und Herrscher des Orients
(1977) adds little fresh. On Antony’s portraits see J. M. C. Toynbee,
Roman Historical Portraits
(1978), 41 ff. [p. 142]

18 ALEXANDER HELIOS. In choosing this name for his son, Antony may have been thinking that the Persians, the predecessors of the Parthians, had been conquered by Alexander the Great, or possibly he hoped that the name would suggest the Sun-child who would, as men hoped, inaugurate a Golden Age. See W. W. Tarn,
JRS
, 1932, 135 ff. [p. 142]

19 CLEOPATRA’S AIMS. Such is the view brilliantly expounded by W. W. Tarn,
CAH
, X, 76 ff. (cf.
JRS
, 1932, 135 ff.). Others (cf. R. Syme,
Rom. Rev.
274 f.) believe her aims to be more moderate and that many of her alleged intentions are the result of Octavian’s propaganda. For the oracle (which may, but does not certainly, refer to Cleopatra) see J. Geffcken,
Oracula Sibyllina
, book iii, 350 ff. These Oracles, written in Greek hexameters, were put together over a long period of time (300 B.C.–A.D. 500) and are Greek, Jewish and Christian; book iii is mainly Jewish. [p. 142]

20 CAESARION. That Julius Caesar was in fact the father of Caesarion cannot be established beyond all doubt: some passages in the ancient authorities are inconclusive, although others (e.g. Plut.
Caes
. 49, 10) are definite in asserting it. J. Carcopino (
Ann. École Haut. Étud. Gand
, 1, 1937) has argued against Caesar’s paternity and dates the birth of Caesarion to 44 rather than (as Plutarch) to 47. But see K. W. Meiklejohn,
JRS
, 1934, 191 ff. and H. Volkmann,
Cleopatra
(1958), 74 ff. J. P. V. D. Balsdon (
Historia
, 1958, 86 ff.,
CR
, 1960, 69 ff.) argues that the child was born in 44 a month or two after Caesar’s death and that thereupon Cleopatra invented the false story that Caesar was the father. H. Heinen (
Historia
, 1969, 181 ff.) argues for paternity of Caesar rather than Antony. [p. 143]