From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (60 page)

43 CISALPINE GAUL. The exact date of the formation of this province is uncertain: cf. above n. 16. If it was not established in 89, its date may be 81 and its author Sulla. But Badian (see n. 16 above) believes that there is ‘good reason for doubting whether it had a separate existence (i.e. separate from the rest of Gallia) even after Sulla’ (
Historia
, 1962, 232). Sulla added to his glory by extending the
pomerium
, the sacred boundary of Rome, which could be done only by one who had extended Roman territory, strictly in Italy. This has sometimes been linked with a presumed establishment of Gallia Cisalpina, but it may refer to Sulla’s extension of Italy for administrative purposes from the Aesis to the Rubicon (see Badian,
Roman Imperialism in the late Republic
²
(1968), 34). It may be noted, with Badian, (
op. cit.
, 31 ff.), that Sulla formed no expansionist foreign policy. He made no attempt to annex wealthy Cyrene (though the opportunity was at hand (see p. 77 and ch. v, n. 5)) nor the even wealthier Egypt (see p. 91), while he had restrained Murena from harassing Mithridates (see p. 64). Whatever the content of the
lex Pompeia
, Cisalpine Gaul will now have been in an anomalous position, containing many cities of citizens and many with Latin rights. It is uncertain whether Cisalpine Gaul was ever offered to Sulla as a proconsular province (in 88, as compensation for the temporary loss of Asia, or in 80?) as stated by Licinianus. On the population of Cisalpine Gaul see P. A. Brunt,
Italian Manpower
(1971), 166 ff. (and for the first century, 198 ff.). [p. 70]

44 PROVINCIAL COMMANDS. The view of Mommsen that Sulla passed a law which forbade consuls and praetors to leave Italy during their year of office is not now widely accepted. J. P. V. D. Balsdon,
JRS
, 1939, 58 ff., goes so far as to argue that there was not even any conventional, let alone legal, restraint on a consul leaving Rome before the end of his consular office. The very disturbed and abnormal conditions of the Seventies make it very difficult to envisage what Sulla may have hoped to establish as regular practice. The
lex de maiestate
may have forbidden generals to bring armies back undischarged to Italy. This is the view of R. E. Smith (
Phoenix
, 1960, pp. 1 ff.) who believes that it had been increasingly common for generals to leave their men abroad and to use token troops for their triumphs. Pompey’s earlier insistence, against Sulla’s orders, in bringing his legions back from Africa in 80 will have underlined the potential danger to the government in Rome that such conduct involved. Hence it was forbidden under Sulla’s treason law. [p. 71]

45 THE QUAESTIONES. The pre-Sullan history of the courts is uncertain, but
quaestiones
certainly existed to deal with
repetundae
(149),
maiestas
(Saturninus) and
de veneficiis
(cf. Dessau,
ILS
, 45) and probably
ambitus
(perhaps by 116) and
peculatus
(by 86, perhaps in 104). Cf. E. Badian,
Historia
, 1962, 207; Gruen,
Rom. Pol.
, 117, 124 f., 258 ff. After Sulla the courts will have comprised at least:
de repetundis, de maiestate, de ambitu, de sicariis et veneficiis, de peculatu, de iniuria, de falsis
. Later other courts were established, e.g.
de vi
(see A. W. Lintott,
Violence in Republican Rome
(1968), ch. viii, who would date this to a lex Lutatia in 78 which was supplemented by a lex Plautia between 78 and 63). [p. 71]

46 SULLA’S ‘MONARCHY’. For this theory, expounded with great ingenuity and learning, see J. Carcopino,
Sylla ou la monarchie manquée
, 2nd ed. 1947. For criticisms see e.g. M. I. Munro,
JRS
, 1932, 239 ff. Sulla’s coinage was not monarchical in intent: see S. L. Cesano (
Rendiconti d. Pontif. Accad.
1945–46, 187 ff.); M. H. Crawford,
Num.
Chron.
, 1964, 148 ff. For the possibility that Sulla abandoned power by stages (dictator till the end of 81, consul 80,
privatus
79) see E. Badian,
Historia
, 1962, 230 = Seager,
Crisis
, 36,
Athenaeum
, 1970, 8 ff. On Sulla’s illness, T. F. Carney,
Acta Classica
, 1960, 64 ff. U. Laffi, ‘Il mito di Silla’,
Athenaeum
, 1967, 177 ff., 255 ff., examines the elements of Sulla’s work which survived after 70 B.C. into the late Republic. He also traces the evaluation of Sulla in later historiography, including Caesar’s role as the new Marius which forced Pompey to be regarded as the new Sulla who had aspired to
regnum
by way of proscriptions. With the final victory of Caesar, the anti-Sulla, the tradition hostile to Sulla triumphed. [p. 71]

1 SOURCES FOR 78–66 B.C. For 78–70 B.C. see Greenidge and Clay,
Sources
. The extant writers are roughly the same as those mentioned in note 1 to ch. IV, e.g. Appian (
BC
, 1, 107–121, and
Mithridatica
), Plutarch (Lives of
Pompey, Sertorius, Crassus, Lucullus
), Livy,
Periochae
90–100, Dio Cassius, 36 (fragments for 69 B.C. but complete thereafter). A most important work was the
Historiae
of Sallust (cf. p. 168) which covered the years 78–67 B.C. Only fragments survive (edited by Maurenbrecher in 1891–3), but these include some speeches that Sallust put into the mouths of Lepidus, Philippus, Cotta and Macer, together with the despatch that Pompey sent to the Senate from Spain. In an
opusculum
Julius Exsuperantius (fourth century A.D.) described the civil war down to the death of Sertorius, based largely on Sallust. A major source, which now becomes important, comprises the Orations of Cicero (e.g. the
Verrines
and the
De lege Manilia
). On the period 78–49 B.C. see E. S. Gruen,
The Last Generation of the Roman Republic
(1974). [p. 73]

2 LEPIDUS’ SPEECH. A fragment of Sallust’s
History
gives his version of a speech by Lepidus, denouncing Sulla’s tyranny. The date is uncertain: it was probably between Sulla’s abdication and death, at the end of 79. Cf. Rice Holmes,
Roman Republic
, I, 363. For Lepidus’ revolution see Rice Holmes,
op. cit.
, 365 ff.; N. Criniti,
Mem. Ist. Lomb
xxx (1969); E. Hayne,
Historia
, 1972, 661 ff; L. Labruna,
Il console sovversivo, Marco Emilio Lepido e la sua rivolta
(1976). [p. 73]

3 THE TRIBUNES. Lepidus is said by Sallust to have demanded the restoration of tribunician power, by Licinianus to have opposed this. The problem is which was Lepidus’ first and which his second thought. [p. 73]

4 SERTORIUS. The sources for the Sertorian War are collected, with a commentary in Spanish, by A. Schulten,
Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae
, iv (1937), 160 ff. Sallust’s
Historiae
(fragments) and Plutarch’s
Sertorius
are more favourable to Sertorius than are Plutarch’s
Pompey
, Appian or Livy (we have a fragment of Livy, xci, referring to 77 and 76 B.C.). A recent fragment of Sallust (
Catalogue of … Papyri in John Rylands Library
, iii) may refer to Sertorius’ adventures in 81. The best modern account is A. Schulten’s monograph,
Sertorius
(1926), written in German. See also Rice Holmes,
RR
, I, 369 ff., for the chronology. The fact that the sources are either pro- or anti-Sertorian makes it extremely difficult to assess his aims correctly (cf. P. Treves,
Athenaeum
, 1932, 127 ff.), with the result that modern historians tend to follow one or other of the traditions. A touchstone is provided by his negotiations with Mithridates: those who believe, with Appian, that he was willing to surrender Asia, denounce him as a traitor, while those who accept Plutarch can still regard him as a loyal patriot. An attempt to resolve the deadlock has been made by E. Gabba (
Athenaeum
, 1954, 77 ff.) by trying to analyse the political sympathies of his followers and bring them into closer relation with political
currents in Rome and Italy in the seventies. Sertorius himself was loyal to Rome, but some of his followers represent the anti-Roman views of the extremist Italian opponents of Rome in the Social War. W. H. Bennett (
Historia
, 1961, 459 ff.) argues that Sertorius was killed in 73 (not 72). On some chronological problems of the Sertorian period see B. Scardigli,
Athenaeum
, 1971, 229 ff. For Gabba’s article see now
RR, Army
, 103 ff. [p. 74]

5 CYRENE. A main motive may have been to use the resources of Cyrene at a time of famine and financial need in 75: the corn shortage was relieved in 73 by the lex Terentia Cassia (see p. 78) when money had come in from Cyrene. See S. I. Oost,
Cl. Ph.
, 1963, n. 45. It is astonishing that Rome had not hitherto exploited Cyrene which had been bequeathed to her by its last king Ptolemy Apion when he died in 96 but had left the country for some twenty years in a state of unrest. Clearly the Senate was bent on limiting its administrative responsibilities, while it apparently had not been subjected to strong pressure from Equites or People. See in general S. I. Oost, ‘Cyrene, 96–74 B.C.’,
Cl. Ph.
, 1963, 11 ff.; E. Badian,
JRS
, 1965, 119 ff., and
Rom. Imperialism in the late Rep.
²
(1968), 29 f., 35 ff., 99 f.

In 75–74 P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, a quaestor, was sent to Cyrene (
pro praetore
), perhaps at the suggestion of L. Lucullus. But Badian suggests that regular governors may not have been sent until the time of Pompey, i.e. Cyrene did not become a regular province until then, since in 67 we find Cn. Lentulus (probably Publius’ brother) sent to Cyrene as Pompey’s legate and acting in a manner scarcely consonant with the presence there of a regular governor. Thus Publius will have gone not as a regular governor (he was only a junior magistrate), but on a special mission to obtain money and restore peaceful conditions. A series of inscriptions referring to Cn. Lentulus has been discussed by J. Reynolds,
JRS
, 1962, 97 ff. [p. 77]

6 CLUENTIUS. Oppianicus, who was condemned, died in 72. In 66 his son charged Cluentius with murder. Cicero’s defence probably secured his acquittal. The
Pro Cluentio
throws a lurid light on life in an Italian country town at this period. [p. 77]

7 POMPEY’S THREAT. E. Badian (
For. Cl.
, 279 ff.) takes Pompey’s threat to return from Spain to Italy in 74 (p. 76 above) very seriously. The Optimates tried to build up power in the eastern provinces to prepare against intimidation: hence the two great
imperia
of Lucullus and Antonius (it could not be foreseen that their campaigns would miscarry and, ironically, pave the way for Pompey’s two eastern commands). [p. 78]

8 LEX TERENTIA CASSIA. The details are controversial: see Rice Holmes,
RR
, i, 384. It is probable that Lepidus’ corn-law had been repealed soon after 78. [p. 78]

9 SPARTACUS. Sallust in his
Historiae
seems to have given a full and vivid account of the revolt, which was not completely unfavourable to Spartacus. The tradition given by Livy and the writers who depend on him was less favourable. The two chief surviving sources, Appian and Plutarch’s
Crassus
, derive in part from Sallust. For a discussion of the discrepancies and difficulties see Rice Holmes,
RR
, i, 386 ff. B. A. Marshall (
Athenaeum
, 1973, 109 ff.) follows Badian (
id.
, 1970, 6 ff.) in believing that Crassus held a praetorship before 72 (probably in 73) and that his command against Spartacus was a special grant of proconsular
imperium
to a
privatus
. See K. P. Korzera,
Klio
, 1979, 477 ff. for the treatment of Spartacus in recent Soviet historical writing. [p. 79]

10 POMPEY AND CRASSUS RETAIN THEIR ARMIES. The length of time that they did so is uncertain: see Appian, i,
BC
, 1, 21; Plut.
Crass.
12 and
Pomp.
23. For modern discussions see Rice Holmes,
RR
, i, 390 and F. B. Marsh,
Hist. Rom. World
, Appendix 5. The possibility of two reconciliations cannot be excluded. A. N. Sherwin-White (
JRS
, 1956, 5 ff.) argues that Appian is confused, that the armies were dismissed at the end of 71 and that the threat of force was remote since Pompey wanted the dignity of the
consulship rather than a new command or a revolution. In line with this he interprets Pompey’s political actions in 70 as less anti-senatorial and as less damaging to the Sullan system than is usually supposed. However that may be, Rome must have been conscious of the personal link between the general and his army, and Pompey of the need of his veterans for land. This was probably provided under a
lex Plotia agraria
(70–69 B.C.: see Cicero,
ad Att
. 1. 18. 6) which included Metellus’ Spanish veterans also; its execution was slow: see R. E. Smith,
Cl. Qu.
1957, 82 ff. and E. Gabba,
Par. Pass.
, 1950, 66 ff. (=
RR, Army
, 151 ff.)

Pompey’s rise to political power and in particular his relationships with the Metelli are discussed at length and set in a framework of factional politics by B. Twyman,
Aufstieg
, I, i. (1972), 816 ff., in contrast to the view espoused by C. Meier in
Re publica amissa
(1966; 2nd ed. 1980). D. Stockton re-assesses Pompey’s consulship in 70 (
Historia
, 1973, 205 ff.). On Pompey’s career in general see M. Gelzer,
Pompeius
(in German, 1949); J. van Ooteghem,
Pompée le Grand
(1954); R. Seager,
Pompey: a Political Biography
(1979); J. Leach,
Pompey the Great
(1978), a slightly more general book; P. Greenhalgh,
Pompey, the Roman Alexander
(1980) and (continued as)
Pompey, the Republican Prince
(1981). See also W. S. Anderson,
Pompey, his Friends and the Literature of the first Century BC
(1963).

On Crassus see A. Garzetti,
Athenaeum
, 1941, 1 ff., 1942, 12 ff., 1944–45, 1 ff.; F. E. Adcock,
Marcus Crassus, Millionaire
(1966); B. A. Marshall,
Crassus, a political Biography
(1976); A. M. Ward,
Marcus Crassus and the late Roman Republic
(1977); some problems of Crassus’ career are also discussed by J. K. Davies and others,
Liverpool Class. Monthly
, 1978, 165 ff. [p. 81]

10a CICERO AND POMPEY. On Cicero’s early relationship with Pompey see A. M. Ward,
Phoenix
, 1970, 119 ff. and
Latomus
, 1970, 58 ff. and R. J. Rowland,
Riv. stor. d’ Antichita
, 1976–77, 329 ff. [p. 82]

11 TRIBUNI AERARII. This somewhat mysterious class once consisted of army paymasters. By this time they probably included men whose property qualification (300,000–400,000 sesterces) fell just below that required for membership of the Equestrian Order. At any rate their interests were equestrian rather than senatorial. See further, Rice Holmes,
RR
, i, 391; Last,
CAH
, IX, 338; C. Nicolet,
L’Ordre Equestre
, 1 (1966), 593 ff.; T. P. Wiseman,
Historia
, 1970, 71 f., 79 f. The
lex Aurelia
is further discussed by J. L. Ferrary,
Mélanges d’arch
. 1975, 321 ff., B. A. Marshall,
Rhein. Mus.
, 1975, 136 ff. and H. Bruhns,
Chiron
1980, 263 ff. [p. 82]

12 CAESAR’S EARLY CAREER. Several minor points of chronology and the reliability of some anecdotal material remain doubtful. See H. Strasburger,
Caesars Eintritt in die Geschichte
(1938); T. R. S. Broughton,
TAPA
, 1948, 63; L. R. Taylor,
Cl. Ph.
, 1941, 121;
TAPA
, 1942, 1 ff.;
Gr. and R.
, 1957, 10 ff.; R. Syme,
JRS
, 1944, 94 f.; E. Badian,
JRS
, 1959, 81 ff. =
Studies
, 140 ff.; T. R. S. Broughton, Suppl. to
MRR
(1960). 30. For biographies and other works on Caesar, see below ch. VII, n. 30. On Caesar and the flaminate see M. Leone,
Studi E. Manni
, 193 ff. and on his capture by the pirates (dated to 75–74), A. M. Ward,
Amer. Journ Anc. Hist.
, 1977, 26 ff. [p. 82]

13 LEGES CORNELIAE. Cornelius carried a measure that praetors should administer justice in accordance with the edicts that they had issued on entering office (‘ex edictis suis perpetuis’). He proposed a severe law against men who distributed money at elections (apart from those who supplied it); a modified form of this was carried by the consul Piso, who had been elected only by scandalous bribery! Cornelius also managed to limit the granting of
privilegia
(dispensations for individuals from a law) by the Senate to meetings at which 200 members voted. With his colleague Gabinius, he secured that provincials in Rome should not, in their own interest, be allowed to
borrow money, and Gabinius secured the right of foreign embassies to meet the Senate. Cornelius’ subsequent trial for
maiestas
was doubtless the outcome of his attack on senatorial prerogatives which angered the Optimates; he was defended by Cicero (see Asconius’ commentary
In Cornelianam
). On the career of Gabinius, who avoided the possibility of trouble by going to Pompey in the East, see E. V. Sanford,
TAPA
, 1939, 64 ff., E. Badian,
Philologus
, 1959, 87 ff. and R. S. Williams,
Phoenix
, 1978, 195 ff. On Cornelius’ tribunate and subsequent trial in 65 (when he was defended by Cicero) see R. Seager,
Hommages Renard
(1969), 680 ff., A. M. Ward,
TAPA
, 1970, 554 ff. and M. Griffin,
JRS
, 1973, 196 ff. [p. 82]

14 POMPEY’S IMPERIUM. The older view that he received
imperium maius
by land as well as sea (cf. Loader,
Cl. Rev.
, 1940, 134) can hardly be maintained. It must have been
aequum
by land as stated by Velleius, 2, 31: see e.g. V. Ehrenberg,
AJP
, 1953, 117 ff. S. Jameson,
Historia
, 1970, 539 ff, after a full discussion of the evidence concludes that Pompey’s
imperium
was
maius
. [p. 82]

14a MANILIUS. On the subsequent prosecution of Manilius see E. J. Phillips,
Latomus
, 1970, 595 ff. and J. T. Ramsay,
Phoenix
, 1980, 323 ff. [p. 83]

15 SERVILIUS AND THE PIRATES. For these campaigns see H. A. Ormerod,
JRS
, 1922, 35 ff.; D. Magie,
RRAM
, 287 ff. On the status of Cilicia and Pamphylia
vis-à-vis
Rome from
c.
102 to 74 see A. N. Sherwin-White,
JRS
, 1974, 1 ff. [p. 83]