From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (61 page)

16 POMPEY’S PIRATE CAMPAIGN. See H. A. Ormerod,
Liverpool Annals of Arch.
, 1923, 46 ff. On his settlement, see A. H. M. Jones,
CERP
, 202 ff. For new inscriptions from Cyrene, see J. Reynolds,
JRS
, 1962, 97 ff. and above n. 5. On several new inscriptions which touch on the activity of the pirates see J. Reynolds,
JRS
, 1976, 179. On Pompey’s legates see P. D. Breglia,
Annali … Univ. di Napoli
, xiii, 1970–71, 47 ff. On his settlement of Cilicia, P. D. Breglia,
Rendiconti dell’Accad.d’Arch. Naples
, 1972, 327 ff. [p. 84]

17 NICOMEDES’ WILL. Although Appian and the Livian tradition record that Nicomedes bequeathed his kingdom to Rome, the Scholia Gronoviana (ed. Strangl., p. 115) says that he died intestate, and this possibly represents Sallust’s view. Caution is necessary, since the former tradition might represent an official Roman version, but since Cicero in 63 referred to Bithynia as a
hereditas (de leg. agr.
2, 40) and Sallust falsely suggested that Rome had forged Attalus’ will (ch. II, n. 38), the will should probably be accepted. [p. 85]

18 OUTBREAK OF THIRD MITHRIDATIC WAR. The date, whether 74 or 73, is uncertain. For a recent discussion, which favours 74, see T. R. S. Broughton,
MRR
, ii, 106. For a full account of the war and discussion of sources and difficulties see D. Magie,
RRAM
, 323 ff. [p. 85]

19 COTTA. Cotta was later ‘liberated’ by Lucullus, on whose
elogium
, later erected in the Forum of Augustus, is the claim: ‘conlegam suum pulsum a rege Mithridate, cum se is Calchadona contulisset, opsidione liberavit’ (Dessau,
ILS
, 60). Thereafter Cotta spent two years besieging Heraclea Pontica, which he sacked in 71. On his return to Rome he was accused by Carbo of appropriating booty and was expelled from the Senate. This is recorded in a fragment of a local history of Heraclea, written by Memnon (see ch. IV, n. 1): for a translation of this see Lewis and Reinhold,
Rn. Civ.
, I, 372. [p. 85]

20 LUCULLUS. See J. M. Cobban,
Senate and Provinces, 78–49 BC
(1935), ch. iv; J. van Ooteghem,
Lucius Licinius Lucullus
(1959), with bibliography. E. Badian, who identifies Lucullus as the one officer who marched with Sulla on Rome in 88, examines his intended settlement (
Rom. Imperialism in the Late Republic
²
(1968), 37 ff.) and concludes: ‘Lucullus’ personal ambition is by no means a negligible phenomenon. Yet it is clear that, as far as foreign policy is concerned, he still stood firmly in the senatorial tradition of minimizing administrative responsibility. He set out to win glory and
wealth for himself and (as he might argue) for the Roman People. But he did not aim to annex territory, except that of Pontus, which
mos maiorum
required him to do.’ [p. 86]

21 POMPEY AND THE CAUCASUS. The purpose of Pompey’s advance here is uncertain: possibly it was to seek a new water-frontier for the empire, but more likely the desire to add the names of unknown peoples to his battle role of victories. The view that he wanted to develop the trans-Caspian trade route to the Far East must be abandoned if this trade route had never existed as Sir W. Tarn has cogently argued (
The Greek in Bactria and India
, 112). [p. 87]

22 POMPEY AND PALESTINE. One of the chief authorities is the Jew Josephus,
Antiquit. Jud.
xiv, 1–5. See also, E. Schürer,
The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ
²
, I (1973, revised by G. Vermes and Fergus Millar), 233 ff. For possible reference to Pompey in the Dead Sea Qumran
Commentary on Habakkuk
, see Schürer, 241 f. [p. 87]

23 PETRA AND ARETAS. On Petra see M. Rostovtzeff,
Caravan Cities
, ch. ii. Scaurus later issued coins depicting Aretas kneeling as a suppliant beside a camel: see E. A. Sydenham,
CRR
, n. 912 and Crawford,
RRC
, n. 422. [p. 88]

24 POMPEY’S EASTERN SETTLEMENT. See especially Plut.
Pomp.
38; Appian,
Mithr
. 114–15; Dio Cassius, 37, 7a. Cf. A.H.M. Jones,
CERP
, 157 ff., 220 ff., 258 ff.; D. Magie,
RRAM
, ch. xv. For a brief summary of the various motives which have been attributed to Pompey in his settlement, see A. J. Marshall,
JRS
, 103, n. 3; in this article Marshall shows (from
Digest
, L. 1. 1. 2) that in Bithynia-Pontus Pompey conceded to cities the right to claim citizens on the basis of their mother’s (as well as father’s) status: this would help to stabilize the cities by extending their hold over those liable to taxation and other civic duties. For Pompey’s settlement of Syria see a useful monograph, F. P. Rizzo,
Le fonti per la storia della conquista pompeiana della Siria
(1963) and T. Frankfort,
La frontière orientale dans la politique exterieure de la république romaine
(1969). On Pompey as a founder of cities see A. Dreizehnter,
Chiron
, 1975, 213 ff. When Pompey refounded Soli in Cilicia as Pompeiopolis he placed his own portrait on the coinage (B. V. Head,
Historia Numorum
(1911), 729). [p. 88]

1 SOURCES FOR 66–50 B.C. The narrative for these years is given by Appian (
BC
, 2. 1–35) Dio Cassius (books 36–40), Livy’s
Periochae
(102–9), and writers in the Livian tradition, as Orosius, Valerius Maximus and Velleius Paterculus (2. 40–8). Sallust’s
Bellum Catilinae
deals with one episode: see below n. 4. The major source is Cicero, both Orations and Letters: these provide a more intimate picture of Roman life during these years than survives for any other period of Roman history. The more important speeches are mentioned below. The standard editions of the Letters are by R. Y. Tyrrell and L. C. Purser,
The Correspondence of Cicero
(6 vols. and Index, 1885–1933), with many introductory essays; here the letters are arranged chronologically, and those written down to 50 B.C. (nos. 1–300) are in vols. I–III, and by D. R. Shackleton Bailey,
Cicero’s Letters to Atticus
, 7 vols. (1965–70),
Cicero, Epistulae ad familiares
, 2 vols. (1977) and
Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem et M. Brutum
(1981). Shackleton Bailey has also provided translations in the Penguin Classics,
Letters to Atticus
(1978) and
Letters to his Friends
(1980). See also W. W. How and A. C. Clark,
Cicero, Select Letters
(2 vols., 1925–6). Fragments of some of Cicero’s lost speeches are preserved in a commentary (itself fragmentary) by Q. Asconius Pedianus, written between A.D. 54 and 57; some
information is also provided by the
Scholia Bobiensia
to several speeches. Cicero’s philosophical works also are important for his political thought (see also pp. 135, 170, 174 f.). Plutarch’s
Lives
include those of Pompey, Caesar (Italian edition by A. Garzetti, 1954), Crassus, Cicero (Italian edition by D. Magnino, 1963), and Cato Minor. Another biographer begins to contribute to the historiography of Rome, C. Suetonius Tranquillus (
c.
A.D. 69–140), with his life of
Divus Iulius
: see the edition by H. E. Butler and M. Cary, 1927 and cf. C. Brutscher,
Analysen zu Suetons Divus Julius und der Parallelüberlieferung
(1958). Suetonius, who was secretary to Hadrian, read widely and used both scandalous and more sober sources; he provides much valuable information, although his chronology is not always clear. For Caesar’s own writings see the next chapter. For modern biographies and other works on Cicero see n. 5 to
chapter VIII
below. [p. 90]

2 THE FIRST CATILINARIAN CONSPIRACY. See E. G. Hardy,
The Catilinarian Conspiracy
(1924), ch. ii. Suetonius (
Iul.
9) reports a rumour that by a
coup d’état
Crassus was to become dictator and Caesar his Magister Equitum; this is very improbable. Details about any supposed plot are extremely uncertain, and the existence of a conspiracy is denied by many scholars, e.g. by H. Frisch,
Cl. et Med.
, 1947, 10 ff.; P. A. Brunt,
Cl. Rev.
, 1957, 193 ff.; R. Seager,
Historia
, 1964, 338 ff. For a defence of the ancient tradition, C. E. Stevens,
Latomus
, 1963, 397 ff. The story
might
have arisen from the rioting, supported by Catiline and Cn. Piso, at the trial of Manilius for
repetundae
(cf. also B. Marshall,
Cl. Ph.
, 1977, 318 ff.). Another unlikely view of Suetonius (
Iul.
8) is that Caesar hoped to start a rising among the Transpadanes: in fact he probably only showed sympathy with their desire for full citizenship (cf. p. 82). The fact, however, that by an alien act,
lex Papia
, some Transpadanes were expelled from Rome suggests that many had come to the city to agitate. See also n. 8 below. [p. 91]

3 EGYPT. Because of some dynastic uncertainties the numeration of the Ptolemies varies between I–XIV and I–XV. Ptolemy X Alexander I, after intermittent joint rule with his brother Ptolemy IX Lathyrus, was killed in battle soon after 88. E. Badian has argued (
Rhein. Mus.
, 1967, 178 ff.) that it was he who made the testament and not, as usually believed, Ptolemy XI Alexander II in 80. The remarkable aspect is that the Senate made no attempt to accept the legacy and to annex one of the richest lands in the world. [p. 91]

4 SALLUST AND CATILINE. Sallust (
Cat.
16, 4 ff.) wrongly assigns Catiline’s revolutionary schemes to 64. This is possibly due to carelessness, as Sallust was often weak on chronology, but more probably derives from the political bias of his
Bellum Catilinae
. This was published soon after Caesar’s death as a pro-Caesarian pamphlet. Sallust wished to show that Caesar was not implicated in the main conspiracy of 63: he may therefore have ante-dated the beginning of the plot to 64 when Caesar could hardly be suspected of implication in it. (Caesar may have favoured Catiline’s election in 64, but as a potential tool, not as a revolutionary.) Cf. also L. A. MacKay,
Phoenix
, 1962, 181 ff. [p. 92]

5 CICERO’S ELECTION. Some fragments of Cicero’s
In Toga Candida
are preserved in Asconius’ Commentary (A. C. Clark, O.C.T.). Advice on electioneering methods was given to Cicero in a pamphlet
De Petitione Consulatus
or
Commentariolum Petitionis
, ascribed to his brother Quintus (see e.g. Tyrrell and Purser,
Correspondence of Cicero
, i, Ep. 12). This ascription is doubted by some (e.g. M. I. Henderson,
JRS
, 1950, 8 ff., and R. G. M. Nisbet,
JRS
, 1961, 84 ff.), but is accepted by others (as F. Münzer, H. Last and recently R. Till,
Historia
, 1962, 415 ff.). Mrs. Henderson’s arguments are countered by J. P. V. D. Balsdon,
Cl. Qu.
, 1963, 242 ff. Even if not by Quintus, it may contain contemporary material. The
Commentariolum
is discussed by J. M. David and others,
Aufstieg
, I, 3 (1973), 239 ff. [p. 92]

6 RULLUS’ LAW (
lex Servilia
). On Cicero’s speeches
De lege agraria
see E. G. Hardy,
Some Problems of Roman History
, 68 ff.; A. Afzelius,
Cl. et Med.
, 1940, 214 ff. G. V. Sumner,
TAPA
, 1966, 569 ff., argues that the measure was partly designed to meet Pompey’s needs: Caesar probably supported it as Pompey’s
amicus
, Crassus was inactive, and Cicero opposed because he disliked agrarian distribution. A. M. Ward,
Historia
, 1972, 244 ff. supports the more traditional view that in the proposal to annex Egypt in the Rullan land bill Crassus and Caesar were working together against Cicero and Pompey. [p. 92]

7 RABIRIUS. See Hardy,
op. cit.
, 99 ff., also L. Havas,
Acta Classica Debrecen
, 1976, 19 ff.; E. J. Phillips,
Klio
, 1974, 87 ff. [p. 93]

8 THE CATILINARIAN CONSPIRACY. For a discussion of the various problems see Hardy,
The Catilinarian Conspiracy
(1924 =
JRS
, 1917, 153–228); Rice Holmes,
RR
, 455 ff. See also N. Criniti, ‘Studi recenti su Catilina’,
Aevum
, 1967, 370 ff.,
Bibliografia Catilinaria
(1971) and (on Catiline’s reputation)
Contrib. Istit. stor. ant. Univ. S. Cu. Milan
, 1975, 121 ff. Z. Yavetz,
Historia
, 1963, 485 ff., attributes Catiline’s failure to a dropping off of the support of the plebs, especially shopkeepers, since the proposed abolition of debts was a temporary expedient rather than a basic social reform. K. H. Waters has argued (
Historia
, 1970, 195 ff.) that the Catilinarian affair has been grossly exaggerated, not least by Cicero, and that there is no real evidence for a planned coup before Catiline left Rome to prepare for an armed rising. R. Seager (
Historia
, 1973, 240 ff.) also thinks that Cicero presented as parts of a grand revolutionary scheme elements (the activities of Catiline himself, Manlius’ rising in Etruria and the doings of Lentulus and his confederates in Rome) which were in fact only loosely connected. In contrast to Waters and Seager, E. J. Phillips (
Historia
, 1976, 441 ff.) emphasizes the real danger from Catiline. C. R. Bradlem,
Cl. Ph.
, 1978, 329 ff., regards Catiline’s slave followers as runaways, not recruits. [p. 93]

9 CICERO’S PRO MURENA. In the middle of these anxious days Cicero defended the consul-elect, L. Licinius Murena, who was accused of bribery; one of the prosecutors was Cato. Though Murena was guilty, Cicero argued that the state must have two consuls ready for the beginning of the next year in view of the dangers of the times, but he conducted the defence with a light touch; Murena was acquitted. Soon afterwards in 62 Cicero defended P. Sulla on a charge of complicity with Catiline, and also helped to vindicate the claim of his teacher Archias to Roman citizenship. [p. 93]

10 CICERO’S EXECUTION OF THE CONSPIRATORS. For a discussion of some of the legal issues involved see H. Last,
JRS
, 1943, 93 ff., who also draws attention to Sallust’s references to threats to release the prisoners by force, which may well have affected the question of their fate and help to explain the Senate’s backing for Cicero’s quick action. T. N. Mitchell (
Historia
, 1971, 47 ff.) discusses Cicero’s attitude to the
Senatus consultum ultimum
and concludes that this measure was designed to substitute in time of danger, the sovereignty of the Senate for that of individuals. [p. 94]

11 POMPEY AND NEPOS. Nepos, whose brother Metellus Celer was Pompey’s brother-in-law, had been Pompey’s legate in the East and now represented his interests in Rome. Nepos’ mission and the resultant events are regarded by C. Meier,
Athenaeum
, 1962, 103 ff., as decisive for Pompey’s future. Cf. also E. J. Parrish,
Phoenix
, 1973, 387 ff. [p. 95]

12 PERSONAL AMBITION. On this see C. Wirzubski,
Libertas as a Political Idea
(1950), esp. 64 f. A treatise on kingship by the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus (preserved on papyrus at Herculaneum) was dedicated to Piso, consul in 58. It advocates moderation in rule and its message was presumably directed to the
principes viri
of this period. See Oswyn Murray,
JRS
, 1965, 161 ff. (173 ff. for its political purpose). [p. 95]

13 OTIUM CUM DIGNITATE. On the meaning and history of this slogan see C. Wirszubski,
JRS
, 1954, 1 ff.; J. P. V. D. Balsdon,
Cl. Qu.
, 1960, 46 ff. [p. 95]

13a THE CLODIUS AFFAIR. See J. P. V. D. Balsdon,
Historia
, 1966, 65 ff., and on bribery at the trial T. Loposko,
Athenaeum
, 1978, 288 ff. [p. 96]

14 ASIATIC TAX CONTRACT. See J. P. V. D. Balsdon,
JRS
, 1962, 135 ff. [p. 96]

15 THE FIRST TRIUMVIRATE. On its crucial importance see R. Syme,
The Roman Revolution
(1939), ch. i, who adopts the same starting point as Pollio, in this outstanding study of the period from 60 B.C. to A.D. 14. Cf. also the remarks of C. Wirszubski,
Libertas
, 74 ff. The date of the formation of the triumvirate is uncertain. All sources (except Suetonius) place at least a limited agreement between Caesar and Pompey before the elections of 60, though the full agreement of the three men may have been later in the year. Cf. Rice Holmes,
RR
, i, 474 ff. G. Zecchini,
Rendi. Ist. Lomb
, 1975, 399 ff., attributes the agreement to Caesar and to two stages, before and after the elections of 60. G. R. Stanton and B. A. Marshall,
Historia
, 1975, 205 ff., regard Pompey and Crassus as the moving spirits. On the career of Afranius see M. Malavolta,
Miscell. Gr. e. Rom.
, 1977, 251 ff. [p. 97]

16 SILVAE CALLESQUE. Thus Suetonius (
D. J.
, 19, 2), the sole source. This statement has been challenged by, e.g., J. P. V. D. Balsdon,
JRS
, 1939, 180 ff., as a misunderstanding for Italy, but is widely accepted. Balsdon’s view is supported further by P. J. Rhodes,
Historia
, 1978, 617 ff.: Italy was declared a token province to allow the Senate more time to assess the threat of danger from Gaul. [p. 97]

17 CAESAR’S LEGISLATION. The order and dating of his measures are uncertain, but probably the agrarian law came before the
lex Vatinia
; the first measure may have been carried by the end of January, the
lex Campana
near the end of May. For a discussion see L. R. Taylor,
AJP
, 1951, 254 ff., and (for a revised view)
Historia
, 1968, 173 ff.; C. Meier,
Historia
, 1961, 19 ff.; J. Linderski,
Historia
, 1965, 423 ff. The
lex Iulia de repetundis
is dated Aug. or Sept. by S. I. Oost,
AJP
, 1956, 19 ff. R. E. Smith,
Phoenix
, 1964, 303 ff., regards Caesar’s first consulship as sealing the doom of the Republic. After attacking Caesar in edicts and pamphlets Bibulus adopted more obstructive tactics, designed to prevent business in the Comitia and to thwart Caesar; these consisted in shutting himself up at home and announcing that he was ‘observing the sky’ for omens. But, as pointed out by A. W. Lintott,
Violence in Republican Rome
(1968), 144 f., an announcement of an omen, to be valid, had to be made in person and therefore Bibulus’
servatio
from his house could technically be ignored by Caesar and did not invalidate the latter’s
acta
. On attempts to make Caesar respect the auspices see C. Meier,
Museum Helveticum
, 1975, 197 ff. On the chronology of Caesar’s legislation see further, R. Seager,
Pompey
(1979), 190 ff. [p. 98]

18 VATINIUS. On his career see L. G. Pocock,
A Commentary on Cicero In Vatinium
, an invective which Cicero delivered in 56 when he was defending P. Sestius (a quaestor of 63 who had helped him against Catiline); Vatinius was a witness against Sestius. In 59 Cicero unsuccessfully defended his former consular colleague Antonius when charged with extortion (the speech is not extant) and successfully defended L. Flaccus (speech extant). [p. 98]