ANCIENT ROME

In this second edition, Ancient Rome presents an extensive range of material, from
the early Republic to the death of Augustus, with two new chapters on the Second
Triumvirate and The Age of Augustus. Dillon and Garland have also included
more extensive late Republican and Augustan sources on social developments, as
well as further information on the Golden Age of Roman literature.
Providing comprehensive coverage of all important documents pertaining to
the Roman Republic and the Augustan age, Ancient Rome includes:

• source material on political and military developments in the Roman Republic

and Augustan age (509 BC–AD 14)
• detailed chapters on social phenomena, such as Roman religion, slavery and
freedmen, women and the family, and the public face of Rome
• clear, precise translations of documents taken not only from historical
sources but also from inscriptions, laws and decrees, epitaphs, graffiti, public
speeches, poetry, private letters and drama
• concise up-to-date bibliographies and commentaries for each document and
chapter
• a definitive collection of source material on the Roman Republic and early
empire.

Students of ancient Rome and classical studies will find this new edition of the
sourcebook, and the companion textbook The Ancient Romans, invaluable at all
levels of study.

Matthew Dillon is Associate Professor of Ancient History, School of Humanities,

University of New England, Australia. His main research interests are ancient Greek
history and religion. With Lynda Garland, he is the author of Ancient Greece: Social
and Historical Documents from Archaic Times to the Death of Alexander, Third
Edition (Routledge, 2010) and The Ancient Greeks (Routledge, 2012).

Lynda Garland is a Professor of Medieval History, University of New England,

Australia. Her main research interests are in the areas of Byzantine Studies, the
crusades and ancient history.
Routledge Sourcebooks for the Ancient World

Women in the Ancient Near East, edited by Mark Chavalas

Historians of Ancient Rome, Third Edition, Ronald Mellor
Trials from Classical Athens, Second Edition, Christopher Carey
Ancient Greece, Third Edition, Matthew Dillon and Lynda Garland
Readings in Late Antiquity, Second Edition, Michael Maas
Greek and Roman Education, Mark Joyal, J.C. Yardley and Iain McDougall
The Republican Roman Army, Michael M. Sage
The Story of Athens, Phillip Harding
Roman Social History, Tim Parkin and Arthur Pomeroy
Death in Ancient Rome, Valerie Hope
Ancient Rome, Second Edition, Matthew Dillon and Lynda Garland
Sexuality in Greek and Roman Literature, Marguerite Johnson and Terry Ryan
Athenian Political Oratory, David Phillips
Greek Science of the Hellenistic Era, Georgia Irby-Massie and Paul Keyser
Women and Law in the Roman Empire, Judith Evans Grubbs
Warfare in Ancient Greece, Michael M. Sage
The Government of the Roman Empire, Barbara Levick
Pagans and Christians in Late Antiquity, A.D. Lee
Ancient Greek Laws, Ilias Arnaoutoglou
Trials from Classical Athens, Christopher Carey
Greek and Roman Technology, John Humphrey, John Oleson and Andrew Sherwood
Roman Italy 388 BC–AD 200, Kathryn Lomas
The Roman Army 31 BC–AD 337, Brian Campbell
The Roman Household, Jane F. Gardner and Thomas Wiedemann
Athenian Politics, G.R. Stanton
Greek and Roman Slavery, Thomas Wiedemann

Forthcoming:
The Roman Household, Jane F. Gardner and Thomas Wiedemann
Travel in the Roman Mind, Richard Talbert and Grant Parker
Ancient City of Rome, Christopher Smith, J.C.N. Coulston and Hazel Dodge
Pagans and Christians in Late Antiquity, Second Edition, A.D. Lee
Greek Religion, Emma Stafford and Nick Fisher
ANCIENT ROME
Social and Historical Documents
from the Early Republic to the
Death of Augustus

Second edition

Matthew Dillon
and
Lynda Garland
 First published 2005
This second edition published 2015
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2005, 2015 M. Dillon and L. Garland
The right of Matthew Dillon and Lynda Garland to be identified as authors
of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78
of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN: 978-0-415-72698-6 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-415-72699-3 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-70924-6 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Roman

by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK
 Contents

Preface to the Second Edition xi

Glossary xiii
How to Use and Cite Ancient Rome xix
Map of Rome’s Conquest of Italy xxi
Map of the Roman Empire at the Death of Augustus xxii

1 Early Republican Rome: 507–264 BC 1

Geography and location 4
The forum 7
Senate and magistracies 9
The assemblies and tribunate 14
The beginnings of the ‘Conflict of the Orders’ 17
Rome and its Italian neighbours 20
The origins of the Twelve Tables 21
The XII Tables 22
The Supplementary Tables 26
The Conflict of the Orders continues 27
Polybius on the Roman constitution 35
Rome’s struggle for Italy 37
Rome and the Latins 38
The Samnite wars and Pyrrhus 40

2 The Public Face of Rome 47

The infrastructure of the city 49
Communications and public works 51
The ideology of the Roman senatorial class 54
Conspicuous consumption in Rome 59
Gloria 62
The Roman triumph 65
Candidature for office 68
The novus homo 75
Amicitia 77
Clientela and patrocinium 80
Litigation as a way of life 86

v
 CONTENTS
The importance of oratory 88
‘Bread and circuses’ 92

3 Religion in the Roman Republic 100

Early deities and cults 104
Early hymns and rituals 109
Priesthoods 114
Roman purificatory rituals 117
Ritual utterances 119
The calendar 120
Sacrifice 122
Divination 125
Augury 131
The sacred chickens 134
Dedications and vows 135
The introduction of new gods 137
The Bacchanalia, 186 BC 141
Curse tablets and sympathetic magic 145
Festivals 147
Religion and politics 149
Funerary practices 150

4 The Punic Wars: Rome against Carthage 154

Rome’s treaties with Carthage: 508, 348, 279 BC 159
The First Punic War: Sicily 162
The last years 169
Roman success 170
The Second Punic War 172
Hannibal 175
Whose fault: Rome or Carthage? 178
War in Italy 180
Catastrophe for Rome 181
The impact on the allies 189
The tide turns 191
The Metaurus, 22 June 207 BC 194
Scipio Africanus 195
Peace terms 199
The Third Punic War, 151–146 BC 200

5 Rome’s Mediterranean Empire 205

The ideology of Roman military supremacy 208
The ideology of the military hero 210
The Roman army 213
Polybius on Rome’s military system 214
Military technology 217
Military discipline 219

vi
 CONTENTS
Rome’s conquest of the Mediterranean 221
Antiochus III ‘the Great’ 224
Rome as master of the Mediterranean 228
Rome’s imperialist stance 231
Rome’s conquest of Greece 235
The Western Mediterranean 237
The impact of Greek culture on Rome 243
Rome and the provinces 251

6 Slaves and Freedmen 257

Slave numbers in Republican Rome 259
Sources of slaves 261
Domestic slaves 264
The treatment of slaves 268
Slaves in industry and manufacture 271
Slaves and the entertainment industry 272
Farm slaves: their occupations and training 274
Slaves and the law 278
Runaways and fugitives 281
Slave revolts 282
The manumission of slaves 287
The occupations of freedmen 290
Funerary inscriptions 294
Slaves and freedmen of the imperial household 295

7 Women, Sexuality and the Family 298

Family law 300
The formalities of marriage 304
Old-fashioned families 309
Family relationships 312
Wives and their role 316
Marital discord 322
Adultery, conspiracy and sorcery 325
Heterosexual love: Catullus and Lesbia 328
Homosexuality 333
Prostitution 337
Women as owners and consumers 338
Women and the gods 345
Women’s festivals 345
The Bona Dea 350
The Vestal Virgins 352
Coinage and the Vestals 355

8 Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus 356

Family background 359
The tribunate of Tiberius, 133 BC 361
Tiberius and the senate 368

vii
 CONTENTS
Boundary stones of the Gracchan period 371
The aftermath of Tiberius’ legislation 372
The career of Gaius Gracchus 374
Gaius’ legislation 377
Assassination and reprisals 381
Failure of the Gracchan reforms 384
Later views of the Gracchi 386

9 Marius 389
Marius’ early career 392
Marius in Africa 395
Marius and Sulla 399
Marius and the Germans 401
Army reforms 404
Marius and the optimates 406
Saturninus and the land law 408
Marius’ later career 412
Coinage 415

10 The Social War 416

The restriction of Roman citizenship 418
Marcus Livius Drusus 419
The Social War 423
Brothers-in-arms 425
The emergence of L. Cornelius Sulla 428
Citizenship for the Italians 429
Coinage in the Social War 435

11 Lucius Cornelius Sulla ‘Felix’ 437

Sulla’s early career 440
Mithridates VI of Pontus 441
The origins of the civil war 443
Sulla and Mithridates 444
Events in Rome 447
Sulla’s supporters 449
Sulla’s proscriptions 451
Dictatorship and constitutional reforms 455
Legislation 458
Sulla in retirement 464
Sulla’s abdication, 79 BC 465
Later views of Sulla 466
Coinage, 87–81 BC 467

12 The Collapse of the Republic 469

The aftermath of Sulla 473
The consulship of 70 BC 476
Pompey’s extrordinary commands 478

viii
 CONTENTS
The Catilinarian conspiracy, 63 BC 482
Cicero and his times 489
Pompey’s return from the East 492
Cicero and Pompey 495
The events of 60 BC 497
The first triumvirate 501
Caesar’s consulship 502
Clodius and Cicero 510
Cato the Younger in Cyprus 512
Cicero’s return 514
Pompey’s grain command, 57 BC 517
Caesar in Gaul 519
The conference at Luca, 56 BC 521
The consulship of Crassus and Pompey 526
The events of 54 BC 527
Crassus in Parthia 530
Caesar and Britain 531

13 Civil War and Dictatorship 537

Anarchy in Rome 539
Pompey as sole consul, 52 BC 541
The lead up to civil war 544
The events of 50 BC 548
The flight of the tribunes 556
Crossing the Rubicon 558
Cicero’s view of events 560
Civil war 563
Pompey and his followers 567
Caesar’s dictatorships 572
Caesar’s legislation 576
Caesar and his image 582
The Ides of March 585
Coinage 588

14 Octavian’s rise to power 589

Antony and Octavian 596
The aftermath of Caesar’s assassination 598
Octavian arrives in Italy 600
Octavian and popular support 604
Cicero and Antony 610
Cicero and Octavian 614
Triumvirate and proscriptions 618
The ‘liberators’ and civil war 625
Dispossession, Fulvia and Lucius Antonius 629
Antony’s reorganisation of the East 631
Events in Italy 635

ix
 CONTENTS
Antony, Cleopatra and Parthia 641
Propaganda and invective 644
Civil war 648
Gaius Cornelius Gallus 652
Octavian’s return 653
Princeps and Augustus 655

15 The Age of Augustus 662

The Res Gestae Divi Augusti 669
Principal events 680
Augustus’ constitutional position 681
Augustus ‘Imperator’ 687
Augustus and traditional religion 692
Marriage, divorce and adultery 694
The lex Papia Poppaea, AD 9 698
The ludi Saeculares 700
Marcellus and Agrippa 706
Augustus and imperial cult 716
Legislation on slaves and freedmen 722
Family life 725
Augustus as administrator 732
Senators and new men 737
Maecenas and Augustan literature 739
The Golden Years 748
Disappointment and disaster 751
The end of an age 758
Views of Augustus and his regime 761

16 The Ancient Sources 764

Epigraphy 764
The Roman annalistic tradition 765
Historians and annalists 766
Cicero 778
Strabo 780
Biographers 780
Antiquarians and scholars 784
Poets 788

Abbreviations of Personal Names and Magistracies 796

Abbreviations of Journals, Editions of Inscriptions,
Commentaries and Frequently Cited Works 797
Bibliography 799
Index of Ancient Sources 821
General Index 828

x
 Preface to the Second Edition

This second edition of Ancient Rome: Social and Historical Documents from the
Early Republic to the Death of Augustus owes its existence to all those readers
who found the first edition of use and who commented on its strengths and omis-
sions. We have been prompted by these comments to produce a second edition
rather than reprinting the original Ancient Rome, and are especially pleased that
a number of scholars have found these translated documents useful resources for
their publications.
This second edition of Ancient Rome has been expanded in its historical
range down to the death of Augustus in AD 14 and so has a new title: Ancient
Rome: Social and Historical Documents from the Early Republic to the Death
of Augustus. Over the last ten years since the publication of the first edition, the
authors have become convinced that it was necessary to give a fuller historical
treatment of Roman history so that users of the book could follow what was hap-
pening in Rome during the Second Triumvirate and the principate of Augustus.
This also means that the social history chapters in this volume have been expanded
to include documents from this half-century down to AD 14, giving a wider and
more detailed indication of what Roman society was like during this period.
In addition we feel that there is need for a textbook, to appear in conjunction
with this second edition, which will give the full background to the texts trans-
lated in Ancient Rome. This textbook, The Ancient Romans: History and Culture
from the Early Republic to the Death of Augustus, has the same chapter titles as
Ancient Rome and will provide students with the necessary background knowl-
edge and detailed information for an understanding of each historical period and
social aspects of the Roman world. In this, it will parallel our textbook The Ancient
Greeks: History and Culture from Archaic Times to the Death of Alexander the
Great (2012), which accompanies the sourcebook Ancient Greece: Social and
Historical Documents from Archaic Times to the Death of Alexander the Great
(c. 800–323 BC) (2010). The Ancient Romans will also include a wide range of
maps, illustrations and photographs, as well as chronological tables and family
trees.
Due to the additional material in this second edition, many of the extensive
comments accompanying individual documents have been reduced in scope and

xi
 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
size in Ancient Rome itself. What we aim to give here is enough commentary on
each document to make it comprehensible, with the overall background to be
provided in the textbook. Our teaching from Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome
over the last twenty years has also taught us that less is often more, and, while we
have tried to give the necessary context for each document, we have tried not to
‘overload’ students with information in this sourcebook.
We give especial thanks to all our students over the last twenty years, not just
at the University of New England but to all those who have used this book in the
United States, the UK, Ireland and Germany, as well as in Australia and New
Zealand. We would like to thank Routledge most sincerely for the invitation to
write a second edition.
As far as a dedication is concerned, we would like to offer this book, once
again, with all our thanks and best wishes, to our students in all areas of Ancient
History, past, present and future, as well as to liberis nostris dilectissimis,
who are now at universities of their own, with assurances not only that this book
on which we have been working for ‘hundreds of years’ has finally been com-
pleted but also that we have yet another in progress. A further dedication, there-
fore, is to collega nostro optimo maxximo, who will be collaborating with us on
this new sourcebook and textbook, which will cover the imperial period from
Tiberius to Constantine.
Armidale, Australia
October 2014

xii
 Glossary

Aedile: one of four lesser magistrates (two curule, two plebeian) elected in the
comitia tributa. Their main duties concerned the infrastructure of the city
of Rome as well as the organisation of public games (the ludi Romani and
Megalensia by the curule aediles, the ludi Ceriales and Plebeii by the plebe-
ian aediles). The aedileship was not an essential rung in the cursus honorum.
Ager publicus: land under Roman public ownership, generally confiscated during
wars in Italy. It was leased out by the censors to occupiers for a minimal rent.
Ambitio: ‘Walking around’, or candidature for office. There was no pejorative
meaning attached.
Ambitus: the act of acquiring support during candidature for office through illegal
means, such as bribery.
Amicitia: an informal political alliance (literally ‘friendship’) in which amici
(‘friends’) provided mutually beneficial services.
Apparitor: an official attendant to a magistrate.
As: the smallest bronze coin. Ten asses equalled a denarius, two and a half
equalled a sesterce.
Assembly: see comitia.
Atrium: the main reception room of a Roman house, containing a rectangular
opening in the roof below which was a pool (the impluvium).
Auctoritas: the ability to influence people and events through one’s status (i.e., as
a magistrate) or one’s personal reputation.
Augur: a member of the priestly college of augures, concerned with divination.
Augurs took the auspices prior to the undertaking of military campaigns and
before public meetings. From 300 BC five of the nine augurs were plebeians.
Auspicium: the right to take auspices (to consult the will of the gods) before elec-
tions and other public business. Auspicium was possessed by both senior
magistrates (greater auspices) and junior magistrates (lesser auspices).
Basilica: a large building for public use, which might contain law-courts, shops,
banking institutions and offices.
Boni: the ‘good’ or ‘honest’ men, a term which by the first century BC had come
to mean the conservative element in government; see optimates.
Bulla: a locket worn by freeborn boys prior to assuming the toga of manhood.

xiii
 GLOSSARY
Campus Martius: the ‘Field of Mars’; this lay outside the pomerium and was the
assembly point for armies awaiting their commander’s triumph, a training-
ground, and the site of the comitia centuriata. The lustratio, the closing cer-
emony of the census, was performed there by the censors.
Capite censi: the ‘head count’, Roman citizens too poor to belong to one of the
five economic classes in the comitia centuriata and, before the reforms of
Marius, below the minimum property qualification for army service.
Censor: the most senior of Roman magistrates, though without imperium; in the later
Republic two were elected every five years for a period of 18 months. Their
duties included conducting a census of all citizens, letting out contracts for public
works, and scrutinising the membership of the senate and equestrian class.
Census: a census was conducted every five years by the censors to update the list
of Roman citizens, their family, and their property qualification.
Clientela: clientship or patronage. Clients were free men (including freedmen)
who received the protection of a patron (often in legal matters), in return sup-
porting him in political life and enhancing his prestige.
Cognomen (plural: cognomina): the final name of a Roman citizen, denoting the branch
of the gens to which he belonged; cognomina were generally assigned on the basis
of some defect – Cicero (wart), Brutus (stupid) – or were formally granted to com-
memorate a great military victory (Numidicus, Africanus, Dalmaticus). In aris-
tocratic families more than one cognomen could be hereditary (e.g., the Cornelii
Scipiones Nasicae). Adoptive sons took their adoptive father’s name but could add
an additional cognomen from their original nomen, such as Publius Cornelius Scipio
who also took the name Aemilianus, because he was the son of L. Aemilius Paullus.
Collegia: societies, such as the priestly colleges, the collegium of the tribunes of
the plebs, or work-related organisations.
Comitia: an assembly, or formal gathering of the Roman people.
Comitia centuriata: a political assembly (initially a military assembly) in which
the people were organised by classes on an economic basis, favouring the
wealthy. It met on the Campus Martius, elected consuls, praetors and censors,
heard treason trials, declared war and peace, and passed laws.
Comitia curiata: the earliest assembly, whose functions were gradually sub-
sumed by the comitia centuriata. By the late Republic it primarily ratified the
appointment of priests, adoptions and wills.
Comitia tributa: a political assembly organised on the basis of the 35 tribes (four
urban, the others rural), which elected curule aediles, quaestors and military
tribunes, and passed laws. It met initially in the comitium (to the north-east of
the forum) and then in the forum itself.
Concilium plebis: a plebeian assembly, which elected tribunes of the plebs and
plebeian aediles, enacted plebiscites, and held non-capital trials.
Consularis: an ex-consul. Consulars had great prestige in the senate.
Consuls: the two senior magistrates, with imperium and auspicium. The consuls’
primary duties were military and their imperium was senior to that of any
other magistrate (except that of a dictator) or provincial governor.
Consul suffectus: a substitute consul (suffect-consul) who took over the office
for part of the year in the event that a consul died in office or was removed.

xiv
 GLOSSARY
Contio (plural: contiones): a public meeting of an informal nature, which could
be called by a tribune of the plebs or another magistrate, used for preliminary
discussion of laws or other business.
Curia (hostilia): the senate house in the forum Romanum (or the senatorial body in
a municipality). Curia also meant a tenth of each of the three earliest tribes in
the time of the kings and was the unit on which the comitia curiata was based.
Cursus honorum: the ‘road of honour’ or career path. It was necessary to serve
as quaestor and praetor before running for the consulship, and the lex Villia
annalis in 180 BC (updated by Sulla) prescribed set intervals between each
magistracy and minimum ages for candidature.
Curule chair: the sella curulis, originally Etruscan, a backless stool made of ivory,
reserved for consuls, praetors and curule aediles as a sign of rank.
Dedicitii: peoples who had unconditionally surrendered to Rome by making a
deditio in fidem (surrendering to Rome’s good faith).
Denarius: a silver coin, usually the largest denomination in the Republic; 10 asses
made a denarius (or four sesterces) and 6,250 denarii a silver talent. A dena-
rius was roughy equivalent to the Greek drachma.
Dictator: an extraordinary magistrate who, before Sulla, held power for a fixed
period of time (six months or less) either to command an army or to hold
elections. The dictator was preceded by 24 lictors and existing magistrates
were subordinate to him. He appointed a master of horse (magister equitum)
as his second-in-command.
Dignitas: a man’s personal standing based on his achievements and reputation.
Drachma: a Greek coin roughly equivalent to the Roman denarius.
Duumvir, duoviri: chief magistrate or magistrates in Italian towns or Roman colonies.
Emancipation: the act of freeing a son or daughter from dependence (patria potestas);
the emancipated person became legally independent (sui iuris) of the father.
Equites (sing.: eques): the equites, or equestrian order, were originally the cavalry
and later the business class.
Fasces: a bundle of birch rods tied with leather thongs, carried by 12 lictors before
the consuls (on alternate months); praetors were allowed six lictors. The fas-
ces, which outside of Rome included an axe, symbolised the power of the
kings and then the magistrates to punish citizens.
Fasti: the calendar listing festivals of the gods and days on which assemblies and
business could or could not be held. Fasti consulares listed magistrates, fasti
triumphales triumphs.
Flamen (plural: flamines): a member of the college of pontifices, a priest in charge of
the worship of a particular deity, such as the flamen dialis (the priest of Jupiter).
Forum Romanum: a forum was an open-air meeting place. The main forum in
Rome was the forum Romanum, the chief public square, where the comitia
tributa was held (from 145 BC), the senate-house was sited, and most public
business, such as law-suits, took place.
Gens (plural: gentes): a clan whose members shared the same nomen or fam-
ily name, such as Cornelius, Julius, Licinius or Pompeius, and who could
trace their descent back to a common ancestor. Groups within a gens could
be distinguished by different cognomina: members of the gens Cornelius,

xv
 GLOSSARY
for example, could be distinguished by cogomina such as (Cornelius) Cinna,
Dolabella, Lentulus, Scipio and Sulla.
Haruspices (sing.: haruspex): diviners or soothsayers, members of the Etruscan
aristocracy, concerned particularly with examining the entrails of animals
after sacrifice.
Hospitium: ritualised friendship, often hereditary, maintained particularly between
Romans and non-Romans in Italy and elsewhere.
Ides: the thirteenth day of every month, except March, May, July and October,
when they fell on the fifteenth.
Imagines (sing.: imago): masks of ancestors kept in the atrium and carried in
funeral processions. The rank of censor, consul, praetor or aedile conferred
the right to keep such imagines.
Imperator: a commander-in-chief or general, especially one who had won a great
victory and been hailed by his troops.
Imperium: supreme power, including command in war and the execution of law,
possessed by senior magistrates for their year of office (or longer if prorogued).
Imperium was symbolised by the fasces, carried by the lictors. Imperium pro
praetore: the imperium possessed by a propraetor, prorogued after his year in
office as praetor; imperium pro consule: the imperium possessed by a proconsul.
Interrex (plural: interreges): literally ‘between the kings’, a patrician member of
the senate with full imperium appointed to conduct business for five days in
cases where the consuls had been killed and elections had not yet been held.
Iugera (sing.: iugerum): a unit of land measurement, roughly equivalent to 5/8 of
an acre or 1/4 of a hectare.
Kalends: the first day of the month.
Latifundia: estates in Sicily and Italy consisting of large areas of farming land,
usually worked by slaves.
Lectisternium: a public ceremony in which a meal was offered to deities, the gods
being represented by images laid on couches.
Legate: a senior member of a general’s military staff who was of senatorial rank.
Lex (plural: leges): a law passed by one of the assemblies of the Roman people.
Lictors: Roman citizens who accompanied senior magistrates with imperium and
carried the fasces.
Ludi: games put on at the state’s expense and organised by the aediles, who often
contributed to the expense to win popularity with the electorate.
Lustrum: the five-year period during which the censors technically served (though
they were actually in office only for 18 months) and the purification cer-
emony (lustrum) with which one of the censors, chosen by lot, concluded the
five-yearly census of the Roman people.
Magister equitum: the master of the horse, a dictator’s second-in-command.
Manumission: the act of freeing a slave. Freed slaves (freedmen) automatically
became citizens.
Manus: literally ‘hand’, the authority which a husband could possess over his
wife if she was married ‘in manu’ (i.e., came into his authority); in this case
she entered her husband’s family. For women to be married ‘in manu’ was
uncommon by the end of the Republic.

xvi
 GLOSSARY
Municipium: a township in Italy, or in the provinces, with its own magistrates and
own citizen rights.
Nobilis (plural: nobiles): literally ‘known men’, members of the families which
formed the political elite of Rome, which came to mean that one of the fam-
ily’s ancestors had held the consulship. The nobiles tended to dominate,
though not exclusively, the higher magistrates.
Nomen: family name of a citizen, such as Cornelius, Julius or Tullius, denoting
the gens to which he belonged. Daughters were called by the feminine form
of the nomen: i.e., Cornelia, Julia, Tullia.
Nomenclator: a slave whose job was to remember the names of his master’s asso-
ciates, clients and voters.
Nones: the fifth day of every month, except March, May, July and October, when
it was the seventh.
Novus homo (plural: novi homines): literally a ‘new man’, or non-nobilis, none
of whose ancestors had held the consulship (such as Marius or Cicero) or
perhaps even reached senatorial rank.
Nundina (plural: nundinae): a market-day; markets were held eight days apart;
three market-days (at least 17 days) had to pass before a bill which had been
presented could be put to the vote.
Optimates: literally ‘the best’, another term for the boni or conservative element
in government, contrasted in the first century BC with the populares.
Paterfamilias: the male head of the family, with potestas over all household mem-
bers who had not been emancipated.
Patria potestas: literally ‘power of the father’, the power of the head of the family
over all descendants (unless emancipated).
Patricians: the first Roman aristocracy which originated under the monarchy,
hence a privileged group of senatorial families.
Peculium: property that a father or master allowed a son or a slave to hold as his own.
Plebeians: non-patricians, members of the plebs, the mass of Roman citizens, who
had their own officials (tribunes of the plebs and plebeian aediles).
Pomerium: the religious boundary of Rome.
Pontiff (plural: pontifices): one of a college of priests who advised on sacred cer-
emonial. Their number was increased to eight in 300 BC and to 15 by Sulla.
The pontifex maximus was the chief of these.
Populares (sing.: popularis): literally ‘supporters of the people’, politicians who
proposed popular measures, generally bypassing the senate in doing so and
going directly to the people.
Praenomen: a Roman man’s first name. Only some 18 personal names were in use
in the Republic, such as Gaius, Lucius, Marcus, Publius.
Praetor: a senior magistrate, with imperium and auspicium; praetors were ini-
tially the senior magistrates, and after the appointment of consuls a praetor
could perform consular duties in the consuls’ absence. They were generally
in charge of the administration of law in Rome. From c. 244 BC there were
two praetors, the praetor urbanus (for Rome) and a praetor peregrinus (for
foreigners and non-citizens). Their number was increased to eight under
Sulla.

xvii
 GLOSSARY
Princeps: ‘first’ or ‘chief’, a title used from the time of Augustus to denote the emperor.
Princeps senatus: the ‘leader of the senate’; a patrician ex-consular or ex-censor who
had the right to speak first on any motion in the senate. The position was for life.
Privatus: a private citizen, with no military rank.
Promagistrate: a magistrate (a proconsul or propraetor) whose command was pro-
rogued (continued) into the following year.
Prorogation: the extension of a magistrate’s imperium beyond the end of his year
of office.
Publicani: tax-collectors, businessmen who bid for the right to collect taxes in the
provinces.
Quaestio (plural: quaestiones): a tribunal of inquiry or a standing court (quaestio
perpetua: introduced in 149 BC).
Quaestor: a junior magistrate with fiscal responsibilities. Sulla raised their num-
ber to 20, set their minimum age qualification at 30 years and gave them
automatic entry to the senate.
Quindecimviri sacris faciundis: the 15 keepers of the Sibylline Books (earlier the
duumviri, two men, and then the decemviri, ten men).
Quirites: Roman citizens who were civilians; the usual term by which citizens are
addressed by orators.
Repetundae: literally ‘(money) to be recovered’, or extortion by officials in
authority, especially Roman governors in provinces.
Respublica: the state or government, originally res publica, ‘the thing which
unites the people’, ‘public affairs’.
Rostra: the ‘beaks’ (prows from captured ships) in the forum from which the
assembly was addressed.
Senate: a group of 100 unelected patricians under the monarchy, which became
300 in the Republic, who acted as an advisory body to the magistrates. Their
number was raised to 600 by Sulla and then to 900 by Julius Caesar.
Senatus consultum (plural: senatus consulta): a senatorial decree which went to
one of the comitia for ratification; the ‘senatus consultum ultimum’ (SCU)
was a suspension of the constitution and declaration of a state of emergency.
Sesterces (sing.: sesterce): Roman coins, each worth two and a half asses or a
quarter of a denarius.
SPQR: the senate and people of Rome (senatus populusque Romanus).
Suffect consuls: see consuls.
Sui iuris: legally independent.
Suovetaurilia: the sacrifice of a pig, sheep and ox.
Toga: the formal dress of a male Roman citizen made of undyed wool; the toga
praetexta, which had a purple border along one edge, was worn by officials
and children. Candidates for office wore a whitened toga, the toga candida.
People in mourning wore the toga pulla, made of dark wool.
Tribune of the plebs: ten plebeian officials created c. 494 to convene popular
assemblies and represent the interests of the people. They took up office on
10 December.
Triumvirate: the ‘rule of three’, government by three men, as in the Second
Triumvirate (Mark Antony, Octavian and Lepidus).

xviii
 How to Use and Cite Ancient Rome

Students frequently ask the authors about the setting out of the documents which
are contained in Ancient Rome. This is best explained by taking the example given
below. Here doc. 15.24 is simply the document number of the extract in Ancient
Rome: document number 24 in chapter 15. This has nothing to do with the ancient
source itself. The document is taken from Dio, Roman History, in which Dio
is the name of the author and 56.3.3–5 refers to the passage in Dio’s work, the
Roman History, from which the extract has been taken: from book 56, chapter 3,
paragraphs 3 to 5. This is followed by a short title: Augustus on married life.
This is not a title given by Dio. Rather, it is a description given by Dillon and
Garland to the document to give the reader an idea of what the extract is about.
Under the actual heading comes a comment by Dillon and Garland: once again
this is not the ancient source itself but a brief introduction to the passage that
is intended to help elucidate its main features. In a larger font size, under this
comment, comes the ancient source itself.

For example:

15.24 Dio Roman History 56.3.3–5: Augustus on married life

Augustus is talking here in AD 9 to the unmarried members of the equites, who had
persistently sought the repeal of his marriage legislation, in an attempt to encourage
them to marry and bring up children. Apart from Julia, banished for adultery in 2 BC,
Augustus himself had no other child and none by Livia. For acknowledging an infant,
see doc. 1.34.

3 What could be better than a wife who is decorous, a home-body, manager of

the household, rearer of your children, who gives you joy when you are well, and
cares for you when you are sick, who shares your successes, and comforts your
ill-fortune, who restrains the wild nature of youth, and softens the harsh austerity
of old age? 4 How can it not be delightful to pick up and acknowledge a baby
born from you both and to feed and educate it, a mirror of your body and of your
soul, so that as it grows another self comes into being? 5 How can it not be the
greatest of blessings, that when you depart this life you leave behind your own

xix
 HOW TO USE AND CITE ANCIENT ROME
successor and heir both to the family and property, born of yourself, so that while
the corporeal human body passes away, we live on in our successor, so that the
family does not fall into the hands of strangers and be as obliterated as totally as
in warfare?

Another question which is often asked is how to give a traditional footnote or

in-text reference to a document in Ancient Rome. Once again, taking the above
example, we would suggest:
Dio, Roman History 56.3.3–5, in Dillon, M. & Garland, L. Ancient Rome:
Social and Historical Documents from the Early Republic to the Death of
Augustus, London, 2015, doc. 15.24, p. 000.

An abbreviated form of this could be:

Dio 56.3.3–5, in Dillon & Garland, Ancient Rome, doc. 15.24, p. 000.

xx
 I ROME'S CONQUEST OF ITALY I 0
Miles
100

Third SamniteWar 298-290

Invasion of Pyrrhus 280-275
First Punic War 264-241
Second Punic War 218- 201

Roman
Roman
Roman
Roman
Roman
Roman

Roman
Roman
Roman
Roman
Roman Roman
Roman
Roman
Roman
Roman
Roman
Roman Roman

Roman
Roman
Roman

Roman
Roman
Roman
Roman Roman
Roman Roman
Roman

Roman
Roman

Roman
Roman Roman

Roman
Roman

Annexations Annexations 241 -218

241 -218 241 -218
Annexations

Annexations
Annexations
241 -218
241 -218

Roman allies 298 BC

Roman allies 298-263 BC

Annexations 241 -218 BC

From The Routledge Atlas of Classical History by Michael Grant. Map 48, p. 48. Routledge (1994).
 FREE
Senatorial GERMANY
Senatorial
SenatorialTemporarily conquered from
15 BC but abandoned after
Senatorial ambushing of Varus by
Senatorial
Senatorial Arminius in AD 9
Senatorial
Senatorial Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial

Senatorial

Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial

Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial
Senatorial

The hatched areas represent the

- Imperial frontier as in AD 14 more important dependent rcJient')
states, whose monarchs enjoyed
- - - - Provincial frontiers internal autonomy but had to
support Rome's foreign policy and
ASIA Senatorial
Senatorial provinces help defend the imperial frontiers.

ALPINE PROVINCES (15-14 BC)

M: Maritime, C: Cottian, P: Pennine ~ Principal client states

From The Routledge Atlas of Classical History by Michael Grant. Map 57, pp. 74–75. Routledge (1994).
 THE ROMAN EMPIREATTHE
DEATH OF AUGUSTUS AD 14
0 0 00

Artaxata

• Artaxata
Artaxata
Artaxata
Artaxata
Artaxata

ArtaxataArtaxata

Artaxata Artaxata

Artaxata
Artaxata Artaxata
Artaxata
Artaxata

Artaxata

Artaxata
Artaxata

Artaxata Artaxata
ArtaxataArtaxata

Artaxata
Artaxata

CYRENE Artaxata
Artaxata

Artaxata
This page intentionally left blank
 1

Early Republican Rome: 507–264 BC

The city of Rome, halfway down the western coast of Italy and some 15 kilometres
inland, started its history as a few primitive huts on adjacent hills; the earliest
archaeological remains belong to the foundations of dwellings on the Palatine
dating to the middle of the eighth century BC. The city would eventually be
built over and around the famous seven hills: the Aventine, Caelian, Capitoline,
Esquiline, Palatine, Quirinal and Viminal. Tradition and myth gave the city a
founder, Romulus, but nearly everything about him is probably fictitious. For the
Romans, he was the first of seven kings, before the Republic came into being in
509 BC with the overthrow of the last king, the Etruscan Tarquinius Superbus
‘the Proud’. Livy and Dionysius record much about these seven kings, who ruled
over some 250 years, but the pre-regal and regal history of Rome is more or less
lost except for the archaeological record. There was a tendency to ascribe Roman
institutions and customs to these kings, as well as developments in the physical
structure of the city (docs 1.1–2, 1.5, 2.3), though the idea of monarchy was hated
throughout the Republic (doc. 1.10, 13.55).
By the sixth and fifth centuries BC, Rome was part of the wider Mediterranean
world: Herodotus knows of Agylla, 30 kilometres from Rome (Hdt. 1.167), and
calls the defeat of Tarentum by the Iapygians in 473 BC the worst ever suffered
by the Greeks (7.170), while Aristotle referred to the sack of Rome by the Gauls
in the fourth century BC (Plutarch Camillus 22). The inscription of Sostratus
found at Gravisca, the port of Etrurian Tarquinia, dated to c. 500 BC (‘I am of
Aeginetan Apollo. Sostratus . . . ’; LSAG2 p. 439), is evidence for Greeks trading
on the Etruscan coast in the late sixth century, and this Sostratus is mentioned by
Herodotus (4.152) as the archetypal profiteer: he may have been bringing Attic
vases to Etruria. Athenian black-figure pottery dated to c. 570–560 BC has been
found in the Roman forum, near the ‘Black Stone’ (lapis niger), on which there is
an inscription in undecipherable Latin.
The standard abbreviation for the government of Rome was SPQR: ‘senatus
populusque Romanus’ (the senate and people of Rome), and the state was
known as res publica, literally ‘public affairs’, sometimes written as one word,
respublica. The roles of the senate and people were seen as equally significant in
the government of the city. As regards officials, Roman political life was highly

1
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
competitive and underpinned by the principle of collegiality. From the expulsion
of the kings, the tenure of magistracies was strictly annual, and supreme power
was shared between two consuls (initially called praetors). It was the elected
magistrates who convened the senate and assemblies, administered the law and
finances, and commanded the armies and provinces. By the first century BC, the
senior magistrates were the consuls, the supreme commanders of the army (docs
1.11–13) and the praetors, who were in charge of the administration of the law
and, like the consuls, able to lead an army and convene the centuriate assembly.
These senior magistrates possessed the powers of imperium (military command)
and auspicium (the right to take auspices: see docs 3.45–50). Junior magistrates
consisted of the quaestors (whose duties were primarily financial) and the aediles
(two curule and two plebeian), who were in charge of the infrastructure of Rome
as a city and the holding of games. In times of crisis in early Rome a single dictator
could be appointed for a limited period of time, usually six months (doc. 1.14), and
two censors with an 18-month term of office were regularly elected to deal with the
census (the registration of citizens) and carry out other duties (docs 1.15–17).
The senate was essentially an advisory body to the magistrates, as it had been to
the kings, and before Sulla consisted of some 300 members (though in early Rome
there were considerably fewer); the number was then raised by Sulla to 600 and
by Julius Caesar to 900. The senate’s numbers were kept up by the enrolment of
elected magistrates, and hence as a body of ex-officials it possessed great influence
over magistrates and people. However, the senate could not decide on war or peace,
since it was the people, as the comitia tributa, ‘tribal assembly’ (in the comitium
or forum), who voted for legislation and, as the comitia centuriata, ‘centuriate
assembly’ (on the Campus Martius), for war or peace (doc. 1.59, cf. 1.20).
The people (the populus Romanus) had the constitutional rights of direct voting
on legislation, electing magistrates, and making decisions on trials in the popular
assembly (docs 1.20–21). Duties included military service (for those with the
requisite economic status), paying the poll tax (up to 168 BC) and serving as jurors.
Ten tribunes, who were also magistrates elected annually, represented the rights
of the people and prevented them from exploitation (docs 1.23–24). Technically,
therefore, the populus Romanus was sovereign, but of course only adult citizen
males were members of assemblies (though these included freedmen). Polybius,
writing in the mid-second century BC, saw the Roman constitution as a ‘mixed’
one and believed that the system of checks and balances between magistrates,
senate and people was one of the factors in its successful working (doc. 1.59).
The forum was the centre of political life in Rome, as well as containing shops
and businesses, while trials, gladiatorial and theatrical shows and the funeral
orations of prominent citizens took place there. Political life revolved around the
assemblies (held both in the forum and on the Campus Martius, the ‘Field of Mars’)
and the senate house (the curia) in the forum, while important temples fronted
onto the forum, where the residences of the pontifex maximus and Vestals were
sited (docs 1.5–8).
Early Rome was dominated by two long-standing areas of conflict: the struggle
between patricians and plebeians, the ‘Conflict of the Orders’, which lasted from

2
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
494 to 287 BC (docs 1.25–58), and Rome’s drive to become the dominant state
in Italy (docs 1.27–28, 61–74). The plebeians, those who were not patricians
(members of specific clans originally with responsibility for religious rites),
increasingly gained access to magistracies and the priesthoods (docs 1.48–56)
and by 300 BC the wealthy plebeian families had joined Rome’s political elite.
As part of this conflict, the XII Tables were codified supposedly in response
to popular agitation over the patricians’ control of the law (docs 1.32–43, 45).
Within Italy, Rome was engaged in continuous wars with its Italic neighbours
from its foundation. The Etruscan city of Veii, some 15 kilometres north of Rome,
was finally taken in 396 BC (doc. 1.61); Latium, the area inhabited by the Latins,
was conquered by 300 BC (docs 1.27, 63–65); and the Samnites, though fierce
enemies of Rome from 343 to 290 BC (and again in the Social War, 91–89 BC),
were effectively neutralised, along with the Greek cities of southern Italy, by 272
BC: Rome’s dominance over Italy was now complete.
Ancient sources: family history and heroic tales had a long oral tradition in
early Rome. However, there was also documentary evidence from the earliest
period of the Republic in the Fasti (the list of consuls for each year), and
historians use, as their chronological framework, lists of the consuls, triumphs,
military campaigns, alliances, colonies, public works, natural disasters and other
such archival material. Cicero (de orat. 2.52) suggests that there was an official
chronicle called the Annales Maximi kept by the pontifex maximus which listed
all important events in a certain year and continued from the earliest times down
to c. 120 BC (P. Mucius Scaevola). In addition state documents were kept in the
temple of Saturn on the Capitol and pontifical colleges kept their own records.
Fragments of the XII Tables, the law-code compiled in 451/0 BC, survive from
quotations in later writers; while the XII Tables might have regulated existing
legal practices (rather than reforming them), they are a very valuable source for
law and society in the mid-fifth century and were later seen as the basis of all
Roman law.
Antiquarians: antiquarianism of language or customs became a popular study
in the first century BC. M. Terentius Varro (116–27 BC) is said to have written 490
books (or more). Six of his 25 books De lingua latina (On the Latin Language)
are extant; his Antiquities are lost, but his work was highly significant as a source
for later writers: Pliny the Elder, for example, in his 37 books of Natural History,
relied on his account. Another noted antiquarian was Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
who is a very valuable source for the constitution and customs of early Rome.
A Greek historian, he lived in Rome in the time of Augustus as a teacher of
rhetoric and published his 20 books of Roman Antiquities (down to the beginning
of the first Punic War) 22 years after Augustus’ assumption of power. The first
11 books (to 441 BC) survive. As an outsider, Dionysius describes much in Roman
society which is otherwise not mentioned, but he is concerned with showing Rome
as essentially a Greek city and emphasising its intrinsic virtues, and his work is full
of lengthy rhetorical speeches. Gellius’ Attic Nights (Gellius was born c. AD 125)
is a series of short notes which he put together for his children and contains useful
citations from earlier works now lost. Macrobius used him extensively: his

3
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
Saturnalia is in the form of a series of dialogues which took place before and during
the Saturnalia of perhaps AD 383 and contains nostalgic reminiscences of Rome’s
pagan past.
The main historian of early Rome is Titus Livius (59 BC–AD 17). His
Ad urbe condita (From the Foundation of the City) consisted of 142 books
from Rome’s origins to 9 BC. Only books 1–10 and 21–45 survive (with some
fragments); books 11–20 are lost, and this leaves a gap in the history for the period
293–264 BC. The Epitome of Livy (early third century AD) gives summaries of
books 37–40 and 48–55, and the Periochae (fourth century AD) summaries of
all books except 136 and 137. Livy used literary sources almost exclusively,
seldom bothering to consult archival records. In books 31–145 he mainly
followed Polybius’ account with a few additions from later writers such as
Valerius Antias and Claudius Quadrigarius; he tended, though not exclusively,
to follow one author for various sections of his work. Livy sees a grave moral
decline in his own time, compared with the virtues that enabled Rome to defeat
Hannibal, and his aim in his writing is ostensibly a moral one (preface 10). From
318 BC, Livy can be supplemented by Diodorus (down to 302) and the Fasti.
Polybius (c. 200–c. 118), in Rome from 167 until 146, was a close companion of
Scipio Aemilianus and wrote a history of Rome’s speedy rise to power from the
end of the First Punic War down to 167. His summary of Rome’s constitution,
supposedly at the time of the Second Punic War, is central to any discussion of
Rome’s early government (doc. 1.59).

GEOGRAPHY AND LOCATION

Despite Cicero’s eulogy of Rome’s location (doc. 1.4), the site grew from small beginnings,
and Strabo sees the Romans as having later made the best of its disadvantages (doc. 1.2).
The Tiber, Italy’s major river, begins in the Apennines, Italy’s mountain ‘backbone’, and
flows 400 kilometres to the sea. It was navigable by sea-going vessels from its mouth to
Rome (doc. 1.1), and the city increasingly relied upon it for supplies.
Rome had an inaugurated boundary, the pomerium, consecrated by religion (docs
1.3, 3.17). There was a wall, ascribed to the sixth king, Servius Tullius (doc. 1.2), but
actually dating to the fourth century BC, 11 kilometres in circumference, embracing
all the hills except the Palatine, which had its own defences; the Servian Wall enclosed
about 400 hectares, but Rome quickly outgrew this, and by the late Republican period the
city sprawled significantly outside the wall, a testimony to Roman power and military
confidence.

1.1 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 3.44.1–4: The Tiber

At 1.37.1–5 Dionysius praises the natural advantages of Italy in bearing crops and timber
and in raising cattle, as well as its climate. Tradition had it that Ancus Marcius (the fourth
king of Rome: 640–617 BC) developed a trading post at the mouth of the Tiber at Ostia.
There was no harbour as such there in the Republican period and, as Dionysius notes, sea-
going vessels went through the mouth of the Tiber at Ostia and were assisted on their way
to Rome.

4
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
1 The River Tiber, descending from the Apennine Mountains and flowing close
to Rome, discharges itself on harbourless and continuous shores which the
Tyrrhenian Sea has made, but it gave slight advantages to Rome, not worth men-
tioning, because of the lack of a trading post (emporion) at its outlet, where goods
brought by sea and down river from the interior could be received and exchanged
with the merchants. However, as it was adequate for river boats of good size as
far as its source, and as far as Rome itself for large sea-going merchant ships,
Ancus Marcius decided to construct a sea-port at its outlet, making use of the
river’s mouth itself as a harbour. 2 For the Tiber broadens considerably when it
unites with the sea and forms great bays, such as those of the greatest seaports;
and, what anyone might marvel at, its mouth is not blocked by sandbanks heaped
up by the sea, as happens to many of even the largest rivers . . . and it discharges
itself through its one genuine mouth, repelling the ocean’s breakers, despite the
violence of the prevailing westerly wind. 3 As a result oared ships of any size and
merchant ships of up to 3,000 measures (bushels) enter through the mouth of the
river and are brought to Rome by rowing or by being dragged with towing-lines,
while the larger ones ride at anchor off the mouth, where they are unloaded and
loaded by river boats. 4 On the elbow of land between the river and the sea the
king built a city, which he named ‘Ostia’ from its position, or as we should say
‘thyra’ or door, thus making Rome not only an inland city but a seaport, and gave
it a taste of good things from across the seas.

1.2 Strabo Geography 5.3.7: The city of Rome

Compare the eulogistic picture of Rome’s situation given by Cicero (doc. 1.4). Titus Tatius
was the Sabine king who attacked Rome after the ‘rape of the Sabine women’ and who
afterwards formed a joint community with Romulus. ‘Servius’ wall’ in fact dates to after
the conquest of Veii (perhaps to 378 BC).

In the interior, the first city above Ostia is Rome, and this is the only city which
lies on the Tiber; concerning this city of Rome, I have already stated (5.3.2) that
it was founded out of necessity, not choice, and I must add that those who later
established certain additional districts could not, as masters, choose what was
better, but had, like slaves, to fall into line with what was already there. The first
founders walled the Capitol and Palatine and the Quirinal hill, which was so easy
for outsiders to climb that Titus Tatius took it at his first attempt, in his attack
when he came to avenge the insult of the abducted girls. Ancus Marcius added in
Mount Caelium and Mount Aventine and the plain in between them, which were
separated from each other and from the parts already walled, as a matter of neces-
sity; for it was not a good idea to leave hills which were naturally strong outside
the walls for those who wanted strongholds against the city, and he was not able
to fill out the whole circle round to the Quirinal. Servius (Tullius) noticed the
omission and filled it out, adding the Esquiline and the Viminal hills. It is easy,
too, for outsiders to attack these, and therefore they dug a deep ditch, putting the
earth on the inside, and extended the bank of earth about six stades on the inner

5
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
side of the ditch, and placed on it a wall and towers from the Colline Gate to
the Esquiline; below the centre of the mound there is a third gate, with the same
name as the Viminal hill. This is what, then, the fortifications of the city are like,
though it needs another set of fortifications. In my view the first founders had the
same point of view both for themselves and their successors, that Romans ought
to depend for their security and other welfare not on fortifications but on arms and
innate courage, believing that walls should not defend men, but men walls. So
in the beginning, as the large and fertile country around them belonged to other
people, and the site of the city was so open to attack, there was no good luck in
their situation demanding congratulations; but when the land became their own,
through their bravery and toil, there was a clear inrush of good things which sur-
passed any advantages of situation; it is because of this that, although the city has
increased to such an extent, it has adequate supplies both of food and of wood and
stones for building work, which goes on continuously because of collapses and
fires and sales, these last being never-ending . . . To cater for this, the quantity of
mines and timber and rivers for transport provide an amazing supply of materials,
first the Anio which flows from Alba, the Latin city near the Marsi, through the
plain below Alba to its junction with the Tiber, then the Nar and Teneas which
flow through Ombrica to the same river, the Tiber, and the Clanis too, which runs
through Etruria and the territory of Clusium.

1.3 Gellius Attic Nights 13.14.1–2: The pomerium

The actual inhabited area of Rome extended well beyond the pomerium, which was a
religious boundary, the consecrated space within which the auspices connected with the
city were taken (cf. docs 3.17, 3.40). Military imperium could not be exercised within the
pomerium, and a general could only enter the pomerium if – and on the day or days – he
was celebrating his triumph.

1 ‘Pomerium’ has been defined by the augurs of the Roman people who wrote the
books On the Auspices in the following terms: ‘The pomerium is the space inside
what has been designated as the rural district around the circuit of the whole city
outside the walls, marked by fixed boundary-lines and forming the limit of the
city auspices.’ 2 The most ancient pomerium, which was established by Romulus,
ended at the foot of the Palatine hill. But that pomerium was extended a number
of times, as the Republic grew, and enclosed many high hills.

1.4 Cicero Republic 2.10–11: Cicero on the site of Rome

Cicero here presents Scipio Aemilianus arguing that Romulus showed foresight in not
founding Rome on the coast, because of the dangers of attack, and the moral degeneration
suffered by maritime cities such as Corinth and Carthage.

10 So how could Romulus have employed more divine wisdom in his making
use of the advantages provided by the sea and in avoiding its disadvantages than

6
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
by positioning his city on the bank of a broad river which flows constantly and
unvaryingly down to the sea? This allows the city both to import from the sea
what it needs and to export what it has in superfluity, and can also be used to
convey items essential for life and civilisation not only from the sea but also from
inland – which suggests to me that Romulus must even in his day have foreseen
that this city would one day be the centre and homeland of a vast empire, for
hardly any city sited anywhere else in Italy could more easily have acquired the
far-reaching sovereignty we currently possess.
11 As regards the city’s own natural defences, is there anyone so blind that he
does not have them clearly visualised and engraved on his mind? It was the wis-
dom first of Romulus and then of the kings who followed him which defined the
line and course of its wall, so positioned on steep and precipitous hills that the only
approach, lying between the Esquiline and the Quirinal hills, was surrounded by an
immense defensive rampart and a huge ditch, and the citadel was so well defended
by its precipitous situation and the rock which looks as if it has been cut away on all
sides that even in those awful times when the Gauls arrived (390 BC) it remained
unharmed and impregnable. Furthermore, he selected a site which enjoys plentiful
springs and is healthy, despite the pestilential nature of the area, for there are hills
which not only get the benefit of the breezes but provide shade for the valleys.

THE FORUM
A forum (plural: fora) was the open area of a Roman town or city, around which clustered
shops and which served as a market area. It was used for all forms of collective activity – trials,
contiones (meetings; singular: contio), funeral orations, business, theatrical performances
and gladiatorial shows. The forum as such was a religious, political, administrative, judicial
and mercantile centre. At Rome, the main forum was the Forum Romanum; other fora were
the Forum Boarium and Forum Holitorium (for both, see below). The forum was a crucial
public space in Republican Rome. The popular assemblies met here from 145 BC, while
judicial proceedings were conducted in the nearby comitium. The curia hostilia, senate
house, stood adjacent to the comitium.

1.5 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 3.67.4: The

institution of the forum
Tarquinius Priscus was the fifth king of Rome, 616–579 BC, who reputedly undertook
drainage work in the forum, while the seventh king, Tarquinius Superbus, canalised the
Cloaca Maxima stream which ran through it. Shops (tabernae) lined the Sacred Way (Sacra
Via) which ran through the forum; these were the ‘old shops’ of Plautus Curc. 480 (doc.
1.6), as opposed to the new ones constructed in the northern forum at the front of the
basilica Aemilia.

Tarquinius Priscus also adorned the forum, in which court cases are held, the
assemblies meet and other political business is transacted, surrounding it with
shops and colonnades.

7
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
1.6 Plautus Curculio 467–84: The forum, as it really was
Plautus’ lively description of the Forum Romanum in the early second century BC reveals
it as the centre of political and social life. For prostitution (male and female), see docs
7.57–65. The temple of Venus Cloacina was a small shrine devoted to the deity (assimilated
to Venus) of the stream which ran through the forum. In line 470, ‘perjurer’ refers to the
law courts and litigants.

I will show you where you can easily find every type of person,
So no one will have to work too hard if he wants to meet anyone
Vicious or virtuous, worthy or worthless.
470 If he wants to meet a perjurer, he should go to the assembly (comitium);
If a liar and braggart, to the temple of Venus Cloacina,
While for rich, married spendthrifts, try the basilica.
There too he’ll find prostitutes past their prime and men who look for a
bargain,
While members of dining-clubs can be found at the fish-market.
In the lower forum men of good repute and riches stroll around,
In the middle forum near the canal you’ll find the fellows who are just for show;
Above the lake there’s the bold, talkative, spiteful types,
Who presumptuously slander other people for no reason
And who could have plenty of home-truths said about themselves.
480 Under the old shops are those who lend and borrow at interest.
Behind Castor’s temple are those whom it would be unwise to trust too quickly.
In the Tuscan quarter are the men who sell themselves,
Who either turn over or give others the chance to do so.
But there’s a noise at the door: I must guard my tongue!

1.7 Lucilius Satires 1145–51: Life in the forum

Lucilius (180–102/1 BC) is here satirising life in the forum. From 145 BC the people met
in the forum for the passing of laws. The law-courts were also in the forum and trials took
place, in public view, in the open air.

1145 But now from morning to night, whether holiday or working-day,

The entire people and senators in exactly the same way
All strut about in the forum and never leave it;
And they all give themselves to one and the same passion and skill –
To be able to cheat within the letter of the law, to fight craftily,
1150 To strive through the use of flattery, to pretend they’re ‘honest fellows’, and
To set ambushes, as if they were all the enemies of all men.

1.8 Cicero On His Return from Exile 6: Rome’s political centre

Cicero’s picture might be overdrawn but he does point to the forum (Romanum) as the
centre of political life in Rome.

8
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
And so from this time on, citizens, you gave no responses to allies, or even kings;
the juries gave no verdicts, the people gave no votes, this senate approved no mea-
sures; you looked upon a forum that was dumb, a senate house without a tongue,
a state that was silent and enfeebled.

SENATE AND MAGISTRACIES

Down to the mid-second century, holding the consulate twice in the space of ten years was
forbidden and the Genucian laws in 342 (doc. 1.50) had supposedly laid down that there
had to be a ten-year interval between consulships. In 81, Sulla raised the minimum age
limits in the year of election from 36 to 42 (for consuls), from 33 to 39 (for praetors) and
from 27 to 30 (for quaestors). Sulla also raised the number of magistrates elected every
year: praetors from six to eight and quaestors from 12 to 20 (earlier two, in 447, four in
421, and eight in 267). There was a rigid cursus honorum (‘race of honour’, or career path)
for Roman magistrates from the early second century: the praetorship could be held only
by an ex-quaestor and the consulship by an ex-praetor. As the number of consuls remained
fixed at two per year, there was clearly a ‘pyramid’ effect, leading to intense rivalry for
the consulship. From the time of Sulla the quaestorship involved automatic membership
of the senate (before that most, but not all, quaestors would have become senators), and
among the senators the most influential after the current consuls were the consulares (or
ex-consuls). The presiding magistrate consulted members of the senate according to their
seniority: the consulares first, among whom was a princeps senatus (chief of the senate)
appointed by the censors when in office.

1.9 Ennius Annals 467: The importance of traditions

One of the most important concepts for the Romans was that of mos maiorum (‘the custom
of (our) ancestors’), the maintenance of the traditions and behaviour that had made Rome
great. This line may have been spoken by Titus Manlius Torquatus (cos. 340 BC) before
his execution of his son in 337: cf. doc. 7.15.

On manners and men of olden times stands the Roman state.

1.10 Ennius Tragedies FF402–3: The dangers of kingship

The first king of Rome was believed to have been Romulus, its founder. The tradition that
the last of the seven kings, Tarquinius Superbus, was deposed by a group of aristocrats is
generally accepted. The concept of kingship was viewed with horror during the Republic,
and Julius Caesar avoided accepting the title ‘rex’: see docs 8.14–15, 13.55.

To a king no association, no promise, is sacred.

1.11 Livy History of Rome 2.1.8–10: The first consuls, 509 BC

The first senior magistrates were initially called not consuls, but praetors. Consuls were
originally military figures and possessed supreme power (imperium) in the field. The fasces
(a bundle of rods tied with red thongs and containing an axe, though not within the city)

9
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
formed a symbol of the consul’s power and were carried by the 12 lictors before each
consul on alternate months, signalling their precedence over the other for that period. The
fasces formed part of the Etruscan regalia that, apart from the embroidered robe and crown,
were retained by the consuls.

8 The first consuls (Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus,
Lucretia’s husband) possessed all the rights and insignia of the kings, but care
was taken in one respect, that twice the terror should not be inspired by their both
having the fasces. Brutus, with his colleague’s consent, was the first to have them,
and he was no less zealous as a guard of liberty than he had been as its champion.
9 First of all, while the people were still covetous of their new freedom, in case, in
the future, they should be swayed by the entreaties or presents of would-be kings,
he made them swear an oath that they would never permit anyone to be king in
Rome. 10 Next, in order that the numbers in the senate might give greater author-
ity to that order, he made up the number of senators, which had been diminished
by the king’s murders, to the total of 300 by choosing the leading men of eques-
trian rank.

1.12 Cicero On Duties 1.124: The magistracies

Cicero dedicated this work to his son Marcus; it was completed in November 44 BC.
Due to the frequent absence of the consuls from Rome, the senate and lesser magistrates
handled most day-to-day business and decisions.

It is especially the duty of a magistrate to bear in mind that he is the representa-

tive of the state and that he must uphold its dignity and honour, preserve its laws,
apportion to all their constitutional rights, and remember that all this has been
granted to him as a sacred trust . . .

1.13 Varro On the Latin Language 5.80–82, 87: The early magistracies
The secession here is that of 494 BC (doc. 1.25). Tribunus (tribune) is actually derived
from tribus, man of the tribe. Varro wrote his work on the Latin language between 47
and 45 BC; Lucius Accius was born in 170 BC at Pisaurum and wrote a number of
tragedies.

80 The consul was given this name because he had to consult the people and sen-
ate, unless it comes rather from the etymology which Accius uses in his Brutus:
‘He who counsels rightly, let him be called consul.’
The praetor was so called because he should ‘go before’ (praeire) the law and
the army; from which Lucilius says, ‘So the role of the praetors is to go in front
and before’.
81 The censor was so named as the one at whose censio, rating – that is, his
assessment – the people should be rated; the aedile as the one to look after sacred
and private aedes, buildings; the quaestors from quaerere, seek, as they have to
seek into public moneys and wrongdoing, which the triumviri capitales now look

10
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
into: from this name later on those who give judgement on the investigations were
named quaesitores, investigators; the tribuni militum, military tribunes, because in
the olden days three were sent to the army by the three tribes of Ramnes, Luceres
and Tities; the tribuni plebis, tribunes of the plebs, because tribunes of the plebs
were first created from the tribunes of the soldiers in the secession to Crustumerium
with the role of defending the plebs, populace.
82 The dictator was so called because he was named by the consul as one to
whose dictum, order, all should listen; the magister equitum, master of the horse,
because he has supreme power over the cavalry and reserves, just as the dictator
has supreme power over the people, from which he is also called ‘master’ of the
people. The remainder, because they are subordinate to these magistri, masters, are
called magistratus, magistrates, derived in the same way as albatus, clothed in white,
is derived from albus, white. . . .
87 The imperator, commander, is named from the imperium, authority, of the
people, as the one who subdued the enemies who had attacked it; the legati, legates,
those who were officially lecti, chosen, whose aid or advice magistrates should use
when away from Rome, or who should be messengers of the senate or people; the
exercitus, army, because it is improved by exercitando, training; the legio, legion,
because the soldiers leguntur, are gathered, in a levy.

1.14 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 5.73.1–2: The

dictatorship
Dictators were extraordinary magistrates, who were appointed to lead the army or hold
elections. The maximum time-limit for a dictatorship was six months, and the dictator
appointed as his second-in-command a master of horse (magister equitum); a dictator was
preceded by 24 lictors. Titus Larcius Flavus was the first dictator in 501 or 498; Spurius
Cassius was his master of horse.

1 Larcius was the first man to be appointed sole ruler in Rome with absolute
authority in war, peace, and all other matters. They call this person a dictator,
either from his power of giving whatever orders he wishes and of laying down
justice and right for the other citizens as he thinks best (for the Romans call com-
mands and decrees regarding right and wrong edicts, ‘edicta’) or, as some record,
from the form of election which was then brought in, since he was not to receive
the magistracy from the people, according to ancestral custom, but was appointed
by one man . . . 2 For the immensity of the power which the dictator holds is not at
all indicated by his title; for the dictatorship is actually an elective tyranny.

1.15 Livy History of Rome 4.8.2–5: The censorship, 443 BC

Censors were senior magistrates, but without imperium. Two were elected for a period
of 18 months every four, later five years; censors wore distinctive purple togas. Censors’
initial duties will have been to register citizens for military duty and taxation, and, before
Sulla, censors were responsible for admitting members to the senate. Enrolment in the
census was necessary for voting privileges in the comitia centuriata.

11
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
2 In this same year the censorship was inaugurated, an institution which started in
a small way but which later grew so immensely as to be responsible for regulating
the morals and lifestyle of the Romans: the distribution of honour and dishonour
to the senators and centuries of the equites was under the control of this magis-
tracy along with jurisdiction over public and private places, while the revenues
of the Roman people were entirely subject to its judgement. 3 The reason behind
the institution was that the people had not been rated for a number of years and
the census could not be postponed, but the consuls had no time for this duty, with
wars against so many peoples hanging over them. 4 The matter was referred to
the senate, on the grounds that so laborious a task, and one beneath the consuls’
dignity, needed its own special magistrates, who should have a staff of clerks,
the task of supervising the records, and the charge of regulating the form of the
census. 5 Although it was a small matter, the senators were pleased to accept the
suggestion, so that there might be more patrician magistrates in the government.

1.16 Cicero On the Laws 3.7: The censorship in Cicero’s ideal state
Cicero here gives the censors their traditional duties; the prevention of celibacy was a
concern of censors such as Metellus Macedonicus in 131 and Metellus Numidicus in 102.

Censors shall complete a register of the people, their ages, offspring, households
and property; they shall be in charge of the city’s temples, streets, aqueducts,
treasury and revenues; they shall divide the people into tribes and other divisions
by wealth, age and rank; they shall enrol the youth into the cavalry and infantry;
they shall forbid celibates; they shall regulate the behaviour of the people; they
shall ensure no reprobate remains in the senate; they shall be two in number and
hold a five-year magistracy – the other magistrates shall have an annual term. The
position of censor shall never be vacant.

1.17 Plutarch Life of Cato the Elder 16.1–3: Cato as censor

Cf. Livy 39.40–41. Cato was elected censor for 184 BC with L. Valerius Flaccus. Both had
a programme of arresting moral decline, and Cato expelled numerous senators and equites
(including L. Quinctius Flamininus and a senator who had kissed his wife in daylight: docs
7.20, 58).

1 Ten years after his consulship, Cato stood for the censorship. This magistracy
was at the peak, as it were, of every office and was, in a way, the culmination of
a political career, as it had numerous powers including that of the examination
of character and lifestyle. 2 They thought that neither marriage, nor procreation of
children, nor daily life, nor entertainment of guests should be as each man should
desire and choose, without investigation and examination, but rather, considering
that these revealed the character of a man more than public and political actions,
they appointed as guard, moderator and chastiser, so that no one for the sake of
pleasure should turn aside and deviate from his native and customary lifestyle, one
of the so-called patricians and one of the plebeians. 3 They named these ‘censors’,

12
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
and they had the authority to demote an eques and expel from the senate anyone
who lived in an unbridled and irregular fashion. They also reviewed property
assessments and organised citizens in lists according to class and age, while the
office also had other great powers.

1.18 Cicero On the Laws 3.6–9, 12: The ideal constitution

One of Cicero’s last works, written before the Second Triumvirate. He believed in the value
of a mixed constitution, with its checks and balances, and in strong censors to maintain and
define the law (doc. 3.16).

6 Edicts shall be just, and citizens shall obey them attentively and without argu-
ment; the magistrate shall use coercion towards the disobedient and criminal
citizen by means of a fine, imprisonment or flogging, unless an equal or higher
authority, or the people, forbids it: to these the citizen shall have right of appeal
(provocatio). When the magistrate has passed judgement and proposed a penalty,
the decision as to the fine or punishment will be decided by a trial before the
people. There shall be no right of appeal from orders given by a commander, and
whoever is in command, while he is waging war, his orders will be authorita-
tive and unalterable. There shall be minor magistrates with partial authority in
specific roles. In the army they shall command those under their authority and
be their tribunes; in the city they shall be the guardians of the public money
(quaestores); they shall oversee the imprisonment of criminals; they shall carry
out capital punishment (triumviri capitales); they shall officially coin bronze,
silver and gold (triumviri aere argento auro flando feriundo); they shall judge
law-suits (decemviri litibus iudicandis); and they shall execute the decrees of the
senate. 7 There shall be aediles, who will be curators of the city, grain supply and
customary games, and this shall be the first step in the advancement to higher
magistracies. . . .
8 The arbitrator of justice, who shall decide or direct civil law-suits, shall be
the praetor; he shall be the guardian of civil law; there shall be as many of these,
with equal powers, as the senate shall decree or the people command. There shall
be two magistrates with royal powers, and these by leading, judging and consult-
ing shall be called praetors, judges and consuls; in war they shall hold the highest
authority and be subject to no one; the safety of the people shall be their highest
law. 9 No one shall hold the same magistracy, except after an interval of ten years;
they shall observe the age limits prescribed by laws defining the ages for office.
But when a serious war or civil discord should arise, one man shall hold, for no
more than six months, if the senate should so decree, the authority of the two
consuls; appointed under favourable auspices, he shall be master of the people
(dictator). He shall have a colleague in charge of the cavalry (magister equitum),
with rank equal to that of the arbitrator of justice . . . The ten officials whom the
plebs shall elect to protect them from violence (vis auxilii) shall be their tribunes;
whatever they prohibit or put to the people shall be unalterable; their persons shall
be inviolable and they shall not leave the plebs without tribunes . . .

13
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
12 Quintus: How succinctly, brother, your description of all the magistrates has
been placed before us – but they are almost those of our constitution, though you
have suggested some slight innovations!
Marcus: Your comment is absolutely correct, Quintus . . . Since our ancestors
devised the wisest and most balanced government, I thought no innovation – or at
least very little – should be introduced into the laws.

THE ASSEMBLIES AND TRIBUNATE

Of the various assemblies, the oldest was the comitia curiata (consisting of divisions,
curiae, of the three original tribes: docs 1.19, 21); the last known law passed in this
assembly dated to 390 BC. By the first century BC this comitia met only for certain
religious or legal matters, such as adoptions. The comitia centuriata was traditionally
instituted by Servius Tullius and was based on field units in the army (the 193 centuriae,
‘centuries’, organized by property qualifications), though by the late Republic it had
become primarily an electoral body. Higher magistrates (with imperium), the consuls and
praetors, were elected here; the others (the magistrates without imperium) in the comitia
tributa. The comitia tributa was based on the division of people into tribes (also ascribed
to Servius Tullius). There were four urban tribes, while by 241 BC the rural tribes had
gradually increased to 31, a total of 35. The normal way of legislating was through the
comitia tributa, which comprised the whole citizen body under the direction of a curule
magistrate; it voted by majority, i.e., there were 35 votes, one for each tribe voting en bloc,
and every citizen voted on an equal basis. A further tribal assembly, the concilium plebis
(supposedly established after the secessio of 494), was summoned by a tribune and open
only to plebeians.
While it was the assemblies that passed laws, elected magistrates, and (early in the
Republic) heard major trials and declared wars, their powers were often limited by
patronage, political manipulation and bribery. In addition, there were no opportunities for
debate – Roman democracy was non-participatory and assemblies had to be presided over
by magistrates.

1.19 Varro On the Latin Language 5.55–6: The earliest tribes

Ennius Annals 112–13. The terms for the three tribes were non-Latin, hence Ennius’
etymologies, according to Varro, are incorrect. These three tribes were divided into curiae,
ten for each tribe, which formed the basis for Rome’s early military organisation and
earliest assembly (the comitia curiata), which went back to the regal period. Nothing is
known of Volnius.

55 Roman territory (ager) was at first divided into three (tris) parts, from which
came the term tribe, used of the Titienses, Ramnes and Luceres. They were named,
as Ennius says, the Titienses from Tatius, the Ramnenses from Romulus, and the
Luceres, according to Junius, from Lucumo; but all these words are Etruscan, as
Volnius says, who wrote tragedies in Etruscan.
56 From this, four parts of the city were also used as the names of tribes, from
the places – the Suburan, the Palatine, the Esquiline, the Colline (the four urban

14
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
tribes); a fifth because it was ‘under the walls of Rome’, the Romilian (the first
of the rural tribes); so also the other thirty for those reasons I wrote about in my
Book of the Tribes.

1.20 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 4.20.1–5: The comitia centuriata

Cf. Livy 1.42–3. Servius Tullius was thought to have organised this assembly to ensure
that the votes of the poor (i.e., the proletarii, who were confined to just one century)
would be minimised. Dionysius makes it clear that this early system later became
‘more democratic’ (4.21.3). The original system was clearly timocratic, with the voting
controlled by the rich, as the senators, equites and first property class comprised 98 of
the 193 centuries. Dionysius and Livy essentially agree on the property qualifications:
100,000 asses for the first class, 75,000 for the second, 50,000 for the third, 25,000 for
the fourth, and 11,000 (or 12,500) for the fifth. The proletarii (the greater proportion of
the citizens) who had a census rating of less than 1,500 asses were all included in a single
century, while those without any property (and hence no right to vote) were the ‘capite
censi’ (literally: counted by head).

1 Having in this way placed on the rich the burden of danger and expense, he
noticed that they were unhappy and relieved their dissatisfaction and mollified
their anger in another way by giving them an advantage, through which they
would become masters of the state, and excluding the poor from public affairs;
and he achieved this without the plebeians noticing. This advantage concerned
the assemblies, in which the most important matters were ratified by the people. 2
I have already mentioned earlier (2.14.3) that by the ancient laws the people was
sovereign over the three most important and essential matters: they elected the
magistrates both for the city and the army, ratified and repealed laws, and decided
on matters of war and peace. Voting with regard to discussion and decision-
making on these matters was carried out by curiae; and those who had the least
property possessed an equal vote to those who had the most; but as there were few
who were wealthy, as one might expect, when it came to voting the poor prevailed
because of their far superior numbers. 3 Tullius saw this and transferred this vot-
ing power to the rich. For, whenever he thought it right to have magistrates elected
or a law to be determined or war to be declared, he assembled the people by cen-
turies rather than curiae. The first centuries he called on to give their vote were
those with the highest property assessment, which consisted of the 18 centuries of
equites and the 80 of infantry. 4 As these consisted of three more than all the rest
put together, if they were of one mind they prevailed over the others and the deci-
sion was made; if they were not all of the same opinion, then he called on the 22
centuries of the second class. If the votes were still indecisive, he called on those
of the third class; and fourthly those of the fourth class; and he kept doing this
until 97 centuries voted alike. 5 If this had not happened after the fifth class was
called, but the opinions of the 192 centuries were divided equally, then he called
on the last century, which consisted of the mass of citizens who were poor and for
that reason exempted from all military service and taxation; whichever side this
century sided with, that side won. But this was rare and almost impossible. Most

15
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
issues were determined by calling on the first class and rarely got down as far as
the fourth, and so the fifth and last class was superfluous.

1.21 Gellius Attic Nights 15.27.5: The three popular assemblies

Laelius was a jurist in the time of Hadrian who wrote on the work of Q. Mucius Scaevola
(cos. 95 BC) on civil law.

It is also written in the same book (of Laelius Felix, To Quintus Mucius) that,
‘Whenever voting is carried on according to people’s families, it is called a “curi-
ate” assembly (comitia curiata), when by property and age a “centuriate” assem-
bly (comitia centuriata), and when by regions and localities a “tribal” assembly
(comitia tributa); moreover, it is against sacred law for a centuriate assembly to be
held within the pomerium, because the army must be assembled outside the city,
and it is unlawful for it to be assembled within the city. As a result, it was usual to
hold the centuriate assembly on the Campus Martius (Field of Mars) and for the
army to be summoned there for the purpose of protection while the people was
occupied with casting votes.’

1.22 Polybius Histories 6.14.6–8: The assembly’s judicial function

Crimes against the people were dealt with in assemblies with the case brought by a
magistrate. In this way it was possible for the people to censor corrupt or incompetent
magistrates after their term of office. The right to citizenship had to be discussed at the
comitia centuriata, and men tried on capital charges had the right of appeal to this comitia
because the whole people had to be involved in a capital charge. Generally, those likely to
be convicted of a capital charge went into exile; context of this passage: doc. 1.58.

6 It is the people, then, who frequently judge cases where the offence is punish-
able by a fine, and particularly when the accused have held the most distinguished
offices; they alone can try a capital charge. 7 Regarding this they have a practice
which is praiseworthy and should be mentioned. Custom allows those on trial for
their lives, when they are being condemned, to depart openly, voluntarily sentenc-
ing themselves to exile, even if only one of the tribes which pronounce the verdict
has not yet voted. 8 Such exiles find refuge in the territories of Naples, Praeneste,
Tibur and other towns with whom treaties are in place.

1.23 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 8.87.6–8: The tribunes

The setting for this passage is 485 BC (cf. Livy 2.42), with the tribune Maenius attempting
to prevent a further military levy; the consuls therefore enrolled troops outside the city. The
first tribunes were apparently military tribunes who acted as spokespersons for the plebs in
the ‘First Secession’ in 494 (doc. 1.25, cf. 1.13). The original number of tribunes is given as
two, four or five. Their role was the protection of the plebeians (the ius auxilii); they were
elected by the plebeian assembly and possessed inviolability (i.e., they were sacrosanct).
Shortly after their inception they possessed the right to veto the act of any magistrate, other
tribune, law or senatorial decree.

16
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
6 The tribune who opposed the levy was no longer able to do anything. For those
who possess tribunician power have no authority over anything outside the city;
their jurisdiction is circumscribed by the city walls, and it is not lawful for them
even to pass a night away from the city, except on a single occasion, when all the
magistrates of the state ascend the Alban mount and make a common sacrifice to
Jupiter on behalf of the Latin people. 7 This custom, of the tribunes possessing
no authority over anything outside the city, continues to our own day; and indeed
the motivating reason, among many others, of the civil war among the Romans
which took place in my day and was greater than any war before it, which seemed
of great importance and reason enough to divide the state, was this – that some
of the tribunes, complaining that they had been forcibly driven out of the city by
the general (Pompey) who was then in control of affairs in Italy, in order that
they might no longer have any authority, fled to the general in command of the
armies in Gaul (Caesar), as they had nowhere to turn to. 8 And the latter, making
use of this pretext that he was coming with right and justice to the assistance of
the sacrosanct magistracy of the people, deprived of its authority contrary to the
oaths of their ancestors, himself entered the city in arms and restored the men to
their magistracy.

1.24 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 9.1.4–5: Manipulation of tribunician

power
Spurius Icilius, a tribune, opposed all legislation in 481 BC until a redistribution of land
took place.

4 As the senate was at a loss and had no idea what to do, Appius Claudius pro-
posed that they should consider how the other tribunes might be brought to dis-
agree with Icilius, pointing out that, when a tribune opposes and obstructs the
senate’s decrees, since he is sacrosanct and legally has the authority to do this,
there is no other method of putting an end to his power, unless another of those
of equal rank who possess the same power opposes him and orders the measures
which the other is obstructing. 5 And he advised all consuls who succeeded him
in this office to do this and to consider how they might always have some of the
tribunes on their side as their friends, saying that the only way of destroying the
power of their college was for them to fight among themselves.

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE ‘CONFLICT OF THE ORDERS’

The traditional dates of the ‘Conflict of the Orders’, the struggle between patricians
and plebeians, are from 494 to 287 BC. In the fourth century the plebeians increasingly
challenged the patrician control of the magistracies; patricians also had total control over
the religious sphere: only a patrician could hold a major priesthood. The term ‘patrician’
is probably connected with ‘patres’ (fathers). From 367 plebeians were eligible for the
consulship, and from 342 one of each pair of consuls supposedly had to be a plebeian;
the first plebeian dictator was appointed in 356; the first plebeian censor in 351. In 300,
plebeians were admitted to the major priestly colleges.

17
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
1.25 Livy History of Rome 2.31.7–33.3: The ‘first secession’, 494 BC
Cf. Dion. Hal. 6.83–86. In this secession of the plebs in 494, caused by the burden of
debts, the plebeians withdrew outside the pomerium of the city and refused their military
service; they created their own assembly and officials. To deal with this emergency,
Manius Valerius was appointed dictator. The tribunes were granted initially the ius auxilii
(to protect plebeians against the magistrates) and then the ius intercessionis (veto) against
senate, assemblies and magistrates (but not a dictator). There were further secessions in
449 and 287.

31.7 Although a threefold success (over the Sabines, Volsci and Aequi) had been
won in the war, regarding the outcome of domestic matters both senators and
plebeians were as anxious as ever, so great was the influence and cleverness with
which the moneylenders had put things in train so as to frustrate not only the plebs
but even the dictator himself. 8 For after the return of the consul (Titus) Vetusius,
the first business which Valerius brought to the senate was on behalf of the victo-
rious people, when he demanded that the senate should declare their policy about
those bound over for debt. 9 When his proposal was rejected, he made the fol-
lowing statement: ‘You do not approve of my being the instigator of harmony;
you will very soon, I assure you, wish that the Roman plebs had spokespersons
(patrons) like myself. For my part, I will neither disappoint my fellow citizens any
further, nor will I be an ineffectual dictator. 10 Internal discord and foreign war
have made this magistracy necessary for the state: peace has been made abroad
but hindered at home; I prefer to meet the revolt as a private citizen rather than as
dictator.’ With these words he left the senate house and resigned his dictatorship.
11 It was clear to the people that the reason for his resignation was his indignation
on their account. Accordingly, just as if he had fulfilled his promise, since it was
not his fault that it had not been kept, they escorted him as he left for home with
demonstrations of gratitude and praise.
32.1 The senators then began to be anxious that, if the army were disbanded,
there would again be secret gatherings and conspiracies. As a result, although
the levy had been ordered by the dictator, they considered the men still bound
by their oath because they had been sworn in by the consuls and, on the grounds
that the Aequi had recommenced hostilities, instructed that the legions be led out
of the city. 2 This brought matters to a head. Initially, it is said, there was talk
of murdering the consuls, to release them from their oath; but when they were
told that they could not be released from a sacred obligation by a crime, on the
advice of one Sicinius, and without orders from the consuls, they withdrew to
the Sacred Mount, across the River Anio, 3 miles from the city. 3 This version is
more generally accepted than that related by Piso, in which their withdrawal was
made to the Aventine. 4 There, without any leader, they fortified their camp with
a rampart and ditch and remained there peacefully for several days, taking only
what they needed for subsistence and neither receiving nor provoking hostility. 5
There was great panic at Rome, with all business ground to a halt due to the fear
felt by everyone. The plebs, abandoned by their defenders, were afraid of violence
by the senators; the senators were afraid of the plebeians who remained in the city,

18
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
unsure whether they would rather see them stay or go. 6 Moreover, for how long
would the mob which had seceded stay quiet? And what would happen if some
foreign war should arise in the meantime? 7 Clearly there was no hope except in
harmony between the citizens; by fair means or foul the state’s harmony must
be restored. 8 They therefore decided to send someone to speak to the people,
Agrippa Menenius (Lanatus, cos. 503), a man of eloquence and dear to the plebs
because he was one of them. Being admitted to the camp, he is said, in that time’s
antiquated and rough mode of speech, to have related the following tale: 9 ‘At the
time when all the parts of a man did not agree among themselves, as they do now,
but each of them had its own will and voice, all the other parts were indignant that
they should have the trouble and hard work and toil of providing everything for
the stomach, while the stomach remained peacefully in their midst with nothing
to do but enjoy the delights they gave it; 10 as a result they conspired together
that the hands should not take any food to the mouth, nor should the mouth accept
what it was given, nor the teeth chew up what they received. But, while in their
anger they wanted to tame the stomach by hunger, the individual parts and the
whole body were reduced to total weakness . . . ’ 12 Drawing a comparison from
this to demonstrate how similar was the internal conflict within the body to the
plebs’ anger against the senators, he won the men over to his viewpoint. 33.1
They then began to work towards harmony, and an agreement was reached on
condition that the plebs were to have magistrates, who would be sacrosanct, and
who should have the right to protect the plebs against the consuls, while no patri-
cian was to be allowed to take on this magistracy. 2 So two tribunes of the plebs
were created, Gaius Licinius and Lucius Albinus. These appointed three other
colleagues, among whom was Sicinius, the instigator of the revolt; there is less
agreement about who the other two were. 3 There are those who say that only two
tribunes were created on the Sacred Mount and that the law of their inviolability
was passed there.

1.26 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 6.89.1–3: The inviolability of the

tribunate
Tribunes were sacrosanct: physical violence could not be employed against them. They
customarily entered office on 10 December; for fetials, see doc. 3.14.

1 On the next day, Brutus and his fellows returned, after making the compact
with the senate through the arbiters whom the Romans call ‘fetials’. The people
divided themselves into the phratries of the time, or whatever one wishes to name
the divisions which they call ‘curiae’, and appointed the following as their annual
magistrates: Lucius Junius Brutus and Gaius Sicinnius Bellutus, whom they had
had as their leaders up to then, and as well as these Gaius and Publius Licinius
and Gaius Visellius Ruga. 2 These five were the first men to take on the tribuni-
cian power on the fourth day before the Ides of December (December 10), as has
been the custom until our own time . . . Brutus called an assembly and advised the
plebeians to make this magistracy sacred and inviolable, confirming its security

19
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
by both a law and an oath. 3 Everyone approved of this, and a law was drawn up
by Brutus and his colleagues as follows: ‘Let no one compel a tribune to do any-
thing against his will, as if he were an ordinary citizen, let no one whip him, or
command another to whip him, or kill him or command another to kill him. And
if anyone should commit any of these prohibited acts, let him be accursed and his
goods consecrated to Ceres, and whoever should kill any person who has commit-
ted such acts, let him be innocent of murder.’

ROME AND ITS ITALIAN NEIGHBOURS

The Latins inhabited ancient Latium, which was conquered by Rome by 300 BC. Rome is
shown as dominant over Latium in the treaty between Rome and Carthage in 509 (doc. 4.1).
Rebellion by the Latins led to a struggle which ended with the Latin defeat at the battle of
Lake Regillus (499 or 496).

1.27 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 6.95.1–3: The ‘treaty of Cassius’,

493 BC
Following the ‘first secession’ of the plebeians, Spurius Cassius Vecellinus signed a treaty
in 493 and established a defensive military alliance between Rome and the Latin cities.

1 At the same time a new treaty of peace and friendship was made on oath with
all the Latin cities, since they had not tried to stir up trouble during the revolt, had
been openly pleased at the people’s return (from secession), and had appeared to
be prompt in coming to the assistance of the Romans against the rebels. 2 The
provisions of the treaty were as follows: ‘Let there be peace between the Romans
and all the Latin cities as long as heaven and earth remain in the same position;
let them neither make war on each other, nor call in enemies from elsewhere, nor
grant safe passage to those who make war, but let them assist the other, when
attacked, with all their might, and let each have an equal share of the spoils and
booty taken in their joint wars; let suits relating to private contracts be judged
within ten days and in the place where the contract was made. And let it not be
permitted to add anything to or take anything from this treaty except with the
consent of both the Romans and all the Latins.’ 3 This was the treaty which the
Romans and the Latins made with each other, and which was confirmed by their
oaths over sacrificial victims.

1.28 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 9.59.3–5: Treaty of alliance with the

Aequi, 467 BC
According to Livy (6.12) the Aequi’s numbers were small, but they had taken over part
of the Alban Mount, perhaps in 484 BC, and were not driven back until 431, though
Cincinnatus supposedly crushed them in 458 (cf. docs 2.13–14). They were defeated and
Romanised at the end of the fourth century. Fabius is Q. Fabius Vibulanus.

20
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
3 The Aequi sent ambassadors to Fabius to negotiate a reconciliation and
friendship even before they were forced to do so by the destruction of their army
or capture of their towns. 4 The consul exacted from them two months’ supplies
for his army, two tunics for each man, six months’ pay, and anything else urgently
needed, and concluded a truce with them till they could go to Rome and obtain
peace terms from the senate. However, when the senate learnt of this, it gave
Fabius full powers to make peace with the Aequi on whatever terms he should
prefer. 5 After this, as a result of the consul’s arbitration, the two people made
an alliance, on these conditions: that the Aequi should be subject to the Romans
while still possessing their cities and territories; and that they should not have to
send anything to the Romans except troops, when ordered, to be maintained at
their own expense.

THE ORIGINS OF THE TWELVE TABLES

In 451 BC, supposedly as a result of popular agitation over the control of the law by
patricians and priests, normal magistracies were suspended and ten patricians with consular
powers (a decemvirate: board of ten men) were appointed to draw up legal statutes in
writing. After this decemvirate had codified ten tables, a second decemvirate (said to have
been half patrician, half plebeian) was appointed for 450 and compiled two more tables,
including a ban on marriages between patricians and plebeians; they attempted to remain
in power for 449 but were deposed and normal government resumed.

1.29 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 10.1.1–4: Dissatisfaction within Rome

1 Publius Volumnius and Servius Sulpicius Camerinus were elected as consuls at
Rome (461 BC). They led out no army either to inflict punishment on those who
had injured the Romans or their allies or to protect their possessions; they paid
attention to evils within Rome, to prevent the people uniting against the senate
and committing some horrendous deed. 2 For they were being roused up again
by the tribunes and told that the best political institution for free men was equal
rights, and they wanted private and public business to be administered according
to laws. For there was not as yet among the Romans equality either of laws or
of rights, nor had all their rules of justice been put in writing; but, initially, their
kings had laid down judgements for those who asked for it, and whatever they
decreed was law . . . 4 A few decisions were kept in sacred books and had the
force of laws, but only the patricians were aware of these because they spent their
time in the city, while the majority of people were either merchants or farmers
and came to the capital to the markets at intervals of many days, and were still
unacquainted with them.

1.30 Livy History of Rome 3.32.5–7: The creation of the decemvirate

5 The next consuls were Gaius Menenius and Publius Sestius Capitolinus. In this
year again (452 BC) there was no foreign war; disturbances, however, sprang up

21
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
at home. 6 The legates had now returned with the Athenian laws. For that reason
the tribunes demanded more insistently that a start should finally be made towards
the codification of laws. It was decided to create decemvirs, subject to no appeal,
and for there to be no other magistrates for that year. 7 Whether plebeians should
be members of the decemvirate was a matter of dispute for some time; finally they
gave in to the patricians, with the proviso that the Icilian law about the Aventine
(i.e., the law establishing the tribunate: 2.33.1) and the other sacred laws should
not be abolished.

1.31 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 10.55.4–5, 56.6–7: The ‘codification’

of the law
55.4 The motion carried was that of the consuls-designate and was put forward
by Appius Claudius, who was the first to be called on: that ten of the most distin-
guished senators be elected; that these should govern for a year from the day of
their appointment, having the same authority over everything to do with Rome
as the consuls, and, before them, the kings had possessed; that all the other mag-
istracies be abolished while the decemvirs were in charge of government; 5 that
these men select out of ancestral customs and the Greek laws which the envoys
brought back those best and appropriate for the Romans’ city and codify them in
the form of laws; that what was decided by the decemvirs, if the senate approved
and the people ratified it, should be valid for all time, and all magistrates in the
future should decide private contracts and administer public affairs in accordance
with these laws. . . .
56.6 When they were satisfied with what they had drawn up, they first assem-
bled the senate and, when no new objection was made to the laws, had them pass
a preliminary decree about them. They then summoned the people to the centuri-
ate assembly (comitia centuriata) and, once the pontiffs, augurs and other priests
present had conducted the rites according to custom, distributed the votes to the
centuries. 7 When the people too had ratified the laws, they had them inscribed
on bronze tablets and placed them in sequence in the forum, selecting the most
conspicuous spot.

THE XII TABLES

Crawford Statutes no. 40. The primary areas of concern in the XII Tables are family law,
marriage and divorce; assault and injuries against person or property; inheritance and
ownership; debt, slavery and nexum (debt-slavery). While in the Republic the laws were
learnt by heart by schoolchildren, they became increasingly obsolete.

1.32 Table 1: Rules for a trial

In a trial, the action began with the defendant being summoned to appear before the
magistrate, by force if necessary. 1.1–3: the rights and duties of the plaintiff against a
defendant; 1.13–15: penalties for ‘iniuria’, bodily harm or damage to property and theft.
The XII Tables laid down monetary penalties for physical assault.

22
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
1.1 If he (anyone) summons him (the defendant) to court, he shall go. If he does
not go, he (the plaintiff) shall call a witness; then he shall take him. 2 If he (the
defendant) delays or drags his feet, he (the plaintiff) shall lay hand on him. 3 If
there is sickness or age, he (the plaintiff) shall provide a yoked beast of burden;
if he does not wish to, he should not prepare a carriage. 7 If they do not agree,
they are to present their case in the comitium or forum before midday. They are to
finish bringing action together, both being present . . .
13 If he has maimed a part (of a body), unless he settles it with him, there is to
be retaliation in kind. 14 If he has broken a bone of a free man, 300 (asses), if of a
slave 150 are to be the penalty. 15 If he do (other) injury ?to another? (i.e., not as
serious as the injury above), 25 (asses) are to be the penalty. 16 If he has felled a
productive tree, 25 (asses) are to be the penalty. 17 If he committed theft by night
and he killed him, he shall have been lawfully killed. 19 If the theft is manifest, if
he does not settle, he (the magistrate) shall flog him and hand him over. If a slave,
he is to flog him and throw him from the (Tarpeian) rock. If underage, he is to flog
him and the thief is to repair the damage.

1.33 Table 3.1–4, 3.6: Debt law

Those judged liable for an unpaid debt had 30 days in which to find the money. (The
30 days’ delay might have applied to all kinds of cases, not just debt.) They were then
summoned to the praetor’s court. There was a chance of compromising, presumably by
the debtors choosing to become nexi (‘bondsmen’; sing.: nexus) and paying off their debt
by working for their creditor. If no compromise was reached after the third market-day on
which their debt was announced, they suffered capital punishment or were sold into slavery
‘across the Tiber’, i.e., in Etruscan territory (3.5). Debt-slavery, or nexum, was obviously
an important issue in the mid-fifth century; cf. doc. 1.53.

3.1 In respect of an admitted sum (of debt) and judgement, 30 days (period of
grace) shall be allowed. 2 After that there shall be laying on of a hand. 3 He (the
plaintiff) shall bring him into court. Unless he does what has been judged, or
someone acts as his protector in court, he (the plaintiff) shall take him with him.
He is to bind him with rope or shackles for the feet. He shall bind him with not
more than 15 pounds, or less if he wishes. 4 If he (the defendant) wishes, he is
to live on his own. If he does not live on his own, he who shall have him bound
shall give him a pound of spelt for each day; if he wishes he is to give more. 5 On
three successive market-days, he shall produce him in the comitium. 6 Unless he
settles, on the third market-day they (the creditors) shall cut (?his property?) into
pieces. If they should have cut more or less, it shall be without penalty. 7 If he (the
plaintiff) wishes, he is to sell him abroad, beyond the Tiber.

1.34 Table 4: Family law

Fathers had the right to accept newborn children into the household (‘to pick them up’) or
to expose them. It appears here that a father could sell his son into slavery, and, if freed by
the buyer, the son was returned to his father’s control (patria potestas); the son could be
sold into nexum a maximum of three times.

23
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
4.1 If he is born deformed, and he does not pick him up, it is without liability.
4.2 If a father sells his son three times, the son shall be free from his father.

1.35 Table 5: Women and lunatics

Plutarch Numa 10.3 ascribes the Vestals’ freedom from tutelage to Numa; Vestals could
also make wills. Paternal kinsmen (agnates) or clansmen (gentiles) administered the
property of a madman or spendthrift.

5.1 A Vestal Virgin is to be free of guardianship (tutela).

5.7 If there be a madman ?or spendthrift?, power in respect of him and his familia
(estate) is to belong to his agnates and gentiles.

1.36 Table 5: Inheritance

These clauses concern intestate succession (i.e., where the deceased had not made a will).
Blood relations of both sexes would normally inherit if the head of a family died intestate,
and a wife in her husband’s control (in manu: ‘in his hand’) would rank equally with his
sons and daughters; cf. doc. 7.1.

5.4 If he dies intestate and has no heir of his own (suus heres), the nearest agnate
shall have possession of the estate (familia) ?and goods?
5.5 If there is no agnate, the clansmen (gentiles) shall have the estate and goods.

1.37 Table 5.8, 8.10: Freedmen and patrons

Guardianship of freedmen belonged to their patron (the ex-owner), like the right of
inheritance if the freedman died intestate or without an heir. Presumably otherwise
freedmen had the right of making wills and clearly they could own property.

5.8 If a freedman (dies intestate) . . . from that familia . . . to that familia.

8.10 If a patron shall have wronged his client, he must be forfeited (sacer).

1.38 Tables 6 and 7: Property and possession of land

The term res mancipi included land, slaves and some farm animals; mancipatio was a
formal act of conveyance, requiring five witnesses and a formal weighing out of bronze;
cf. doc. 7.4. Other items, res nec mancipi, were transferred by physical delivery (traditio).
Usucapio was the right of ownership after a period of use, for example of a parcel of land.
Usucapio of movable things could be completed in a year, but for an estate and buildings
it took two years. 6.5: Guardianship of a woman could be transferred by usucapio, and a
woman who remained married for a year was transferred by the year’s ownership (usus)
into the estate of her husband; to avoid coming into her husband’s control, a woman had to
be absent for three nights a year; cf. doc. 7.10.

6.1 When he shall perform nexum (bond) and mancipium (formal purchase), as
he has proclaimed by word of mouth, so shall it be legal. 1b (Ulpian Tit. 2.4)

24
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
A person who has been made a free man under this condition, that he should
give 10,000 pieces to the heir, even if he has been legally transferred by the
heir, shall achieve his liberty by giving the money to the purchaser; and the Law
of the Twelve Tables lays this down. 3 For a piece of land, right of possession
(auctoritas) (is to be) two years for other things it is to be one year. 4 Against
a foreigner right of possession is to be perpetual. 5 If she is absent three nights
in a year . . . 6 He is not to detach from its joint a beam from a house or a vine-
yard . . . 7.9 If a tree overhangs someone’s land, he is to cut it back more than
15 feet.

1.39 Table 8: Animal damage

8.2 If a quadruped cause loss, unless he repair it he is to give it up for the damage.

1.40 Table 8: Slander, libel and witchcraft

8.1: Cic. Rep. 4.12: the Tables laid down a capital penalty for anyone who ‘sang or
composed a song, such as caused dishonour or disgrace to another person’; singing or
chanting against someone might imply witchcraft (cf. doc. 3.69).

8.1 Whoever casts an evil spell . . . or whoever sings or composes a spell . . .

8.4 Whoever has bewitched crops . . . or has enticed someone else’s harvest . . .

1.41 Table 8: Capital crimes: damaging crops, perjury and arson

Damage to crops, perjury and arson were all capital offences. 8.5: the penalty for secretly
cutting crops at night was execution, with the offender’s property confiscated to Ceres. 8.6:
anyone who deliberately burnt a building or a heap of corn placed next to a house was to be
bound, flogged and put to death by fire; if it was an accident, he was to repair the damage.
8.13: the penalty for unintentional homicide.

8.5 If he has grazed or cut a crop by night, he is to be hanged for Ceres. If he

is underage, he (the magistrate) is to flog (him) and he is to settle for double
penalty.
6 If he shall have burnt a building or a heap of corn placed near ?a house?, bound
and beaten (he is to be killed) by fire. If by chance . . . , he is to repair the damage.
12 If he shall have given false evidence, he (the magistrate) shall throw (him) from
the (Tarpeian) rock.
13 If a weapon has escaped his hand rather than that he has thrown it, a ram is to
be offered as a substitute.

1.42 Table 8: Moneylending and interest

Thieves paid double the amount they stole. Lending money at interest was a long-standing
problem for the city. The XII Tables were the first to establish that no one should charge
interest of more than one-twelfth, i.e., 1 per cent a month.

25
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
8.18 Our ancestors followed this (principle) and laid it down in their laws that a
thief is condemned for double, the usurer for quadruple (the amount).

1.43 Table 10: Sacred law

No burial or cremation was allowed in the city because of the danger of fire and pollution
(cf. doc. 3.78); there were also sumptuary regulations about burials, concerning expenses
and mourners. 10.7: garlands to honour games winners or valour were allowed at funerals;
10.8: explains that gold on the corpse is forbidden, except for gold dental work.

10.1 He is not to bury or burn a dead man in the city. 2 He is not to do more
than this; he is not to smooth the pyre with a trowel. 3 . . . three shawls, a small
purple tunic . . . ten flute-players . . . 4 Women are not to tear their cheeks or hold
a wake on account of the funeral. 5 He is not to collect the bones of a dead man to
hold a funeral later (i.e., part of the dead body is not to be preserved for another
ceremony). 7 Whoever wins a crown himself or his family, or it be given to him
for courage, and it is placed on him or his parent when dead, it is to be without
liability. 8 . . . nor is he to add gold, but whoever has teeth joined with gold, and
if he should bury or burn it with him, it is without liability.

THE SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES

1.44 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 10.58.1–4, 60.5–6: The second

decemvirate, 450 BC
Appius is Appius Claudius Crassinus Inregillensis Sabinus (cos. 471), head of the
commission. The fall of the decemvirate and the second secession was supposedly caused
by Appius’ attempted seduction of the beautiful young girl Verginia: the decemvirs
thereupon committed suicide or went into exile.

58.1 Following a lengthy debate (in the senate), the view of those who preferred
electing a decemvirate again to govern the state prevailed. For not only was their
codification of laws clearly unfinished, in as much as it had been compiled in a
short period, but in the case of the laws which had already been ratified a magis-
tracy with absolute powers seemed essential so that, whether willingly or unwill-
ingly, people should observe them. The main reason, however, which led them to
choose the decemvirate was the disbanding of the tribunes, which they all desired
more than anything . . .
3 On this occasion Appius, who was the leading member of the decemvirate,
was greatly praised by everyone, and the whole mob of plebeians wanted to keep
him in office, as they considered that no one else would govern better . . . 4 So he
was again chosen in the centuriate assembly as a law-giver, for the second time;
chosen along with him were Quintus Fabius, surnamed Vibulanus, who had been
three times consul and was a man without reproach up to that time and possessed
of every good quality. From among the other patricians, whom Appius favoured,
Marcus Cornelius, Marcus Sergius, Lucius Minucius, Titus Antonius and Manius

26
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
Rabuleius were elected, men of no particular distinction; and, from among the ple-
beians, Quintus Poetelius, Caeso Duilius and Spurius Oppius. For these too were
admitted by Appius as colleagues to flatter the plebeians, and he stated that since
there was one magistracy governing everyone it was fair that the people should
have some share in it . . .
60.5 Appius and his colleagues had the other laws inscribed on two tablets and
added them to those published before. Among these new laws was this one, that it was
not legal for the patricians to intermarry with the plebeians – a law, in my view,
made simply to prevent the two orders from uniting in harmony once mingled by
intermarriages and family connections. 6 And when the time for the election of
magistrates came round, the decemvirs said goodbye to both the ancestral customs
and the newly written laws, and remained in the same magistracy without putting
it to the vote by either senate or people.

1.45 Tables 11–12: A ban on intermarriage

In the supplementary laws of 449 BC, intermarriage (connubium) between patricians and
plebeians was disallowed, which was clearly an innovation. This was repealed shortly
afterwards, in 445, by the lex Canuleia. If a slave committed a crime, the action lay against
his master; should a slave be injured, his master was compensated (cf. doc. 1.32).

11.1 There is not to be connubium with the plebs.

12.2 If a slave commit theft or cause damage, he is to be given for the damage.

THE CONFLICT OF THE ORDERS CONTINUES

One of the most important issues in the Conflict of the Orders was the opening up to
plebeians of the important magistracies, especially the consulship, as well as the priesthoods.
Legislation concerning the consulship was passed (supposedly) in 367 BC (doc. 1.48) and
in 342 (when both consulships were open to plebeians: doc. 1.50); despite Livy, the first
consular college of two plebeians was in 172, and pairs of patrician consuls are recorded in
355, 354, 353, 351, 349 and 343.

1.46 Livy History of Rome 3.55.1–7, 13–15: The Valerio–Horatian

laws, 449 BC
Cf. Dion. Hal. 11.45. The Valerio–Horatian laws were supposedly passed in response to
dissatisfaction felt with the second decemvirate. The law imposing plebiscites on the whole
people was in fact the lex Hortensia of 287 BC: these laws may have validated plebiscites
which had senatorial sanction.

1 They then, through an interrex, elected Lucius Valerius and Marcus Horatius
as consuls (499 BC), who at once took up their magistracies. Their consulship
favoured the people’s cause without wronging the patricians in any way, although
it still managed to offend them; 2 for whatever protected the liberty of the plebs
was seen as detracting from their own powers. 3 First of all, since it was still an

27
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
open question whether patricians were legally bound by plebiscites, they passed
a law in the comitia centuriata that whatever the people should lay down in the
tribal assembly should be binding on the people; this law furnished the tribunes’
proposals (rogationes) with a very sharp weapon indeed. 4 Secondly, they not
only restored a consular law about the appeal (provocatio), the unique safeguard
of liberty which had been overturned by the power of the decemvirate, but even
protected it for the future by enacting a new inviolable law, 5 that no one should
appoint any magistrate without appeal; if anyone should do so, he might be put to
death without violating law or religion, and this homicide would not be a capital
crime. 6 And now they had fortified the plebs sufficiently through the right of
appeal, on the one hand, and the tribunician help, on the other, they also revived
for the benefit of the tribunes themselves the consideration of their sacrosanct
status, a matter that had come to be almost forgotten, by bringing back certain
rites which had lapsed for a considerable period; 7 and they made them inviolate
both on the grounds of religion and also by a law, which ordained that, should any
person harm the tribunes of the plebs, (plebeian) aediles or decemviral judges,
his head would be forfeit to Jupiter and his household possessions be put up for
sale at the temple of Ceres, Liber and Libera . . . 13 These were the consular laws.
The same consuls also inaugurated the practice whereby senatorial decrees were
handed over to the aediles of the plebs at the temple of Ceres, for previously these
were often suppressed or falsified at the discretion of the consuls. 14 A tribune of
the plebs, Marcus Duillius, then proposed to the plebs, and they decreed, that any-
one who left the plebs without tribunes, and anyone who appointed a magistrate
without appeal, should be scourged and beheaded. 15 None of these measures
were opposed by the patricians (though they were not in favour of them), because
as yet no one in particular was being targeted.

1.47 Livy History of Rome 4.1.1–3, 6.1–11: The Canuleian Laws,

445 BC
Cf. Dion. Hal. 11.53. Gaius Canuleius was tribune of the plebs in 445; his law repealed
that of the second decemvirate which banned patrician–plebeian marriages. This is the first
recorded tribunician veto of a decree of the senate. A contio was an official, non-voting
assembly of the people, summoned by a magistrate or priest.

1.1 Marcus Genucius and Gaius Curtius succeeded these (Titus Quinctius
Capitolinus and Agrippa Furius) as consuls. It was a troubled year both at home
and abroad. For, when it began, Gaius Canuleius, a tribune of the plebs, put
forward a proposal concerning the intermarriage of patricians and plebeians, 2
which the patricians considered would contaminate their blood and mix up the
proper classification of the gentes (clans), while a suggestion initially put forward
hesitantly by the tribunes, that it should be permissible for one of the consuls to
be a plebeian, later went so far that nine tribunes put forward a proposal 3 that the
people should have the power to elect consuls of their choice, whether from the
plebs or the patricians . . . 6.1 When the consuls had joined the meeting (contio)

28
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
and formal speeches had been succeeded by bickering, the tribune asked why a
plebeian should not be chosen as consul. 2 Curtius replied, perhaps truthfully,
yet for the present not very profitably, ‘Because no plebeian has the auspices,
and that was the reason why the decemvirs prohibited intermarriage, in case the
auspices be disturbed by the ill-defined status of the offspring of such intermar-
riage.’ 3 At this the plebs blazed up with extreme indignation, at the suggestion
that they were not allowed to take auspices, as if they were detestable to the
immortal gods; nor did the controversy end – for the plebs had found a zealous
promoter in the tribune and rivalled him themselves in perseverance – until the
patricians were finally overcome and allowed the law about intermarriage to be
carried, 4 because they thought that the tribunes would either entirely abandon
their struggle for plebeian consuls or put it aside until after the war, and that, in
the meantime, the plebs would be satisfied with the right to intermarry and be
prepared for the levy . . . 6 Since the consuls were unable to achieve anything
through the senate while the tribunes interposed their veto, they privately held
councils of their leading men. It was obvious that they would have to give in to
being defeated by either the enemy or their own citizens. 7 Of all the consulars,
Valerius and Horatius were the only ones who did not take part in these councils.
Gaius Claudius’ view was that they should arm the consuls against the tribunes;
the Quinctii, both Cincinnatus and Capitolinus, were averse both to bloodshed
and to harming those whom they had accepted as being sacrosanct in the treaty
they had struck with the plebs. 8 The outcome of these deliberations was that
they allowed military tribunes with consular powers to be elected indiscrimi-
nately from among the patricians and plebs but made no alteration in the consular
elections; with this, both tribunes and plebs were satisfied. 9 An election was
called to elect three tribunes with consular powers . . . 11 The result of this elec-
tion demonstrated how differently people behave when struggling for liberty and
status and when discord is put aside and their judgement unbiased; for the people
elected all the (consular) tribunes from patricians, satisfied that the plebeians had
been allowed to stand for election.

1.48 Livy History of Rome 6.35.1–5: The Licinio–Sextian laws,

367 BC
L. Sextius Sextinus Lateranus (cos. 366) and C. Licinius Stolo (cos. 364 or 361), as
tribunes in 367 (they had reputedly been in office since 376), are recorded as having passed
a package of laws in the interests of the plebeians, many of whom had been reduced to
debt-slavery: interest paid on a debt should be deducted from the principal; at least one of
the consuls was to be chosen from the plebs; and individual holdings of ager publicus (state
land) should be limited to 500 iugera (a standard smallholding was 7 iugera).

1 A chance for innovation was provided by the immense weight of debt, an evil
which the plebs had no hope of lifting except by positioning their representa-
tives in the highest magistracies: their view was that they had to get ready to
plan for this; 2 with effort and toil the plebeians had got to the stage where, if

29
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
they continued their struggles, they could reach the top and rival the patricians
in honours as much as in merit. 3 For the moment, it was agreed that they should
have tribunes of the plebs, through which office they might be able to open up a
way to the other magistracies. 4 Gaius Licinius and Lucius Sextius were elected
and proposed all their laws to the detriment of the patricians and for the advantage
of the plebs – one concerning debt, that what had been paid back as interest should
be deducted from the original, while the remainder should be paid back in equal
instalments over three years. 5 Another limited the possession of land, forbid-
ding anyone from holding more than 500 iugera. A third abolished the election of
military tribunes and provided that one of the consuls, at least, should be elected
from the plebs.

1.49 Livy History of Rome 6.42.9–14: The first plebeian consul

Sextius and Licinius had been tribunes ten times: the plebeian Sextius was elected consul
for 366 BC as a ‘new man’. According to Livy (7.1.4), the patricians purposely deferred
all business to avoid anything being achieved by a plebeian consul. When in 362 the first
plebeian consul to lead an army under his own auspices, Genucius, was ambushed and
killed by the Hernici, the patricians took this as a sign of divine displeasure. The Gauls
were driven off by M. Furius Camillus; for the Great Games, see doc. 2.70.

9 Camillus had hardly put an end to the war when he was faced by even more
violent conflict at home, and after immense struggles the dictator and senate were
beaten, the tribunes’ proposals were adopted, and consular elections were held,
against the wishes of the nobles, in which Lucius Sextius was made the first plebe-
ian consul. 10 Not even this put an end to the disputes. The patricians refused to
ratify the election, which almost brought about a secession of the plebs and threat-
ened other terrible manifestations of civil strife, 11 when finally through the dic-
tator the unrest was allayed by compromise: the nobles gave way to the plebs on
the question of the plebeian consul, and the plebs conceded to the nobles that one
praetor should be elected from the patricians to administer justice in the city. 12
So, after long rivalry, the orders were finally reconciled. The senate decided that
this was a fitting occasion, and appropriate if ever any occasion was, to honour the
immortal gods by a celebration of the Great Games, and an extra day was added
to the normal three. 13 When the people’s aediles refused this additional burden,
the young patricians cried out that they would willingly take it on in honour of the
gods. 14 They were thanked by the entire people, and the senate decreed that the
dictator should propose the election of two aediles (later the curule aediles) from
the patricians and that the senate should ratify all the elections of that year.

1.50 Livy History of Rome 7.42.1–3, 7: The leges Genuciae, 342 BC

This legislation, which included further concessions from the patricians, reputedly
followed an army mutiny in 342 BC. The first year in which both consuls were plebeian
was actually 172; possibly Lucius Genucius legislated as tribune that one of the consuls
had to be plebeian.

30
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
1 In addition to these events, I find in certain writers that Lucius Genucius, a
tribune of the plebs, brought a proposal before the plebs that lending money at
interest should not be permitted; 2 also that in other plebiscites it was laid down
that no one should hold the same magistracy twice within ten years, nor two
magistracies in the same year, and that it should be permissible for both consuls
to be chosen from the plebs. If all these concessions were made to the plebs, it
seems that the revolt had considerable impact. 3 It is recorded in other annals that
Valerius (M. Valerius Maximus Corvus) was not made dictator, but that the whole
affair was managed through the consuls, and that it was not before they came to
Rome but at Rome itself that the enormous number of conspirators were fright-
ened into taking up arms; . . . . 7 On no single point do ancient historians agree
except on their having been a revolt and that it was settled.

1.51 Livy History of Rome 8.12.14–17: A radical dictator, 339 BC

Quintus Publilius Philo was consul in 339, 327, 320 and 315 BC; first plebeian praetor in
336 (doc. 1.52); censor in 332; and dictator in 339. The proposal that plebiscites should be
binding on the whole people duplicates the lex Hortensia of 287 and should probably not
be accepted.

14 The dictatorship of Publilius was a popular one, both for his accusatory
speeches against the senators and because he brought in three laws extremely
favourable to the plebs and damaging to the nobility: 15 one, that plebiscites were
to be binding on all the Quirites (Roman citizens); a second, that the senate should
ratify measures proposed at the comitia centuriata before the beginning of vot-
ing; 16 and a third, that at least one censor should be chosen from the plebs,
since they had already gone so far as to allow both to be plebeian. 17 The sena-
tors considered that the mischief done at home in that year by the consuls and
dictator outweighed the increase in empire which resulted from their victory and
management of campaigns away from home.

1.52 Livy History of Rome 8.15.9: The first plebeian praetor, 336 BC
Quintus Publilius Philo, as a plebeian, was opposed by the consul, C. Sulpicius Longus
(cos. 337), but not by the senate.

In the same year Quintus Publilius Philo was made praetor, the first plebeian to be
so, though Sulpicius the consul opposed his election and refused to receive votes
for him. The senate, however, since it had failed in achieving this for the highest
magistracies, was less stubborn with regard to the praetorship.

1.53 Livy History of Rome 8.28.1–2, 5–8: No imprisonment for debt,

326 BC
The date of this is disputed, but it probably belongs to 326 BC. This treatment of a young
man inflamed the people, and the consuls brought a proposal to the people that none should

31
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
be confined in shackles or in the stocks except those guilty of some crime. From now on,
by law, only a debtor’s goods could be seized, not his person.

1 In that year it was as if the liberty of the Roman plebs had a fresh start, for men
were no longer to be imprisoned for debt; this change in the law was brought
about by the equally outrageous lust and inhumanity of a single moneylender. 2
This was Lucius Papirius, whose mind, when Gaius Publilius gave himself up to
him as a debt-bondsman (nexus) for his father’s debt, was inflamed to lust and
outrage by his youth and beauty, though they might well have roused his compas-
sion . . . 5 Lacerated with whip-marks, the youth rushed into the street, crying out
against the moneylender’s lust and inhumanity, 6 at which an immense mob of
people, infuriated by compassion for his youth and anger at his treatment, as well
as by consideration for their own status and that of their children, flocked into the
forum and from there en masse into the senate house; 7 the consuls were com-
pelled by this unexpected uproar to convene the senate, and the mob threw them-
selves at the feet of each of the senators as they entered the senate house, pointing
to the youth’s scourged back. 8 On that day, due to the unbridled wrongdoing
of one man, the oppressive shackles of credit were overthrown, and the consuls
were instructed to put a motion before the people that no one should be confined
in shackles or fetters, apart from those who had been guilty of some offence and
were awaiting punishment.

1.54 Livy History of Rome 9.33.3–6, 34.26: Appius Claudius as censor

Appius Claudius Caecus (the ‘Blind’) was censor in 312 BC (cos. 307 and 296; praetor
295). He commissioned, as censor, the construction of the Appian Way and Appia aqueduct
(docs 2.4, 6). In 300 he opposed the inclusion of plebeians in the major priestly colleges. In
this episode he refuses to resign after his 18 months as censor.

33.3 For many years now there had been no struggles between the patrician
magistrates and the tribunes, when a dispute arose from that family which
appeared destined to contend with the tribunes and plebs. 4 The censor, Appius
Claudius, when the 18 months laid down by the Aemilian law as the term of the
censorship had expired, and although his colleague Gaius Plautius had retired,
could by no means be made to step down. 5 It was Publius Sempronius, a tribune
of the plebs, who started proceedings to limit the censorship to its legal period, an
action no less just than popular and as welcome to every aristocrat as to the com-
mon people. 6 He repeatedly quoted the Aemilian law and praised its promoter,
the dictator Mamercus Aemilius (434 BC: Livy 4.24.5–6), for restricting the cen-
sorship, which had until then been held for five years and was proving itself tyran-
nical on account of the long period its authority lasted, to a limit of a year and
a half . . . 34.26 After making all these accusations, he ordered the censor to be
seized and led off to prison. Six tribunes approved their colleague’s action, while
three protected Appius on his appeal, and he continued as sole censor despite his
extreme unpopularity with all classes.

32
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
1.55 Livy History of Rome 9.46.1–15: A novus homo in 304 BC
This passage demonstrates the possibility of social mobility in late fourth-century Rome
and the general intransigence of nobles towards outsiders (see docs 2.45–46; 7.74). A
paid bureaucrat (in this case an apparitor: a high-ranking salaried official attendant on
magistrates) could not become a magistrate himself unless he resigned his post. The night
watch (tresviri capitals) was not regularly instituted until c. 290–287.

1 In the same year Gnaeus Flavius, son of Gnaeus, a government clerk, who had
been born in humble circumstances (his father being a freedman) but who was
still a shrewd and eloquent man, was curule aedile. 2 I find in certain annals that,
when he was in attendance upon the aediles and saw that the tribes would elect
him aedile had not his candidature been unacceptable because he was acting as
recorder, he put away his writing-tablet and swore that he would keep no record;
3 however, Licinius Macer alleges that he had ceased being a clerk some time
before this, having already been a tribune and a triumvir, once on a commission
in charge of the night watch and once in the foundation of a colony. 4 In any
case, there is no argument about the obstinacy with which he battled with the
nobles who despised his lowly birth; 5 he published the civil law, which had
been put away in the secret archives of the pontiffs, and posted up the official
calendar (the fasti) on white notice-boards around the forum for people to know
when they could bring a legal action; 6 he dedicated a temple of Concord in the
precinct of Vulcan, to the great resentment of the nobles; and Cornelius Barbatus,
the pontifex maximus, was forced by the unanimous wish of the people to dictate
the formula (of dedication) to him, although he insisted that by ancestral custom
no one except a consul or imperator could dedicate a temple. 7 As a result, in
accordance with a resolution of the senate, a measure was passed by the people
that no one could dedicate a temple or altar without the authorisation of the sen-
ate or of a majority of the tribunes of the plebs. 8 I will relate an incident, not
memorable in itself, except as evidence of the way the plebs asserted their liberty
against the arrogance of the nobles. 9 Flavius had come to visit a colleague who
was sick, and the young nobles who were sitting by the bed were united in their
resolution not to rise to greet him, so he ordered his curule chair to be brought
in and from his official seat gazed at his enemies, who were overpowered with
jealous resentment. . . .
12 So great was the indignation over the election of Flavius that many of the
nobles put aside their gold rings and military decorations. 13 From that time
the citizens were divided into two parties – the honest men, who supported and
upheld right principles, had one point of view, and the rabble (factio) of the forum
another, 14 until Quintus Fabius (Maximus Rullianus) and Publius Decius (Mus)
became censors (304 BC) and Fabius, partly for the sake of harmony, partly so
that the elections might not fall into the hands of the base-born element, separated
out all the forum mob and threw it into four tribes, which he called the urban
tribes. 15 It is said that this was so gratefully received that by this regulation of
the orders he gained the surname of Maximus, which all his many victories had
been insufficient to win him.

33
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
1.56 Livy History of Rome 10.6.3–11: Priesthoods open to plebeians,
300 BC
Quintus Ogulnius Gallus (cos. 269), as tribune in 300, carried a law that positions in the
two major priestly colleges should be shared between patricians and plebeians. From
this point, four of the eight pontiffs and five of the nine augurs were plebeians. The first
plebeian pontifex maximus was in c. 254.

3 However, so that the tranquillity (caused by the sending out of colonies) might
not be universal, dissension was stirred up among the leading citizens, patricians
and plebeians, by the tribunes of the plebs Quintus and Gnaeus Ogulnius, 4 who
had taken every opportunity of criticising the senators to the plebs and, when
all their other attempts had been frustrated, brought forward a course of action
by which they would arouse not just the lowest of the plebeians but their very
leaders – 5 those who had won consulships and triumphs, and who had lacked no
official positions except the priesthoods, which were not yet open to everyone. 6
They therefore proposed that, since there were at that time four augurs and four
pontiffs, and it was desired to increase the number of priests, four pontiffs and
five augurs should be added to them, all taken from the plebs . . . 9 But since these
were to be chosen from the plebs, the senators were as upset by the proposal as
they had been when they saw the consulship thrown open. 10 They pretended
that it was more the gods’ concern than their own: that the gods would see to it
that their rites were not polluted; for their part, they hoped only that no calamity
should come upon the state. 11 But they put up little resistance, being now accus-
tomed to being worsted in conflicts of this kind.

1.57 Livy Periochae 11: The final secession, 287 BC

Quintus Hortensius, a plebeian, was made dictator to solve the problem of the plebs’ final
secession to the Janiculum, caused by a debt crisis in 287.

The plebeians, after serious and lengthy dissension, seceded to the Janiculum Hill
on account of their debts. They were brought back from there by the dictator
Q. Hortensius, who died during his magistracy.

1.58 Gellius Attic Nights 15.27.4: The Hortensian law, 287 BC

From this point, plebiscites in the tribal assembly had the force of law.

In the same book of Laelius Felix (To Quintus Mucius), it is written: . . . ‘Tribunes,
however, do not summon the patricians or consult them on any question. And so,
measures which are passed on the proposals of tribunes of the plebs are not prop-
erly called “laws” but “plebiscites”, and these decrees were not binding on patri-
cians until Quintus Hortensius as dictator brought in a law that whatever the plebs
decided upon should be binding on all Quirites.’

34
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
POLYBIUS ON THE ROMAN CONSTITUTION
Polybius sees Rome as a mixed constitution, blending monarchy, aristocracy and
democracy. He has frequently been criticised for his attempt to analyse Roman institutions
on the model of Greek ones and for misunderstanding the political situation at Rome. He
is here describing political institutions at their most perfect – supposedly, the time of the
Second Punic War – though inevitably his depiction is coloured by the practices of his own
time: ‘From the crossing of Xerxes into Greece . . . and for 30 years after that event it (the
constitution) was continually modified detail by detail, being at its best and most perfect at
the time of the Hannibalic war . . . ’ (6.11.1).

1.59 Polybius Histories 6.12.1–16.5: The Roman Constitution

(i) The consuls

12.1 The consuls, before leading out the legions, remain in Rome and have
supreme authority over all public affairs. 2 All the other magistrates are subordi-
nate to them and bound to obey them except the tribunes, and they present foreign
embassies to the senate. 3 In addition to these duties, they refer urgent matters to
the senate for discussion and carry out all the administrative details of the senate’s
decrees. 4 Also, as far as concerns all affairs of state administered by the people, it
is their duty to supervise these and summon assemblies, bring forward measures,
and preside over the execution of the people’s decrees. 5 As regards preparation
for war, and management of operations in the field generally, their authority is
almost absolute. 6 They are permitted to make whatever demands on the allies
they think appropriate, appoint military tribunes, and levy soldiers and select the
most suitable. 7 In addition, they have the power to punish anyone they wish
under their command while in the field; 8 and they have the authority to spend
whatever amount they decide on from the public funds, being accompanied by a
quaestor who readily carries out all their instructions. 9 So one could reasonably
say, looking just at this part (of the constitution), that it is purely a monarchy or
kingship.

(ii) The senate

13.1 To pass on to the senate, first of all it has control of the treasury and regulates
all revenue and expenditure. 2 For the quaestors are not allowed to disburse pay-
ments on any given projects without a decree of the senate, with the exception of
payments made to the consuls; 3 the senate even controls the item of expenditure
which is far more important and greater than all the others, that which the censors
expend every five years on the restoration and construction of public works, and it
makes a grant to the censors for this purpose. 4 Similarly, any crimes committed
in Italy which require public investigation, such as treason, conspiracy, poisoning
and assassination, are under the jurisdiction of the senate. 5 Furthermore, if any
private person or community in Italy requires arbitration or censure or help or pro-
tection, the senate deals with all these matters. 6 Again, if any embassy has to be

35
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
sent outside Italy to settle differences, or offer advice, or indeed impose demands,
or receive submission, or declare war, this is also the responsibility of the senate.
7 Similarly, when embassies arrive in Rome, all the details of how they should be
received and what answer should be given them are handled by the senate and are
in no way the concern of the people. 8 As a result, to anyone residing in Rome in
the absence of the consuls, the constitution appears totally aristocratic; 9 this is the
belief of many of the Greeks and also of the kings, as the senate handles almost all
the business which concerns them.

(iii) The people

14.1 After this one might reasonably inquire what part in the constitution is left
for the people? . . . 3 Nevertheless, there is a role left for the people too, and a
very important one. 4 For the people alone in the state have the power to award
honours and punishments (the control of elections and the law-courts), which
alone hold together kingdoms and states and all human society generally . . . 6
The people, then, frequently judge cases where the offence is punishable by
a fine, and particularly when the accused have held the most distinguished
offices; the people alone can try a capital charge . . . 9 Furthermore it is the
people who bestow offices on those who deserve them – the noblest reward for
virtue in a state. 10 The people have the power to approve or reject laws, and,
most important of all, they deliberate on matters of peace and war. 11 Again, in
the case of alliances and the cessation of hostilities and treaties, it is the people
who ratify each of these or the reverse. 12 So again one might reasonably say
that the people have the greatest role in government and that the constitution is
a democratic one.

(iv) The senate as a check on the consuls

15.2 The consul, when he sets out with his army, possessed of the powers men-
tioned earlier, seems to possess absolute authority with regard to completing the
task before him, 3 but in fact he needs the support of both the people and the
senate, and without these he is unable to bring his operations to a conclusion. 4
For it is clear that the legions need constant supplies, and without the consent of
the senate neither corn, nor clothing, nor pay can be provided, 5 so that a com-
mander’s plans are unworkable if the senate chooses to be negligent or obstruc-
tive. 6 It also rests with the senate as to whether a general’s plans and designs can
be carried to completion, since it has the authority to send out another general,
when the former’s term of office has expired, or to continue him in his command.
7 Moreover, the senate has the power to celebrate generals’ successes with pomp
and magnify them or to obscure and belittle them; 8 for the processions they call
triumphs, in which the spectacle of what the generals have achieved is brought
before the citizens, cannot be properly organised, and in some cases not even held
at all, unless the senate agrees and grants the necessary funds.

36
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
(v) The people as a check on the senate
16.1 The senate, again, though it has such great power, is obliged in the first place
to pay attention to the people in public affairs and to respect its wishes, 2 while it is
unable to carry out inquiries into the most serious and important crimes against the
state, such as involve the death penalty, or take steps to exact punishment for them,
unless the people ratifies the decree. 3 It is the same with regard to matters which
concern the senate itself. For if anyone introduces a law, intended either to deprive
the senate of some of its traditional authority or to abolish the senators’ precedence
and other distinctions or even to reduce their private property, in all these cases the
people has the power to pass or reject them. 4 And, most important of all, if a sin-
gle tribune interposes a veto, the senate is not only unable to reach a final decision
on any matter but may not even meet or sit in council. 5 The tribunes are always
obliged to carry out the people’s decrees and especially to respect its wishes – for
all these reasons the senate is afraid of the masses and takes notice of the people.

1.60 Sallust The Catilinarian Conspiracy 29.1–3: The ‘senatus

consultum ultimum’
The term ‘senatus consultum ultimum’ (‘final decree of the senate’) is a modern one,
following Caesar BC 1.5 (doc. 13.24), where he describes the senate’s resolution to
suspend the constitution as ‘that extreme and ultimate decree’. A declaration of emergency,
the decree instructed the consuls to take measures to ensure ‘that the state suffer no harm’.
It was first passed in 121 BC (docs 8.32–33). Cicero here, as consul in 63, has heard of
Catiline’s plot to murder him.

1 Cicero reported the matter, which had already been the subject of popular gos-
sip, to the senate. 2 Thereupon, in accordance with its usual practice in dangerous
crises, the senate decreed that ‘the consuls should take measures that the state
suffer no harm’. 3 The power thus conferred by the senate on a magistrate by
Roman custom is supreme: they may raise an army, wage war, apply force by any
means to allies and citizens, and exercise supreme command and jurisdiction at
home and in the field; otherwise the consul has none of these privileges unless the
people decrees it.

ROME’S STRUGGLE FOR ITALY

1.61 Livy History of Rome 5.21.10–13, 22.1, 8, 23.3: Veii, 396 BC

Veii, an Etruscan city 15 kilometres north of Rome, was captured in 396 after a long-
drawn-out siege (supposedly lasting ten years) by the dictator M. Furius Camillus; Rome
had been engaged in intermittent conflict with Veii since the first Veientine War (483–
474 BC).

21.10 The mine, which was now filled with selected soldiers, suddenly discharged
armed men into the temple of Juno, which was on Veii’s citadel, of whom some

37
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
attacked the enemies who had their backs to them on the walls, some tore down
the bars on the gates, others set fires to stop the women and slaves throwing
down rocks and tiles from the roofs. 11 Everywhere was filled with shouting –
the varying cries of those who threatened and those who trembled, mixed with
the lamentation of women and children. 12 In a moment the armed men were
everywhere cast from the walls and the doors were thrown open, while some
of the attackers rushed in en masse, others climbed the walls, and the city was
overrun with enemies; fighting was everywhere; 13 then, after great slaughter,
the fighting slowed and the dictator ordered heralds to declare that the unarmed
would be spared . . . 22.1 On the next day the dictator sold the free inhabitants into
slavery . . . 8 Such was the fall of Veii, the wealthiest city of the Etruscan people,
which demonstrated its strength even in its final calamity, since after a siege of ten
continuous summers and winters, in which it had inflicted far more disasters than
it had received, when finally even fate turned against it, it was captured by siege-
engines and not by force . . . 23.3 The senate decreed four days of supplications, a
greater number of days than in any previous war.

1.62 Livy History of Rome 5.48.6–9: The Gallic sack of Rome

Traditionally dated to 390 BC, the Gallic sack of Rome took place c. 386 BC after the
Romans were defeated at the River Allia. The Gauls were said to have been driven back
from the Capitol by M. Manlius Capitolinus, who had been warned of their attack by Juno’s
sacred geese.

6 Meanwhile the army on the Capitol was exhausted from picket and guard duty,
and, though they overcame all human evils, nature would not permit them to get
the better of one, which was starvation. Day after day they looked to see if any
help from the dictator was on its way, 7 but finally not only food but hope, too,
began to fail them, and when they went out on picket duty their bodies were nearly
too weak to wear their armour, so they declared that they had either to surrender
or ransom themselves on whatever terms they could, for the Gauls were throw-
ing out clear hints that it would not take a very great price to persuade them to
abandon the siege. 8 The senate then met and gave the military tribunes the task
of negotiating terms. The matter was arranged at a conference between Quintus
Sulpicius, the tribune, and Brennus, chieftain of the Gauls, with 1,000 pounds of
gold as the price of a nation that was soon to rule the world. 9 This was an intense
dishonour in itself, but a further insult was added: the weights brought by the
Gauls were too heavy and, when the tribune objected, the insolent Gaul added his
sword to the weight, with the words which Romans could not bear to hear, ‘Woe
to the conquered!’ (‘Vae victis!’)

ROME AND THE LATINS

Following the establishment of the Republic, the Latins revolted and formed an alliance
(the ‘Latin league’). Towards the end of the fifth century, Rome began its conquest of

38
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
southern Latium and southern Etruria with Veii in 396 BC. In 341 the Latins revolted after
their request for a consulship and half the places in the senate was refused. They were
defeated and their territory was settled by Rome.

1.63 Livy History of Rome 8.6.15–16: Brothers in blood, 340 BC

Livy comments at 8.8.2 that this conflict resembled a civil war – so little did the Latins
differ from the Romans in anything but courage. The Romans are here concerned about
making war against the Latins because of their social and cultural links.

15 Their anxiety was exacerbated by the fact that they had to make war against
the Latins, who were similar to themselves in language, customs, type of arms
and, above all, military institutions; soldiers had mixed with soldiers, centurions
with centurions, tribunes with tribunes as equals and colleagues in the same gar-
risons, and often in the same maniples. 16 To prevent the men falling into some
misjudgement because of this, the consuls proclaimed that no one was to leave his
position to fight the enemy.

1.64 Livy History of Rome 8.11.11–16: Defeat of the Latins, 340 BC

Both of the consuls, T. Manlius Torquatus and P. Decius Mus, had a dream that a devotio
(ritual dedication to the gods of the underworld) was required for victory. They agreed
that, whichever flank gave way, the consul commanding it would devote himself. Decius
Mus did so (doc. 3.18) and the Latins were defeated. The silver denarius was not struck
until 211.

11 The consul Torquatus met this force at Trifanum, a place between Sinuessa
and Minternae. Without waiting to choose sites for their camps, both sides piled
up their baggage and fought the battle that ended the war; 12 for the enemy suf-
fered such great losses that, when the consul led his victorious army to plunder
their lands, the Latins all surrendered, and their surrender was followed by the
Campanians. 13 Latium and Capua were deprived of their territory. The Latin
territory, with the addition of that belonging to Privernum, and the Falernian ter-
ritory as well (which had belonged to the Campanian people) as far as the River
Volturnus, was divided up among the Roman people. 14 The allocation was 2
iugera for each man in Latium supplemented by three-quarters of a iugerum from
the land of Privernum or 3 iugera in Falernian territory with another quarter being
added because of the distance involved. 15 The Laurentians and Campanian
equites were exempted from the punishment of the Latins because they had not
revolted. It was ordered that the treaty with the Laurentians be renewed, and it has
been renewed every year from that time on the tenth day after the Latin festival.
16 Roman citizenship was granted to the Campanian equites, and in commemora-
tion of this a bronze tablet was put up in the temple of Castor at Rome. In addition,
the Campanian people – there were 1,600 of them – were ordered to pay per head
an annual sum of 450 denarii.

39
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
1.65 Livy History of Rome 8.14.1–12: Settlement with the Latins,
338 BC
L. Furius Camillus and C. Maenius, as consuls in 338, put down Latium, which was still
discontented; Camillus has here been urging the senate to decide on a settlement. Camillus
was awarded a triumph; Maenius dedicated the ‘beaks’ (rostra) of the ships he captured at
Antium under the speakers’ platform in the forum, henceforth called the Rostra.

1 The leading senators praised the motion of the consul (Camillus) on the policy to
be followed but said that, as the Latins were not all in the same position, his advice
could best be carried out by the consuls’ bringing forward proposals concerning the
different peoples by name, so that a decision could be made on the merits of each.
2 Accordingly motions and decrees were taken on them individually. The city of
Lanuvium was granted citizenship and their shrines restored to them, on condition
that the temple and grove of Juno Sospita should be held in common by the towns-
folk of Lanuvium and the Roman people. 3 The Aricini, Nomentani and Pedani
were received as citizens on the same terms as the Lanuvini. 4 The Tusculans kept
the citizenship they already had, and the charge of revolt was laid not to the detri-
ment of the community but against a few leaders. 5 The Veliterni, long-time Roman
citizens, were severely penalised for having rebelled so many times: not only were
their walls pulled down, but their senate was deported and ordered to live on the
far side of the Tiber, 6 on the understanding that, if any of them were caught on the
near side, his ransom should be no less than 1,000 pounds of bronze, nor should
his captor release him from bondage until the money had been paid. 7 Colonists
were sent to the senators’ lands, and once they were enrolled Velitrae regained its
former appearance of being well populated. 8 A new colony was sent to Antium
too, on the understanding that the Antiates, if they wished, should be permitted to
enrol themselves as colonists; their warships were taken from them and their peo-
ple were forbidden the sea and they were granted citizenship. 9 The Tiburtes and
Praenestians were deprived of their territory, not only because of the latest charge
of rebellion brought against them together with the other Latins but also because
they had once, in disgust at Roman rule, joined forces with the Gauls, a savage
race. 10 The rest of the Latin peoples were deprived of their rights of intermarriage
(connubium) and mutual trade (commercium) and of holding councils with each
other. To show honour to their equites, because they had chosen not to revolt with
the Latins, the Campanians were granted citizenship without the vote (civitas sine
suffragio), as were the Fundani and Formiani, because they had always allowed a
safe and peaceful passage through their territories. 11 It was resolved to give the
people of Cumae and Suessula the same rights and terms as Capua. 12 Some of the
ships from Antium were laid up in the dockyards at Rome, others were burnt, and
it was resolved to use their prows (rostra) to adorn a platform constructed in the
forum, and this sacred place was named the Rostra, or beaks.

THE SAMNITE WARS AND PYRRHUS

Samnium is situated in the central southern Apennines. Following the ‘Latin War’, the
Romans began incursions into central Italy and came into conflict with the Samnites. They

40
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
fought three Samnite wars in all: the First (343–341 BC) gave Rome control over northern
Campania; the Second (326–321, 316–304) hindered Samnite expansion into Apulia,
Lucania and southern Campania; and, despite defeat in the Third (298–290), the Samnites
aided both Pyrrhus and Hannibal, and at the beginning of the first century BC were one of
Rome’s most intractable enemies in the Social War (docs 10.10–11, 27–28). In an attempt
to keep their independence, Tarentum and other Greek cities of southern Italy invited
Pyrrhus of Epirus to lead their defence in 280 (doc. 1.74); his defeat in 275 and the fall of
Tarentum in 272 marked Rome’s total dominance over the rest of Italy.

1.66 Livy History of Rome 8.23.1–7: The Second Samnite War

(326–304 BC)
In 327 the Greek city of Palaepolis, not far from Naples, engaged in hostilities against
Campania and Falerii. The senate decided for war against Palaepolis under one consul, Q.
Publilius Philo (docs 1.51–52), while the other, L. Cornelius Lentulus, was given command
against the Samnites. Fregellae was established as a Latin colony in 328.

1 The senate was informed by both consuls that there was minimal hope of peace
with the Samnites: Publilius reported that 2,000 soldiers from Nola and 4,000
Samnites had been taken into Palaepolis, rather under pressure from the Nolani
than of the Greeks’ own choice; 2 Cornelius that a levy had been called by the
magistrates and that all Samnium was up in arms, while the neighbouring towns
of Privernum, Fundi and Formiae were being openly invited to join them. 3 It
was decided, for these reasons, to send legates to the Samnites before declaring
war, and a defiant response was returned by the Samnites. 4 For their part, they
accused the Romans of wrongdoing, while doing their best to clear themselves of
the charges brought against them: 5 they stated that they were not assisting the
Greeks with any public advice or support, nor had they invited Fundi or Formiae
to join them; they were quite confident in their own forces, if they chose to fight. 6
However, they were unable to disguise the fact that the Samnite nation was angry
that Fregellae, which they had captured from the Volsci and destroyed, should
have been restored by the Roman people, and that they should have planted a
colony in Samnite territory, which the colonists called Fregellae; 7 that was an
insult and injury which, if those responsible for it did not undo it themselves, they
would combat with all the force in their power.

1.67 Livy History of Rome 9.7.6–12: The Caudine Forks, 321 BC

In 321 the Roman army was trapped in a narrow defile by the Samnite leader C. Pontius,
upon which it surrendered and the army was made to pass under the yoke. The Romans
were shocked not so much at the defeat as at the surrender. The defeat was avenged in the
following year, when Pontius was himself sent under the yoke at Luceria by the consul
Lucius Papirius Cursor; cf. doc. 5.3.

6 By this time Rome had also heard of its dishonourable defeat. The first report
was that the army had been trapped; then came news which was even more melan-
choly on account of the shameful peace than on account of the danger they faced.

41
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
7 At the report of a blockade they had started holding a levy; they then, on hearing
of so disgraceful a surrender, disbanded their preparations to send assistance, and
at once, without any authorisation from the state, the whole people adopted every
type of mourning. 8 The shops around the forum were closed, all public business
in the forum was automatically suspended even before a public announcement;
9 tunics with broad purple stripes and golden rings were put away; and the citi-
zenry was almost more depressed than the army itself – they were not only infuri-
ated at the generals and those who had made and guaranteed the peace, but even
detested the innocent soldiers and were unwilling to allow them into the city or
their homes. 10 But the arrival of the army, which roused pity even in angry men,
softened this general agitation. For they entered the city not like men returning
home safely from a hopeless situation but late in the day, with the appearance and
bearing of captives, 11 with each man concealing himself in his own home, and on
the next and subsequent days not one of them was prepared to look into the forum
or out into the streets. 12 The consuls shut themselves up at home and transacted
no public business, apart from the fact that a senatorial decree ordered them to
name a dictator to preside over the elections. . . .

1.68 Livy History of Rome 10.1.1–2: More colonies, 303 BC

The Hernici and Aequi were conquered in 306–304, while their neighbours signed
treaties of alliance with Rome. The colonies at Alba and Sora clearly had the strategic
aim of consolidating this region: inhabitants were granted Latin rights, sharing the
rights of intermarriage and trade with Romans: any who settled in Rome were granted
citizenship.

1 In the consulship of Lucius Genucius and Servius Cornelius there was

almost a complete rest from foreign wars. Colonies were sent out to Sora and
Alba. 6,000 settlers were enrolled for Alba in the Aequian region: 2 Sora had
belonged to Volscian territory, but the Samnites had occupied it; 4,000 men
were sent there.

1.69 ILS 1: Epitaph of a conqueror of Italy

Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus (‘Long-beard’) was consul in 298 BC and censor
perhaps in 280. He was probably the founder of the tomb of the Scipiones, on the Appian
Way. The date of his epitaph has been disputed, but it now appears to have been written
shortly after his death, perhaps c. 250. In 298 the Romans were campaigning annually in
Etruria and Umbria, while war against the Samnites recommenced in 298. The victory
over the Lucanians was in 298; Livy mentions only Barbatus’ successes in Etruria (Livy
10.11–12; cf. 10.14, 11.26).

Lucius Cornelius Scipio, son of Gnaeus.

Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus,
Offspring of his father Gnaeus, a man brave and wise,
Whose looks well matched his courage,

42
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
Was consul, censor and aedile among you.
He took Taurasia and Cisauna from Samnium,
Totally subdued the Lucanian land and brought back hostages.

1.70 Livy History of Rome 10.28.12–18: The devotio of Decius Mus,

295 BC
The Third Samnite War broke out in 298 BC, and in 296 a joint attack on Rome by
Samnites, Etruscans, Umbrians and Gauls was planned. Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus and
P. Decius Mus (junior) were appointed consuls for 295, and they pursued the Samnites and
Gauls over the Apennines. In 295 Decius sacrificed himself against the Gauls and Samnites
as his father had done in 340 (docs 1.64, 3.18), thus saving the battle.

12 Then, as he was powerless to stop their flight, he called on the name of his
father Publius Decius: 13 ‘Why do I delay longer’, he cried, ‘to fulfil our house’s
destiny? Our family was granted the privilege of being sacrificed to avert our
country’s dangers. It is now my turn to offer up the legions of the enemy as vic-
tims to Earth and the gods of the underworld (di manes).’ 14 With these words
he ordered Marcus Livius, the pontifex, whom he had already told as he went
into battle not to leave his side, to dictate the words with which he could devote
himself and the legions of the enemy on behalf of the Roman people, the Quirites.
15 He was then devoted with the same form of prayer and the same dress as when
his father Publius Decius had ordered himself to be devoted at Veseris in the
Latin war. 16 Following the ritual prayers, he added that he was driving before
him fear and rout, slaughter and bloodshed, 17 and the anger of the celestial and
underworld gods, and would pollute with a deadly curse the standards, spears
and arms of the enemy, while the same place would mark his own destruction and
that of the Gauls and Samnites 18 – after uttering these curses upon himself and the
enemy, he galloped his horse into the Gallic battle-lines, where he saw them
thickest, and threw himself on the enemy’s weapons to meet his death.

1.71 Livy History of Rome 10.31.10–15: The Samnite wars continue

The year is 295 BC, after the victory at Sentinum. The Samnites were again overwhelmingly
defeated at Aquilonia in 293.

10 There are still more Samnite wars to come, though we have been dealing
with them continuously through four volumes over a period of 46 years, from
the consulship of Marcus Valerius and Aulus Cornelius (343 BC), who were the
first to bear arms in Samnium. 11 Without at this point going through the disas-
ters suffered by both peoples over so many years and the hardships endured, by
which nevertheless those brave hearts refused to be conquered, 12 in the past
year the Samnites had fought in the territory of Sentinum, among the Paeligni,
at Tifernum, in the Stellate plains, now by themselves, now with the addition of
troops from other peoples, and had been cut to pieces by four armies under four

43
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
Roman commanders; 13 they had lost their people’s most distinguished general;
they saw their allies in war, the Etruscans, Umbrians and Gauls, in the same plight
as their own; 14 nor were they able to carry on, either with their own resources
or outside support; but they would not abstain from war – so far were they from
being tired of freedom, even though their defence of it had been unsuccessful,
preferring to be defeated rather than not to try for victory. 15 Who then could
begrudge the time spent on the reading and writing of wars when these did not
weary those who fought them?

1.72 Livy History of Rome 10.38.2–4, 10–13: The ‘linen legion’,

293 BC
Livy’s descriptions of Samnite weaponry conflict with the archaeological evidence, and at
9.40.3 (308 BC) Livy mentions that the Samnite soldiers wore linen (rather than enrolling
under it).

2 The Samnites held a levy throughout all Samnium under a new law, 3 which
stated that any man of military age who did not respond to the generals’ proc-
lamation or who left the army without orders would forfeit his life to Jupiter. 4
The entire army was then instructed to meet at Aquilonia. Some 40,000 soldiers,
Samnium’s fighting force, assembled . . . 10 Each man was then forced to swear
an oath following a certain grim formula, invoking a curse on himself, his house-
hold and his family if he did not go into battle where his generals led or if he fled
from the battle-line himself or saw someone else fleeing and did not immediately
cut him down. 11 At first, there were some who refused to swear, and they were
beheaded in front of the altars; lying there among the piles of sacrificial victims,
they acted as a warning to others not to refuse to comply. 12 When the leading
Samnites had bound themselves by this curse, ten of them were named by the
general, and each was told to choose a man until their number had reached 16,000.
This was called the ‘linen legion’, from the covering of the enclosure in which
the nobles were sworn in; these were given distinguished armour and crested hel-
mets to make them stand out among the others. 13 A little more than 20,000 men
formed another force which was inferior to the linen legion in neither physical
appearance, nor martial reputation, nor equipment. This was the number of men,
their fighting force, which encamped at Aquilonia.

1.73 Pliny Natural History 34.43: Colossal art from Samnite spoils
Sp. Carvilius Maximus was consul in 293 BC and was awarded a triumph both for his
victories against the Samnites in 293 and for his defeat of Tarentum and the other Greek
cities in 272. For Jupiter Latiaris and the Feriae Latinae, see doc. 3.9.

Italy also used frequently to make colossal statues . . . When the Samnites were
defeated after fighting under an inviolable oath (in 293 BC), Spurius Carvilius
made the Jupiter, which stands in the Capitol, out of their breastplates, greaves

44
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
and helmets. Its size is so great that it can be seen from the temple of Jupiter
Latiaris (10 miles away on the Alban mount). Out of the left-over filings, he made
a statue of himself, which stands at the feet of Jupiter’s statue.

1.74 Livy Periochae 12–14: Pyrrhus of Epirus

Pyrrhus of Epirus (319–272 BC) was approached by Tarentum for help against Rome,
which had begun interfering in the affairs of the Greek cities of southern Italy in 285.
Pyrrhus’ aims included the conquest of Sicily and Carthage, as well as Italy, and his
involvement gave rise to a simultaneous revolt of Samnites, Lucanians and Bruttians. He
defeated the Romans at Heraclea in 280 and, after an abortive march on Rome, again at
Ausculum in 279. In 278 he fought the Carthaginians (Rome’s allies: Polyb. 3.25.1–5) in
Sicily, returning to Italy in 276. After a defeat at Beneventum, he went back to Epirus.

12 A Roman fleet was seized by the Tarentines, the duumvir who commanded
it was killed, and the envoys sent to them by the senate to complain about these
injuries were driven away. On this account, war was declared against them. The
Samnites revolted. Several battles were successfully fought against them and the
Lucanians, Brittii (Bruttians) and Etruscans by numerous generals. Pyrrhus,
the Epirote king, came to Italy to aid the Tarentines. A Campanian legion led by
Decius Vibellius sent to protect the people of Rhegium slaughtered the inhabit-
ants and seized Rhegium. 13 The consul Valerius Laevinus (cos. 280) fought an
unsuccessful battle against Pyrrhus, as the soldiers were extremely terrified by the
unaccustomed sight of elephants . . . Cineas was sent by Pyrrhus to the senate as
an envoy to request that the king be received into the city for the sake of arranging
peace terms. It was resolved that this be referred to a more well-attended meeting
of the senate, and Appius Claudius (Caecus), who because of problems with his
eyesight had for some time abstained from public business, entered the senate and
won it over to his opinion that this be refused Pyrrhus . . . There was a second
battle against Pyrrhus of which the result was indecisive . . . 14 Pyrrhus crossed
over to Sicily . . . The consul Curius Dentatus (cos. 290, 275, 274) held a levy and
was the first to sell the goods of anyone who did not answer when summoned; he
also defeated Pyrrhus, who had returned from Sicily to Italy and drove him out
of Italy . . . A Carthaginian fleet came to the aid of the Tarentines, which was a
violation of the treaty by them. The book also deals with successful wars against
the Lucanians, Bruttians and Samnites and the death of King Pyrrhus.

1.75 Plutarch Life of Pyrrhus 19.5–7: Romans as the ‘hydra’

A Roman army under Laevinus (cos. 280 BC) was defeated by Pyrrhus at Heraclea.
Pyrrhus then sent Cineas as an envoy to discuss peace terms, but the blind Appius Claudius
Caecus persuaded the Romans not to surrender and to make peace with Pyrrhus only after
he had left Italy.

5 When Appius had made this speech, the senators were possessed with enthu-
siasm for prosecuting the war, and they sent back Cineas with the response that,

45
 EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC
when Pyrrhus had left Italy, then, if he wished, the Romans would discuss the
question of friendship and alliance, but as long as he remained there in arms they
would continue the war with all their strength, even if he were to meet in bat-
tle and vanquish 10,000 men of Laevinus’ stamp. 6 It is also said that Cineas,
while conducting this mission, made it at the same time his business zealously to
observe their lifestyle and learn about their excellence of their government. He
also met their nobles and conversed with them, and among the many things he
told Pyrrhus was his statement that the senate appeared to him a council of many
kings, 7 and that, with regard to the populace, he was afraid that they might find it
a Lernaean hydra to fight against – since the consul had already collected twice as
many soldiers as faced them before, and there were many times the same number
of Romans still able to take up arms.

46
 2

The Public Face of Rome

Even from the time of the kings, the city of Rome and especially its public works
impressed visitors: as Strabo comments (doc. 2.1), the Romans concentrated on
utilitarian projects rather than on aspects of beautification, and Rome was noted
for its aqueducts and sewers (docs 2.1–4), while its road-building (docs 2.5–8)
was rivalled by no other ancient empire. Thus Rome signalled its territorial domi-
nation and control of the resources of the land through which the roads travelled,
as well as aiding transport and movement throughout an increasing empire. The
amenities of the city, too, whose inhabitants may have approached near to a mil-
lion in the first century BC, were continually updated and designed to improve
conditions for the growing urban population.
The Romans in general, and particularly the senatorial class, prided themselves
on the traditions of austerity, frugality and common sense that they had inher-
ited from their earliest ancestors: heroes of renowned military campaigns such as
Cincinnatus and Curius Dentatus in early Rome were remembered for their pride
in being simple farmers (docs 2.12–13), and this image was revived by Cato the
Elder who, though a ‘new man’ in the early second century BC, took pride in his
parsimony and lack of interest in the expensive items which were introducing
Romans of the mid-second century to luxury, gluttony and epicureanism (docs
2.14–17). Cato’s instructions for the practical and profitable running of a country
estate provide unrivalled details of the procedures and practices involved at this
period on a small slave-run property (docs 2.15–16, cf. 6.32–34), while his pre-
scriptions for the medicinal use of cabbage show that no item in the household
was too trivial to escape his attention (doc. 2.17). Seneca the Younger similarly
pays homage to the moral standards of olden days when he contrasts the baths
thought appropriate for his own use by the great Scipio Africanus, conqueror of
the Carthaginians, with those constructed in Seneca’s own time (doc. 2.20).
Cato’s adherence to traditional values was not, however, shared by the major-
ity of the Roman upper classes, particularly as immense wealth and resources
became available with the second-century BC conquests of the eastern and west-
ern Mediterranean. Marcus Licinius Crassus in the first century BC may have been
unusual in considering the term ‘wealthy’ to comprise the ability to keep a legion
(some 4,200 men) on one’s income, and he was also unusual in the way in which
the bulk of his money had been acquired (from ‘fire-sale’ tactics: docs 6.3, 2.21).
More common was the acquisition of wealth through conquest and administration

47
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
of a province, and the lifestyle of L. Licinius Lucullus shows to what degree of
dilettantism this might lead (doc. 2.22); even official pontifical (priestly) banquets
could have a menu that defies imagination, while by the late Republic delicacies
such as peafowl and lampreys for consumption at banquets could be bred by aris-
tocrats and command immense sums of money (docs 2.23–24).
Underpinning this lifestyle was a highly competitive, militaristic society, in
which the ultimate goal was to attain the consulship, along with a provincial com-
mand which might lead to a triumph. It was seen as essential to live up to the vir-
tues and achievements of one’s ancestors and to acquire gloria (reputation) which
would enhance the family’s status and increase the number of imagines – masks
of noble ancestors – in the house’s vestibule (docs 2.25–28): the funeral oration
for L. Caecilius Metellus demonstrates the achievements and status most sought
after by a consular in the third century BC (doc. 2.29). These aims changed lit-
tle, and desire for public office and political influence won by one’s merits was a
major virtue according to Cicero, who criticises his brother Quintus for possibly,
by his conduct as governor of Asia, detracting from the family gloria won by
Cicero himself in his consulship (docs 2.30–31).
The ultimate achievement was the celebration of a military triumph in Rome,
which gave the triumphator the chance to display his captives, booty and dedicated
soldiery (docs 2.32–35), and Cicero tried hard, but unsuccessfully, to persuade his
political friends to award him a triumph for his governorship of Cilicia, which would
have been the pinnacle of his career (docs 2.44, 13.20). As a result of this competi-
tive culture, candidature for office was keenly contested: with only two consuls and
a number of lesser magistrates per year, only a lucky few could hope to win the
consulship. Largesse and bribery of the electorate were thus endemic to the process
of canvassing, which could be an extremely costly business and which was expected
to involve all one’s friends and connections (docs 2.36–42). The electorate tended
to prefer candidates of known ancestry, and even wealthy non-nobles, those with-
out a consul in their ancestry, found it as outsiders difficult, though not of course
impossible, to achieve the consulship: Cato the censor, Marius and Cicero were
some of the exceptions, and such men were known as novi homines (‘new men’;
sing.: novus homo). Sallust sees such men as generally resented by the nobility, and
Cicero prides himself on the personal merits that have won him the prestigious posi-
tion of consul (docs 2.44–45). New men were particularly disadvantaged by their
lack of political friends (amici) and clients (clientes) to help them in their candida-
ture and canvassing. As Roman politics lacked formal political parties, unofficial
political friendships (amicitiae) were invaluable in bringing together, even if only
temporarily, men with common aims who could further each other’s goals; Cicero
gives numerous examples of how the system worked in practice (docs 2.47–50).
New men in the political arena had to create their own amicitiae and were also
disadvantaged by their lack of clients, who were often inherited within the family
and could number several thousands: a politician’s retinue of clients (his clientela)
demonstrated his importance and prestige and was a significant aid in canvassing for
office (docs 2.38, 54–59). Generals and governors could also include entire prov-
inces and foreign communities among their clientela (docs 2.60–62).

48
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
Even for well-known military figures, undertaking important prosecutions or
defences in the law-courts was a way of winning clients and popularity gener-
ally. It was considered honourable to prosecute family enemies, though gratitude
was won especially through a successful defence (docs 2.63–65). The ability to
speak well in public was essential in Rome, not merely on the political stage but
also in the courts, and the training could be long and arduous (docs 2.66–68, 69).
Included among the notably impressive speakers in the late Republic were the
Gracchi (docs 8.3, 26–27) and Julius Caesar (doc. 2.68), as well, of course, as
Cicero, whose career was built on his skill in forensic oratory (doc. 2.67). It was
naturally an important factor in success as a politician to have popular support,
which could be gained by high birth, military achievements and oratorical ability
but also be attained by entertainment of the populace. The putting on of costly
games was a common way for aediles to court the attention of the people with a
view to their election later to the higher magistracies (docs 2.76–77), and gladi-
atorial shows, theatrical performances, wild-beast fights, and public banquets and
other hand-outs were often aimed at canvassing support for current or potential
candidates for office (docs 2.73–75, 78–79). Such expenditure, of course, made it
even more desirable to achieve high office and the chance of the governorship of
a profitable province afterwards to enable candidates to recoup their electioneer-
ing expenses.
Ancient sources: the evidence for the public face of Rome is scattered among
the literary sources; the geographer Strabo, who wrote his vast work in the reigns
of Augustus and Tiberius, and the antiquarian Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the
early first century AD provide useful information on Rome’s infrastructure and
buildings, as does the work of Frontinus On Aqueducts (consul in 72 or 73, 98 and
100 and superintendent of aqueducts under Nerva in AD 97). Livy and Dionysius
are the main sources for details of the history of early Rome, such as temples and
dedications. Inscriptions also testify to specific contracts for public works such as
roads and to traffic regulations in Rome (docs 2.7–8, cf. 10–11). Cato the Elder
is the principal witness to the details of farming villa-estates in the mid-second
century (docs 2.15–17) and to the accompanying traditional values. Cicero’s 58
speeches and huge collection of letters to his friends, Atticus, and his brother
Quintus are of course the main evidence for political concepts such as amicitia,
gloria, clientela and the novus homo, as well as for electioneering practices such
as the prevalence of bribery and the importance of oratorical training, while aris-
tocratic values are also evidenced by epitaphs of nobiles (such as docs 2.25–26).
The Lives of Plutarch, especially Pompey, Lucullus, Crassus and Cato the Elder,
provide useful anecdotal information on the contrast between the supposed frugal-
ity of older times and the luxurious and wealthy lifestyle of first-century nobiles
and the enormous power which such wealth and clientela gave them.

THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE CITY

The main architectural features of Rome in the Republic were its aqueducts (doc. 2.4), its
sewers (docs 2.1–3), the buildings in the forum (such as the prison: doc. 12.22) and Jupiter’s

49
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
temple. As Rome’s power grew, many new buildings, mainly temples, were constructed,
often in fulfilment of vows made in war or at the introduction of new cults (docs 3.57–64).
Plans of the city survive, but from the imperial period, and much of what can be seen in
Rome today dates from the building projects of the emperors, such as Augustus: cf. docs
15.1, 15.81. These projects, however, had Republican antecedents, not just in Pompey’s
works (docs 2.73–74) and Caesar’s (docs 13.56) but in the various buildings constructed in
the forum and Campus Martius areas from the third century BC onwards.

2.1 Strabo Geography 5.3.8: Engineering projects

Strabo, who admired the physical infrastructure of the city of Rome, is describing Rome in
the past. Houses were not individually connected to the sewers, the main purpose of which
was to drain rainwater and the Cloaca stream; cf. doc. 15.40.

The Greeks had the reputation for making good choices in their foundation of cit-
ies, because they aimed for beauty, defensibility, harbours and fertile soil, while the
Romans were especially farsighted in matters to which the Greeks paid little atten-
tion, such as the construction of roads and aqueducts, and of sewers which could
wash out the city’s filth into the Tiber; and they have constructed roads throughout the
country, adding the levelling of hills and the filling in of valleys, so that their wagons
can carry boat-loads; and the sewers, vaulted with tightly fitting stones, have enough
room in some places for wagons loaded with hay to pass through. And such quanti-
ties of water are brought into the city by aqueducts that actual rivers flow through the
city and the sewers, and almost every house has cisterns, service pipes and plentiful
fountains . . . In short, the ancient Romans paid little attention to the beauty of Rome
because they were occupied with other, greater and more necessary, matters.

2.2 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 3.67.5: Plumbing!

Livy and Dionysius follow a tradition that the fifth and seventh kings of Rome, the Tarquins,
played a major part in the provision of public works. Tarquinius Priscus was credited with
the adornment of the forum, as well as the walls of the city, the sewers, the Circus Maximus
and the temple of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva on the Capitoline Hill. Other sources give the
second Tarquin the credit for the same works. Acilius wrote a history of Rome in Greek in
the second century BC.

Tarquinius (Priscus) also began the digging of the sewers, through which all the
water which flows off from the roads is diverted into the Tiber, thus constructing
marvellous works which defy description. Indeed I would rate as the three most
magnificent constructions of Rome, from which the greatness of her empire can
particularly be seen, as the aqueducts, the paved roads, and the construction of the
sewers. I say this not only with regard to the usefulness of the work, about which
I shall speak in its proper place, but also to the size of the cost involved, which
one can judge from a single example if one takes Gaius Acilius as his authority,
who says that once, when the sewers had been neglected and no longer carried the
water, the censors let out their cleaning and repair at the cost of a thousand talents.

50
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
2.3 Cicero In Defence of Sestius 77: Blocked sewers
Publius Sestius (tr. pl. 57) was prosecuted for using armed force during his tribunate and
was successfully defended by Cicero, who is here referring to the bloodshed caused by
the proposal of his own recall in January 57, which was hotly opposed by Clodius. Appius
Claudius Pulcher, then praetor, lent his brother Clodius a troop of gladiators intended for
funeral games. The sewers and the Tiber had been used for the disposal of the bodies of
both the Gracchi and their supporters.

Surely you remember, jurors, how the Tiber was then filled with the bodies of citi-
zens, how the sewers were blocked, how the blood was wiped from the forum with
sponges, so that everyone thought that such an immense band and magnificent dis-
play was the work not of a private citizen or plebeian, but of a patrician and praetor.

2.4 Frontinus On Aqueducts 1.5: Rome’s water supply

Four aqueducts were constructed for Rome in the Republican period: the aqua Appia (312
BC), Anio Vetus (272 BC), the aqua Marcia (144 BC) and the aqua Tepula (125 BC). In
the city, water was diverted into settling tanks and then distributed to public fountains. The
Appia was 16.5 kilometres in length and brought 75,700 cubic metres of water per day to
the city. For Agrippa and Augustus’ aqueducts, see docs 15.1, 15.52.

In the consulship of Marcus Valerius Maximus and Publius Decius Mus (312
BC), the thirtieth year after the start of the Samnite War, the Appian aqueduct
was brought into the city by Appius Claudius Crassus, the censor, who was later
given the surname Caecus (‘the blind’); he was also responsible for the construc-
tion of the Appian Way from the Capena gate up to the city of Capua . . . The
Appia draws water from the Lucullan estate on the Praenestine Way, between the
seventh and eighth milestones, on a by-road, 780 paces to the left. From its intake
to the Salinae, which is at the Trigemina gate, the length of the channel is 11,190
paces; of this, 11,130 paces run underground, while 60 paces are supported above
ground by substructures and, near the Capena gate, by arches.

COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC WORKS

The first major road in Italy, the Via Appia, was constructed in 312 BC. In the third cen-
tury BC, roads radiated out from Rome through central Italy, and by the end of the second
century major Roman roads linked the north, south, east and west of Italy with the capital.
Besides the Via Appia, other major roads were the Via Flaminia (220 BC), running north
from Rome to the east coast, the Via Egnatia (c. 130), which ran from the Adriatic to
Byzantium and provided Rome with its main route to the east, and the Via Aurelia (241,
extended in 109), which ran up the Italian north-west coast.

2.5 Procopius History of the Wars 5.14.6–11: The Appian Way

The Via Appia built (but not paved) by Appius Claudius Caecus as censor in 312 BC
extended some 210 kilometres from Rome to Capua, providing the Romans with their main

51
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
route to southern Italy. Appius also built the Aqua Appia (doc. 2.5). Procopius is describing
Belisarius’ reconquest of Italy in the sixth century AD.

6 Belisarius led his army by the Latin Way, leaving on their left the Appian Way,
which the Romans’ consul Appius built 900 years earlier and to which he gave his
name. The Appian Way is five days’ journey for an active man, for it extends from
Rome to Capua. 7 The breadth of the road is such that two wagons going in oppo-
site directions can pass each other, and it is one of the sights most worth seeing
anywhere. 8 Appius quarried all the stone, which is millstone and naturally hard,
from another place far away and brought it there, for it is not found anywhere in
this region. 9 He worked the stones smooth and level, cut them square, and bound
them to each other without putting gravel or anything else between them. 10 They
were fixed together so securely, with the joints so tight, that they give the appear-
ance, when you look at them, of not being fitted together but of having grown
together. 11 And although so long a period has passed, and so many wagons and
all kinds of animals have travelled over it each day, the stones have not separated
at all at the joints, nor have any of them been worn out or become thinner – in fact
they have not even lost any of their finish. Such, then, is the Appian Way.

2.6 Plutarch Life of Gaius Gracchus 7.1–4:

Communications within Italy
See docs 8.28–29 for Gaius’ other public works during his tribunates.

1 Gaius devoted particular attention to the construction of roads, bearing in mind

practical considerations as well as those relating to grace and beauty. His roads
ran straight across the country without deviations, the surface consisting partly of
dressed stone and partly of tight-packed sand. 2 Depressions were filled up, water-
courses or ravines which crossed the road were bridged, and both sides of the road
were of equal and corresponding height, so that the whole work presented a sym-
metrical and beautiful appearance. 3 In addition to this, he measured every road
in miles (the mile is a little less than 8 stades) and positioned stone pillars to mark
the distances. 4 He set up other stones, too, at shorter intervals on both sides of
the road, so that horsemen should be able to mount from these without assistance.

2.7 ILS 5799: Contract for repairs to the Via Caecilia

A tablet of stone, dating to approximately 90–80 BC, found in a wall at Rome, records a
public document dealing with repairs to the (unidentified) Via Caecilia; 1,000 paces equals
a Roman mile.

. . . Works . . . on the Via Caecilia let out at contract . . . out of . . . thousand ses-
terces. At the thirty-fifth milestone a bridge over the river, the sum assigned, at
the cost to the people of 5 . . . sesterces; Quintus Pamphilus, contractor, and work-
men, with Titus Vibius Temudinus, city quaestor, as overseer of roads; the road
must be laid in gravel from the 78th milestone and paved through the Apennines

52
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
for a distance of 20,000 paces, the sum assigned, at the 10 cost to the people of
150,000 sesterces. Lucius Rufilius, freedman of Lucius and Lucius, . . . contractor,
with Titus Vibius, quaestor, as overseer of roads; the road must be laid from the
98th milestone to the 11 . . . milestone . . . turn-off to Interamnium up to the 120th
milestone; the sum assigned, at the cost to the people of 600,000(?) sesterces . . .
15 Titus Sepunius O . . . , son of Titus, contractor, with Titus Vibius Temudinus,
city quaestor, as overseer of roads . . . fallen down arch . . . the sum assigned, at a
cost to the people of . . . sesterces . . . ; . . . contractor, 20 with Titus Vibius, city
quaestor, as overseer of roads . . .

2.8 ILS 6085, 53–67: The lex Julia Municipalis

This is an extract from Julius Caesar’s town-planning law of 44 BC; included here are the
sections which deal with roads, clearly an attempt to solve Rome’s daytime traffic and
waste disposal problems. For this law, see also doc. 13.59.

53 Where a building adjoins an alleyway, the owner shall keep this alleyway
properly paved along the entire face of the building with durable, whole stones to
the satisfaction of the aedile in charge of roads in that district in accordance with
this law . . .
56 Regarding the roads which are or shall be within the city of Rome or where
there is continuous habitation, no one after the first day of January next shall in the
daytime lead or drive a wagon on them after sunrise or before the tenth hour of
the day, except for the purposes of transporting materials for the construction of
the sacred temples of the immortal gods, or for the carrying out of public works,
or for removing from the city materials from those places which are being demol-
ished by public contract. For those cases it shall be permitted by this law for
specified people to drive or lead wagons for the reasons specified.
62 On those days on which the Vestal Virgins, the rex sacrorum, and the
flamines have to ride on wagons in the city for the sake of the public sacrifices of
the Roman people, or wagons have to be led in a triumphal procession on the day
when someone celebrates a triumph, or wagons are needed for games publicly
celebrated in Rome or within one mile of the city or for the procession for the
games in the Circus Maximus, it is not the intention of this law to prevent the use
of wagons in the city for these reasons and on those days.
66 It is not the intention of this law to prevent whatever ox wagons or donkey
wagons have been driven into the city at night from leaving the city of Rome or
within one mile of the city, empty or carrying excrement, between sunrise and the
tenth hour of the day.
68 Regarding public places and public porticoes which are or shall be within
the city of Rome or within one mile of the city of Rome, which are by law under
the charge of aediles or of those magistrates who supervise the cleaning of roads
and public places within the city of Rome or within one mile of the city of Rome,
no one shall have anything built or erected in such places or porticoes, nor shall
anyone acquire possession of any of these areas or porticoes, nor shall anyone
have any part of them enclosed or shut off to prevent the people from access to

53
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
and use of such places and porticoes, except for those people to whom permission
has been granted by laws, plebiscites and senatorial decrees.

2.9 Livy History of Rome 9.43.25: The temple of Safety

Salus was deified ‘safety’, or the welfare of the state. The terms which ended the Second
Samnite War (307/6 BC) were that the Samnites should provide grain for three months and
a year’s pay and tunic for each Roman soldier. Vowed in 311, the temple, on the Quirinal,
was dedicated in 302.

In the same year, the contract for the temple of Safety was let out by the censor
Gaius Junius Bubulcus, which he had vowed, while consul, during the Samnite
war. He and his colleague Marcus Valerius Maximus built roads throughout the
countryside at the public expense.

2.10 ILS 5348: Public amenities at Aletrium, c. 100 BC

On the front of a temple at Aletrium, 70 kilometres south-east of Rome. Varus spent a
fortune on the town, as he restructured Aletrium on the lines of towns in the Greek East.

Lucius Betilienus Varus, son of Lucius, on the advice of the senate (of Aletrium),
superintended the construction of the following works: all the streets 5 in the
town, the colonnade leading to the citadel, a playing-field, a clock (horologium),
a meat-market, the stuccoing of the basilica, the seats, the bathing pool; 10 he
made a reservoir by the gate, with an aqueduct some 340 feet long bringing water
to the town and citadel, and arches and sound water-pipes. On account of all this,
they made him censor for the second time, and the senate ordered his son exempt
from military service, 15 and the people gave him a statue and the title Censorinus
(because he had been censor).

2.11 ILS 5706: Amenities at Pompeii

This inscription dates to c. 90–80 BC; the decurions are the members of the local senate.

Gaius Ulius, son of Gaius, and Publius Aninius, son of Gaius, Board of Two for
pronouncing justice, let out a contract by decree of the decurions for the construc-
tion of a Spartan sweating-room and rub-down room and for repairs to porticoes and
a wrestling-school 5 out of the money which they were required by law to expend
on games or a memorial. They superintended and approved the completed work.

THE IDEOLOGY OF THE ROMAN SENATORIAL CLASS

Romans of the first century BC saw their ancestors as hard-working and frugal. Much of this
perception is idealised by contrast with contemporary standards of living; there is evidence,
however, that before the conquests of the second-century BC many of the senatorial class
were farmers on a small scale. Lower down the social scale, the centurion Spurius Ligustinus

54
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
in 171 had inherited one iugerum, less than an acre, of land, his wife was undowered, and he
had to support eight children on this and his army service (doc. 5.9).

2.12 Cicero On Old Age 16.55–56: The mythology

of the ‘farmer-general’
From 218 BC (the lex Claudia) senators were forbidden to engage in large-scale trade
and from then on they were mainly landowners. Cato the Elder is here praising the fact
that senators of olden times lived and worked on their farms unless called on for public
service. Of course this bears no relation to the reality of landowning aristocrats in the later
Republic. Dentatus defeated the Samnites in 290 BC and Pyrrhus in 276. Cincinnatus was
dictator in 458.

55 I could relate at length all the various charms of country life, but I realise I have
already spoken too much . . . Well, it was in this sort of life that Manius Curius
Dentatus spent his remaining years after his triumphs over the Samnites, the
Sabines and Pyrrhus; and whenever I look at his farm, which is not far from mine,
I cannot admire enough the frugality of the man and the spirit of his generation.
56 When the Samnites brought Curius a great weight of gold, as he sat before the
fire, he refused it; for he said that he thought the glory was not in possessing the gold
but in ruling those who had it. . . . In those times senators, that is, senes (elders),
lived on farms – if it is true that Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was ploughing his
fields when he was told that he had been appointed dictator . . . Marcus Curius
Dentatus and other elders were summoned from their farms to serve in the senate,
which is why the messengers who were sent to summon them were called travel-
lers (viatores). Surely then the old age of men such as these, who took pleasure in
cultivating the soil, was not unhappy? Indeed, in my opinion, I think that nothing
could be happier than a farmer’s life, not only because of the service he performs,
since agriculture benefits the whole human race, but also because of the pleasure,
which I have mentioned earlier, and the plenty and abundance of all things which
contribute to the sustenance of men and even to the worship of the gods.

2.13 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities

10.17.4–6: Cincinnatus, 458 BC
Suffect (substitute) consul in 460, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was appointed dictator in
458 when a Roman army was besieged by the Aequi on Mount Algidus. Within 15 days, he
raised an army, defeated the Aequi and returned to his plough.

4 It happened that at that moment Quinctius was ploughing some ground for sow-
ing, and was himself following the lean oxen that were breaking up the fallow,
without a tunic and wearing a small loin-cloth and a cap on his head. When he saw
a crowd of people coming into the field, he halted his plough and for some time
was uncertain who they were or what they wanted with him; then, when one ran
up to him and told him to make himself look more decent, he went into the cot-
tage, dressed, and came out to meet them. 5 The men who were there to escort him

55
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
all greeted him not by his name but as consul, dressed him in the purple-bordered
robe, placing in front of him the axes and other insignia of his magistracy, and
asked him to follow them to the city. He paused for a moment and shed tears,
only saying: ‘So my field will be unsown this year, and we shall be in danger of
not having enough food to support us.’ Then he kissed his wife and, instructing
her to look after things at home, went off to the city. 6 I am led to narrate these
details for no other reason than to make clear to everyone what type of men the
leaders of Rome were at that time, that they worked with their own hands, led
self-disciplined lives, did not complain about honourable poverty, and, far from
pursuing positions of royal power, actually refused them when offered.

2.14 Plutarch Life of Cato the Elder 3.1–2, 4.4–6:

The old-style Roman
Marcus Porcius Cato, Cato the Elder, was consul in 195 and censor in 184. He was noted
for his parsimony and adherence to traditional Roman values. He was against all unneces-
sary expenditure; for his views on the treatment of slaves, see docs 6.35–38.

3.1 There was a certain man of high birth and great influence at Rome, who was
skilled at perceiving excellence in its early stages and well disposed to cultivate it
and bring it into repute, Valerius Flaccus. 2 He had a farm adjoining that of Cato
and, learning from Cato’s servants of the way he farmed his own land and of his
lifestyle, was amazed to hear them relate how Cato, early in the morning, walked
to the market-place and pleaded the cases of all who wanted his aid and then
returned to his farm, where, clad in a sleeveless tunic in the winter, and stripped
in summer, he worked with his servants, then sat down with them to eat the same
bread and drink the same wine. . . .
4.4 He tells us that he never wore clothing worth more than 100 drachmas;
that, even when he was praetor or consul, he drank the same wine as his slaves
and that, as for fish and meat, he would buy for his dinner 30 asses worth from
the market, and even this for the city’s sake to strengthen his body for military
service; 5 that he once inherited an embroidered Babylonian mantle, but sold it
at once; that not a single one of his cottages was plastered; that he never paid
more than 1,500 drachmas for a slave, as he wanted not the delicate or hand-
some types but tough workmen like grooms and herdsmen . . . 6 In general, he
said, he thought nothing cheap that one could do without, but that what a per-
son did not need, even if it cost one cent (an as), was expensive; also that he
acquired lands where crops were raised and cattle herded, not those where lawns
were sprinkled and paths swept.

2.15 Cato On Farming 11.1–5: Running a vineyard

The De agri cultura (On Farming) of c. 160 BC is the only work of Cato which survives
complete. In it Cato gives detailed advice to landowners of moderately sized slave-run estates
producing wine and olive oil (the ‘villa system’ or estates of some 25 to 75 hectares). A cul-
leus holds 20 amphorae; an amphora some 26 litres or one cubic foot of dry goods.

56
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
1 This is the equipment necessary for a vineyard of 100 iugera: an overseer, a
house-keeper, 10 labourers, 1 oxherd, 1 donkey-driver, 1 willow-worker, 1
swineherd – a total of 16 persons; 2 oxen, 2 cart-donkeys, 1 donkey for the mill;
3 complete presses, jars to hold five harvests of a total of 800 cullei, 20 jars
for holding grape-pulp, 2 20 for grain, and the tops and covers for each jar,
6 pots made of broom, 4 amphorae of broom, 2 funnels, 3 wicker-work strainers,
3 strainers to remove the flower, 10 vessels for the unfermented juice; 2 carts,
2 ploughs, 1 wagon-yoke, 1 yoke for carrying wine (probably a manuscript error
for ox harnesses), 1 donkey yoke, 1 bronze disk, 1 grinding-stone; a bronze vessel
holding a culleus, 1 cover for a bronze vessel, 3 iron hooks, 1 cooking-pot hold-
ing a culleus, 3 2 water pots, 1 watering-pot, 1 basin, 1 small pot, 1 slop-basin,
1 water bucket, 1 little dish, 1 ladle, 1 candlestick, 1 chamber-pot, 4 beds, 1 bench,
2 tables, 1 stone table, 1 clothes chest, 1 cupboard, 6 long benches, 1 well-wheel,
1 iron-tipped corn-measure, 1 half-measure, 1 wash-tub, 1 soaking-tub, 1 vat
for lupines, 10 large jars; 4 ox-harnesses, donkey-harnesses, 3 rugs, 3 utensils,
3 strainers for wine-lees, 3 donkey-mills, 1 hand-mill; tools: 5 reed knives, 6 vine-
dresser’s knives, 3 pruning-hooks, 5 axes, 4 wedges, 2 ploughshares, 10 forks,
6 spades, 4 shovels, 2 four-toothed rakes, 4 manure-hampers, 1 manure-basket,
40 grape-harvesting hooks, 10 bill-hooks for cutting broom, 2 braziers, 2 pairs of
fire-tongs, 1 fire-shovel; 5 20 small Amerine baskets, 40 planting baskets or trays,
40 wooden spades, 2 treading vats, 4 mattresses, 4 coverlets, 6 cushions, 6 bed-
covers, 3 towels, 6 patchwork cloaks for slaves.

2.16 Cato On Farming 135.1–3: Retail goods

Cato was born at Tusculum, and his advice in this work is directed especially to farmers in
Latium and Campania.

1 At Rome buy tunics, togas, coats, patchwork cloaks and boots; caps, iron
tools, knives, spades, mattocks, axes, harness, bits, and small chains at Cales and
Minturnae; spades at Venafrum; carts at Suessa and in Lucania; vats and tubs
at Trebla, Alba and at Rome; 2 and tiles at Venafrum. Roman ploughs will be
good for fertile soil, Campanian for blackish earth. Roman yokes will be the best.
Detachable ploughshares will be the best. Olive-crushers at Pompeii, Nola and at
the wall of Rufrium; locks and bolts at Rome; buckets, oil-urns, water-pitchers,
wine-urns, and other bronze vessels at Capua and Nola; Campanian strainers will
be found useful; 3 pulley-ropes and all goods made of broom at Capua; Roman
strainers at Suessa and Casinum, but the best will be at Rome. Who makes press-
ropes? Lucius Tunnius at Casinum, Gaius Mennius, son of Lucius, at Venafrum.

2.17 Cato On Farming 156.1: The uses of cabbage

Cato also gives recipes for cleaning out the digestive tract, cures for colic, strangury, head-
aches and ulcers, and poultices (a cabbage poultice helps to heal a dislocation). The urine
of those who eat cabbage can be used to bath babies and cure weak eyes.

57
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
On cabbage and how it promotes digestion. It is the cabbage which surpasses
all other vegetables. It may be eaten either cooked or raw. If you eat it raw, dip
it in vinegar. It promotes digestion marvellously, makes a good laxative, and
the urine is good for everything (i.e., medicinally). If you want to drink a good
deal and dine freely at a dinner party, before dinner eat as much raw cabbage,
seasoned with vinegar, as you wish, and similarly after dinner eat some five
leaves; it will make you feel as though you had not dined and you can drink as
much as you want.

2.18 Cicero Letters to his Friends 16.21.7: A Roman farmer

In 44 BC, in a letter to his father’s freedman Tiro, who had bought a farm, Marcus Cicero
junior jokes about his becoming a proper countryman, even to keeping the stones from des-
sert to sow them later. For Tiro, see docs 6.51–52.

You’re a land-owner! You’ll have to drop all citified refinements – you’ve become
a country Roman! How I picture you before my eyes right now, and a very pleas-
ant sight it is! For I seem to see you buying country gear, talking to your bailiff,
and saving up in your hem the fruit-stones from dessert.

2.19 Plutarch Life of Cato the Elder 21.5–7: Cato’s mercantile

activities
Though Cic. Off. 2.89 says Cato compared moneylending to murder, Cato engaged in it
himself – though only at low risk; compare the moneylending activities of Marcus Junius
Brutus (doc. 5.72).

5 When he applied himself more seriously to making money, he considered agri-

culture more as an amusement than profitable, and he invested his capital in safe
and certain ventures, buying ponds, hot springs, places given over to fullers, pitch
works, land with natural pastures and woods – from which he acquired a great
deal of money and which could not, as he used to say, ‘be ruined by Jupiter’.
6 He also engaged in the most criticised type of moneylending, namely on ships,
in the following way. He required the borrowers to form a large partnership; when
there were 50 partners and as many ships, he acquired one share in this company
himself through his freedman Quintio, who worked with the borrowers and sailed
with them. 7 So the entire risk was not his, only a small part of it, and his profits
were large.

2.20 Seneca the Younger Letters 86.1, 4–6, 11–12:

Scipio Africanus’ baths
Seneca (died AD 65) paid a visit to the villa at Liternum (north of Cumae) which had
belonged to P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus, the victor over Hannibal. In describing the vil-
la’s baths he contrasts modern luxury with antique austerity.

58
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
1 I am writing this letter to you while staying at the villa of Scipio Africanus him-
self . . . 4 I have looked at the house, which is built of squared stone . . . and at the
narrow little bath, dark in keeping with ancient custom (for our ancestors thought
that a bath should not be hot unless dark too). It was, therefore, a great delight to me
to compare Scipio’s habits with our own. 5 In this recess, the ‘terror of Carthage’, to
whom Rome is indebted for having been captured only once (i.e., by the Gauls), used
to bathe a body exhausted by farm work. For Scipio kept himself busy with hard work
and even cultivated the land himself, as was the custom with the Romans of old. He
stood under this mean roof, and this paltry floor bore his weight. 6 But who is there
today who could bear to bathe like this? Everyone thinks himself poor and worth-
less unless his walls sparkle with large and costly decorations, unless marbles from
Alexandria are set off by Numidian mosaics, unless their borders are covered on all
sides with elaborate designs and multi-coloured like paintings, unless the vaulted roof
is covered with glass, unless Thasian marble, once a rare sight even in a temple, lines
our swimming pools . . . 11 Of what uncouthness some people nowadays condemn
Scipio, because he did not let daylight into his caldarium through wide windows,
because he did not cook himself in a sunlit room and hang around before boiling in his
bath. ‘Wretched man!’ they say. ‘He didn’t know how to live well. He did not bathe
in unfiltered water – it was often dirty and after heavy rain was almost muddy!’ But
it didn’t bother Scipio much if he had to bathe like that; he came to the baths to wash
off sweat, not unguents. 12 And what do you suppose some people will comment? ‘I
don’t envy Scipio; whoever had to bathe like that was really living in exile!’ Actually,
if you only knew, he didn’t bathe every day. Those who have recorded the ancient
customs say that they washed just their arms and legs every day, since those parts of
the body gathered dirt from work, and washed the rest only once a week. Someone
will say at this point, ‘They must have been filthy chaps! Can you imagine how they
smelled?’ But they smelled of the army, hard work and manliness!

CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION IN ROME

Despite the ideals of frugality, simplicity and adherence to traditional values, there was
increasing dependence on luxury goods and magnificent lifestyles from the mid-second
century BC: see also docs 5.54–66. Cicero’s friend Atticus may not have been a typical
equestrian, but some idea of inherited wealth in the first century BC can be seen from the
fact that he inherited 2 million sesterces from his father and a further 10 million from his
uncle who adopted him (doc. 12.26).

2.21 Plutarch Life of Crassus 2.1–7: A very wealthy Roman

Crassus played the major part in defeating the slave rebellion of Spartacus and was consul
in 70 and 55 (both times with Pompey). He became enormously wealthy during Sulla’s
proscriptions (docs 11.19–25).

1 The Romans say that this one vice, avarice, overshadowed Crassus’ many
virtues; it seems that this one became stronger in him than all other vices and
obscured the rest. 2 The greatest proofs of his avarice are considered to be the

59
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
way he made his money and the immensity of his wealth. 3 For, to begin with,
he possessed no more than 300 talents, but during his consulship he dedicated a
tenth to Hercules and provided a feast for all the people, as well as giving every
Roman from his own purse enough grain to live on for three months, and yet,
when he made a calculation of his assets before his Parthian expedition, he found
he was worth 7,100 talents. 4 Most of this money, if the truth, though scandalous,
be told, he collected through fire and war, making his greatest profits from public
misfortunes. For, when Sulla took over Rome and sold the property of the men he
had proscribed, considering it and calling it spoils of war, he wanted to share the
guilt with as many of the most influential men as possible, while Crassus refused
neither to take nor to buy it from him. 5 In addition, when he saw what familiar and
normal disasters at Rome fires were, and the collapse of buildings because of their
weight and contiguity, he started buying slaves who were architects and builders.
When he had more than 500 of these, he used to purchase houses that were on fire
and ones next to those on fire, since because of their fear and uncertainty the owners
would sell at a low price, and, as a result, the greater part of Rome came into his
possession. . . . 7 And although he owned numerous silver mines and very valuable
land with labourers on it, yet one might consider all this to be nothing in comparison
with the value of his slaves, of whom he owned large numbers and who were highly
qualified – readers, secretaries, silversmiths, stewards, waiters . . .

2.22 Plutarch Life of Lucullus 39.2–5, 42.1–2: Lucullus

and luxury
L. Licinius Lucullus was one of Sulla’s supporters and the only officer who backed his march
on Rome in 88 BC. Consul in 74, he was given the command against Mithridates, which
Pompey took over through the lex Manilia in 66. After attempts to frustrate ratification of
Pompey’s eastern settlements (docs 12.36, 44), he retired from politics to live in luxury.

39.2 I must assign to frivolity the extravagant buildings and covered walks and
baths, and, still more, his paintings and statues and his devotion to these arts,
which he collected at enormous expense, pouring lavishly into these the immense
and splendid wealth which he had amassed during his commands – and even now,
when luxurious living has increased to such an extent, the gardens of Lucullus
are numbered among the most extravagant of the imperial gardens. 3 As for his
constructions on the seashore and near Naples, where he suspended hills over
immense tunnels and circled his residences with rings of sea and streams for fish-
breeding and built dwellings surrounded by sea, Tubero the Stoic on seeing them
called him ‘Xerxes in a toga’. 4 He also had country residences near Tusculum
with belvederes commanding the view and complexes of open dining-rooms and
walkways, where Pompey once criticised Lucullus for having organised his coun-
try residence in the best possible way for summer but having made it uninhabit-
able in winter. 5 Lucullus just laughed at him and said, ‘Do you suppose then that
I have less sense than cranes and storks and fail to change abodes according to
the seasons?’ . . . 42.1 He collected many well-written books, his use of which
reflected better on him than the way he acquired them, and his libraries were

60
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
thrown open to everyone, as well as the colonnades around them and rooms for
study, which were always open without restriction to the Greeks, who frequented
them as if they were a lodging place of the Muses and spent the day there with
each other, gladly escaping from their other occupations. 2 Lucullus often also
spent time there with them, walking in the colonnades with their scholars and
assisting their statesmen in whatever they wanted; and in general his house was a
home and town hall (prytaneion) for any Greeks who came to Rome.

2.23 Macrobius Saturnalia 3.13.10–12: A pontifical banquet

Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius was the son of Metellus Numidicus (see docs 9.6–9, 28). He was
pontifex maximus and Sulla’s colleague as consul in 80 BC. Here L. Cornelius Lentulus
Niger is being installed as flamen of Mars (flamen Martialis) c. 69 BC; four of the six
Vestals were present. Feasts were a traditional part of the ritual of priestly colleges.

10 You must understand that extravagance was found among the most respectable
dignitaries, for I would like to put before you the details of a very early pontifical
banquet which is recorded in the fourth Register of the famous pontifex maxi-
mus Metellus, in the following words: 11 ‘On the ninth day before the Kalends
of September, the day on which Lentulus was installed as flamen of Mars, the
house was decorated, the dining-room furnished with ivory couches, and the pon-
tiffs reclined on two of the dining-couches: Quintus Catulus, Marcus Aemilius
Lepidus, Decimus Silvanus, Gaius Caesar, . . . the chief priest (rex sacrorum),
Publius Scaevola, Sextus . . . Quintus Cornelius, Publius Volumnius, Publius
Albinovanus and Lucius Julius Caesar, the augur who installed Lentulus. On the
third dining-couch were Popilia, Perpennia, Licinia and Arruntia, the Vestal vir-
gins, and Lentulus’ wife Publicia the flaminica and Sempronia his mother-in-law.
12 ‘This was the dinner: for the first course, sea urchins, raw oysters, as many
as they wanted, giant mussels, cockles, thrushes on asparagus, fattened hens, a
dish of oysters and mussels, shell-fish (both black and white); then came a course
of cockles, shell-fish, sea-nettles, fig-peckers, haunches of goat and boar, fattened
fowls in pastry, fig-peckers, murex and purple fish. For the main course, sow’s
udders, half-heads of boar, a dish of fish, a dish of sow’s udders, ducks, boiled
teal, hares, roast fattened fowls, creamed wheat and Picentine rolls.’

2.24 Varro On Farming 3.6.1, 6, 15.1–2, 17.2–3:

Peafowl, dormice and lampreys
Murena (cos. 87 BC and flamen dialis) is here speaking with the augur Appius Claudius
and other colleagues. Hirrus is the son-in-law of one of the speakers, Cossinius; Hortensius,
one of Cicero’s rivals in the courts, was consul in 69.

6.1 (Lucius Cornelius) Merula said, ‘As to peafowl, it is within our memory that
flocks of them began to be kept and sold at high prices. Marcus Aufidius Lurco is
said to pull in more than 60,000 sesterces a year from them (here follows detailed
advice on how to keep them) . . . 6 It is said that Quintus Hortensius (cos. 69)

61
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
was the first to serve these on the occasion of his inauguration as aedile, which
was lauded rather by the dilettanti than by men of strict virtue. As many quickly
followed his example, they raised the price to such an extent that their eggs now
sell for 5 denarii each, the birds themselves easily for 50, and a flock of 100 easily
brings in 40,000 sesterces – indeed, Abuccius used to say that if you wanted three
chicks for every hen you could get as much as 60,000 . . . ’
15.1 The accommodation for dormice is built on a different design (than that
for snails), the ground being surrounded not by water but by a wall; this is entirely
covered on the inside by smooth stone or plaster, so that they cannot climb out.
Inside it there should be small nut-bearing trees. When these do not bear fruit,
acorns and chestnuts should be thrown inside the wall for them to fill up on. 2
They should have rather roomy holes made for them in which they can have their
young; there should be little water as they don’t use a great deal of it and prefer a
dry spot. They are fattened up in large jars, which a lot of people even keep inside
their villas, and which potters fashion in a very different shape from other jars, as
they make channels along the sides and a hollow in which to put the food. In a jar
like this people place acorns, walnuts or chestnuts. When a cover is placed over
them the dormice grow fat in the dark . . .
17.2 There are two types of fish-ponds, fresh and salt, the one is open to ordinary
people and not without profit, where the Nymphs provide water for our farm-house
fish; the sea-water ponds of our nobles, however, for which Neptune has to provide the
water and the fish, concern the eye more than the purse, and drain the owner’s pocket
rather than fill it. In the first place, they are constructed at great expense, secondly
they are stocked at great expense, and thirdly they are maintained at great expense.
3 (Gaius Lucilius) Hirrus used to receive 12,000 sesterces from the buildings around
his fish-ponds, but he spent all that income on the food he gave his fish. No wonder –
I remember that, on one occasion, he lent Caesar 2,000 lampreys by weight and that,
on account of the great number of fish, his villa sold for 4,000,000 sesterces.

GLORIA
Aristocratic Rome was a highly competitive culture. It was important to be seen to live up
to one’s ancestors’ achievements and fulfil family expectations, ideally by achieving the
highest political office, the consulship. This gave a man, and his family, dignitas (prestige),
gloria (renown) and auctoritas (influence and authoritative position). The successful consu-
lar candidate would then hope for a province where he could show his abilities, recoup his
electioneering expenses and, with luck, achieve a military triumph, the highest and most
conspicuous honour. Roman values were those of a warrior culture based on a cult of vic-
tory, and aristocratic competition and ambition provided the necessary officers of state on
an annual basis. Attitudes towards aristocratic virtues can be seen in epitaphs, especially
those of the Scipiones (docs 2.25–26), which stress the magistracies they have held (or
could have held) and their military victories.

2.25 ILS 4: Epitaph for Publius Cornelius Scipio

This inscription is probably the epitaph of a son of Scipio Africanus who died c. 170 BC,
presented here as young to emphasise the reason for his lack of public office – he was in

62
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
fact an invalid for most of his life; as flamen dialis he could not have a military career (doc.
3.21) and he became an augur in 180.

You who have worn the distinguished cap of the flamen dialis,
Death caused all your qualities to be short-lived –
Your honour and reputation and courage, your glory and talents,
Through which, if you had been permitted to enjoy a long life,
You would easily have surpassed by your deeds the glory of your ancestors.
For which reason, Scipio, Earth joyfully receives you in her embrace,
Publius Cornelius, child of Publius.

2.26 ILS 6: A noble Roman

This Scipio was praetor in 139 (the name Hispanus implies service in Spain). This epitaph
dates to c. 135. Scipio died at about 40 years of age, before he could stand for the consul-
ship. The Board of Ten for making sacrifices was the college of priests who preserved the
Sibylline books: docs 3.38–39.

Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Hispanus, son of Gnaeus, praetor, curule aedile,

quaestor, twice military tribune, member of the Board of Ten for judging lawsuits,
member of the Board of Ten for making sacrifices.
By my conduct I augmented the virtues of my family,
I had a family, I emulated the deeds of my father.
I upheld the praise of my ancestors, so that they are glad
I was created of their line; my magistracies have ennobled my lineage.

2.27 Sallust Jugurthine War 4.5–6: Ancestral masks

Wax masks of ancestors (imagines) were carried in the funeral processions of nobles and,
according to Polybius, were kept in a prominent place in the house at other times (doc.
3.77). Sallust is here presumably referring to the brothers Q. Fabius Maximus Aemilianus
and P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, the sons of L. Aemilius Paullus.

5 I have often heard that Quintus Maximus, Publius Scipio, and other distinguished
men of our country were accustomed to declare that, whenever they looked on the
masks of their ancestors, their hearts were set aflame in the pursuit of virtue. 6 Of
course, they did not mean that the wax or the effigy had any such power over them,
but that it is the memory of great achievements that kindles a flame in the breasts
of eminent men that cannot be extinguished until their own excellence (virtus) has
come to rival the reputation (fama) and glory (gloria) of their forefathers.

2.28 Livy History of Rome 8.40.3–5: Family pride falsifies historical

records
Livy is here discussing the events of 322 BC and the dictatorship of Aulus Cornelius
Cossus (cos. 343, 332 BC).

63
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
3 It is not easy to choose between the facts and the authorities. 4 The record has
been falsified, I think, by funeral eulogies and lying inscriptions on portrait busts,
each family trying to appropriate to itself by deception and falsification the fame
of successes and dignities, 5 and this practice has led to confusion both in the
achievements of individuals and in the public records of events.

2.29 Pliny Natural History 7.139–40: A consular’s greatest aims

Lucius Caecilius Metellus, consul in 251 and 247 BC, magister equitum in 249, pontifex
maximus from 243, and dictator in charge of holding elections in 224, had been a general
in the First Punic War, winning a major victory over the Carthaginians at Panormus in
Sicily in 250, which included the capture of numerous elephants. His funeral speech was
delivered by his son Quintus in 221 BC.

139 Quintus Metellus, in the oration which he gave at the final eulogy of his father
the pontiff Lucius Metellus, twice consul, dictator, Master of the Horse, and land-
commissioner, who was the first to lead elephants in his triumph from the First
Punic War, left it in writing that his father had achieved the ten greatest and most
glorious objects in the pursuit of which wise men pass their lives: 140 for he had
aimed at being a first-class warrior, an outstanding orator, a brave and courageous
general, at taking charge of events of the highest importance, enjoying the great-
est honour, possessing exceptional wisdom, being considered the chief of all the
senators, acquiring great wealth in a respectable way, leaving many children, and
being the most distinguished person in the state; and stated that these had befallen
his father and none other since the foundation of Rome.

2.30 Cicero On Duties 1.72–73: The importance of ambition

On Duties (De officiis) was written for Cicero’s son Marcus in 44 BC. Quintus supposedly
wrote a guidebook on how to stand for the consulship (doc. 2.38). Despite a rather ‘wild
youth’, Marcus junior did become consul, in 30 BC, and then proconsul of Asia.

72 Those to whom nature has given the qualities necessary for engaging in pub-
lic affairs should cast aside all hesitation, strive for election to magistracies, and
take part in government; for there is no other way that the state can be governed
or greatness of mind be displayed. Those in charge of government, no less than
philosophers, and perhaps even more so, need to possess that greatness of spirit
and contempt for human affairs which I so often mention, together with peace of
mind and freedom from care, if they are to avoid worry and live with dignity and
consistency. 73 This is easier for philosophers, as, their lives being less subject
to the blows of fortune, their wants are fewer and, if any misfortune occurs, their
fall is not so heavy. It is, therefore, not without reason that stronger emotions are
aroused in those who engage in public life than in those who live quietly, as well
as greater efforts to succeed; all the more, then, is their need to possess greatness
of spirit and freedom from troubles.

64
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
Whoever enters government should take care to consider not only the hon-
our involved but also whether he has the capacity to succeed; at the same time,
he should ensure that he does not despair prematurely through cowardice nor be
over-confident through ambition. In all such enterprises, before undertaking them,
careful preparation is essential.

2.31 Cicero Letters to his Brother Quintus 1.1.43–44: Family prestige

This letter was written in 60 BC, when Quintus was propraetor of Asia: he had been praetor
in 62 and governed Asia from 61 to 58. Cicero is here presenting his own consulship of 63
BC as a benchmark for the rest of the family.

43 At the same time, bear in mind that we are not now working towards a glory we
do not yet possess and which we hope for, but are striving for a glory already won,
which, indeed, it was not so much our aim to win in the past as it is now to defend
in the present. And if anything I possess could be disassociated from you, I would
desire nothing greater than the status I have already won. But now, indeed, the cir-
cumstances are such that, unless all your deeds and words over there accord with my
achievements, I think that, great as have been my labours and achievements – all of
which you have shared – they have gained me nothing at all. If, however, you have
helped me more than anyone to acquire a splendid name, you will certainly work
harder than others to ensure that I retain it. You should take into account the opin-
ions and judgements not only of the men of today but of those to come in the future;
and their judgement will be the more accurate, being free from detraction and mal-
ice. 44 Finally, you also ought to recollect that you are not seeking glory for yourself
alone; even if that were the case you would not be unmindful of it, especially as you
have always wished to immortalise the memory of your name with the most splen-
did memorials, but that you have to share it with me and hand it on to our children.

THE ROMAN TRIUMPH

The celebration of a triumph was the ultimate goal for the Roman senatorial class.
Victorious generals processed into Rome via the triumphal gate to the temple of Jupiter
Capitolinus. The triumphator was carried on a four-horse chariot preceded by his lictors,
accompanied by his army, captives, spoils, freed prisoners of war, and the senate and mag-
istrates. A prerequisite for the triumph was to have killed 5,000 of the enemy. A general
could be awarded an oratio, or lesser triumph, for more minor victories; triumphs could not
be celebrated over Roman citizens.

2.32 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 5.47.1–3, 8.67.9:

The triumph and ovatio
Postumius and Menenius were consuls in 503 BC. Postumius was given the lesser triumph
because he had previously been defeated and lost a large number of his men. Lucius Siccius
Dentatus was a plebeian general of the mid-fifth century BC. Licinius Macer was tribune
in 73 and praetor in 68.

65
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
5.47.1 After achieving a brilliant victory, they returned home. 2 They were both
honoured with triumphs by the senate, Menenius with the greater and more hon-
ourable type, entering the city in a royal chariot, and Postumius with the lesser and
inferior type which they call ouastes (ovation), altering the name which is Greek to
this meaningless form. For it was originally called euastes, from what actually took
place, from what I conjecture and find recorded in many native histories, 3 and the
senate, as Licinius (Macer) relates, introduced this type of triumph for the first time
on this occasion. It differs from the other, firstly in that the general who celebrates
the triumph called the ovation enters the city on foot, followed by his army, and not
in a chariot like the other; and secondly because he does not wear the embroidered
robe decorated with gold, with which the other is adorned, nor does he have the
golden crown, but is dressed in a white toga bordered with purple, the native dress of
the consuls and praetors, and wears a crown of laurel; he is also inferior to the other
in not holding a sceptre, though everything else is the same.
8.67.9 Since Siccius seemed to have freed the state from the greater fear by his
destruction of the insolent army of the Volscians and slaughter of their general, they
voted him the greater triumph; he therefore drove into the city with the spoils, the
prisoners, and the army that had fought under him, riding in a chariot drawn by horses
with golden bridles and dressed in the royal robes, as is the custom in the greater
triumphs. To Aquilius they granted the lesser triumph, which they call an ovation . . .

2.33 Livy History of Rome 10.46.2–6: A triumph over Samnites

Livy describes the triumph of Lucius Papirius Cursor, consul in 293 BC, over the Samnites,
whom he defeated at Aquilonia. For crowns as military decorations, see doc. 5.7.

2 On his arrival at Rome Papirius was unanimously granted a triumph. He cele-

brated his triumph while still in office, in a style which was splendid for those times.
3 Infantry and cavalry marched or rode past adorned with their decorations; many
civic crowns and crowns won by the first to climb a rampart or wall were to be seen;
4 the spoils won from the Samnites were examined and compared in splendour and
beauty with those his father had won, which were well known from being often used
to decorate public places; a number of noble prisoners, distinguished for their own
and their fathers’ deeds, were led in the procession. 5 2,533,000 pounds of heavy
bronze were carried past; this bronze was said to have been acquired from the sale
of prisoners; there were 1,830 pounds of silver which had been taken from the cit-
ies. All the bronze and silver was put in the treasury, with none of the booty being
given to the soldiers; 6 the bad feeling to which this gave rise among the people was
augmented by the collection of a war-tax to pay the soldiers, since, if he had forgone
the glory of placing the captured money in the treasury, the soldiers could have been
given a donative out of the booty, as well as providing for their pay.

2.34 Plutarch Life of Lucullus 37.3–6: Lucullus’ triumph

Lucullus’ triumph in 66 BC was blocked by his political opponents, and he was accused of
deliberately prolonging the war against Mithridates and appropriating money. His triumph
was finally celebrated in 63.

66
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
3 Lucullus exerted himself strongly against this, and the foremost and most influ-
ential men mingled with the tribes and, after much entreaty and hard work, even-
tually persuaded the people to allow him a triumph, but not, like some, a triumph
which was astonishing and tumultuous from the length of the procession and the
multitude of objects carried in it. Instead, he adorned the circus of Flaminius with
the arms of the enemy, of which there was an immense number, and with the
royal war-engines; and this was a great spectacle in itself which was hardly des-
picable. 4 Some of the mail-clad horsemen and ten of the scythe-bearing chari-
ots took part in the procession, as well as 60 of the king’s friends and generals,
and 110 bronze-beaked war-ships were also carried in it, with a golden statue of
Mithridates himself, 6 feet high, a shield decorated with jewels, 20 litters of silver
vessels and 32 litters of gold cups, armour and coins. 5 These were carried by
men; and there were eight mules carrying golden couches, 56 with ingots of silver
and 107 more with somewhat less than 2,700,000 pieces of silver coin. 6 There
were also records on tablets of the money already paid by him to Pompey for the
war against the pirates and to the public treasurers, and of the fact, too, that each
of his soldiers had received 950 drachmas. Moreover, Lucullus gave a splendid
feast to the city and the surrounding villages, which are called Vici.

2.35 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 37.1–39.4: Caesar’s triumphs

Caesar celebrated triumphs over Gaul, Egypt, Pontus, Africa and Spain. The Gallic,
Egyptian, Pontic and African triumphs were celebrated between 20 September and 1
October 46, the Spanish one after the victory over the Pompeians at Munda in October
45 BC.

37.1 With the wars over, Caesar celebrated five triumphs, four in the same month
after defeating Scipio, with a few days’ interval between them, and a fifth after
overcoming Pompey’s sons. The first and most splendid of his triumphs was the
Gallic, after this came the Alexandrian, the Pontic, the African and, lastly, the
Spanish, each different in its splendour and staging. 2 On the day of his Gallic
triumph, as he rode through the Velabrum, he was nearly thrown from his chariot
when the axle broke, and he ascended to the Capital between forty elephants, in
two lines on his right and left, carrying torches. In the Pontic triumph, among the
procession’s litters, one carried a sign of three words: ‘I came, I saw, I conquered!’
This referred not to the events of the war, like the others, but to the swiftness of
the victory. 38.1 Every infantryman in Caesar’s veteran legions received as booty
24,000 sesterces, in addition to the 2,000 sesterces paid them at the beginning of
the civil war. He also gave them all a farm, but not grouped together so as not to
evict the possessors. To the 10 modii of grain and 10 pounds of oil given to every
individual of the people, he added the 300 sesterces, which he had promised at
first and now raised to 400, because of the delay. 2 He also remitted a year’s rent
at Rome to those who paid up to 2,000 sesterces, though in Italy not above 500
sesterces. He added a banquet and distribution of meat, and two dinners follow-
ing his Spanish victory; for he considered that the first had not been sufficiently
splendid, and five days later served a second more magnificent one.

67
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
39.1 He put on spectacles of various kinds: a gladiatorial contest, plays for all
districts of Rome with actors in all languages, chariot-races in the circus, athletic
competitions and a naval battle. At the contest in the forum, Furius Leptinus, of
praetorian family, fought Quintus Calpenus, a former senator and lawyer. The
sons of leaders of Asia and Bithynia danced the Pyrrhic sword dance. 2 In the
plays, Decimus Laberius, a Roman eques, staged his own farce and, after being
given 500,000 sesterces and his gold ring (the badge of equestrian rank), walked
across from the stage through the orchestra to the equites’ 14 rows of seats. At
the circus the track was lengthened at either end, and on the race-course, around
which a trench had been dug, young aristocrats drove four-horse and two-horse
chariots or rode pairs of horses, jumping from one to another. Two troops of
older and younger boys performed the Troy game. 3 Wild-beast hunts were put on
five days in a row and ended with a battle between two forces comprised of 500
infantry, 20 elephants and 30 cavalry . . . The athletes competed over a three-day
period in a temporary stadium built on the Campus Martius.
4 In the naval battle, on a lake dug in the Lesser Codeta, Tyrian and Egyptian
fleets, with ships with two, three or four banks of oars and a great number of com-
batants, engaged each other. Such huge numbers of spectators flocked to these
shows from all directions that many visitors had to sleep in tents pitched along the
streets or roads, and large numbers were crushed to death by the crowd, among
them two senators.

CANDIDATURE FOR OFFICE

The term for canvassing for office was petitio (literally, seeking or asking); ambitio was
the pursuit of office, from ambire (to go around), implying the solicitation of votes; from
the term ambitio comes ambitus (initially the acting of canvassing, but later meaning elec-
toral malpractice or bribery), which was endemic to the Roman electoral system, since,
due to the workings of the cursus honorum, there was intense competition for the consul-
ship in most years. Candidates for office were of course supposed to engage in legitimate
expenses in order to entertain or materially benefit sections of the electorate, particularly
fellow tribesmen and clients, and the giving of games earlier in one’s career, specifically
as aedile, was a good electioneering ploy for the future: cf. Caesar’s games as aedile (doc.
2.76). Canvassers in Rome wore a specially whitened toga (the toga candidata: hence the
term ‘candidate’).

2.36 Plutarch Roman Questions 49: The toga without the tunic
Candidates for office went about in the forum dressed in a toga but without a tunic, to
emphasise their humility or to display their wounds. Cato the Younger did this, presumably
to show his adherence to traditional customs and values.

Why was it the custom for those canvassing for a magistracy to do this in a toga
but without a tunic, as Cato has recorded? Was it so they did not carry money in
its folds and hand out bribes? Or was it, rather, because they used to judge those
worthy of office not by their family, wealth or reputation, but by their wounds and

68
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
scars? So, to ensure that these were visible to anyone who met them, they used to
go down to canvass without tunics. Or were they trying to curry popular favour
through thus humiliating themselves by their lack of clothes, as they do by hand-
shaking, appeals and subservience?

2.37 Valerius Maximus 7.5.2: How a Scipio can lose an election

Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio was praetor in 118 and consul in 111. Despite his
stellar lineage as the son of the Nasica (cos. 138 BC) who had Tiberius Gracchus killed and
great-grandson of Africanus, his ill-timed joke was enough to persuade the voters not to
elect him aedile. Valerius has here confused this Nasica with the one who in 204 received
the image of the Magna Mater when it arrived at Ostia (doc. 3.61).

Publius Scipio Nasica, a shining light of togate power, who as consul declared
war on Jugurtha, who received in the most pious hands the Idaean mother, as she
migrated from her Phrygian seat to our altars and hearths, who quelled numerous
virulent uprisings by the weight of his auctoritas, in whom as their princeps the
senate prided itself for so many years, when standing as a youth for the curule
aedileship firmly grasped, as candidates do, someone’s hand which had been
toughened by farm labour and asked him as a joke whether he was accustomed to
walk on his hands. The remark was picked up by those standing nearby and spread
to the populace, thus causing Scipio’s rejection: for all the rural tribes considered
that this was a reflection on their poverty and unleashed their anger against his
insolent raillery. So by restraining the minds of young aristocrats from rudeness,
our state made them great and valuable citizens, and added to magistracies the
weight of authority by not letting them assume they were sure of election.

2.38 [Q. Cicero] A Short Guide to Electioneering 2–3, 16–18, 34–38,

41–43, 50–53
This handbook on how to run for the consulship was supposedly written by Quintus for
Marcus’ campaign in 64, but it may be a later rhetorical exercise by someone well versed
in Cicero’s works and life.

2 Consider what city this is, what you are trying for, who you are. Nearly every
day as you go down to the forum, you must keep repeating to yourself: ‘I am a
“novus homo”, I am seeking the consulship, this is Rome.’ You will compen-
sate for your status as a ‘new man’ mainly through your reputation as a speaker.
This has always granted great prestige; someone thought worthy of defending
ex-consuls cannot be considered unworthy of the consulship. So, since you have
this reputation to start with and you are what you are because of it, come prepared
to speak as if in each law-suit it is your talents and abilities that are being judged.
3 Make sure that those aids in this regard, which I know you have in reserve, are
ready and available, and often remind yourself of what Demetrius wrote about
Demosthenes’ hard work and practice. Next, see that people know about both the

69
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
number of your friends and the type of people they are; for not many ‘new men’
have had as many as you have – all the publicani, almost all of the order of equites,
many townships entirely your own, many men of all kinds of rank that you have
defended, several guilds, as well as large numbers of young men drawn to you
by the study of oratory, and a crowd of friends in daily and assiduous attendance.
16 Canvassing for magistracies is divided into persistent hard work towards
two objects, of which one is ensuring the support of friends and the other obtain-
ing the goodwill of the people. The efforts of friends should be procured by ser-
vices and obligations, long intimacy, good humour and natural charm. But this
term ‘friends’ has a broader meaning in canvassing than in the rest of life: for
anyone who shows you some goodwill, who cultivates your acquaintance, who
frequents your house, should be counted among the number of your ‘friends’. It
is, however, very valuable to be on pleasant and agreeable terms with those who
are friends on more genuine grounds, such as kinship, relationship by marriage,
membership of a sodality, or some other tie. 17 Next, all those intimate with you
and many in your family circle must be brought to feel as much affection for you
as possible and wish you every success, so too your fellow tribesmen, neighbours,
clients, then your freedmen, and finally even your slaves – for nearly all the talk
that shapes your public reputation comes from members of your own household.
18 Then you must set up friends of every sort – for show, men illustrious in rank
or name (who, even if they do not actively work at canvassing, bring a candidate
some prestige); for maintaining your legal rights, magistrates (particularly the
consuls, then the tribunes of the plebs); for getting the support of the centuries,
men of outstanding influence. Make a great effort above all to gain and retain the
backing of those who have or hope to have from you control of a tribe, century
or other advantage: for today men of ambition have worked out with every effort
and exertion how to get what they want from their fellow tribesmen. Work by any
means possible to get these men as genuine and wholehearted supporters of your
candidature.
34 Now that I have mentioned attendance, you must ensure that you have it
daily, from all types, ranks and ages, for the numbers themselves will indicate
the strength of the support you will have at the actual election. There are three
different kinds: first those who come to greet you at your house, next those who
escort you when you leave home, and thirdly attendants generally. 35 The callers
are more undiscriminating and, as is usual nowadays, call on a number of people.
You must make even this minuscule service of theirs seem to be very gratifying to
you. Show that you notice who comes to your house (mention it to their friends,
who will repeat it to them, and say it often to them yourself); it often happens that
men who visit numerous candidates, when they see that one takes special notice
of this service, often attach themselves to him and abandon the rest, gradually
becoming his supporters rather than shared and single-minded partisans rather
than frauds . . . 36 As for the escorts, a more important service than that of the
callers, make it quite clear that they are more gratifying to you, and as far as pos-
sible go down to the forum at fixed times – a crowd of escorts there daily makes a
great impact and conveys great prestige. 37 The third group is the body of people

70
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
who attend you constantly. To those who do this voluntarily, make sure that they
realise that you are eternally indebted to them for this great service. To those who
owe you this, openly demand this duty from those of them not too old or too busy,
that they must regularly attend you themselves, and that those who are not able to
do so in person must co-opt their relatives for this duty. I desire you very strongly
and think it very pertinent to the occasion that you should always have a large
gathering with you. 38 Furthermore, it will bring you great credit and the highest
prestige if you have with you those whom you have defended and who have been
rescued and set free in law-suits by you. Demand this openly from them, that,
since it is through your doing, unpaid, that they have kept their property, their
reputation, or their life and all their fortunes, and since there will never be another
time for them to express their gratitude, they should repay you by this service. . . .
41 Since enough has been said of establishing friendships, I must now talk
about the other part of the canvassing, which relates to dealing with the peo-
ple. This requires the ability to address people by their names, ingratiation, con-
stant attendance, generosity, publicity, outward show and promise in public life.
42 First of all show that ability of yours, that you know people, so that it stands
out, and work on it so that it improves daily – nothing in my view appears more
popular and gratifying. Then, something you lack naturally, resolve to adopt the
appearance of it so well that it seems to be natural: you do not lack the affability
appropriate to a pleasant and agreeable man, but what you desperately need is the
ability to ingratiate yourself, which (even if it is a fault and shortcoming in other
aspects of life) is indispensable when canvassing: when used to corrupt someone
it is hateful, when used to strengthen friendship it is not so blameable, but it is
indispensable for a candidate for office, whose face and appearance and conversa-
tion must be adapted and geared to the feelings and wishes of everyone he meets.
43 As for attendance, that needs no clarification – the word itself explains what
it is. It is extremely important for you not to leave town, yet the gains you obtain
from this attendance are not just that you are in Rome and in the forum, but can-
vassing uninterruptedly, calling on the same people often and, as far as possible,
not allowing anyone to be in a position to say that they had not been canvassed by
you, and canvassed enthusiastically and assiduously . . . .
50 The next point to be talked about is publicity, which you have to follow up
as strongly as possible. All that I have already said earlier in this treatise involves
wide publicity – your reputation in oratory, the efforts on your behalf of the pub-
licani and order of equites, the goodwill of the nobles, the crowd of young men
around you, the attendance of those who have been defended by you, the throng
from Italian towns who have obviously come to Rome because of you. To ensure
that they will say, and believe, that you know people well and are considerate
and generous, appeal to them courteously and canvass continuously and assidu-
ously and, to ensure that your house is full long before dawn with a multitude
made up from all classes, give satisfaction to everyone in what you say, and to
many in what you actually do, and see to it (in so far as it can be achieved by hard
work, talent and diligence) that the people, instead of hearing of your reputation at
second-hand from these persons, is of its own accord your enthusiastic supporter.

71
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
51 You have already won the support of the city mob and that of their political
manipulators by promoting the career of Pompey, accepting the case of Manilius
and defending Cornelius; we have to inspire backing which no one has ever pos-
sessed, as well as the goodwill of the most prestigious persons. You also have to
make sure that everyone knows that Gnaeus Pompey gives you his strongest sup-
port and that your successful candidature would fit his plans exceptionally well.
52 And finally make sure that your whole canvass makes a great show, so mag-
nificent, so impressive, so popular that it has the utmost splendour and prestige,
and also, if it can be done in some way, there should be scandalous comments,
fitting their lifestyles, about the criminal actions, lust and bribery of your rivals.
53 And also during your canvass it must be seen that great hopes and honourable
views for the state hinge on you – but in your canvassing you must not deal with
politics either in the senate or in popular meetings. Just keep this in mind: the sen-
ate should think that you, judging by your career, will be a future defender of its
authority, the Roman knights and men of worth and property, from your past life,
that you are committed to repose and peace and quiet, and the mob, since you have
been a popularis at least in your speeches in political meetings and the courts, that
you are devoted to their interests.

2.39 Cicero In Defence of Murena 77: Liberality or bribery?

Cicero’s Pro Murena defends a consul-elect for 62 BC against the charge of bribery, argu-
ing that the populace had been won over by Murena’s splendid games as praetor in 65, as
well as by his ‘traditional’ feasts and shows during his campaign in 63.

And so the Roman plebs should not be prevented from enjoying games, or gladi-
atorial contests, or banquets – all these our ancestors established – nor should can-
didates be restrained from showing that generosity which means liberality rather
than bribery.

2.40 CIL I2 1641c, 1644a&c, 1656a&g, 1645a, 1665:

Electioneering notices
These notices supporting candidates for election were painted, in red, on walls at Pompeii
around the time of Sulla: the ‘colonists’ were Sulla’s veterans. The shorthand must have
been readily comprehensible to the passers-by: 1641c reads, ‘L. Aqutium d. v. v. b. o. v. c.’ –
that is, ‘duovirum, virum bonum, oro vos, coloni’: ‘as a member of the Board of Two, a fine
man, I urge you, colonists (to elect him)’.

1641c Lucius Aqutius – a fine chap! Colonists, I appeal to you (to elect him)
member of the Board of Two!
1644a Numerius Barcha – a fine chap! I appeal to you (to elect him)
member of the Board of Two! So may Venus of Pompeii,
holy, blessed (goddess) be kind to you.
1644c Numerius Veius Barcha – may you rot!
1656a Marcus Marius – I appeal to you to elect him aedile!

72
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
1656g Marcus Marius – a fine chap, I appeal to you, colonists!
1645c Quintus Caecilius – a generous man – for quaestor, I appeal to you!
1665 Quinctius. Anyone who votes against him should go and sit next
to a donkey!

2.41 Plutarch Life of Aemilius Paullus 38.2–7: Scipio Aemilianus and

his supporters
Plutarch stresses here the popular nature of Scipio’s support and the ways in which he pro-
moted his image as popularis (cf. docs 5.51–53).

2 It was particular and noteworthy of Aemilius (Paullus) that, though he was

encouraged and honoured by the people to an exceptional degree, he remained
one of the aristocratic faction and neither said nor did anything to win the favour
of the multitude, but always aligned himself in politics with the leading and most
influential men. 3 And Appius later made this a point of criticism against Scipio
Africanus, when these two, the most powerful in the city, were candidates for
the censorship (142 BC), one having the senate and nobles in his support – this
was the traditional position of the Appii – while the other, though great on his
own account, always built on the immense favour and affection of the people.
4 So when Appius saw Scipio hastening into the forum accompanied by men of
no family and ex-slaves, who hung around the forum and were able to collect a
mob and force through all measures by canvassing and shouting, he cried loudly,
5 ‘Paullus Aemilius, groan beneath the earth, when you learn that it is Aemilius
the crier and Licinius Philonicus who are ushering your son to the censorship.’
6 But Scipio had the people’s goodwill because he supported them on most issues,
while Aemilius, though one of the aristocratic faction, was no less loved by the
multitude than the one who was thought the greatest supporter of the populace and
who sought their favour in all his dealings with them. 7 They demonstrated this
by granting him along with all his other honours the censorship (164 BC), which
is of all magistracies the most sacred and of great influence in terms of both other
matters and the examination into people’s lives.

2.42 Cicero On the Laws 3.34–36: The secret ballot

In the second half of the second century BC, a number of laws introduced the secret ballot
into Roman assemblies. Open voting had allowed the aristocracy considerable power over
the assemblies, and Quintus Cicero argues here that the reform has destroyed the influence
of the optimates.

34 Quintus: Who does not realise that the balloting laws have stripped the nobility
of all its power and influence? The people never wanted it when they were free,
but insisted on it when they were downtrodden by the dominance and ascendancy
of the leading senators. That is why there were more serious condemnations of
people in power by the oral method than by voting tablets. Accordingly power-
ful leaders should have been deprived of the people’s immoderate eagerness for

73
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
voting for them even in the case of bad measures, but the people should not have
been given a hidey-hole where they could use the ballot to conceal an ill-advised
vote and keep the aristocracy ignorant of what they really felt. Consequently no
‘good’ man has ever proposed or supported such a motion. 35 Indeed, there are
four balloting laws extant: the first concerns the election of magistrates – that’s
the Gabinian law, proposed by a man of unknown and humble background (Aulus
Gabinius, tr. 139). The Cassian law followed this two years later, dealing with
trials before the people, proposed by Lucius Cassius (tr. 137), a nobleman, but (I
say without prejudice to his family) one at odds with the ‘honest men’ and who
used popular measures to win popular adulation. The third law, that of Carbo (lex
Papiria, C. Papirius Carbo, tr. 131), deals with the approval or rejection of laws,
and he was a subversive and irresponsible citizen, who could not even gain his
safety from the ‘boni’ when he returned to their party. 36 Oral voting seems to
have remained only in one case, which even Cassius had omitted, that of treason.
Gaius Coelius (lex Coelia, C. Coelius Calidus, tr. 107) arranged for the ballot for
this type of trial as well, though he regretted, as long as he lived, that he had so
harmed the state in order to overcome Gaius Popilius.

2.43 Cicero In Defence of Plancius 64–67: Cicero’s quaestorship

Gn. Plancius was elected as aedile for 54 BC but was prosecuted by Laterensis, an unsuc-
cessful candidate, for illegal methods such as employing the support of associations
(sodalicia). In Sicily, Cicero had been quaestor at Lilybaeum, not Syracuse. Cassius (not
the Cassius) is one of the prosecution team.

64 I have no fear, jurors, of appearing to flatter myself in some way if I say a little
about my own quaestorship. While it was successful enough, I consider that my
later conduct in the highest magistracies has led to my not seeking any great distinc-
tion from the praise I received for the quaestorship – although I have no fear that
anyone would dare assert that any other holder of the quaestorship in Sicily received
more gratitude or renown. I can indeed state absolutely as the truth that, at that time,
I considered that men at Rome were speaking of nothing other than my quaestor-
ship. I had dispatched an immense quantity of grain at a time of the highest prices;
I appeared to everyone to be courteous to businessmen, fair to merchants, open-
handed to the citizens, restrained in my demands on the allies, and most conscien-
tious in all my responsibilities. In fact the Sicilians considered bestowing on me
unprecedented honours. 65 Consequently I left there with the expectation that the
Roman people would spontaneously endow me with every distinction. However,
it turned out that, as I returned from the province, I arrived at Puteoli to make my
journey from there during those days when the greatest numbers of distinguished
visitors congregated there, and I nearly fell over, jurors, when someone asked me
on what day I had left Rome and whether there was any news. When I responded
to him that I was returning from my province, he said, ‘Why of course! You are
coming from Africa, am I right?’ I replied rather coldly, for I was more than a little
offended, ‘No, from Sicily.’ At which point another fellow – one of those apparent
know-alls – put in, ‘What? Don’t you know that our friend here has been quaestor

74
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
at Syracuse?’ What else can I say? I put aside my disgruntlement, and made myself
just one of the chaps who had come for the waters.
66 This episode, jurors, I rather consider to have been of more value to me than
if everyone had been lauding my achievements – for once I had realised that, if
the Roman people have ears which are slow on the uptake, their eyes are sharp
and keen-sighted, I stopped thinking about what people were going to hear about
me, and from thenceforth behaved in such a way that they should see me in person
every day; I lived in the public eye; I haunted the forum; neither my doorkeeper
nor sleep prevented anyone gaining an audience with me. And what should I tell
you of the times when I was fully occupied, I who had no leisure time that was
ever leisured? Those speeches, Cassius, which you inform us it is your practice to
read whenever you were at leisure – I wrote them during festivals and holidays,
and so have never had the chance to know what leisure was! Indeed I have always
thought that an awe-inspiring and splendid standpoint of Marcus Cato which he
wrote at the beginning of his Origines – that men of eminence and greatness
should consider their times of leisure as of no importance than those of business.
And so, if I possess any reputation – and I have no idea how great that might be –
it has been acquired at Rome and been sought in the forum, while my private
intentions have also been justified by public events, and as a result I have had to
transact at home even the most important of state business – and it is in the city that
work to preserve the city has had to take place. 67 And so the same way forward,
Cassius, is available to Laterensis as well as virtue’s same path to eminence –
perhaps easier for him than for me, as I have risen to this position on my own
initiative and through my own efforts (with no ancestors and dependent on no one
but myself), while his outstanding qualities will be enhanced by the recommenda-
tion of his forefathers.

THE NOVUS HOMO

In Rome’s competitive society, it was a struggle even for those of consular families (the
nobiles or optimates) to reach the consulship; for those without such a background, the task
was far more difficult, though not impossible. Political power was generally in the hands
of the optimates, who stayed in power partly through their financial resources and partly
through their ability to attract voters by using their clients and friends and the Romans’
respect for family and lineage. The term novus homo (‘new man’) is vague but could
include both the first in a family to enter the senate and gain a magistracy and a senator
whose ancestors had never reached the consulship.

2.44 Sallust The Catilinarian Conspiracy 23.5–6:

The jealousy of the nobles
Sallust states that it was the information that Catiline planned a conspiracy that gave rise to
a general desire to give Cicero the consulship – implying that his success was due to that
factor: cf. docs 9.6, 12.13–23.

5 It was this in particular that gave rise to general enthusiasm for bestowing the
consulship on Marcus Tullius Cicero. 6 For, before this, most of the nobility were

75
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
inflamed with jealousy and considered the consulship to be contaminated if a new
man, however distinguished, acquired it. But at the approach of danger, jealousy
and pride came to be of secondary importance.

2.45 Cicero On the Agrarian Law 2.1–4: Cicero as novus homo

This was Cicero’s first speech as consul to the people, made against the Rullan agricultural
legislation (cf. doc. 12.13). Incoming consuls held a public meeting (contio) in which they
traditionally thanked the citizens for electing them. Cicero makes great play of the fact that
he is a novus homo, without consular lineage (the last ‘new man’ being C. Coelius Caldus
in 94 BC), and that he was elected in ‘his year’, suo anno (the minimum age: 42 in the year
of election for consuls: doc. 11.30).

1 It is a custom, Romans, instituted by our ancestors, that those who by your

favour have acquired the right to images of their family should, in their first ora-
tion before the people, combine thanks for your favour with praise of their own
ancestors. In such speeches, some men are sometimes found to be worthy of their
ancestors’ rank, though the majority manage to make clear only that the debt
owed to their ancestors is so great that something is still left over to be paid to
their descendants. I myself, Romans, have no possibility of speaking of my ances-
tors before you, not that they were not such as you see us to be, begotten from
their family and raised in their teaching, but because they lacked the people’s
praise and the light of the honour you granted. . . . 3 I am the first new man after a
very long interval – nearly more remote than our times can remember – that you
have made consul, and that rank, which the nobility kept secured by guards and
entrenched in every way, you have broken open and shown that for the future it
should be open to merit, with me taking the lead. And not only did you elect me
consul, which is a glorious honour in itself, but you did it in such a way in which
few nobles have ever been made consuls in this city, and no new man before me.
For indeed, if you would be kind enough to consult your memory in regard
to new men, you will find that those who were made consuls without rejection
became so only after lengthy labour and at a favourable opportunity, becoming
candidates many years after they had been praetors, and somewhat later than their
age and the laws allowed, while those who became candidates in their own year
(suo anno) were not elected without rejection; and that I am the only one of all
the new men whom we can remember who became a candidate for the consulship
in the first year it was permitted and was made consul in my first candidacy, so
that this honour granted by you, which I stood for as soon as I was allowed, does
not appear to have been snatched on the occasion of the candidacy of an unsuit-
able person, nor to have been urgently requested with frequent petitions, but to
have been obtained by merit. 4 It is a glorious honour, as I have just mentioned,
Romans, that I was the first of the new men on whom, after so many years, you
have bestowed this honour, that it was at my first candidacy, and that it was in
my ‘own year’, and yet nothing can be more glorious or distinguished than the
fact that at the comitia at which I was elected you did not hand in voting-tablets –
their secrecy being the guarantee of freedom – but showed with unanimous voice

76
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
your goodwill and attachment to me. Thus, it was not the last sorting of the votes
but your first rush to vote (i.e., he soon had a majority), not the individual voices
of the heralds but the unanimous voice of the Roman people which declared me
consul.

AMICITIA
Political friends were amici (sing.: amicus), as opposed to personal friends, who were
familiares (see docs 2.48–53). There were no political parties in Rome, and such amici-
tiae (friendships or political alliances) were unofficial, fluid and often changing, though
regulated by ties of obligation and honour; political amici could also be inherited within
a family. The features of such relationships were mutual assistance, a common political
approach, and friendship through mutual respect, the key being an interchange of services.
What friends called an ‘amicitia’ could be titled a ‘factio’ (faction) by political opponents.
The opposite of amici were inimici (personal or political enemies), exemplified by Caesar’s
relationship with Bibulus and Cato the Younger.

2.46 Livy History of Rome 6.20.1–3: Family support in a crisis

M. Manlius Capitolinus, consul in 392 BC and hero of the Gallic attack in 390, was suppos-
edly brought to trial by his enemies for his courting of the populace (through a programme
of cancellation of debts) and possible insurrectionist tendencies; he was executed in 385
(or 384). Not only family members but also friends and clients were expected to show their
support in emergencies. The mourning toga, the toga pulla, was made of dark wool.

1 Manlius was committed for trial. The first effect of this was that the people were
greatly disturbed, 2 especially when they saw the defendant dressed in mourn-
ing and unattended by any of the senators, or indeed by any of his relatives and
connections, and not even by his brothers Aulus and Titus Manlius, for it had
never happened before that day that a person’s closest connections had not gone
into mourning when he was threatened by such a crisis. 3 They recalled that,
when Appius Claudius was imprisoned, his enemy Gaius Claudius and the entire
Claudian family had gone into mourning, and they considered that there was a
plot to put down the people’s friend because he had been the first to abandon the
patricians for the plebs.

2.47 Cicero On Friendship 10.33–34: The short-lived nature of

friendship
Cicero’s De amicitia was probably written in 44 BC; it was set in 129 after the death of
Scipio Aemilianus; Gaius Laelius, Scipio’s close friend and consul in 140, is here talking
to his sons-in-law about his relationship with Scipio.

33 Then listen, worthy gentlemen, to the points about friendship most often dis-
cussed between Scipio and myself (Laelius). He, indeed, used to say that nothing
was more difficult than for a friendship to last to the final day of life: for it often used
to happen either that it might not be mutually advantageous or that the parties did not

77
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
share the same political views; he used to say, too, that men’s characters frequently
change, sometimes by adverse circumstances, at other times by the increasing bur-
dens of old age. And then he would cite an example of this by analogy with adoles-
cence, that boys’ greatest attachments are often laid aside with the toga praetexta; 34
but if they continue to the mid-teens they are sometimes broken off by rivalry, either
over a marriage or some other advantage, in which both parties cannot be equally
successful. If they should continue to be friends for a longer period, the friendship
is often destroyed should a struggle for magisterial office take place; since, while
for the majority of people there is no greater ruin to friendship than monetary greed,
for the most worthy men it is the rivalry for official rank and glory from which have
frequently arisen the greatest enmities between most devoted friends.

2.48 Cicero In Defence of Murena 7–10: Amicitia and its demands

In 63 BC Cicero defended L. Licinius Murena, who had been elected consul for 62 but was
prosecuted for bribery by Servius Sulpicius Rufus, a loser in the same election and another
friend of Cicero’s, for whom Cicero had canvassed.

7 I admit, Servius Sulpicius, that in your canvass for the consulship I owed you all my
energy and my support in view of our close relationship, and I think that I discharged
my duty. When you were canvassing for the consulship, there was nothing additional
on my part which could have been demanded either of a friend or of a supporter or of
a consul. That time is past. The situation has changed. My view and conviction is this,
that to prevent Murena’s election I owed you as much as you dared ask me, but to pre-
vent his acquittal I owe you nothing . . . 8 My friendship with Murena, jurors, is both
great and of long duration and will accordingly not be destroyed by Servius Sulpicius
in his prosecution of Murena on capital charges, simply because it was overcome in
a contest for election with this same man. Even if this were not the case, either the
public standing of this man or the greatness of the rank he has attained would have
branded me with the worst reputation for pride and cruelty had I refused to take on the
perilous case of a man so distinguished by his own honours and those of the Roman
people . . . 10 I, jurors, would think myself despicable if I failed a friend, cruel if I
failed a man in distress, arrogant if I failed a consul.

2.49 Cicero Letters to his Friends 15.10: Cicero asks for support
This letter was written at Tarsus in Asia Minor, at the end of 51 BC, to C. Claudius
Marcellus, consul-elect for 50, asking him to support a supplicatio for Cicero’s governor-
ship of Cilicia; for Cato’s reply to a similar request, see doc. 13.19. The first sentence sug-
gests that Marcellus’ consulship will be a good opportunity for him to show the devotion
his family feels to Cicero.

Marcus Cicero, Imperator, to Gaius Marcellus, son of Gaius, consul, greetings.

1 Since it has happened, as I so greatly desired, that the devotion of all the
Marcelli, and Marcellini too (for the goodwill always shown me by your family
and those of your name is remarkable) – since, therefore, it has happened that the

78
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
devotion of you all can be put into practice by your consulship, because in this
consulship my achievements and the praise and honour relating to them especially
coincide, I am asking you – and it can be most easily done, for I am sure that the
senate will not reject it – to see to it that the decree of the senate, after my dispatch
has been read, be as complimentary as possible.
2 If I had been less closely associated with you than with all your family, I
would commission those by whom you know I am especially regarded to present
my case to you. Your father’s services to me have been most splendid; no one can
be said to be more supportive of my well-being or my honour. There is no man, I
believe, who is unaware of how highly your cousin (M. Claudius Marcellus, cos.
51) values and has always valued me. In short, your whole family has always hon-
oured me with the greatest favours of every kind. And, indeed, you have yielded
to none of your family in your regard for me. Accordingly, may I ask especially
that you desire me to win every possible honour through your doing, and that in
the matter of my being decreed a supplicatio, and in everything else, you consider
my reputation as sufficiently committed into your hands?

2.50 Cicero Letters to his Friends 13.3: Cicero recommends a friend

This is a typical letter of recommendation written by Cicero to Memmius in 50 BC. Gaius
Memmius was in Athens in exile after a charge of electioneering bribery in 54; he was prae-
tor in 58 and propraetor in Bithynia in 57; nothing is known of Fufius.

Aulus Fufius, one of my most intimate friends, treats me with the greatest defer-
ence and devotion; a man of learning and great refinement, he is extremely worthy
of your friendship. I would be glad if you would behave towards him as you prom-
ised when we met. That would be more pleasing to me than anything else could
be. Moreover, you will bind the man himself to you for perpetuity by the strongest
sense of obligation and regard.

2.51 Ennius Annals 210–27: Ennius on Servilius Geminus

Gell. 12.4.4. Ennius is probably referring to Gn. Servilius Geminus (cos. 217), who was
killed at the battle of Cannae in 216 (or to his father, P. Servilius Geminus, a hero of
the time of the First Punic War). Geminus is portrayed as a noble and affable friend, and
Ennius may here be presenting his own view of his relationship with aristocrats such as
the Scipiones.

210 Saying this he called to one with whom, willingly and gladly
His table, conversation, and personal affairs
He often courteously shared, when tired out
He had spent a great part of the day managing matters of utmost importance,
Through counsel given in the wide forum and sacred senate;
215 One to whom, without anxiety, he would boldly speak
Matters great and small and jests, and would burst forth and utter words
Good and bad, if he so wished, and place them in safe-keeping;

79
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
Who could share many pleasures and joys, both secretly and openly,
Whose nature no thought could persuade to do a wrong deed
220 Lightly or with evil intent; a learned, loyal,
Pleasant, eloquent man, content with his own, happy,
Shrewd, who spoke the right things at the right time, affable,
A man of few words, tenacious of many old ways created by that antiquity
Which is now buried, and of manners both old and new,
225 Holding to the ways of many of our elders, and the laws of gods and men,
Able, with discretion, both to speak and to keep silent.
This man, among the battles, Servilius thus addressed.

2.52 Caesar Gallic War 1.53.5–6: Caesar’s pleasure in a friend’s rescue

This passage is a notable exception to Caesar’s generally objective tone in his narrative.
The incident occurred in 58 BC, with the expulsion of Aristovistus, king of the Suebi, from
Gaul; for Procillus, cf. Caes. BG 1.47.4.

5 In the flight, Gaius Valerius Procillus was being dragged along by his guards
bound with three chains, when he fell in with Caesar himself, who was pursuing the
enemy with the cavalry. 6 This, indeed, delighted Caesar no less than the victory
itself, for he saw the worthiest man in the whole province of Gaul, and his own per-
sonal friend and host, snatched from the hands of the enemy and restored to himself,
nor did Fortune lessen any of the pleasure and rejoicing by Procillus’ misfortune.

2.53 Catullus 9: Catullus on the return of his friends

Veranius is not known, but he has clearly returned from Spain and is mentioned in poems
12, 28 and 47 in company with Fabullus; they may have served together in Spain and then
in Macedonia under L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (cos. 58).

Veranius, out of all of my friends

Superior in my view to three hundred thousand,
Have you come home to your household gods
And affectionate brothers and elderly mother?
You have come. O what joyful news!
I shall look upon you safe and sound and I shall hear you
Speaking of the places, history and tribes of the Hiberians,
In your accustomed way, and drawing your neck close to me
I shall kiss your beloved mouth and eyes.
Of all the world’s most blessed men,
Who is more happy or blessed than I?

CLIENTELA AND PATROCINIUM

Early clientela (‘patronage’) was characterised by strict mutual obligations, supported by
law; see XII Tables 8.10 (doc. 1.37), where a sacred obligation on the side of both patron

80
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
and client is involved. By the later Republic, patronage and clientship played a large part
in public and private life, with a patron–client relationship seen between generals and sol-
diers, founders and colonists, and conquerors and dependent foreign communities, as well
as, naturally, between the large numbers of freedmen and their previous owners (duties
for such freedmen were laid down and enforceable in law). The prestige, or dignitas, of
nobles was publicly demonstrated by the number of their clients. The duties of a client
included the customary early-morning salutatio (greetings) at the residence of the patron,
after which clients could follow the patron into the forum and elsewhere. A client might
also be expected to canvass and vote for their patron, or in his interests, and in return the
patron would give the client legal advice and representation in court.

2.54 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 2.9.1–3:

Class divisions
Clearly the situation described by Dionysius was not applicable in the late Republic, and
he has idealised the institution, placing its origins anachronistically back in the regal period
and stressing the goodwill and affections felt by both parties.

1 After Romulus had distinguished the more powerful members of society from
the less powerful, he then set up laws and established what things were to be done
by each of the two groups. The patricians were to serve as priests, magistrates and
judges and were to aid him in the management of public business, devoting them-
selves to the city’s affairs, while the plebeians were excused from these official
duties because they were inexperienced in them and without leisure, because of
their lack of means: they were to farm and breed cattle and practise trades that
bring in a livelihood, so that they would not be seditious, as happens in other cit-
ies when either those in power maltreat the humble or the common people and
the poor are jealous of their superiors. 2 He gave the plebeians into the guardian-
ship of the patricians, allowing each plebeian to choose the patron he wanted . . .
3 Romulus beautified the arrangement with an attractive title, calling this protec-
tion of the poor and humble ‘patronage’ (clientela), and laid down friendly duties
for both, making their relationship a kindly one suited to fellow citizens.

2.55 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 2.10.1–11.2:

Rules for patrons
Dionysius considers clientela as one of the most important Roman institutions and as
directly responsible for political stability. In his estimate of 630 years of harmony (down to
121 BC), he omits the murder of Tiberius Gracchus in 133.

10.1 The customs which Romulus then laid down concerning patronage, and
which continued for a long time in use among the Romans, were as follows: it
was the duty of patricians to explain to their clients the laws, of which they had no
knowledge, and to take care of them in the same way whether they were present
or absent, doing everything for them that fathers do for sons, with regard both to
money and to contracts relating to money; to bring legal cases on behalf of clients
who were wronged in any way to do with contracts, and to support them against

81
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
those bringing charges against them; in short, to provide all the peace, both in
private and in state affairs, which they particularly needed. 2 It was the duty of
clients to assist their patrons with raising dowries when their daughters were get-
ting married, if the fathers lacked money, and to pay ransoms to enemies, if any
of them or their children were taken prisoner; to pay out of their own funds their
patrons’ losses in private legal cases or fines that they owed to the state, doing this
not as loans but as a debt of gratitude; and to share with them the costs incurred
in standing for magistracies and privileges and other public expenditures, just
as if they were their relations. 3 For both alike, it was impious and unlawful to
bring charges against the other in law-suits, or act as a hostile witness, or vote in
opposition, or be numbered among the other’s enemies. If anyone was convicted
of having done any of these things, he was guilty of treason by the law which
Romulus had sanctioned, and it was lawful for anyone who wished to put him
to death as a victim dedicated to infernal Jupiter – for it was a Roman custom to
dedicate the bodies of those persons whom they wished to kill without incurring
guilt to some god or other, and especially to the gods of the underworld; this
was what Romulus now did. 4 Accordingly, the links between clients and patrons
continued for many generations and differed in no way from blood relationships,
being handed down to their children’s children, and it was a matter of great praise
for men from distinguished families to have as many clients as possible, and not
only to preserve the continuation of the patronage they inherited but to acquire
others by their own merit.
11.1 It was not only in the city itself that the plebs were under the patricians’
protection, but also every Roman colony and every city that was joined in alliance
and friendship, as well as those conquered in war, had those protectors and patrons
among the Romans that they wished. And the senate has frequently referred the
controversies of these cities and peoples to their patrons, regarding their decisions
as authoritative. 2 Indeed, so secure was the harmony which owed its beginning
to the provisions of Romulus that, in 630 years, they never came to bloodshed and
mutual killing, even though many great disputes concerning public affairs arose
between the people and those in office, as is bound to happen in all cities, great
and small.

2.56 Cicero In Defence of Sextus Roscius of Ameria 5: Hospitium

In 80 BC, Cicero, in his first criminal case, defended Sextus Roscius on a charge of parri-
cide against the powerful members of Sulla’s faction, notably Chrysogonus, one of Sulla’s
freedmen; see docs 11.24–25. Hospitium (the hospitable entertainment of those from
outside Rome) was a hereditary relationship, often exercised by Roman aristocrats over
provincial families and communities. When Roscius was proscribed he fled to Caecilia,
daughter of Metellus Balearicus (cos. 123), who intervened on his behalf and found Cicero
to defend him.

Sextus Roscius, this man’s father, was a citizen of the municipality of Ameria and,
by his ancestry, noble birth and wealth, was easily the most prominent man, not
only of his town but also of the neighbourhood, while his reputation was enhanced

82
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
by the esteem with which he was regarded by men of the highest rank and his
relations of hospitality with them. For he was not only in a relation of hospitality
with the Metelli, Servilii and Scipiones but also enjoyed private intimacy and social
intercourse with these families, whom, as is right, I mention with the respect due to
their high character and consequence. Well, of all these advantages, this is the only
one he left to his son: for brigandly members of his family (Titus Roscius Capito
and Magnus) have seized and possess his patrimony, while the reputation and life of
the innocent son are being defended by the guests and friends of his father.

2.57 Cicero Letters to his Friends 13.34: The ties of hospitality

One of Cicero’s letters of recommendation to Acilius (written in 46 BC) on the basis of
family ties of hospitality and his connections with Sicily. Cicero had been quaestor of
Lilybaeum in Sicily in 75 BC, and the Sicilians were his clients.

Cicero to Acilius, proconsul (in Sicily), greetings.

I am bound by ties of hospitality dating back to his grandfather’s time with Lyso,
son of Lyso, of Lilybaeum, who pays me great respect and whom I have found
worthy of both his father and grandfather – for he comes from a very noble family.
Accordingly, I commend him to you with more than ordinary urgency, as well as
his household; and I beg of you very earnestly to ensure that he realises that my
recommendation has been of the greatest assistance in your eyes, as well as a great
compliment to him.

2.58 Cicero Letters to his Friends 13.4: Cicero and a land

comissioner
Cicero is writing in autumn 45 BC to Valerius Orca, one of the commissioners for carrying
out Caesar’s land grants to his veterans. Cicero had also protected the people of Volaterrae
against the Rullan and Flavian land laws (doc. 12.13).

Marcus Tullius Cicero warmly greets Quintus Valerius Orca, son of Quintus, pro-
praetorian legate.
1 I have the closest possible connection with the townsmen of Volaterrae.
Having received great kindness from me, they have shown their gratitude in return
most abundantly; for they have never been found wanting, either in my times
in office or in my troubles . . . 4 Were circumstances to give me at the present
time power along the lines of the ability I used to have to protect the people of
Volaterrae, as I have always looked after my own people, there is no act, no effort,
I would omit to be of service to them. But, as I am sure that my influence is no
less with you at the present time than I have always possessed with everyone, I ask
you in the name of our very close connection and our equal and mutual goodwill
towards each other that you serve the people of Volaterrae in such a way that they
think that the man who has been placed, as if by some divine plan, in charge of the
land commission is the very man on whom, above all others, I – their continual
protector – am able to exert the greatest possible influence.

83
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
2.59 Cicero Letters to his Friends 13.11: Cicero’s home town
Cicero is writing in 46 BC to M. Junius Brutus as governor of Cisalpine Gaul. Arpinum,
Cicero’s home town, owned land there which paid rent to the township. Cicero, of course,
has a personal interest here: Arpinum was run by three aediles, and he hopes, through his
services to the community, to ensure the election to this position of his son, nephew and
friend.

1 Since I have always noticed that you are extremely careful to stay informed of
all my concerns, I therefore have no doubt that you know not only which munici-
pality I come from but also how diligently I make it my habit to look after the
interests of my fellow townsmen, the inhabitants of Arpinum. Now, indeed, all
their revenues and all their means of providing for the worship of the gods and for
repairing their sacred dwellings and public buildings are comprised in the rents for
the lands they hold in the province of Gaul. To inspect these, and to arrange for the
payment of the money owed by the tenants and to investigate and administer the
whole business, we have sent a commission of Roman equites, Quintus Fufidius,
son of Quintus Fufidius, Marcus Faucius, son of Marcus, and Quintus Mamercus,
son of Quintus.
2 I beg you more urgently than usual, in view of our close connection, to
concern yourself with this matter and do what you can to see that the town’s
business is arranged as suitably and quickly as possible, and to treat the men
themselves, whose names I have given you, with all possible courtesy and gener-
osity in accordance with your natural disposition. 3 You will find that you have
added some excellent men to your close connections and bound a most grateful
municipality under obligation to you; indeed, I shall be even more grateful to
you, as I have always been accustomed to look after the interests of my fellow
townsmen, and this year my attention and services are particularly appropriate
because, in order to regulate the town’s affairs, I have put my son up for aedile, as
well as my brother’s son and Marcus Caesius, a very intimate friend of mine – for
aediles are the only magistrates we are in the habit of electing in our municipal-
ity; you will have done honour to them, and especially to me, if the affairs of the
municipality are well managed thanks to your zeal and diligence – and this is
what I earnestly ask you again and again to do.

2.60 Plutarch Life of Pompey 45.1–5: Pompey as patron of the East

This passage describes Pompey’s triumph over Mithridates and the East in September 61
(cf. doc. 12.29). All his conquests came into his clientela.

1 The time was insufficient for the extent of Pompey’s triumph, even though it
was spread over two separate days, and many of the items prepared for it had to
be left out of the spectacle – enough to dignify and adorn another triumph entirely.
2 The nations over which he was triumphing were displayed on posters which
went in front. These were: Pontus, Armenia, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, Media,
Colchis, Iberia, Albania, Syria, Cilicia, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia and Palestine,

84
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
Judaea, Arabia, and the entire piratical menace which had been overthrown by
sea and on land. 3 In these campaigns, according to the posters, he had captured
no fewer than 1,000 forts, nearly 900 cities and 800 pirate ships, while founding
39 cities. 4 In addition to all this, the posters stated that, while the public revenue
from tax had been 50,000,000 drachmas, they were receiving from his acquisi-
tions for Rome 85,000,000, and that he was bringing the public treasury 20,000
talents in coins and vessels of silver and gold, apart from what had been given to
his soldiers, of which he who received the least share had 1,500 drachmas. 5 The
prisoners led in the triumph were, apart from the pirate chiefs, the son of Tigranes
of Armenia, with his wife and daughter, Zosime, a wife of King Tigranes himself,
Aristobulus, king of the Jews, a sister and five children of Mithridates . . .

2.61 Caesar Spanish War 42.1–3: Ingratitude in Spain

To Caesar’s anger, Hispalis in Further Spain had supported the Pompeian forces in the civil
war rather than Caesar’s own, though Caesar had governed Further Spain as quaestor (69
BC) and as propraetor (61). Metellus Pius (cos. 80) presumably imposed taxes on Spain
following the end of the rebellion of Sertorius (docs 12.2–3).

1 Caesar returned to Hispalis and on the following day summoned an assem-

bly (contio) and reminded them of the following points: that at the start of his
quaestorship he had made that province above all other provinces his own special
concern and had lavished on it whatever benefits were in his power at that time;
2 that subsequently, after acquiring the rank of praetor, he had requested the sen-
ate to rescind the taxes which Metellus had imposed and had freed the province
from having to pay that money; that having once adopted the role of their patron
he had undertaken its defence by facilitating the introduction of numerous deputa-
tions into the senate, as well as representing it in public and private legal actions
through which he had incurred the enmity of many; 3 that similarly, during his
consulship, he had in his absence granted the province all benefits that were in his
power – and he was well aware that, in the current war and in the period preceding
it, they were both forgetful of all these benefits and ungrateful for them towards
both himself and the Roman people.

2.62 Plutarch Life of Pompey 51.1–5: Caesar as patron

of Rome’s magistrates
Sulla had raised the senate’s number to 600; consuls and proconsuls each had 12 lictors car-
rying the fasces before them, praetors and propraetors (probably) six. Caesar at Luca in 56
BC had a third of the senate and between 10 and 20 current magistrates and promagistrates
requesting his patronage; cf. docs 12.69–71.

1 In the meantime, his Gallic wars raised Caesar to eminence . . . 3 By send-

ing back to Rome gold and silver and the other booty and the rest of the wealth
gained from his many wars, and enticing people with bribes and assisting with the
expenses of aediles and praetors and consuls and their wives, he won the support

85
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
of many. 4 Consequently, when he crossed the Alps and wintered at Luca, a great
crowd of ordinary men and women collected there in haste, while 200 men of
senatorial rank, among whom were Pompey and Crassus, and 120 fasces of pro-
consuls and praetors were to be seen at Caesar’s door. 5 He satisfied all the rest
with hopes and money and sent them away; but between himself, Pompey and
Crassus the following agreement was made.

LITIGATION AS A WAY OF LIFE

The Romans saw the XII Tables as the beginning of their legal history, though laws were
attributed to the kings, such as Romulus: the XII Tables, though increasingly obsolete, were
not superseded until the sixth century AD. Magistrates with imperium were the administra-
tors of criminal justice. Trials could take place before the people or in court (quaestio; plural:
quaestiones): perpetual quaestiones were set up in the second and first centuries BC. The
key legal figure in Rome was the urban praetor, who at the beginning of his term of office
published an edict setting out the way he intended to exercise his jurisdiction. Court cases in
Rome were a public spectacle, taking place in the forum in the open air, and could be viewed
by any interested spectators. Acting as prosecutor or defence counsel was an important way
of bringing oneself and one’s skills to public notice and acquiring a significant clientele.

2.63 Plutarch Life of Cato the Elder 15.3–5: Prosecution as ‘pietas’

Cato the Elder was extremely litigious and known for a number of prosecutions during
his career: particular targets were Scipio Africanus and his brother L. Cornelius Scipio
Asiagenus. Enmities (inimicitiae) could be hereditary, as were friendships (amicitiae). For
Galba, see doc. 5.48.

3 It is said that a certain young man, who had got a verdict of loss of citizen rights
against an enemy of his dead father, was passing through the forum on the con-
clusion of the case, when Cato met him and greeted him with the words: ‘These
are the offerings we should make to our parents – not lambs or kids, but the tears
of their enemies and their condemnation.’ 4 However, in his political life he was
himself not unscathed, but, wherever he gave his enemies any handle, he was
always being prosecuted and in danger of conviction. He is said to have defended
nearly 50 cases, the last one when he was 86 years of age . . . 5 And even this one
was not the end of his conflicts in the courts, as four years later, when he was 90,
he brought a case against Servius Galba.

2.64 Plutarch Life of Lucullus 1.1–3: Prosecution as a career move

Lucullus’ father, another L. Licinius Lucullus, was governor of Sicily in 103/2 and con-
victed of extortion by his successor, Gaius Servilius, and Servilius’ cousin Servilius ‘the
augur’. Lucullus and his brother Marcus brought a charge against this Servilius, apparently
of misappropriating public funds.

1 In the case of Lucullus, his grandfather had been consul, and his uncle on his
mother’s side was Metellus, surnamed Numidicus. But, with regard to his parents,

86
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
his father had been convicted of fraud and his mother, Caecilia, had a bad reputa-
tion as a woman of no discretion in her lifestyle. 2 Lucullus himself, while still a
young man, before he had stood for any office or entered public life, made it his
first task to prosecute his father’s accuser, Servilius the Augur, whom he caught
wronging the state. The Romans considered this a splendid achievement, and the
case was talked of by everyone, like a great deed of prowess. 3 For, in fact, they
thought the business of prosecution, in general and without special excuse, not a
sordid action, but were very keen to see their young men clinging to wrongdoers
like well-bred dogs to wild beasts. But great animosity was stirred up by the case,
so that some people were even wounded and killed, and Servilius got off.

2.65 Cicero On Duties 2.49–51: Cicero on prosecution and defence

Cicero is here writing on moral duties to his son, Marcus. Lucius Licinius Crassus, the
great orator (cos. 95), had at the age of 21 successfully prosecuted Gaius Papirius Carbo,
who committed suicide in 119 to escape condemnation.

49 But while there are many kinds of occasion that require eloquence, and many
young men in our Republic have won praise in speaking before the jurors, the peo-
ple and the senate, it is the speeches in the courts which win the greatest admira-
tion. Speeches in the courts fall into two categories. They are divided into speeches
for the prosecution and for the defence; while, of these two, taking the side of the
defence is the more praiseworthy, that for the prosecution has also frequently been
considered honourable. A short while back I spoke of (Lucius Licinius) Crassus;
Marcus Antonius (cos. 99), when a young man, had the same success. It was also
a prosecution that brought the eloquence of Publius Sulpicius (tr. pl. 88) to public
notice, when he brought an action against that seditious and dangerous citizen
Gaius Norbanus (tr. pl. 103). 50 But this should not be done often, and only then
for the sake of the state, as in the case of those I have mentioned, or to avenge
wrongs, as in the case of the two Luculli, or to protect clients, as I did on behalf of
the Sicilians, or as Julius did in prosecuting Albucius on behalf of the Sardinians.
The diligence of Lucius Fufius in prosecuting Manius Aquillius (cos. 101) is also
well known. Prosecution may be undertaken, then, once or at any rate not often.
But if it should have to be undertaken more often, it should be done as a service
to the state, for taking vengeance on the state’s enemies is not to be considered
reprehensible; even then, however, there should be a limit. For it seems the char-
acteristic of a hard-hearted man, or rather of one hardly human, to bring capital
charges against many people. It is not only dangerous for the prosecutor himself
but damaging to his reputation to allow himself to be called a prosecutor; that hap-
pened to Marcus Brutus, who was born of the highest family, and the son of that
Brutus who was one of the foremost authorities in civil law.
51 Furthermore, this rule of responsibility should be carefully observed, that
you should never bring a capital charge against anyone who might be innocent;
for there is no way one can do that without becoming a criminal. For what is so
inhuman as to turn the eloquence given by nature for the safety and protection of
mankind to the destruction and ruin of good men? Nevertheless, while we have to

87
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
avoid this, we need have no scruples about defending a guilty person, as long as
he is not notoriously wicked or impious; for the people expect it, custom allows it,
even humanity accepts it. It is always the job of the judge in a trial to find the truth,
and that of the defending counsel sometimes to put forward an approximation to
the truth, even if not entirely true; I would not dare to write this, especially when
writing about philosophy, were it not also the view of Panaetius, that strictest of
Stoics. Then, too, acting for the defence particularly wins one fame and gratitude,
and the more so if you should happen to assist one who appears to be oppressed
and harassed through the influence of someone in power, as I have done on a num-
ber of occasions, for example, when in my youth I defended Sextus Roscius of
Ameria against the power of the tyrannical Lucius (Cornelius) Sulla – the speech,
as you know, has been published.

THE IMPORTANCE OF ORATORY

Public speaking was an extremely important skill in Rome, whether to influence the assem-
bly, the senate or the jury (and listening public) in a law-court. Latin rhetoric was firmly
based on Greek models, and aristocratic Romans trained under Greek teachers and in the
Greek language – upper-class Romans being fluent in Greek as well as Latin. Teachers of
rhetoric are first mentioned in Rome in the second century BC, with instructional works
in Latin, such as the Rhetorica ad Herennium and Cicero’s De inventione, the stock early
expositions of rhetorical practices, appearing in the 80s.

2.66 Suetonius On Rhetoricians 1: An ‘un-Roman’ practice

The senatus consultum (decision of the senate) and edict of the censors against Latin phi-
losophers and rhetoricians in 161 and 92 BC are given in doc. 5.60. For Hirtius and Pansa,
see doc. 14.9.

Gradually rhetoric itself came to appear useful and respectable, and many devoted
themselves to it both in order to defend themselves and to acquire a fine reputa-
tion. Cicero used to declaim in both Greek and Latin up to the time of his praetor-
ship, and in Latin even when comparatively elderly, and that in company with the
future consuls Hirtius and Pansa (cos. 43 BC), whom he used to call his pupils and
‘great big boys’. Some historians state that Gnaeus Pompey (Magnus) resumed
the practice of declaiming just before the civil war to argue more easily against
Gaius Curio, a very ready-witted young man who was taking up Caesar’s cause;
and that Mark Antony, and Augustus too, did not give it up even during the war
at Mutina . . . Moreover many of the orators even published their declamations.
As a result great enthusiasm was generally aroused, and there was a huge influx
of practitioners and teachers who prospered to such an extent that some of them
advanced from the lowest status to senatorial rank and the highest offices.
But they did not all share the same teaching method, and individuals varied
in their practice, since each one trained his pupils in different ways. For they
would expound speeches in detail with regard to their figures of speech, incidents
and illustrations, now in one way and now in another, and compose narrations

88
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
sometimes in a brief and summarised form, at other times with greater detail and
more expansively; sometimes they would translate Greek works and praise or
criticise illustrious men; they would demonstrate that some practices in everyday
life were useful and essential, others dangerous and redundant; frequently they
defended or attacked the credibility of myths, an exercise which the Greeks call
‘destructive’ and ‘constructive’ criticism; finally all these became obsolete, being
succeeded by the debate (controversia).

2.67 Cicero Brutus 305–11, 314–16, 318–19: Cicero’s early career

The Brutus was written in early 46 BC to justify Cicero’s approach to oratory, which was
now being questioned by the younger generation. This work is structured as a dialogue
with Atticus and Brutus. Cicero states that nearly every day he heard the top speakers in
the popular assemblies, whom he names below. 314: the main reason for Cicero’s leaving
Rome after his defence of Roscius was in order to avoid reprisals from Sulla: doc. 11.25.

305 The first disappointment inflicted on my passion for listening struck me when
Cotta was exiled. I frequently listened to those who were left, and I continued to
write and read and declaim daily with intense diligence but was not satisfied with
just oratorical exercises. Then, in the following year, Quintus Varius (tr. pl. 90
BC) went into exile, condemned by his own law; 306 I, however, for the study of
civil law, spent much of my time with Quintus (Mucius) Scaevola, son of Quintus,
who, although he was not given to teaching anyone, taught those who desired
to hear him in his replies to those who consulted him. The next year was that of
the consulship of Sulla and Pompeius (88 BC). Publius Sulpicius (Rufus; tr. pl.
88) was then tribune, and I was able to get to know his whole style of speaking
inside out as he addressed the popular assemblies on a daily basis; at that same
time, when Philo, then head of the Academy, had fled from his home, along with
the most reputable Athenians, because of the Mithridatic War and had come to
Rome, I was ardently aroused to the study of philosophy and devoted myself to
his wonderful teaching, in which I lingered the more attentively, not only because
the variety and great magnitude of that subject captured me with its delight but
because it then seemed as if the whole justice system had disappeared for all
time. 307 In that year Sulpicius had been killed, and in the next year three orators
of three different periods were most cruelly slain: Quintus Catulus (cos. 102),
Marcus Antonius (cos. 99) and Gaius Julius (Caesar Strabo; aed. 90). In that same
year too I devoted my time to study at Rome with Molo of Rhodes, a top-ranking
advocate and teacher.
308 For a period of about three years . . . 309 I spent my nights and days in
a study of all kinds of learning. I associated with Diodotus the Stoic, who made
his home with me and resided with me until a short time ago, when he died at my
house. By him, along with other subjects, I was diligently trained in dialectic,
which can be thought of as a contracted or compressed form of eloquence . . . But
while I devoted myself to his teaching and to the many varied arts he taught, I
made sure that no day was spent without rhetorical exercises. 310 I prepared and

89
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
gave declamations – as they are now called – often with Marcus Piso and Quintus
Pompeius, or indeed with anyone, daily, and I used to do this often in Latin but
more frequently in Greek, both because Greek rhetoric, providing more opportu-
nities for stylistic ornamentation, produced the habit of speaking similarly in Latin
and because the most outstanding teachers, being Greek, were unable to correct or
teach me unless I spoke in Greek . . . 311 It was now for the first time that I began
to take on both civil and criminal cases, my aim being not to learn in the forum, as
most do, but as far as possible to come to the forum already trained. At the same
time, I devoted my time to studying with Molo; for when Sulla was dictator Molo
came as an envoy to Rome concerning the payments to the Rhodians. In this way,
my first criminal case in defence of Sextus Roscius received such commendation
that there was no case that appeared to be unworthy of my advocacy. There then
followed a series of many others which I presented, carefully worked on as if
laboured at through the midnight hours . . .
314 Since I had come to the conclusion that, with relaxation and improved
control of my voice and an alteration in my style of speaking, I would be able to
avoid risk to my health and deliver speeches with more moderation, the purpose
of my leaving for Asia Minor was to change my habit of speaking. And so I left
Rome, after having been engaged in cases for two years with my name already
well known in the forum. 315 When I arrived at Athens, I spent six months with
Antiochus, the most celebrated and skilful philosopher of the old Academy, and
I again took up the study of philosophy with the best guide and teacher. Having
engaged in the subject from my early youth, I made great strides and never com-
pletely abandoned it. At the same time, however, I diligently continued with the
practice of rhetoric, under the supervision of Demetrius the Syrian, a teacher
of speaking of long-standing and not without reputation. Afterwards I travelled
through the whole of Asia Minor, associating with the best orators there, who
were generous in giving me the chance to practise with them; of these the leader
was Menippus of Stratonicea, in my view the most eloquent man in all Asia
at that time . . . 316 The person who associated with me most constantly was
Dionysius of Magnesia; there were also Aeschylus of Cnidus and Xenocles of
Adramattium. At that time these men were considered as the leading teachers of
rhetoric in Asia. Not satisfied with these, I came to Rhodes and attached myself
to Molo, whom I had heard in Rome, as he was an advocate in actual cases and an
outstanding composer of speeches, as well as extremely skilful in perceiving and
correcting mistakes and in his system of instruction and training. He dedicated
his time to restraining, if it could be done, what was redundant and excessive in
my style, with its youthful rashness and lack of control, and preventing it, as it
were, from overflowing its banks. And so I returned two years later, not only with
more training but almost transformed – my voice had ceased to be over-strained,
my language had come off the boil, and my lungs had gained strength, and my
body, weight. . . .
318 Accordingly, in the year after I returned from Asia (76 BC), I engaged in
some notable cases when I was standing for the quaestorship, Cotta for the con-
sulship and Hortensius for the aedileship. In the meantime, the next year saw me

90
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
as quaestor in Sicily, Cotta was sent to Gaul after his consulship, and Hortensius
remained the leading advocate both in reality and reputation. When, however, a
year later, I returned from Sicily, it was now clear that whatever I had in me was
fully developed and had reached a certain maturity. I may seem to be saying too
much about myself, especially as I am saying it myself; but the aim of all this part
of my talk is for you to perceive not my talent or eloquence, which is far from my
purpose, but my hard work and industry. 319 After, therefore, I had been involved
in numerous cases with leading advocates for nearly five years, I then, as aedile-
elect, engaged in a mighty struggle with Hortensius, the consul-elect, in defence
of the province of Sicily (the prosecution of Verres in 70 BC).

2.68 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 55.1–2: Caesar

as a public speaker
Cicero’s letters to Cornelius Nepos were published in a collection of two or more books
(Macrobius 2.1.14). For Gaius Gracchus’ style of oratory, see docs 8.26–27.

1 In eloquence and military skill Caesar either equalled or surpassed the reputa-
tions of the most outstanding exponents. After his prosecution of Dolabella he
was counted without hesitation among the foremost advocates. Certainly, Cicero,
in his enumeration of orators in his Brutus, confessed that he had never seen any-
one to whom Caesar should yield precedence, and describes his style of speaking
as elegant and clear, even dignified and in a sense noble. He also wrote this to
Cornelius Nepos about Caesar, 2 ‘Well? What orator would you rank before him
of those who have concentrated on nothing else? Is there anyone who makes such
witty comments or so many of them? Or who uses such attractive and apposite
vocabulary?’ Caesar seems to have emulated the style, at any rate as a youth, of
Caesar Strabo (Gaius Julius Caesar Strabo, aed. 90), some of whose speech In
Defence of the Sardinians he borrowed word for word for use in one of his own
trial orations. It is said that he pitched his voice high in speaking and used impas-
sioned movements and gestures which were not without charm.

2.69 Cicero Letters to his Friends 16.21: The education

of Marcus junior
In this, one of his many letters to Tiro, his father’s freedman, the young Marcus in 44 BC, at
the age of 21 or 22, discusses his education at Athens. Marcus had gone to Cilicia with his
father, and Cicero had accused him of being extravagant and idle. He nevertheless became
consul in 30 BC and governor of Syria and Asia.

3 I should tell you that my close attachment to Cratippus (a philosopher of

Mitylene) is not so much that of a pupil as that of a son. For I not only enjoy
attending his lectures, but I really find him extremely agreeable. I spend whole
days with him, and often part of the night. I even beg him to dine with me as
often as he can . . . 5 Besides this, I have begun practising declamation in Greek
with Cassius; but I like practising in Latin with Bruttius. I have as daily intimate

91
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
companions the people whom Cratippus brought with him from Mitylene, men of
learning of whom he highly approves.

‘BREAD AND CIRCUSES’

The ludi (‘games’) were intrinsic to Roman culture. There were three types of ludi: the ludi
circenses (doc. 2.70), the ludi scaenici (which involved theatrical performances: 2.73–75)
and the combatant ludi, involving gladiators and wild-beast displays (docs 2.77–79). Of the
ludi scaenici, the Ludi Megalenses established in 191 honoured the arrival of the Magna
Mater in Rome (docs 3.61–63). By the end of the Republic there were 57 days devoted to
ludi, which were held on fixed dates. Gladiatorial contests (munera) are first mentioned in
the third century BC and continued to grow in popularity, being always associated with
funerals. They were first held in Rome in 264 BC by two brothers to honour their dead
father (Marcus Junius Brutus Pera); three pairs of gladiators were involved. This associa-
tion of gladiatorial contests with funerals continued throughout the Republic and, before
Caesar’s games in 46, gladiatorial shows were restricted to funeral games, not public per-
formances (docs 2.78–79). Such shows usually took place in the forum, where the funeral
procession had taken place and the eulogy had been delivered, with the spectators on tem-
porary wooden seating. There was opposition to the construction of permanent theatres at
Rome on the grounds that it would encourage idleness. The phrase ‘bread and circuses’ was
coined by Juvenal (Satires 10.81).

2.70 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 7.72.1–73.4:

The ludi magni (Great Games)
The ludi magni were also known as the Great Games, or Roman Games, and were held in
September in honour of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Dionysius describes here the procession
to the Circus Maximus at the beginning of these games.

72.1 Before starting the games, the most important magistrates conducted a pro-
cession in honour of the gods from the Capitol through the Forum to the Circus
Maximus. The leaders of the procession were, first, their sons who were approach-
ing manhood and of an age to take part in this ceremony, riding on horseback if
their fathers had the property qualifications of equites, while those who would
serve in the infantry went on foot; the former were in squadrons and troops, and the
latter in divisions and companies, as if they were going to school; this was to show
strangers the number and beauty of the state’s youths who were near manhood.
2 They were followed by charioteers, some of whom drove four horses abreast,
some pairs, and others rode unyoked horses; they were followed by the contestants
in both the light and the heavy games, their bodies completely naked except for
the covering around their waists . . . 5 The contestants were followed by numer-
ous groups of dancers divided into three sections, the first of men, the second of
youths, and the third of boys, and these were accompanied by flute-players, who
played ancient, short flutes, as happens even to this day, and by lyre-players, who
plucked ivory, seven-stringed lyres and instruments called barbita. The Greeks
have stopped using these in my time, though their use was traditional, but they
are still preserved by the Romans in all their ancient sacrificial ceremonies. 6 The

92
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
dancers wore scarlet tunics girt with bronze belts, with swords hanging at their
sides, and carried shorter than average spears; the men also had bronze helmets
adorned with conspicuous crests and plumes. Each group was led by one man who
gave the others the figures of the dance and took the lead in expressing the war-
like and rapid movements, usually in the proceleusmatic (i.e., four short syllables)
rhythms . . . 10 After the groups of armed dancers, other groups of Satyric players
took part in the procession enacting the Greek dance called sicinnis. The dress of
those who represented Sileni consisted of fleecy tunics, which some people call
chortaioi, and coverings of all sorts of flowers; and those dressed as satyrs had
loin-cloths and goatskins, and manes that stood upright on their heads, with other
similar things. These mocked and mimicked the serious movements of the others,
turning them into more ridiculous performances. . . . 13 After these dancers came
a crowd of lyre-players and numerous flute-players, and after them the persons
carrying the censers in which perfumes and frankincense were burned along the
whole route, as well as the men who carried the vessels made of silver and gold,
both those sacred to the gods and those belonging to the state. Last of all in the
procession came the images of the gods, borne on men’s shoulders, showing the
same likenesses as those made by the Greeks, and the same dress, symbols and
gifts which they are traditionally shown as inventing and bestowing on mankind:
not only images of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Neptune and the rest whom the Greeks
count among the twelve gods, but also of those still more ancient from whom, in
legend, the twelve were sprung, namely Saturn, Ops, Themis, Latona, the Fates,
Mnemosyne, and all the rest . . .
73.1 It now remains for me to describe briefly the games which the Romans
performed after the procession. First was the race of four-horse chariots, of two-
horse chariots, and of unyoked horses . . . 3 After the chariot races were finished,
those who contended in their own persons came on, the runners, wrestlers and
boxers . . . 4 And, in the intervals between the contests, they observed a practice
which was extremely Greek and the best of all customs, that of awarding crowns
and proclaiming the honours with which they honoured their benefactors, just as
was done at Athens during the festivals of Dionysus, and displaying to all who had
assembled for the spectacle the booty they had taken in war.

2.71 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities

3.68.1–4: The Circus Maximus
Traditionally the site of the Circus Maximus was established by Romulus, with stands for
viewing built under the Tarquinii; the Tarquinius of this document is Tarquinius Priscus, the
fifth king (616–579 BC). Caesar as dictator made substantial improvements to the Circus
Maximus, increasing the length of the circus to 620 metres: horses racing seven laps, keep-
ing to the inner side of the spina, would have run over 3 kilometres, while there was seating
for some 150,000 spectators. A stade is approximately 600 Greek feet, a plethron 100 feet.

1 Tarquinius also constructed the largest of the hippodromes (the Circus

Maximus), which lies between the Aventine and Palatine and was the first to place
covered seats around it on scaffolding (for till then the spectators stood), with

93
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
beams supporting the wooden stands; and dividing the places among the 30 curiae
he assigned a section to each, so that every spectator was seated in his proper
place. 2 This work was also to become in time one of the most beautiful and spec-
tacular constructions in the city. For the length of the hippodrome is three and a
half stades, and the width four plethra; around it on the two longer sides and one
of the shorter ones a canal to take water has been dug, ten feet in depth and width.
Behind the canal, porticoes three storeys high are built. The lowest of these has
stone seats as in the theatres, gradually rising one above the other, and the upper
ones have wooden seats. 3 The two longer porticoes are united and joined together
into one by means of the shorter one, which has a crescent shape, so that the three
of them form a single portico like an amphitheatre eight stades around and capa-
ble of holding 150,000 people. The other shorter side is left uncovered and has
vaulted starting places for the horses, all opened together by a single machine. 4
Around the outside of the hippodrome there is another one-storey portico which
has shops in it and dwellings over them, and through this portico via every shop
there are entrances and ascents for those coming to be spectators, so that nothing
obstructs the entrance and departure of so many tens of thousands.

2.72 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities

6.13.4–5: Castor and Pollux
At the battle at Lake Regillus (499 or 496 BC), Castor and Pollux appeared to help the
Romans against the Latins in response to a vow by the dictator A. Postumius. A procession
and annual sacrifices in their honour was still celebrated in Dionysius’ time.

4 But above all this there is the procession, which is held after the sacrifice by
those who have a public horse, who, arrayed by tribes and centuries, all ride in
ranks on horseback, as if they came from battle, crowned with olive branches and
dressed in the purple togas with stripes of scarlet, which they call trabeae. They
start from a certain temple of Mars built outside the walls and, going through the
rest of the city and the forum, pass by the temple of Castor and Pollux, sometimes
numbering even as many as 5,000, wearing whatever rewards for valour they
have received from their commanders in battle, a wonderful sight and one worthy
of the immensity of the Roman empire. 5 These are the things I have learnt to be
both related and performed by the Romans as a result of the epiphany of Castor
and Pollux.

2.73 Cicero Letters to his Friends 7.1.2–3: Pompey’s theatre

Cicero is writing to his friend Marcus Marius, who has decided to miss the shows put
on by Pompey to celebrate the dedication of his new theatre in 55 BC, during his sec-
ond consulship; this was the first permanent stone building for theatrical performances
constructed in Rome. 500 lions were killed during the shows celebrating the dedication.
There was also a display of 20 elephants: the elephants attempted to escape and broke
through to the spectators’ seats, causing panic. Cicero’s attitude to the games is atypical
of Romans, as he notes.

94
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
2 To be sure, the games (should you want to know) were most splendid, but cer-
tainly not to your taste . . . They did not even have the charms which more mod-
est games usually have. The sight of such a sumptuous production destroyed all
enjoyment; I am sure you can endure having missed it with equanimity. What
enjoyment is there in 600 mules in Clytemnestra, or 3,000 mixing-bowls in the
Trojan Horse, or a variety of infantry and cavalry equipment in some battle or
other? These things which won the admiration of the common people would have
brought you no enjoyment . . . 3 Or should I imagine that you regret missing the
athletes, after scorning gladiators? Actually Pompey himself admits that he had
wasted his time and money on them. That leaves the wild-animal hunts, two a day
for five days – magnificent, no one can deny it! But what pleasure can a civilised
man get out of either a helpless man being torn to pieces by a powerful animal or
a magnificent animal being stabbed through with a hunting spear? Even if these
were worth seeing, you have seen them often before, and we spectators saw noth-
ing new. The last day was for the elephants. The mob showed great amazement
but no enjoyment; in fact, there was a certain sympathy, a feeling that the mon-
sters had some kind of affinity with humans.

2.74 Tacitus Annals 14.20.1–21.1: Criticism of Pompey’s theatre

Nero in AD 60 instituted four-yearly games at Rome on the Greek model: the reception
was mixed, as with Pompey’s permanent theatre, before which wooden stages and (later)
benches were erected temporarily, usually in the forum, for the occasion.

20.1 Indeed there were some who recalled the criticism of Pompey, too, by his
elders for constructing a permanent theatre. For, previously, it had been usual to
hold the shows with improvised seating and a stage put up for the occasion or, if
you go even further back, for the spectators to stand, in case, if they sat in the thea-
tre, their idleness continue for days on end. . . . 21.1 The majority approved the
licence, although they called it by more respectable names. Our ancestors, they
said, did not shrink from such public entertainment as their resources permitted:
actors (histriones) were brought from Etruria, horse-racing from Thurii; and, with
the annexation of Greece and Asia, performances became more ambitious, nor
had any respectably born Roman ever demeaned himself by taking to the stage,
and 200 years had passed since the triumph of Lucius Mummius (cos. 146), who
was the first to put on that kind of show in Rome. Moreover a permanent theatre
was far more economical than one which was erected and pulled down every year
at tremendous expense.

2.75 Terence The Mother-in-law: Prologue 20–40: Problems

of a producer
This play was first performed at the ludi Megalenses of 165 BC and then at the funeral games
of Aemilius Paullus in 160. The prologue was spoken by the producer-actor Lucius Ambivius
Turpio. According to the prologue, Terence has had to compete – unsuccessfully – with

95
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
the attractions of boxers, tight-rope walkers and gladiators; the ludi scaenici (perfor-
mances) and munera (gladiatorial shows), however, were held on separate days and cannot
have conflicted.

20 Now, for my sake, give my plea a fair hearing.

Once again I am putting the Hecyra on before you, a play I have never
been able to produce without interruption, so greatly has it been beset by
misfortune.
This misfortune your understanding
Can lull, if you will be supportive of our efforts.
25 When I tried to produce it the first time, the report of boxers
(joined to the belief that a tight-rope walker would appear),
the throng of their admirers, the shouting, and women’s screaming
forced me off stage before the end.
I then decided to employ my usual approach on the new play
30 and try it out again; I put it on a second time.
The first act was going well; then rumour circulated
That a gladiatorial show was to be put on and the people flocked in,
Pushing and shouting, fighting for a place,
Leaving me unable to hold the stage.
35 Now there is no commotion: only peace and silence;
I now have a chance to put on the play, while you have the opportunity
To do honour to the stage.
Do not be responsible for allowing the dramatic art
To fall into the hands of a few; make sure that your influence
40 Supports and aids my own.

2.76 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 10.1–2: Caesar’s games

The aediles were responsible for the ludi, financed by the state but with the aediles using
their own money as well to provide magnificent celebrations to win political favour with
the populace. Caesar was curule aedile in 65 BC (with Bibulus), producing magnificent
ludi, as well as a huge gladiatorial show in honour of his deceased father.

1 During his aedileship, Caesar decorated not only the comitium and forum with
its basilicas, but even the Capitol, constructing temporary colonnades to display
a large part of the equipment for his games. He put on wild-beast hunts and spec-
tacles, sometimes with his colleague and sometimes on his own, the result being
that he claimed all the credit for the shared expenditure too, so that his colleague,
Marcus Bibulus, openly remarked, ‘The same has happened to me as to Pollux:
for just as the temple of the twin brothers in the forum is simply called Castor’s,
the joint liberality of myself and Caesar is said to be just Caesar’s.’ 2 Caesar also
put on a gladiatorial show, but with far fewer pairs than he had intended; for the
vast troop he had collected terrified his enemies, who passed legislation restricting
the number of gladiators that anyone might keep in Rome.

96
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
2.77 Cicero Letters to his Friends 2.11.2: Caelius needs panthers
Marcus Caelius Rufus (whom Cicero had earlier defended) was elected curule aedile for
50 and importuned Cicero as governor of Cilicia to send him some panthers for his games,
as he only had 20; this is Cicero’s reply. It was important for Caelius’ future career that he
should put on a good show at the Circus Maximus.

Regarding the panthers, the accustomed hunters are working diligently on my

instructions. But there is a remarkable scarcity, and those that are left are said
to be complaining because they are the only beings in my province for whom
snares are set. Accordingly they are reported to have decided to leave my prov-
ince for Caria. The matter, however, is receiving careful attention, especially
from Patiscus. Whatever is found will be yours; but what that will come to
I really don’t know. I swear your aedileship is of great concern to me. The
date itself reminds me of it, for I am writing this on the first day of the Ludi
Megalenses (4 April).

2.78 Cicero Tusculan Disputations 2.41: ‘With swords to the death’

Many gladiators were trained at Capua, where the revolt of Spartacus began in a
gladiatorial school (doc. 6.50). Gladiators were generally slaves, and lanistae (train-
ers) bought up slaves or free men (non-Romans) willing to sell themselves. In 49 BC
Caesar established a gladiatorial school which housed hundreds of gladiators, fore-
shadowing the large gladiatorial contests of the imperial age. Noted gladiators were
often Samnites.

What of gladiators, who are either ruined men or barbarians, see what blows they
can put up with! See how those who have been well trained prefer to receive a
blow than disgracefully to avoid it! How often it is made clear that they prefer
nothing more than giving satisfaction to their owner or to the populace! Even
when they are exhausted by wounds, they send to their owners to ask their wishes –
if they have given them satisfaction, they are happy to fall. What ordinary gladi-
ator has ever given a groan or changed countenance? Who has disgraced himself,
not only when standing, but even when he falls? Who, after he has fallen, has
drawn in his neck when ordered to take the sword stroke? Such is the value of
training, practice and habit. So, shall

‘The Samnite, low fellow, worthy of that sort of life and place’,

have the ability to take this? Shall a man born to renown have any part of his soul
so weak that he cannot strengthen it by practice and training? A gladiatorial show
is often seen by some as cruel and inhumane, and I rather agree that it is so, in its
present form: but, when criminals fought with swords to the death, there could be
no better instruction against pain and death, for the eye at any rate, though for the
ear there might perhaps be many.

97
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
2.79 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 26.2–3: Caesar buys
popular support
The concession was the right to stand for the consulship in absentia (doc. 13.7). The gladi-
atorial show (munus) for Julia was actually staged in 46 BC, along with Caesar’s dedica-
tion of his forum and temple of Venus Genetrix. The contests were the first ever celebrated
for a woman.

2 On this concession being granted, Caesar set his aims even higher and confidently
omitted no kind of expenditure or granting of favours both as a candidate for
office and as a private citizen. From his spoils, he began building a forum, and
paid more than 100 million sesterces for the site. Then he announced a show and
public banquet in memory of his daughter, which was quite unprecedented. To
create as much anticipation as possible, he had the banquet, which was leased out
to market contractors, also catered by his household. 3 He also proclaimed that
any well-known gladiators, who might be fighting in front of a hostile audience,
should be forcibly rescued and kept alive. He had new gladiators trained, not in
the gladiatorial schools or by professional trainers (lanistae) but in private houses
by Roman equites and even by senators, who had experience with weapons, and
he begged these, as his letters demonstrate, to train these individually and person-
ally instruct them in their practice. He doubled the legions’ pay in perpetuity.
Whenever there was an abundance of grain, he would give a distribution to them
without measure and sometimes would give every man a slave from the spoils.

2.80 Bruns FIRA 122: Caesar’s colony, 44 BC

A charter for the colony of Urso in Spain (the Colonia Genetiva Julia) drafted by Julius
Caesar in 44 BC and made law by Antony after Caesar’s assassination (cf. doc. 13.60). The
officials of the colony are the duumvirs, aediles, augurs and priests. One of the main duties
of the magistrates was to put on and oversee games and festivals. This inscription is also
valuable evidence for the personnel normally employed by the magistrates of municipali-
ties and colonies. HS is the normal abbreviation for sesterces.

62 In regard to the duumvirs, each duumvir shall have the right and power to
have two lictors, an assistant, two clerks, two summoners, a copyist, a crier, a
soothsayer and a flautist. In regard to the aediles in the aforesaid colony, each
aedile shall have the right and power to have a clerk, four public slaves in girded
aprons, a crier, a soothsayer and a flautist. Within this number they should employ
colonists of the aforesaid colony. The aforesaid duumvirs and aediles, while they
hold their magistracy, shall have the right and the power to use the toga praetexta,
wax torches and tapers. Regarding clerks, lictors, assistants, summoners, flautists,
soothsayers and criers employed by each of these, all the aforesaid persons, dur-
ing the year in which they perform these duties, shall be exempt from military
service. And no such person, during the year in which they perform such duties
for magistrates, shall make any such person a soldier against his will, or order him
to be so made, or use compulsion, or administer the oath, or order such oath to be

98
 THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
administered, or bind such person by the military oath, or order such person to be
so bound, except in the case of military unrest in Italy or Gaul. The following is
to be the rate of pay for those persons who are in the service of the duumvirs: for
each clerk HS 1,200, for each assistant HS 700, for each lector HS 600, for each
summoner HS 400, for each copyist HS 300, for each soothsayer HS 500, for a
crier HS 300; for persons in the service of the aediles the rate of pay is to be: for
each clerk HS 800, for each soothsayer HS 500, for each flautist HS 300, for each
crier HS 300. It shall be permitted for the said persons to receive the aforemen-
tioned sums without prejudice to themselves. . . .
66 In regard to the pontiffs and augurs created in the colony Genetiva by Gaius
Caesar or by the person who by his orders establishes the colony, these are to be
pontiffs and augurs of the colony Genetiva Julia and are to have their places in the
colleges of pontiffs and augurs within the aforesaid colony, under all the condi-
tions and with all the rights appertaining to pontiffs and augurs in any colony. And
the aforesaid pontiffs and augurs who have places in their colleges, and also their
children, shall be exempt from military service and from public duties with sacred
guarantees, in the same way as a pontiff in Rome has or shall have the same, and
all their military campaigns shall be considered as discharged. In regard to the
auspices and the matters appertaining to the same: jurisdiction and adjudication
shall belong to the augurs. And these pontiffs and augurs at all games publicly
celebrated by magistrates and at public sacrifices of the colony Genetiva Julia per-
formed by themselves are to have the right and the power to wear the toga prae-
texta; and the aforesaid pontiffs and augurs are to have the right and the power to
sit among the decurions at the games and the gladiatorial contests. . . .
70 All duumvirs, except those first appointed following this law, in their mag-
istracy are to put on a gladiatorial show or dramatic spectacles to Jupiter, Juno
and Minerva, and to the gods and goddesses, over four days, for the greater part of
each day, as far as shall be possible, at the discretion of the decurions, and on the
aforesaid spectacles and the show each of these persons shall spend from his own
money not less than HS 2,000, and from the public money it is to be lawful for
each individual duumvir to expend a sum up to HS 2,000, and it shall be lawful for
the said persons to do so without prejudice to themselves, as long as no one spends
or makes an attribution of any portion of the money, which in accordance with this
law shall be given or assigned for those sacrifices which are publicly carried out
in the colony or in any other place. 71 All aediles during their magistracy shall put
on a gladiatorial show or dramatic spectacles to Jupiter, Juno and Minerva, over
three days for the greater part of each day, as far as shall be possible, and games in
the circus or forum to Venus on one day, and on the aforesaid spectacles and show
these are to expend from their own money not less than HS 2,000, and from the
public fund it is to be lawful for each individual aedile to expend HS 1,000, and a
duumvir or a prefect is to ensure that that money shall be given and assigned, and
it shall be lawful for the aediles to receive this without prejudice to themselves.

99
 3

Religion in the Roman Republic

Most of what is known about Roman religion concerns the official state religion,
which was organised and managed for the benefit of the state. Less is known
about the personal religion of the Romans as individuals. Politics and religion
were intertwined because the Romans saw the gods as aiding and abetting their
political success, and the political process took place in religious space. The sen-
ate house (curia) was a templum, a piece of inaugurated ground, as was the rostra
in the assembly (for templum, see doc. 3.49; for the rostra, doc. 1.65). Roman
religion was not an ethical system, and Cicero, for one, is quite blunt on this
topic: ‘Did anyone ever give thanks to the gods because he was a good man? No,
because he was rich, respected, safe and sound. The reason men call Jupiter “Best
and Greatest” (Optimus Maximus) is not because he makes us just, temperate
and wise, but safe, secure, rich and abundantly wealthy’ (Cicero On the Nature
of the Gods 3.89). The gods, of course, did not condone wrongdoing, but this was
not their principal concern: the Romans worshipped the gods to acquire specific
benefits, such as their continuing assistance or their help in some crisis.
The state religion was organised by the elite. Nowhere is this made clearer
than in the well-known opening to Cicero’s speech to the pontiffs, On his House
(De domo sua): ‘Among the many divinely inspired expedients devised and insti-
tuted by our ancestors, pontiffs, there is nothing more noteworthy than that by
which they desired the same individuals to be in charge of the worship of the
immortal gods and the highest affairs of state, so that the most important and
distinguished citizens might uphold religion by a good administration of the state,
and the state by a wise interpretation of religion.’ Priests were drawn only from
patrician families before 300 BC (doc. 1.56), and it was the senate which outlawed
the Bacchanalia (docs 3.65–66) and authorised the introduction of the new cults
of Aesculapius (docs 3.59–60) and the Magna Mater (docs 3.61–63). When prodi-
gies occurred, it was the senate that referred the matter to the Etruscan diviners
known as haruspices (docs 3.4, 40) or instructed that the Sibylline Books be con-
sulted (docs 3.38–39), and it decided which omens and prodigies of those reported
warranted action.
The emphasis on the correct performance of ritual and the various rites which
were performed for the state should not lead to the erroneous conclusion that the
state religion lacked meaning for the ordinary citizen. The evidence indicates that

100
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
in the Republic there was a vast array of traditional Roman festivals and cults
which satisfied the religious requirements of the Romans as a people and as a
state. At the same time, Rome, as its empire grew, naturally came into contact
with new deities, and, as in any polytheistic system, room could be made for new
gods without compromising the old. New cults filled specific needs, such as that
of the healing deity Aesculapius (docs 3.59–60), or, like the fetching of the Magna
Mater (docs 3.61–63), were in response to a consultation of the Sibylline Books
in an emergency situation. The introduction of new cults and gods, such as that of
the Magna Mater, into the religious pantheon was closely controlled by the state
(that is, the senate) in the Republican period. In contrast, the cult of Dionysus,
which spread to Rome without official sanction, incurred the wrath of the senate
(docs 3.65–66).
Religio was a sense of obligation, the relationship by which mortals – both as
individuals and as a community – were bound (in the sense of the verb ‘to bind’,
religare) to worship the gods. Cicero connects religio with the verb relegere,
‘to go over again, to re-read’. In addition, religious people (religiosi) were those
who continually go over everything pertaining to the worship (cultus) of the gods
(doc. 3.68). Religio, then, could be said to pertain to the rituals associated with
the worship of the gods and the compulsory and binding nature of this worship.
The term for the maintenance of the correct relationship between the community
of Rome and the gods was pax deorum, the ‘peace of the gods’ (Lucretius 5.1229;
Livy 6.41, 7.2.2); it was the gods who guided the res publica (Cic. Rab. Perd. 5).
The ‘decline’ of religion in the late Republic is sometimes postulated (Goar
1972: 29–33 is a good example: in the late Republic, ‘the official religion was
more and more an empty formality’). There are several areas on which this
assumption rests: Augustus’ claim that he restored 82 temples (Res Gestae 20.4
(doc. 15.1); Horace Odes 3.6.1–4; Ovid Fasti 2.59–66); the lack of a flamen dialis
for several years, from Murena’s suicide in 87 until 11 BC; and the ‘intellectual’
approach to religion, best seen in Cicero’s On Divination. The first is Augustan
propaganda and should not be taken in a literal sense to mean that traditional
religion had fallen into decay. The second example points to the problems of the
political organisation and its breakdown in this period rather than to a religious
decline; and the third is a sign of a new intellectual, rather than religious, climate
in which Greek philosophical ideas could be openly discussed without destroying
belief. While there are various examples of the blatant use of augury for political
ends (doc. 3.76), this was not a new phenomenon, and Cicero expressed it as mak-
ing use of the gods’ assistance to avoid unsuitable legislation (Laws 3.27).
The gods themselves were worshipped through prayer (doc. 3.26), sacrifice
(doc. 3.32), lectisternia (doc. 3.15) and other rituals presided over by priests. The
major Roman gods were Jupiter, Juno and Mars, all of whom held important places
in the state religion, with Jupiter the major deity of the Romans; he was also an
Italian deity worshipped throughout the peninsula. At Rome, he was the supreme
god of state presiding over political activities through his role as the sender of aus-
picia, the auspices which were taken before elections, meetings of the assemblies,
and any military action (docs 3.49–50). The first meeting of the senate each year

101
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
took place in his temple on the Capitoline, and on entering office the two consuls
sacrificed an ox to him (Livy 41.14.7) His major temple on the Capitoline, that of
Jupiter Optimus Maximus, also contained shrines to Juno Regina (Queen Juno) and
Minerva; this triad (Jupiter, Juno and Minerva) was probably originally Etruscan.
Jupiter was responsible for victories in war, and a huge statue was made of him in
the third century BC from the bronze weapons taken from the Samnites (doc. 1.73).
The ceremony of the triumph evoked his role as war leader, since the general’s face
was painted red, like that of Jupiter’s statue, and the procession concluded at his
Capitoline temple (docs 2.32–35). His priest was the flamen dialis (doc. 3.21), who
presided over the Vinalia, the wine festival held in April in Jupiter’s honour. He was
invoked by and witnessed the rituals of the fetials (doc. 3.14), and the Feriae Latinae
(Latin festival) was celebrated in his honour (doc. 3.9).
Juno was also an Italian goddess, a guardian deity, and earned her cult title
‘Moneta’, she who warns, when her sacred geese gave warning of the Gauls secretly
ascending the Capitol, while in another version she earned this title because, in
the same crisis, a voice was heard from her temple commanding that an expiatory
sacrifice of a pregnant sow be made (geese: Plut. Rom. Quest. 98, Cam. 27.1–3;
voice: Cic. Div. 1.101; cf. Ovid Fasti 6.183). Her cult as Juno Regina originated in
the evocatio of this goddess from Veii (doc. 3.57). She was a goddess of women.
Vesta had a crucial role as the goddess of the hearth and, by extension, as a deity
of Rome. If her sacred fire in her temple in the forum went out, it was a sign of
divine displeasure; prodigies and disasters could be interpreted as meaning that
one or more of the Vestals had broken their vows of chastity, and expiation had
to be made to correct the relationship between Rome and the gods. The Vestal
Virgins (docs 7.88–94) were the only female cult personnel at Rome apart from
the wife of the flamen dialis (doc. 3.21).
Worship of Mars was marked by festivals in March and October, the traditional
beginning and end of the campaining season respectively (North 1989: 599–600).
The Salii performed their rituals in this month to honour the god (doc. 3.13). Most
famously, the rite of the October horse (October 15) involved a two-horse chariot
race: the right-hand horse of the victorious team was subsequently sacrificed to
Mars. Its head was cut off and the inhabitants of the Via Sacra and those of Subura
fought for it, while the tail was carried to the Regia and its blood sprinkled on the
altar (doc. 3.73). Rome was a militaristic state: the doors of the temple of Janus
were closed only when Rome was at peace, and this occurred in the Republic only
in 235 BC (doc. 14.60; Varro Lat. Lang. 5.165; Livy 1.19.2).
There were also personified concepts of the divine, including Concord (concor-
dia), who had a temple on the lower Capitoline just above the forum. This was of
uncertain foundation date (almost certainly not by M. Furius Camillus in 367 BC),
and it was famously rebuilt by Opimius on the orders of the senate in 121 after the
murder of Gaius Gracchus and his supporters (doc. 8.32). Fides, ‘good faith’, also
had a temple on the Capitoline. Traditional scholarship has placed a great deal of
emphasis on the numina (spirits) and the gradual development of Roman religion
away from numina to anthropomorphic deities. This model is now not accepted,
as clearly the Romans always had corporeal gods, chief among whom was Jupiter,

102
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
and there were various minor deities as well as personifications of entities, often
with quite specific roles and functions, such as sowing and rust (docs 3.3, 74), as
well as a variety of lesser agricultural deities (doc. 3.2).
Ancient sources: there were numerous sources on religion in the Republic that
are now lost. The augurs kept records of their pronouncements (decreta) on prodi-
gies. They also maintained books of augural lore (doc. 3.40), and several works on
augury were written in the first century BC. The Etruscans had books of divina-
tion by entrail inspection (extispicy), and the pontiffs had books of prayers and
rituals. In the late Republic, Veranius wrote on augury and the pontifical colleges
and Granius Flaccus on the forms of words which the pontiffs used in calling on
the gods, both now surviving only as fragments. Varro Lat. Lang. 6.86 (doc. 3.24)
quotes from the Censoriae Tabulae, Censors’ Records, when providing informa-
tion about the lustrum held at the end of the census; Val. Max. 4.1.10 refers to the
‘public tables’ (publicae tabulae) with respect to the prayer recited by the censor
at the lustrum (doc. 3.27). In addition, priests kept records (often of more impor-
tance to history as such than religion). The annales maximi, kept by the pontifex
maximus, were an annual report posted each year on a whitened board near the
Regia, which was wiped clean when the next yearly instalment was ready; the
collected annales were published towards the end of the second century BC. They
recorded the names of magistrates and also important events. As such the annals
were an important primary source for historians.
The main authors on Roman religion, Cicero and Varro, come late in the
Republican period. Cicero, in On the Nature of the Gods (De natura deorum),
wrote on the nature and form of the gods; On Divination (De divinatione) is a
discussion on the merits or otherwise of divination; Laws (De legibus) Book 2
discusses the religious system of his ideal state, analogous to that of the Roman
state. In addition, Cicero’s various works and letters contain numerous references
to the practice of contemporary religion (e.g., docs 3.39–40, 42, 46, 53–54, 68,
81). Varro’s 41 books of Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum (Human
and Divine Antiquities), which appeared in 47 BC, comprised 25 books on Roman
antiquities and 16 books (dedicated to Julius Caesar as pontifex maximus) on
Roman religious themes, namely the priesthoods, sacred places, festivals, ritu-
als and gods. Some quotations from this work survive. Varro mentions various
priestly records, such as the books of the Salii (Lat. Lang. 6.14). In his On the
Latin Language (De lingua Latina), in dealing with the etymology of various
words he reveals a great deal of information (docs 3.2, 17, 19, 24, 49).
Dionysius of Halicarnassus is next in importance after Varro and Cicero (docs
3.7–9, 13, 20, 32, 38, 67), and in his Roman Antiquities he preserves a mine of
useful information on Roman religion. His account is based not only on his own
observations but also on Roman literary sources, such as Varro’s works on reli-
gion, which he notes at doc. 3.38. One of his concerns is to show that Roman reli-
gious practices are based on Greek models or that there are numerous similarities.
Historians such as Polybius and Livy provide information about Roman reli-
gion as part of their overall historical treatments. Livy is very interested in omens
and religious events. Among these are the condemnation of Vestal Virgins and

103
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
human sacrifices (docs 4.38, 7.91) and his famous description of the Bacchanalia
(doc. 3.65). Polybius, in Book 6, writes about Roman funerary rituals (doc. 3.77)
and makes a comment on the political use of religion at the time he is writing (doc.
3.76), but on the whole he does not deal with religious factors in his work.
Ovid’s Fasti (docs 3.74, 7.79–83) is a month-by-month account – in poetry –
of the Roman festival calendar. Unfortunately only half the year survives (January–
June), and the other months may never have been written. Ovid (43 BC–AD 17)
was writing outside of the Republican period, but most of the festivals he describes
belong to the Republic. Important details about dates, aetiological myths and rit-
ual practices are preserved in his extant poems. Plutarch Roman Questions asks
many (113) questions about Roman customs and practices, most of which concern
religion. He cites several Roman authorities for his information. With his interest
in delving into the origins of Roman practices he is an important source for details
about early Roman religion. Julius Obsequens, of the fourth or early fifth century
AD, in his Book of Prodigies, dealt with omens and prodigies from 249 to 11 BC,
but only that part dealing with 190 to 11 BC survives.
Calendars: Over 40 Roman religious calendars inscribed on stone or painted
on walls have survived, sometimes extensively or as fragments, but only one dates
from the Republican period (doc. 3.30). These calendars vary in the information
they supply, but all list festivals, and some provide information on the gods being
honoured and temples whose anniversaries are being celebrated. Inscriptions pro-
vide evidence for dedications (e.g., docs 3.25, 55, 60).

EARLY DEITIES AND CULTS

When the Republic was inaugurated in 509 BC, Roman religion had been exposed to
Etruscan and, to a lesser extent, Greek influence. The Romans also worshipped similar
gods and shared festivals with their Latin neighbours. The basic features of Roman religion
had already been established before the early Republic, but by the first century BC the
Romans had forgotten the exact meaning of some of their rituals, which they continued
to practise out of tradition and piety. Etruscan influence chiefly centred on the haruspices
(‘soothsayers’), while the major Greek influence includes the introduction of Aesculapius
(the Greek Asklepios) and the identification of the Roman gods with the Greek. Yet, despite
Greek influences and, in the closing decades of the Republic, the introduction of foreign
deities such as the Magna Mater (docs 3.61–63), the cult of Bacchus (docs 3.65–66), and
the increasing prominence of the goddess Isis (doc. 3.64), Roman religion had a fundamen-
tally Roman character with a major emphasis on agriculture; agricultural festivals remained
important to the very end of the Republic and beyond (docs 3.2–3, 12, 74).

3.1 Ennius Annals 60–61: The divine council

Ennius (c. 239–169 BC) here catalogues the 12 ‘Olympian’ Roman gods and goddesses,
perhaps in connection with a lectisternium (‘banquet of the gods’: see doc. 3.15) for all 12
great gods held in 217 BC: Jove is Jupiter.

Juno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, Venus, Mars,

Mercury, Jove, Neptune, Vulcan, Apollo.

104
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
3.2 Varro On the Latin Language 5.74: The early deities
Varro (116–27 BC) is here attempting to determine the linguistic origins of the names of
deities. Some of these names are perfectly Roman. Novensides, ‘new settlers’, is appar-
ently used in opposition to indigetes, ‘native gods’; for Feronia: see doc. 3.8. Tatius was
king of the Sabines at the time of the ‘rape of the Sabine women’.

Feronia, Minerva, the Novensides are from the Sabines. With minor changes, we
say the following, also from the same people: Pales (goddess of shepherds), Vesta,
Salus, Fortuna, Fons (god of springs), Fides. The altars too which were dedicated
at Rome by the vow of King Tatius have the smell of the Sabine language; for, as
the Annals tell us, he vowed altars to Ops, Flora, Vediovis and Saturn, Sun, Moon,
Vulcan and Summanus (responsible for lightning), and likewise to Larunda (a
nymph), Terminus, Quirinus, Vertumnus, the Lares, Diana and Lucina; some of
these names have roots in either language.

3.3 Servius On Vergil’s Georgics 1.21: Names and functions of deities

A Fabius Pictor wrote On the Pontifical Law; he is probably not the same individual as
Fabius Pictor the historian but, rather, an antiquarian of the mid-second century BC. The
deities’ names reflect their sphere of activity. Clearly the origin of these deities was obscure,
but they were closely connected with agricultural activities.

It is quite obvious that names have been given to divine spirits in accordance with
the function of the spirit. For example, Occator was so named after the word occa-
tio, harrowing; Sarritor, after sarritio, hoeing; Sterculinus, after stercoratio, spread-
ing manure; Sator, after satio, sowing. Fabius Pictor lists the following as deities
whom the flamen of Ceres invokes when sacrificing to Mother Earth and Ceres:
Vervactor (ploughing fallow), Reparator (replough), Imporcitor (make furrows),
Insitor (sow), Obarator (plough up), Occator, Sarritor, Subruncinator (clear weeds),
Messor (harvest), Convector (carry), Conditor (store) and Promitor (bring forth).

3.4 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 5.40.1–2: Rome’s debt to the

Etruscans
According to Livy 5.1.6, the Etruscans paid more attention than any other people to reli-
gious rites. Etruscan practices involved haruspices (priests who inspected the entrails of
victims), the interpretation of thunder and lightning, and prescriptions for rituals involved
in the founding of cities and other important events. Miniature fasces have been docu-
mented in an Etruscan seventh-century tomb, and the sella curulis (the ivory folding chair
used by magistrates, perhaps originally an attribute of the kings) is seen in numerous
Etruscan tombs and paintings.

1 The Etruscans also devised the majesty that surrounds rulers, granting them lic-
tors, an ivory stool, and a toga with a band of purple, while with regard to houses
they invented the peristyle, a very useful way of avoiding the confusion of crowds

105
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
of attendants; the Romans copied most of these inventions, improved them and
transferred them to their own nation. 2 The Etruscans also perfected literature and
the teaching about nature and the gods, and they achieved more expertise than any
other race in the art of divination by thunder and lightning, which is why, even up to
this present day, the people who rule nearly the entire inhabited world show respect
to these men and employ them as interpreters with regard to omens from heaven.

3.5 Ennius Annals 125–129: Numa and early religious institutions

Ennius here ascribes to Numa the introduction of several features of religious practice.
Varro comments that the deities mentioned here are obscure. Sacrificial cakes: the liba;
bakers of offering-cakes: the fictores, who made the liba; the shields refer to those carried
by the Salii: doc. 3.13; rush-dummies: the Argei (see doc. 3.7); the tutulati, certain priests
who wore a conical head-dress (the tutulus) at sacrifices.

Numa established the sacrificial banquets, as well as the shields,

and the sacrificial cakes, bakers of offering-cakes, rush-dummies, and the
wearing of conical head-dresses.
The priests of Volturnus, Palatua, Furrina,
Flora, Falacer and Pomona were also instituted
By him.

3.6 Livy History of Rome 1.20.1–7: Numa and Roman religion

Vestal Virgins: docs 7.88–94; Salii: doc. 3.13; flamen dialis: doc. 3.21. A feature of Roman
religion was its written nature; in the Republic the priests had access to various books in
which the precise nature of the rituals which they had to perform were prescribed.

1 Numa then turned his mind to the creation of priests, although he was accus-
tomed to undertake many sacred duties himself, especially those which now per-
tain to the flamen dialis. 2 But since he thought that in a warlike society there
would be more kings like Romulus than like Numa, and that they would take part
in wars themselves, he appointed a flamen for Jupiter as his perpetual priest (the
flamen dialis), so that the sacred duties of the royal office would not be neglected,
and equipped him with a special dress and a royal curule chair. To him he added
two more flamens, one for Mars, another for Quirinus; 3 and he chose virgins for
Vesta, a priesthood which originated in Alba and which was thus not unsuited to
the race of its founder. So that they might be perpetual priests of the temple, he
assigned them a salary from the public funds and made them respected and holy
through their virginity and other sacred observances. 4 He likewise chose 12 Salii
for Mars Gradivus, and gave them the distinction of wearing an embroidered tunic
and a bronze breastplate over the tunic, and instructed them to carry the divine
shields, which are called ancilia, as they went through the city singing sacred
songs to their rhythmic and solemn dance. 5 He then chose from the senators
as pontifex (maximus) Numa Marcius, son of Marcus, and entrusted to him the
sacred duties written out in full – with what victims, on what days, at what shrines

106
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
rites should take place and from where money was to be expended to cover their
costs. 6 All other public and private rites, too, he placed under the control of the
decrees of the pontifex, that there might be someone whom the plebs could come
to consult, so that there might be no confusion in divine law through the neglect of
ancestral rites and the admission of foreign ones; 7 the pontifex was not merely to
teach ceremonies to do with the gods in heaven but correct funerary observances
and the propitiation of the spirits of the dead, and what omens shown in lightning
or other visible signs were to be dealt with and warded off.

3.7 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.38.2–3: Substitute human sacrifices?

Varro (Lat. Lang. 5.45, 7.44) gives the number of the effigies known as Argei as 27, while
Dionysius has 30. The Argei were made of bulrushes, and the 30 given here would mean
one for each curia. The bridge is the Pons Sublicius. A procession visited the shrines on 16
and 17 March, and the Vestals threw the Argei into the Tiber on 14 May, perhaps as a rite
of purification.

2 It is said, too, that the men of old used to sacrifice human victims to Cronus
(Saturn), as was done in Carthage while that city stood and is still done to this day by
the Gauls and some other western peoples, and that Hercules, wishing to put an end
to the custom of this sacrifice, erected the altar on the Saturnian hill and began the
sacrificial ceremony of unblemished victims burning on a pure fire; and, so that the
people might not have any scruples about having neglected their ancestral sacrifices,
he taught the natives to appease the wrath of the god by making effigies of the men
whom they had bound hand and foot and thrown into the Tiber’s stream and to dress
these in the same manner and throw them into the river instead of the men, in order
that any evil foreboding which remained in the minds of all might be removed, as
the appearance of the ancient practice would still be retained. 3 The Romans have
continued to do this every year right down to my own time, a little after the spring
equinox in the month of May, on what they call the Ides, the day they wish to be the
middle of the month; on this day the pontiffs, as they are called – the most important
of the priests – offer preliminary sacrifices according to the laws, and with them the
virgins who guard the eternal fire, the praetors and those citizens who may lawfully
be present at the rites throw 30 effigies made in the form of men from the sacred
bridge into the stream of the Tiber; these they call Argei.

3.8 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 3.32.1, 4: Early cult practices

In the reign of Tullus Hostilius (672–641 BC), the Sabines, according to tradition, seized
important Romans attending a festival, leading to a further Sabine–Roman war (see Livy
1.30.4–10). Salii: see doc. 3.13; Feronia: a Sabine goddess of uncertain function; the fes-
tival of Saturn referred to here is presumably the Saturnalia: doc. 3.71; the Opalia on 19
December celebrated the goddess Ops.

1 After this war another arose from the Sabine people against the Romans, of
which the origin and cause was as follows: there is a sanctuary, honoured in

107
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
common by both the Sabines and Latins and considered as extremely sacred, dedi-
cated to a goddess named Feronia, whom some of those who translate the name
into Greek call Anthophoros (‘Flower-bearer’), some Philostephanos (‘Lover
of garlands’), and others Persephone. People from the neighbouring towns used
to gather at this sanctuary on the appointed festival days, many of them offer-
ing prayers and sacrifices to the goddess, and many with the purpose of doing
business during the festival as merchants, craftsmen and farmers, and fairs more
splendid than anywhere else in Italy were held here. Some distinguished Romans
who had come to this festival were seized, bound and robbed of their money by
some Sabines . . . (This led to war, at first with inconclusive results, but a battle
was again fought at Eretum in the next year, 160 stades from Rome.)
4 When that battle continued equally balanced for a long period, Tullus, raising
his hands to heaven, vowed to the gods that if he conquered the Sabines on that
day he would institute public festivals in honour of Cronus and Rhea (Saturn and
Ops: the Saturnalia and Opalia), which the Romans celebrate every year after they
have gathered in all the fruits of the earth, and would double the number of the
Salii, as they are called. These are young men of noble family who, at appointed
times, perform dances in full armour to the music of the flute and sing certain
traditional hymns, as I have explained in the preceding book.

3.9 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 4.49.1–3: The Feriae Latinae

On entering office the consuls set the date for the Feriae Latinae (the Latin festival) and
presided over the sacrifice on the Alban mount to Jupiter Latiaris, identified with Latinus,
eponymous ancestor of the Latin race. All the cities of Latium participated.

1 When Tarquinius had acquired sovereignty over the Latins, he sent envoys both to
the cities of the Hernici and to those of the Volscians, proposing that they too should
enter into a treaty of friendship and alliance. All the Hernici voted to join the alli-
ance, but only two cities of the Volscians, Ecetra and Antium, accepted the invita-
tion. To ensure that the agreements with these cities should last for ever, Tarquinius
decided to set up a place of worship in common for Romans, Latins, Hernici and
those Volscians who had joined the alliance, so that they should gather together
each year at the designated place and jointly celebrate a festival, feast and partake in
sacrifices in common. 2 When everyone welcomed the suggestion, he designated,
as the place where they should gather, a high mountain lying almost in the middle
of these nations and overlooking the Albans’ city, on which, he laid down, a festival
should be celebrated every year during which there should be a truce to all hostilities
and sacrifices should be performed in common to Jupiter Latiaris, as he is called,
and joint feasts held. He also assigned what each city was to contribute towards the
sacrifices and the share each of them was to receive. Forty-seven cities took part in
this festival and sacrifice. 3 The Romans celebrate these festivals and sacrifices to
our own time, calling them the ‘Latin festivals’ (feriae latinae); and some of the cit-
ies that take part in them bring lambs, others cheeses, or a certain measure of milk,
or something similar. One bull is sacrificed in common by all of them and each city

108
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
receives its designated share of it. The sacrifices are made on behalf of them all and
the Romans are in charge of the ceremonies.

3.10 Bruns FIRA 283: Regulations for sacred groves, c. 240

These inscriptions were found at Spoleta in Umbria and Lucera in Apulia.

(lex luci Spoletina) No person shall desecrate this grove. No one shall either cart
away or carry away what belongs to the grove nor shall cut wood within it, except
on the day on which the annual divine worship is performed. On that day it shall
be permitted without prejudice to cut wood as long as it is done for the purpose of
sacred worship. If anyone violates this rule he shall give to Jupiter a sin-offering by
means of an ox; if anyone violates this rule with malice aforethought he shall give to
Jupiter a sin-offering by means of an ox and shall be fined 300 asses. The exaction
of this sin-offering and of this fine shall belong to the dedicator.
(lex luci Lucerina) In this grove no person shall deposit dung nor shall cast
away a dead body nor shall make solemn sacrifice in honour of his deceased
ancestors. If anyone acts contrary to these rules on him, whoever wishes may lay
hands on him as on a person adjudged guilty to the amount of 50 sesterces. Or if
a magistrate wishes to fine him it shall be lawful to do so.

3.11 Strabo Geography 5.3.12: The ‘king’ of Diana’s grove

Mount Albanus was some 16 miles south-east of Rome. The fugitive slave who became the
priest was known as the rex Nemorensis (king of the grove). Euripides, in his Iphigenia in
Tauris, describes the Tauri in the Crimea as sacrificing strangers.

After Mount Albanus there is Aricia, a city on the Appian Way; the distance from
there to Rome is 160 stades. The place is in a hollow, but has a strongly positioned cit-
adel. Above it lies, first, Lanuvium, a Roman city, on the right hand side of the Appian
Way, from which both the sea and Antium are visible, and then, on the left hand side of
the way as you go up from Aricia, the Artemisium, which they call Nemus (‘Glade’).
The shrine of the Arician goddess (Diana) they say to be a copy of the Tauropolos (the
shrine of Artemis as goddess of the Tauri). And indeed a barbaric and Scythian aspect
prevails in the sacred customs. For the person who has become the priest is a runaway
slave who killed his priestly predecessor with his own hand; so he always carries a
sword, keeping a watch out for attacks, ready to defend himself. The shrine is in a
grove, with a lake before it like an open sea, and a continuous and lofty mountain ridge
encircles it, enclosing both shrine and water in a hollow and deep setting.

EARLY HYMNS AND RITUALS

3.12 ILS 5039: Hymn of the Arval Brothers
The song of the 12 Arval brothers, a college of priests, perhaps dates to as early as the sixth
century BC. Varro’s (doc. 3.19) is the only mention of the Arval brothers in the Republic,

109
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
but the Hymn has archaic language (such as Lases for Lares) and the Arvals were clearly
a Republican institution of some antiquity; by the late Republic the rites had become
obscure, and Augustus claims to have revived them (RG 7.1: doc. 15.1, cf. 15.20). The
hymn invokes the Lares and Mars (Marmar, Marmor), who was originally a protector of
farmland (and so repelled invaders; for Mars in agriculture, see doc. 3.23). The Lares were
protective deities of the household and crossroads. Leaping here is imitative magic to make
crops grow; arva is the Latin word for fields.

Then the priests closed the doors, tucked up their robes, took the books in hand,
divided into groups, and danced in three-step rhythm singing in the following words:

Oh help us, Lares! Oh help us, Lares! Oh help us, Lares!

Do not let plague or ruin, O Marmar, assail more people.
Do not let plague or ruin, O Marmar, assail more people.
Do not let plague or ruin, O Marmar, assail more people.
Be satisfied, fierce Mars, leap the threshold! Stop! Burn (?)! Be satisfied, fierce
Mars, leap the threshold! Stop! Burn (?)! Be satisfied, fierce Mars, leap the thresh-
old! Stop! Burn (?)!
In turn invoke all the gods of sowing. In turn invoke all the gods of sowing. In
turn invoke all the gods of sowing.
Oh help us, O Marmor! Oh help us, O Marmor! Oh help us, O Marmor!
Triumph! Triumph! Triumph, triumph, triumph!

After the triple-rhythmed dance, at a given signal, the public slaves then came in
and took the books.

3.13 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2.70.1–5: The leaping of the Salii

The Salii (‘leapers’) were two groups of 12 priests. According to tradition, Numa founded
the initial group, with Tullus Hostilius later adding the second 12 (doc. 3.8). They sang
and danced in honour of Mars, wearing military dress and carrying shields, in March and
October. The original shield was said to have fallen from heaven in Numa’s reign and it was
believed Rome’s safety depended on it. The ‘martial gods’ must be Mars and Quirinus; cf.
docs 3.6, 8; doc. 3.51 for the sacred staff.

1 Numa himself appointed the Salii from the patricians, selecting the 12 best-
looking young men. Their sacred objects are kept on the Palatine hill, and they
themselves are called the Palatini. For the (Salii called the) Agonales, . . . who
have their repository of sacred objects on the Quirinal hill, were appointed by
King Hostilius after Numa’s reign, fulfilling a vow which he had made in the war
fought against the Sabines. All these Salii are a kind of dancers and hymn-singers
in honour of the martial gods. 2 The festival takes place . . . in the month of Martius
(March). It is celebrated for many days, at public expense, during which time the
Salii dance through the city to the Forum and the Capitoline Hill and to many
other places, public and private. They are attired in embroidered tunics fastened
with belts of bronze, and robes with scarlet stripes and a purple border fastened

110
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
with brooches. These robes are known as trabeae, a peculiarly Roman dress and a
mark of the greatest honour. On their heads they wear apices, high caps tapering
into a cone shape. . . . 3 Each of the Salii has a sword hung from their belt, and in
his right hand a spear or staff or some such thing, and in his left a Thracian shield,
an oblong shield which looks like a lozenge, with the sides drawn in to form hol-
lows (i.e., a ‘figure of eight shield’). . . . 5 They make rhythmic movements in
their armour to the sound of the flute, sometimes all together, sometimes in turns;
and while they dance they sing various traditional hymns.

3.14 Livy History of Rome 1.32.5–14: The origin of the fetials

Livy is recording a formula for the declaration of war supposedly established by the fourth
king of Rome, Ancus Marcius (640–617 BC). The 20 fetials (fetiales) were responsible for
the rituals associated with the declaration of war and also the making of treaties. When the
enemy territory was not in proximity to Rome, the ritual spear-throwing occurred at Rome
itself, near the temple of Bellona.

5 In order that, just as Numa had established religious practices in time of peace,
he (Ancus Marcius) might give war its own ceremonial and wars should not only
be fought but also declared with some formality, he copied from the ancient
tribe of the Aequicolae the law which the fetials now possess, by which redress
is sought. 6 When the envoy arrives at the boundary of the people from which
redress is sought, he covers his head with a fillet (the covering is woollen) and
says, ‘Hear, Jupiter! Hear, boundaries of – , naming whichever nation’s they are!
Let righteousness hear! I am the public messenger of the Roman people; I come
rightly and religiously commissioned and let trust be placed in my words.’ He
then goes through his demands. 7 Then he calls Jupiter to witness: ‘If I demand
contrary to justice and religion that these men or goods be surrendered to me, then
never allow me to share in my country.’ 8 He makes this statement, with only a
few changes in the formula of the oath, when he crosses the frontier, when the
first man encounters him, when he passes through the town’s gate, and when he
has entered the forum. 9 If those he demands are not surrendered, after 33 days –
the established number – he declares war in the following words: 10 ‘Hear, Jupiter;
and you, Janus Quirinus; and hear, all you gods in heaven, and you on earth and
you under the earth. I call you to witness that this people – naming whichever one
it is – is unjust and does not make due restitution. But concerning these things we
will consult the elders in our country, as to how we may obtain our right.’ Then
the messenger returns to Rome for consultation. The king would immediately
consult the senators (patres) in words such as these: 11 ‘Regarding the things,
cases, causes about which the pater patratus (fetial priest) of the Roman people
of the Quirites has made demands on the pater patratus of the Ancient Latins and
the men of the Ancient Latins, which things they have not handed over, fulfilled
or done, which they ought to have handed over, fulfilled and done, speak’, he
would say to the man whose opinion he was accustomed to ask first, ‘What is your
view?’ 12 He would then reply, ‘I consider that they ought to be sought in just and
righteous warfare and thus I agree and vote.’ Then the others would be asked in

111
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
order; and when the majority of those who were there sided with the same view,
war had been agreed. It was usual for the fetial to bear to their opponents’ bound-
ary a spear with a head of iron or wood hardened in the fire, and in the presence of
not fewer than three adult men proclaim: 13 ‘Whereas the peoples of the Ancient
Latins and the men of the Ancient Latins have acted and committed offences
against the Roman people of the Quirites, and whereas the Roman people of the
Quirites has ordered that there be war with the Ancient Latins, and the senate of
the Roman people of the Quirites has approved, agreed and voted that there be war
with the Ancient Latins, accordingly I and the Roman people hereby declare and
make war on the peoples of the Ancient Latins and the men of the Ancient Latins.’
After proclaiming this, he would hurl the spear into their territory. 14 It was in this
way that redress was sought from the Latins and war declared, and later genera-
tions adopted the same custom.

3.15 Livy History of Rome 5.13.4–8: The lectisternium, 399 BC

The rite of the lectisternium (plural: lectisternia), the banquet of the gods, was introduced in
399. Lectisternia were held to propitiate the gods after plague and major defeats, as in 218 BC
(doc. 3.33). One was held when the cult of the Magna Mater was introduced in 205 BC (doc.
3.61). The duumvirs (‘two men’) were in charge of the Sibylline Books: doc. 3.38.

4 The severe winter was followed – whether because of the sudden change from
such an inclement season to the exact opposite or from some other reason – by a
summer that was oppressive and unhealthy to all living creatures. 5 Since nothing
could be found to explain the origins of this incurable pestilence or put an end to
it, on the senate’s advice the Sibylline Books were consulted. 6 The duumvirs in
charge of the sacred rites then, for the first time in Rome’s history, held a lectis-
ternium and for a period of eight days appeased Apollo, Latona and Diana, and
Hercules, Mercury and Neptune, by spreading three couches for them with all the
abundance possible at that time. 7 They also celebrated this same sacred rite at
their homes. Throughout the whole city, doors were left open, all kinds of goods
were placed out in the open for general consumption, strangers were generally
welcomed whether known or not, and men spoke courteously and companionably
even to their enemies. People refrained from arguments and law-suits; 8 chains
were even removed from prisoners during that period; and they later felt it wrong
to imprison those to whom the gods had given this assistance.

3.16 Livy History of Rome 7.2.1–7: The development of drama

A lectisternium failed to alleviate a plague in 365–364 BC, and a new form of placatory
ritual was introduced. The term ‘fescennine’ was probably derived from Fescennia (a city
in Etruria) or from fascinum, a phallus-shaped amulet. Livius Andronicus of Tarentum
composed the first Latin comedy, performed in Rome in 240 BC (cf. doc. 7.85).

1 The plague lasted during both this and the subsequent year, the consulship of
Gaius Sulpicius Petico and Gaius Licinius Stolo (cos. 364). 2 Nothing worth

112
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
remembering was done in that year, except that a lectisternium was held for the
third time since the foundation of the city, in the hope of entreating the goodwill
of the gods. 3 And when the force of the plague was alleviated by neither human
counsel nor divine aid, the Romans’ minds were overcome by superstition, and,
among other practices intended to placate the gods’ anger, they are said to have
instituted scenic entertainments, a new departure for a warlike people, for their
only public spectacle had been that of the Circus. 4 These indeed began in a mod-
est way, as most things do, and were in fact imported from abroad. Without any
singing, without any miming of song, players brought in from Etruria danced to
the sounds of the flute and performed graceful movements in the Etruscan style. 5
Then the young Romans began to copy them, at the same time exchanging jokes
in rude verses, their movements harmonising with the words. 6 Thus the enter-
tainment was accepted and established by frequent usage. The native actors were
called histriones, because ister is the Etruscan word for actor; 7 they no longer, as
before, threw at each other rude, improvised lines, such as Fescennine verses, but
performed saturae (medleys), accompanied by music, with the singing properly
arranged to fit the flute-playing and with appropriate movements.

3.17 Varro On the Latin Language 5.143: The pomerium

The pomerium (‘behind-the-wall’) was the boundary line of the city, originally supposed to
have been ploughed by Romulus and inaugurated by Servius Tullius. It was a sacred space
where auspices were taken, and promagistrates and generals who held imperium had to lay
it down on crossing the pomerium into the city.

Many people employed the Etruscan ritual when they were founding a town in
Latium – that is, using a team of cattle, a bull with a cow on the inside, they would
run a furrow around it with a plough (for religious reasons they would do this on an
auspicious day), so they might be defended by a ditch and wall. The place where
they ploughed up the earth they called a ‘ditch’ (fossa), and the earth thrown inside
it a ‘wall’ (murus). The ‘circle’ (orbis) which was made behind this was the begin-
ning of the ‘city’ (urbs); because it was ‘behind the wall’ (post murum), they called
this the postmoerium (pomerium), which is the outside limit for auspices taken for
the city. Markers of the pomerium stand around both Aricia and Rome.

3.18 Livy History of Rome 8.9.4–8, 10.11–11.1: Devotio

The devotio of Decius Mus in 340 BC was the most famous in the Republic but was not a
unique example of the ritual, which his own son (doc. 1.70) and grandson were also said
to have performed. When in 340 the Romans engaged the Latins in battle near Mount
Vesuvius and the left wing was pushed back, Decius undertook the devotio ritual, devoting
himself and the enemy to the ‘Gods of the underworld (the divine manes) and to Earth’; cf.
doc. 5.8 for his conduct as military tribune.

9.4 In this moment of confusion the consul Decius cried out to Marcus Valerius in a
loud voice: ‘Marcus Valerius, we need the gods’ help; you are a state pontiff of the

113
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
Roman people – come, dictate the words with which I may devote myself to save
the legions.’ 5 The pontiff told him to put on his purple-edged toga, and, with his
head veiled and with one hand protruding from his toga and touching his chin, stand
on a spear laid under his feet and repeat as follows: 6 ‘Janus, Jupiter, Father Mars,
Quirinus, Bellona, Lares, New Gods (divi novensiles), Native Gods (di indigetes),
Gods, in whose power are we and our enemies, and you Gods of the underworld
(di manes), 7 I supplicate and revere you, I seek your favour and entreat you, that
you prosper the might and victory of the Roman people, the Quirites, and afflict
the enemies of the Roman people, the Quirites, with terror, fear and death. 8 As I
have pronounced the words, so on behalf of the Republic of the Roman people, the
Quirites, and on behalf of the army, the legions and the auxiliaries of the Roman
people, the Quirites, do I devote myself and, with me, the legions and auxiliaries of
the enemy to the Gods of the underworld and to Earth.’ . . .
10.11 It seems appropriate to add here that when a consul, dictator or praetor
devotes the legions of the enemy, he need not devote himself but may pick any
citizen he wishes from an enlisted Roman legion; 12 if the man who has been
devoted dies, it is considered that all is well; if he does not die, then an effigy of
him is buried 7 feet or more under the ground and a propitiatory sacrifice slaugh-
tered; it is not lawful for Roman magistrates to climb the mound where that effigy
has been buried. 13 But if someone chooses to devote himself, as Decius did,
and does not die, he cannot perform any religious act either for himself or for the
people without desecrating it, whether a sacrifice or anything else he chooses. He
who has devoted himself has the right to dedicate his arms to Vulcan or to any
other god he chooses; 14 it is not lawful for the spear on which the consul has
stood and prayed to fall into the hands of the enemy; if it should, a propitiatory
sacrifice must be made to Mars with a pig, sheep and bull (a suovetaurilia). 11.1
These details, although the memory of every divine and human practice has been
erased by men’s preference for the new and foreign in place of what is ancient and
traditional, I have considered it not inappropriate to repeat in the very words in
which they were handed down and publicly pronounced.

PRIESTHOODS
The basic unit of organised Roman religion was the priesthood. Priests were drawn from
the elite, and so, when plebeians became eligible, plebeian priests came from the elite
plebeian families. Great social distinction was derived from holding a priesthood. Novi
homines are rarely found among the members of priesthoods: only one novus homo (out of
81) is known to have been pontifex maximus, and only two (Marius and Cicero) are among
the known augurs. Priests were male; the main exceptions were the Vestal Virgins and the
wife of the flamen dialis. There were four major colleges of priests: the pontifices, augures,
quindecimviri sacris faciundis and epulones.
The pontifex maximus was the head of the college of pontifices (pontiffs); Sulla
increased their number to 15 (cf. doc. 11.28). There were also 15 flamines (singular:
flamen; priest), and each flamen worshipped a single deity. The three most important were
the flamen dialis (Jupiter: doc. 3.21), martialis (Mars) and quirinalis (Quirinus). The sec-
ond major college was that of the augures, the augurs or diviners. The Sibylline Books

114
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
were kept by two officials (the duumviri sacris faciundis), increased under Sulla to 15 (the
quindecimviri, or the ‘15 for performing religious ceremonies’). The epulones organised
the epulum Iovis, a feast for Jupiter. Other groups of priests included the fetials, haruspices,
Luperci, Fratres Arvales (Arval brothers) and Salii.

3.19 Varro On the Latin Language 5.83–86: The priesthoods

Varro’s explanation of the etymology of the term pontiffs (pontifices) is to be preferred to
Scaevola’s. There will have been sacred rites associated with the bridge crossing the Tiber,
including that of the Argei; doc. 3.7. 83: Quintus Scaevola was consul in 95 BC and pon-
tifex maximus c. 89–82 BC. The 30 curiae were the earliest divisions of the Roman people
(docs 1.19, 21) and the basis for political and military organisation. 84: For Furrina and her
festival, which was obscure even in Varro’s time, see doc. 3.5. Falacer was also obscure,
perhaps an old Italian hero.

83 The sacerdotes, priests, were collectively so named from the sacra, sacred rites.
The pontiffs, high priests, according to Quintus Scaevola the pontifex maximus,
were named from posse, to be able, and facere, to do, as though pontentifices.
I actually think the term comes from pons, bridge: for it was by them that the
wooden bridge on piles (the Sublicius) was first made and frequently repaired,
since in this connection sacred rites are performed on both sides of the Tiber with
great ceremony. The curiones, priests of the curiae, were named from the curiae;
they are created for the purpose of conducting sacred rites in the curiae.
84 The flamines, flamens, because in Latium they always had their heads cov-
ered and bound with a filum, woollen fillet, were called filamines. Individually
they have their cognomens from the god whose rites they perform, but some are
clear and others obscure: clear such as Martialis and Volcanalis; obscure such
as Dialis and Furinalis, since Dialis is from Jupiter (for he is also Diovis) and
Furinalis from Furrina, who even has a Furinal festival in the calendar, and the
flamen Falacer, too, from the divine father Falacer.
85 The Salii were named from salitare, to dance, because they had the cus-
tom and duty of dancing every year in the places of assembly in their sacred
rites. The Luperci were named because they make offerings in the Lupercal at
the Lupercalia festival. The Arval brothers were so called as they perform public
rites to make arva, ploughland, bring forth crops . . . 86 The fetiales, fetial priests,
because they were in charge of the state’s word of honour between peoples; for it
was through them that a war that was declared should be a just war, and through
them it was ended so that by a foedus, treaty, the fides, good faith, of the peace
might be established. Some of them were sent before war was declared, to demand
restitution, and even now it is through them that the foedus, treaty, is made, which
Ennius writes was pronounced fidus.

3.20 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2.73.1–2: The pontiffs

Dionysius sketches the main duties of the pontifices (pontiffs), the most important of the
four major colleges of priests.

115
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
1 The pontiffs have authority over the matters of greatest importance. 2 They
serve as judges in all religious cases concerning private citizens or magistrates or
those who minister to the gods, and make laws concerning religious rites which
have no written record or established tradition, which they consider appropriate
to be sanctioned by law and custom; they inquire into all the magistracies which
have duties involving any sacrifice or religious duty as well as all the priesthoods,
and ensure that their servants and attendants whom they use in the rituals commit
no error in regard to the sacred laws; to the private citizens who are not knowl-
edgeable about religious matters concerning the gods and divine spirits, the pon-
tiffs are expounders and interpreters; and if they learn that some people are not
obeying their instructions, they punish them, examining each of the charges. They
themselves are not liable to any prosecution or punishment, nor are they account-
able to the senate or people, at any rate concerning religious matters.

3.21 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 10.15.1–30: The flamen dialis

This Fabius Pictor (not the historian) was the author of On the Pontifical Law. The flamen
dialis was the priest of Jupiter; the origins and meaning of the various taboos affecting
this priest are unclear and were probably obscure to the Romans in the late Republic.
The flamen dialis was married by the sacred marriage ceremony, confarreatio (doc. 7.10),
which involved a sacrifice to Jupiter. His wife, the flaminica dialis, was subject to various
restrictions. The rex sacrificulus (or rex sacrorum) succeeded the kings in presiding over
sacrifices.

1 Numerous ceremonies are imposed upon the flamen dialis and also many
restraints, about which we read in the books written On the Public Priests and
which are also recorded in the first book of Fabius Pictor. 2 Of these I remember in
general the following points: 3 it is unlawful for the flamen dialis to ride a horse; 4
it is likewise unlawful for him to see the ‘classes arrayed’ outside the pomerium,
that is, the army in battle order; for this reason the flamen dialis is rarely made a
consul, since wars were entrusted to the consuls. 5 It is likewise unlawful for him
ever to take an oath; 6 it is likewise unlawful for him to wear a ring, unless it is
perforated and without a stone. 7 It is also against the law to carry out fire from
the flaminia (the flamen dialis’ dwelling) except for a sacred ritual; 8 if a prisoner
in chains enters his house he must be released and the chains must be drawn up
through the impluvium (‘rainhole’) onto the roof-tiles and let down from there
into the street. 9 He must have no knot in his cap or girdle or any other part of his
clothes; 10 if anyone is being led away to be flogged and falls at his feet as a sup-
pliant, it is unlawful for him to be flogged that day. 11 The hair of the dialis may
not be cut except by a free man. 12 It is customary for the flamen neither to touch
nor even to name a female goat, or uncooked meat, ivy or beans.
13 He must not walk underneath a trellis for vines. 14 The feet of the bed on
which he lies must have a thin coating of clay, and he must not be away from the
bed for three nights in a row, nor is it lawful for anyone else to sleep in that bed.
At the foot of his bed there must be a box containing a little pile of sacrificial cakes
and offering-cakes. 15 The clippings of the dialis’ nails and hair must be buried

116
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
in the ground beneath a fruitful tree. 16 Every day is a holy day for the dialis. 17
He must not go outdoors without his cap; that he is now allowed to do this indoors
was decided only recently by the pontiffs, 18 as Masurius Sabinus wrote, and it
is also said that some of the other ceremonies have been remitted and he has been
excused from them.
19 It is not lawful for him to touch bread made with yeast. 20 He does not take
off his inner tunic except in covered places, so he may not be naked under the
open sky, as it were under the eye of Jove. 21 No one else reclines above him at
a banquet except the rex sacrificulus (the rex sacrorum). 22 If he loses his wife he
resigns from the flaminate. 23 The marriage of the flamen may not be dissolved
except by death. 24 He never enters a place where bodies are buried, and he never
touches a corpse; 25 however, he is not forbidden to attend a funeral.
26 The flaminica dialis has almost the same ceremonies; 27 they say that she
observes certain other different ones, for example, that she wears a dyed robe, 28
and that she has a twig from a fruitful tree tucked in her veil, and that it is forbid-
den for her to go up more than three rungs of a ladder 29 (except what the Greeks
call ladders), and also that, 30 when she goes to the Argei, she neither combs her
head nor arranges her hair.

3.22 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 13: Caesar’s priesthood

Caesar was elected pontifex maximus in 63 BC, even though he stood against two promi-
nent candidates, P. Servilius Isauricus (cos. 79) and Q. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 78). He was
successful even though, at the age of 37, he had not yet been praetor.

After abandoning his ambition of governing the province (Egypt), Caesar stood
for the office of pontifex maximus, using the most lavish bribery. It is said that,
working out the enormous debts he had contracted, when he went to the comitia
that morning he told his mother, as she kissed him, that he would not return unless
as pontifex maximus. However, he defeated his two most influential rivals, both
of whom were much older and more distinguished, and he won more votes from
their own tribes than either won in the entire election.

ROMAN PURIFICATORY RITUALS

A lustratio (lustration) was the performance of a lustrum, a purificatory rite to avert harm
and evil in general. It involved a procession finishing at its starting point, invoking divine
assistance to keep harm from the area being traversed, and a suovetaurilia (the sacrifice
of a pig, sheep and bull; sus, ovis and taurus respectively); cf. docs 3.18, 27. The private
suovetaurilia used young beasts, the public ones a full grown male pig, ram and bull. The
principal lustration was that at the end of the census: doc. 3.24. There could also be a lus-
tratio of an army (Livy 23.35.5) and fleet (App. BC 5.97.401).

3.23 Cato the Elder On Farming 141.2–4: The Ambarvalia

The Ambarvalia was celebrated in May, both as a public agricultural festival, designed to
purify all fields, and as a private rite, here described by Cato. Manius, here, is a generic

117
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
name. Mars here has an agricultural role, as in the hymn of the Arval brothers (doc. 3.12),
as protector of boundaries; Janus is routinely invoked at the beginnings of prayer. The
prayer itself was probably in the form of a hymn. The strues and fertum are sacrificial
cakes.

1 This is the formula to be used for purifying the land. Bid the suovetaurilia to be led
around with the words: ‘So that, with the goodwill of the gods, our efforts may be
successful, take care, Manius, to purify my farm, land and ground with this suove-
taurilia, however you think it best for them to be driven or carried around.’ 2 First
invoke Janus and Jupiter with an offering of wine, then say: ‘Father Mars, I pray and
entreat you to be kindly and well disposed towards me and our home and household.
For this reason I have ordered a pig–sheep–bull procession to be driven around my
field, land and farm, so that you will prevent, ward off and turn away diseases, seen
and unseen, barrenness and fruitlessness, disasters and storms; and so that you will
allow fruits, grains, vines and saplings to grow and achieve fruition; 3 and so that
you will protect the shepherds and the flocks and give safety and good health to me
and our home and household. For these reasons, therefore, and for the consecration
of my farm, land and field, and the offering of a sacrifice for purification, as I have
said, accept the sacrifice of the suckling pig–sheep–bull.’ Repeat: ‘Therefore, Father
Mars, accept the suckling pig–sheep–bull sacrifice.’
4 Do it with a knife. Have the strues and fertum at hand, then make the offer-
ing. As you slaughter the pig, lamb and calf, you must say: ‘Therefore, accept the
sacrifice of the pig–sheep–bull.’ Mars must not be named, nor the lamb and calf.
If all the offerings are not favourable, say as follows: ‘Father Mars, if anything in
the suckling pig–sheep–bull sacrifice was not satisfactory to you, I offer this new
pig–sheep–bull sacrifice as atonement.’ If there is doubt about only one or two,
say as follows: ‘Father Mars, since that piglet was not satisfactory to you, I offer
this piglet as atonement.’

3.24 Varro On the Latin Language 6.86–87: The censors’ records

A lustrum (purification) of the assembly was performed by one of the censors after the cen-
sus was complete; the act was known as lustrum condere, and it took place in the Campus
Martius with the citizens drawn up in their centuries. The chief feature of the ceremony
was the suovetaurilia. The censor who performed the actual lustrum recited a prayer that
the gods might increase the size of Rome’s dominions (doc. 3.27).

86 Now, first, I will put down from the Censors’ Records: When at night the
censor has gone into the sacred enclosure (templum) to take the auspices, and
a message has come from the sky, he shall command the herald to call the men:
‘May this be good, fortunate, happy and advantageous to the Roman people, the
Quirites, and to the government of the Roman people, the Quirites, and to me and
my colleague, to our good faith and our magistracy. All the citizen soldiers in
arms, and private citizens, spokespersons of all the tribes, pronounce an inlicium
(invitation to a special assembly) in case anyone wishes a reckoning (i.e., a protest
against his censor’s rating) to be given for himself or for another.’

118
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
87 The herald calls it first in the sacred enclosure, afterwards likewise from the
walls. When it becomes light, the censors, secretaries and magistrates are anointed
with myrrh and ointments. When the praetors and the tribunes of the people and
those who have been called to the inlicium have come, the censors shall take lots
between them to see which shall perform the purification. When the sacred enclo-
sure (in the Campus Martius) has been fixed, then the one who is going to perform
the purification holds the assembly.

RITUAL UTTERANCES
The Romans placed a great deal of importance on the correct performance of rituals. There
were tabellae, records, of the prayers to be used by magistrates, and these were read rather
than recited by heart so that no mistakes were made. The term religio in fact embraces the
correct performance of religious ritual.

3.25 ILS 3124: Correct ritual utterances

This bronze tablet at Falerii was dedicated to Minerva. The inscription is in five lines, read
from right to left, while the language is a mixture of Faliscan and Latin.

Sacred to Minerva. Lars Cotena, son of Lars, praetor, by the vote of the senate
gave this as a votive gift. When it was given, it was dedicated in the prescribed
manner.

3.26 Pliny the Elder Natural History 28.10–11: Ritual prayers

The flute drowned out any ill-omened noises so that the efficacy of the prayer was not
affected; for flute-players at sacrifices, see also doc. 3.72, cf. 3.8, 13. It was essential that
the standard prescription for the prayers was followed, with no changes or hesitations.

10 Of all the remedies which man has discovered, the first gives rise to a most
important question which is always unanswered: do words and ritual incantations
have any effect? If they do, it would be right and fitting to give man the credit,
but individually all our wisest men reject belief in them, although in general the
public unconsciously believes in them all the time. Indeed, the sacrifice of victims
or due consultation of the gods is thought to have no effect if unaccompanied by a
prayer. 11 Furthermore, there is one form of words for seeking favourable omens,
another for warding off evil, and another for requesting protection. We also notice
that our highest magistrates have adopted set prayers, and, so that no word is omit-
ted or spoken in the wrong place, one attendant reads the prayer from a written
text, another is assigned to check it, and a third is put in charge to ensure silence,
while a flautist plays so that only the prayer can be heard. There are remarkable
cases recorded where the sound of unfavourable omens has ruined the ritual or
an error has been made in the prayer, when suddenly the head of the liver or the
heart has been missing from the entrails or have been doubled, while the victim
was still standing.

119
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
3.27 Valerius Maximus 4.1.10: A change in the formula of prayer
Valerius Maximus, in describing the lustrum performed by Scipio Aemilianus as censor in
142 to conclude the census, refers to the scribe reciting the prayer from the records, which
Scipio then repeated after him. The incident as recorded is perhaps unhistorical.

When, as censor, the younger Africanus was concluding the census, during the
suovetaurilia (solitaurilia) the scribe recited in front of him from the public tablets
the formula of prayer in which the immortal gods were requested to make the
state of the Roman people better and greater. ‘It is good and great enough’, stated
Scipio, ‘So I pray that they keep it safe in perpetuity.’ And he thereupon ordered
that the formula in the public tablets be emended accordingly. From that time on,
the censors have employed this modest form of prayer in concluding the census.

3.28 Cato the Elder On Farming 139: Ritual for ensuring an unknown
god is not offended
Cato advises that a farmer should placate the deity of a grove before clearing it.

To clear a grove you must use the Roman rite, as follows. Make an expiatory
sacrifice of a pig, and say these words: ‘Whatever god or whatever goddess you
may be to whom this grove is sacred, as it is right to make an expiatory sacrifice
of a pig to you for taking this sacred grove, in respect of this, whether I do it or
someone else at my orders, may it be rightly done. Therefore, in offering this
expiatory sacrifice of a pig to you, I entreat with humble prayers that you will be
kindly and propitious to me, my house and household and my children; and so
accept this expiatory sacrifice of a pig.’

3.29 ILS 4015: Even forgotten cults maintained

On an altar at Rome, c. 90–80 BC.

Whether sacred to god or to goddess, Gaius Sextius Calvinus, son of Gaius, prae-
tor, restored this on a vote of the senate.

THE CALENDAR
Roman religious calendars provide a wealth of information about the dates of festivals.
There is only one from the Republic, which includes only brief notices about the deity
being honoured. Imperial examples often have both comments about the nature of the fes-
tival and historical anniversaries (see docs 14.63, 15.4).

3.30 Inscriptiones Italiae XIII.2, pp. 1–28: A pre-Julian calendar

This calendar (tabula fastorum) for the month Sextilis, written on a wall at Antium
(Anzio), a Roman colony south of Rome, is the only surviving Roman calendar from

120
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
before Caesar’s calendar reforms. It measures 1.16 by 2.5 metres and was meant to be
clearly displayed to the public. There is an eight-day week (listed here as A–H) and it
covers the 12 months of the year, as well as the intercalated month, with each month
having its own column. It adds up to a normal Republican year of 355 days. Letters indi-
cated the status of the day with regard to public business. An ‘N’ after a day indicated
nefastus (plural: nefasti), a day when the assemblies and courts could not be convened;
‘F’ indicated fastus (plural: fasti), when courts could convene and business was permit-
ted; ‘C’ (comitialis), when assemblies could be held; ‘EN’ (endotercisus) showed that
the day was split between a religious festival and public business, such as day F in the
third week.

A Kalends of Sextilis August. To Hope; to the Two Victories.

B Business in court.
C Business in Assembly (?).
D Business in Assembly (?).
E Nones. No business. Public holiday. To Safety.
F Business in court.
G Business in Assembly.
H Business in Assembly.

A Business in court (?).

B Business in Assembly (?).
C Business in Assembly.
D Business in Assembly.
E Ides. No business. Public holiday. To Diana, Vortumnus, Fortune, Horse-
woman, Hercules the Conqueror, Castor, Pollux, Camenae (the Muses).
F Business in court.
G Business in Assembly.
H Business in Assembly.

A Festival, of God of the Harbour (Portunus). No business. Public holiday (?).

B Business in Assembly (?).
C Festival, of Vintage. Business in court in the morning. To Venus.
D Business in Assembly (?).
E Festival, of Consus (god of fertility). No business. Public holiday.
F Midsplit (i.e., nefastus in the morning, fastus for the rest of the day).
G Festival, of Vulcan. No business. Public holiday. To Vulcan, Hora, Quirinus
(or Hora, wife of Quirinus), Maia above the Comitium.
H Business in Assembly.

A Festival, of Goddess of Sowing (Ops Consiva). No business. Public holiday (?).

B Business in Assembly (?).
C Festival, of Volturnus. No business. Public holiday.
D Business in Assembly (?).
E Business in Assembly (?).

121
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
3.31 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 40.1–2: Caesar’s calendar
reforms, 46 BC
Caesar, in his role as pontifex maximus, reformed the calendar in 46 BC: the shorter months
were lengthened to bring the total of calendar days to 365, and every fourth year an extra
day was added between 23 and 24 February. To have 45 BC start on the correct solar date,
46 BC was lengthened to 445 days. The calendrical dates of the agricultural festivals were
now in tune with the seasons. This Julian calendar, modified by Pope Gregory XIII, is still
the basis of today’s western calendar.

1 Turning then to domestic reorganisation, Caesar first corrected the calendar

which was in a total mess because of the pontiffs’ habit of arbitrary insertions,
so that the harvest festival no longer coincided with summer or the vintage fes-
tival with autumn; he adjusted the year to the course of the sun by making it 365
days, removing the short intercalary month and adding one day every fourth year.
2 Furthermore, so that the correct reckoning should start with the next Kalends of
January, he inserted two months between November and December, so that that
year, when these changes were made, had fifteen months, including the intercalary
one which customarily fell in that year.

SACRIFICE
Sacrifice was the most important feature of Roman religion. The participants and the
sacrificial victim – always a domestic beast – were purified, and then a procession led
the ‘willing’ victim to the sacrificial altar. The magistrate presiding over the sacrifice
wore the cinctus gabinus (see doc. 3.18). The animal’s back was sprinkled with mola salsa
(salted meal or flour: the immolatio), and a prayer (precatio) was recited to offer the beast
to the divinity receiving the sacrifice. Making the mola salsa for sacrifices was one of the
chief duties of the Vestal Virgins.

3.32 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 7.72.15, 18: Roman sacrificial

practices
Dionysius is describing the ludi magni (Great Games) of 490 (cf. doc. 1.70). Of note in
Dionysius’ description is the procession, the fact that the consuls preside over the games, the
involvement of the priests in the sacrifice, the purifications and the libations. Dionysius was
an eye-witness of the ceremonies in his own time but also cites Fabius Pictor as his authority.

15 When the procession was over, the consuls and those of the priests whose
duty it was immediately sacrificed oxen, and the way in which the sacrifices were
performed was the same as our own. For, after washing their hands and purify-
ing the victims with clean water, they sprinkled the fruits of Demeter on their
heads, offered up a prayer, and gave the assistants orders to sacrifice them. Some
of these struck the victim on the temples with a club while it was still stand-
ing; others placed the sacrificial knives beneath it as it fell. They then flayed and
dismembered it and took portions from each organ and every limb as first fruits,
which they sprinkled with grains of barley and took in baskets to the sacrificing

122
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
priests, who placed them on the altars, lit a fire beneath them, and poured a liba-
tion of wine over them while they were being consumed. . . . 18 I know of these
ceremonies from having seen the Romans performing them in their sacrifices even
in my own time; and, satisfied with this single piece of evidence, I am sure that
the founders of Rome were not barbarians but Greeks who assembled from many
different places.

3.33 Livy History of Rome 21.62.1–11: Portents and public sacrifices

Prodigies were considered to indicate that something was amiss between the gods and
mortals. The historical context of this passage is the winter of 218 BC, after the disastrous
defeat by Hannibal at Trebia. More expiations were required after new prodigies following
the disaster of Trasimene in spring 217. 6–8: For the decemviri and the Sibylline Books,
see docs 3.38–39; for the lectisternium, see doc. 3.15. 9: Hercules had several places of
worship, but that of Hercules Invictus (‘the Unconquered’) in the Forum Boarium is pre-
sumably meant here. 10: The genius of the Roman people was the deified entity of the
Roman people.

1 In Rome and the area around the city many queer prodigies occurred that win-
ter, or, as tends to happen when men’s minds once turn towards religion, many
were said to have happened and were too easily believed. 2 Among these were a
free-born baby of six months of age who had shouted ‘Triumph!’ in the vegetable
market, 3 while in the Forum Boarium an ox had climbed, of its own accord, up
to the third storey and then, frightened by the screaming of the occupants, thrown
itself out of the window; 4 shapes like ships had shone in the sky; the temple of
Hope in the vegetable market was struck by lightning; at Lanuvium a sacrificial
victim had moved all on its own, and a raven had flown down into the temple of
Juno and perched on Juno’s couch; 5 in the region of Amiternum apparitions of
men, dressed in white, had been seen at a distance in many places, but they did not
approach anyone; in Picenum it had rained stones; at Caere the divination tablets
(sortes) had shrunk; and in Gaul a wolf had pulled a sentry’s sword from its sheath
and run off with it.
6 For other prodigies the decemvirs were instructed to consult the (Sibylline)
Books, but for the rain of stones at Picenum a nine-day period of sacrifice was pro-
claimed. Then almost all the citizens took part in expiation of the other portents. 7
First of all, the city was purified, and greater sacrificial victims (i.e., cattle) were
offered to the gods designated in the Books. 8 A gift of gold, 40 pounds in weight,
was carried to Lanuvium for Juno, and the matrons dedicated a bronze statue to
Juno on the Aventine; a lectisternium was ordered at Caere, where the divination
tablets had shrunk, and a supplicatio (expiation ceremony) to Fortune on Mount
Algidus; 9 at Rome, too, another lectisternium was ordered to be made in honour of
Youth (Juventas), as well as a supplicatio at the temple of Hercules, first by named
individuals, then by the whole people before all the couches; 10 five greater victims
were sacrificed to the Genius of the Roman people; and Gaius Atilius Serranus, the
praetor, was commanded to make vows ‘if during the next ten years the state should

123
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
remain unchanged’. 11 These purifications and vows, prescribed by the Sibylline
Books, went far to relieve men’s minds from their superstitious dread.

3.34 Cato the Elder On Farming 75: Cato’s recipe for the libum
A libum was a cake often offered to the gods, especially on one’s birthday.

Make libum in this way: crush two pounds of cheese in a mortar. When it is
thoroughly crushed, add one pound of wheat flour or, if you wish it to be lighter,
half a pound of fine flour and mix it well with the cheese. Add one egg and mix
together well. Then make it into a loaf, place it on leaves and bake slowly on a hot
pan under an earthenware pot.

3.35 Cato the Elder On Farming 134.1–4: Pre-harvest sacrifice

Before the harvest the porca praecidanea (the pre-harvest piglet) was sacrificed and the
entrails were used for divination and then burnt. The rest of the pig was eaten by the
participants.

1 Before you harvest, the sacrifice of the porca praecidanea should be made in this
way. Offer a piglet, as porca praecidanea, to Ceres before spelt, wheat, barley, beans
or rape seed are harvested. Make a prayer with incense and wine to Janus, Jupiter
and Juno before you kill the piglet. 2 Present an offering-cake (strues) to Janus in
these words: ‘Father Janus, in offering these cakes I entreat with good prayers that
you will be kindly and propitious to me, my children, my house and my household.’
Make an offering of an oblation-cake (fertum) to Jupiter with these words: ‘Jupiter,
in offering this cake I entreat with good prayers that, accepting this cake, you will
be kindly and propitious to me, my children, my house and my household.’ 3 Then
give wine to Janus in these words: ‘Father Janus, as I prayed with good prayers in
offering the cakes, in the same way accept the wine offered to you.’ And then pray
to Jupiter in these words: ‘Jupiter, accept this cake, accept the wine offered to you.’
Then sacrifice the porca praecidanea. 4 When the entrails have been cut out, offer
and present an offering-cake (strues) to Janus, making the offering in the same way
as before, and offer and present a cake (fertum) to Jupiter, making the offering in the
same way as before. In the same way give wine to Janus and give wine to Jupiter as
you did before on account of the offering of the strues and the offering of the fertum.
Afterwards give the entrails and wine to Ceres.

3.36 Caesar Gallic War 6.14, 16–17, 19: Druids and human sacrifice
Despite their gladiatorial competitions and the occasional formal ‘sacrifice’ of Greeks
and Gauls in times of crisis (doc. 4.38), the Romans did not believe in (regular) human
sacrifice, and they saw as barbaric those of the Gauls that involved human victims.

14.1 The Druids do not take part in warfare and do not pay taxes like the other
Gauls; they are exempt from military service and other such duties . . . 5 Among

124
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
their teachings they place particular stress on the belief that the soul does not die
but passes from one to another after death, and they think that this is the greatest
incentive to courage, as it removes fear of death. 6 Furthermore, they hold discus-
sions about the stars and their movements, about the size of the universe and earth,
the physical constitution of the world, and the strength and power of the immortal
gods and instruct their young men in these subjects. . . .
16.1 As a nation all the Gauls are extremely superstitious, and as a result 2
those suffering from severe illnesses, as well as those exposed to dangers and
battles, offer, or vow that they will offer, human sacrifices, employing druids to
perform these. 3 For they believe that, unless in place of a man’s life another life
is offered up, they cannot appease the might of the immortal gods, and they hold
regular public sacrifices of the same kind. 4 Some of them have gigantic images
made of wickerwork, the limbs of which they fill with living men; these are set
on fire and the men burnt to death. 5 They think that sacrifices of those caught in
the act of theft or brigandage or guilty of some other offence are preferred by the
immortal gods, but if the supply of these runs short they move on to the sacrifice
of innocent people. 17.1 The god they reverence most is Mercury. They have
numerous images of him and consider him the inventor of all arts, the guide of
roads and journeys, and as having the most power in matters of money-making
and trade. 2 After him they reverence Apollo, Mars, Jupiter and Minerva . . .
19.3 Husbands have power of life and death over their wives, as over their
children; and when the head of a noble family dies his relatives convene; if the
circumstances of his death are suspicious, they examine his wives as we do slaves,
and should guilt be established they are put to death by fire and other tortures.

DIVINATION
The Romans sought the guidance of the gods in various ways. Augurs took the auspices
prior to undertaking military campaigns and before public meetings (docs 3.47–52, 75).
At other times, such as at elections and assemblies, the augurs advised magistrates who
presided over the auspices by interpreting the flight of birds or lightning and thunder to
ascertain what needed to be done to overcome (expiate), by means of rituals, the displeas-
ure of the gods. When the state was confronted by crisis (docs 3.15, 4.38), the Sibylline
Books were consulted. These were housed in the temple of Jupiter and consulted only when
the senate authorised it.

3.37 Cicero On Divination 1.1: Cicero on Roman divination

Cicero’s On Divination takes the form of a dialogue between Cicero and his brother
Quintus at Tusculum. Many of the arguments of Quintus in the first book in favour of
divination are based on those of Posidonius the Stoic. Quintus, in his exposition, attempts
to reconcile divination with philosophy. In the second book, Cicero ridicules divination.
He was himself an augur, and the discussion must reflect ideas that were current among the
Roman aristocracy of the time.

There is an ancient belief, handed down to us right from the times of the heroes,
and confirmed by the agreement both of the Roman people and of all other

125
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
nations, that some kind of divination exists among mankind, which the Greeks call
mantike – that is, the foresight and knowledge of future events. This is indeed a
splendid and beneficial thing, if only it really exists, by which mortal nature can
approach very closely to the power of the gods. And just as we have done many
things better than the Greeks, so we have given this most extraordinary faculty a
name (divinatio), derived from divi (gods), while the Greeks, as Plato interpreted
it, derived their term from furor (frenzy).

3.38 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 4.62.4–6: The Sibylline Books

Dionysius 4.62.1–3 relates the story of how Tarquinius Priscus (fifth king of Rome) was
offered the nine Sibylline Books: after rejecting the purchase the first time, the woman sell-
ing them burned three of them, then offered him the remaining six; when he refused to buy
these she burnt another three; the augurs then advised him to buy these three at the same
price as the original nine. Two men were chosen to care for them, later increased to ten, and
then under Sulla to 15 (the quindecimviri sacris faciundis: the ‘15 for performing religious
ceremonies’), who had to be proficient in the Greek language. The Sibylline oracles (ritual
texts and prophecies) were written in Greek hexameters.

4 Tarquinius chose from the citizens two distinguished men, with two public
slaves to assist them, to whom he handed over the guardianship of the books, and
when one of the two, Marcus Atilius, appeared to have betrayed his trust and was
informed upon by one of the public slaves, he had him sewn up in a leather bag
and thrown into the sea.
5 After the expulsion of the kings the commonwealth took upon itself the pro-
tection of the oracles, appointing two extremely distinguished men as their guard-
ians, who hold this office for life and are exempt from military service and all
other state duties, with public slaves assigned to assist them, and without these
being present the men are not allowed to consult the oracles. In short, there is
nothing, either sacred or profane, which the Romans guard so carefully as the
Sibylline oracles. They consult them, whenever the senate decrees, if the state
is overcome by discord, or a great misfortune has befallen them in war, or great
portents and apparitions, difficult of interpretation, have been seen, as has often
happened. Until the time of the Marsian war, as it was called (the Social War),
these oracles remained underground in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in a stone
chest, guarded by ten men. 6 After the one hundred and seventy-third Olympiad
(83 BC) the temple was burnt down, either deliberately, as some think, or by
accident, and these oracles were destroyed by fire together with the other dedica-
tions to the god. Those now in existence have been collected from many places,
some brought from the cities of Italy, others from Erythrai in Isaia, where by the
senate’s vote three envoys were dispatched to copy them; others were brought
from other cities, transcribed by private persons. Of these, some are found to be
interpolations among the Sibylline oracles, which are recognised by means of the
so-called acrostics. My account is based on what (Marcus) Terentius Varro has
recorded in his work on religion.

126
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
3.39 Cicero On Divination 2.110: Cicero on the Sibyl
Cicero is countering his brother Quintus’ arguments in favour of divination: cf. docs 3.37,
42. The man described as ‘king in face’ was Caesar.

We Romans venerate the verses of the Sibyl, who is said to have uttered them
while in a frenzy. Recently there was a rumour, which was believed at the time
but turned out to be false, that one of the interpreters of those verses was going to
declare in the senate that, for our safety, the man whom we had as ‘king in face’
should be made king also in name. If this is in the books, to what man and to what
time does it refer? For it was clever of the author to take care that whatever hap-
pened should appear foretold, because all reference to persons or time had been
omitted. He also employed a maze of obscurity so that the same verses might
be adapted to different situations at different times. Moreover, that this poem is
not the work of frenzy is quite evident from the quality of its composition (for it
exhibits artistic care rather than emotional excitement), and is especially evident
from the fact that it is written in what are termed ‘acrostics’, wherein the initial
letters of each verse taken in order convey a meaning . . . That surely is the work
of concentrated thought and not of a frenzied brain. And in the Sibylline Books,
throughout the entire work, each prophecy is embellished with an acrostic, so that
the initial letters of each of the lines give the subject of that particular prophecy.
Such a work comes from a writer who is not frenzied, who is painstaking, not
crazy. Therefore let us keep the Sibyl under lock and key so that, in accordance
with the ordinances of our forefathers, her books may not even be read without
permission of the senate and may be more effective in banishing than in encourag-
ing superstitious ideas.

3.40 Cicero On the Nature of the Gods 2.10–12: The ‘divinely inspired’ art
Tiberius Gracchus (father of Tiberius Gracchus, tr. pl. 133), as consul in 163 BC, was
presiding over the elections for the consuls for 162. He was an augur himself, but it was
as a magistrate that he took the auspices. As the pomerium was an inaugurated area (docs
1.3, 3.17), he had to take the auspices again when he crossed the pomerium back to where
the election was taking place (in the Campus Martius). Cicero notes that the Etruscans had
books on interpreting entrails, thunder and lightning, and there were also Roman augural
books (Cic. Div. 1.72).

10 Why, in the consulship of Publius Scipio and Gaius Figulus, actual fact proved
the correctness of the teaching of our augurs and the Etruscan haruspices; when
Tiberius Gracchus, consul for the second time, was holding their election, the first
polling-officer suddenly fell dead just as he was reporting their names. Gracchus,
nonetheless, carried on with the election and, as he noticed that that event had
aroused the religious scruples of the people, brought the matter before the senate.
The senate decided that it should be referred to ‘the customary people’. Haruspices
were brought forward who proclaimed that the polling-officer for the elections

127
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
had not been in proper order. 11 Gracchus thereupon fell into a rage, as my father
used to tell me: ‘What is this? Was I not in proper order, I who put it to the vote as
consul, augur, and after taking the auspices? Do you, Etruscan barbarians, know
the Roman people’s laws of auspices? Can you be the interpreters of augury for
our elections?’ And so he then told them to leave; later on, however, he sent a
dispatch from his province to the college that, while he was reading the books,
he had recollected an irregularity in the auspices when he had chosen Scipio’s
gardens as the site for his tent, because after this he had crossed the pomerium
to hold a meeting of the senate, and when he had crossed the pomerium on his
return he had forgotten to take the auspices; therefore there was an irregularity in
their election as consuls. The augurs referred the matter to the senate; the senate
decided the consuls should resign; they resigned. What more important instances
can we look for? A man of the greatest wisdom and, perhaps, supreme distinction
preferred to admit his error that could have been concealed rather than to allow
the impiety to cling to the commonwealth; the consuls preferred to lay down the
highest state office immediately rather than to hold it for a moment of time in
violation of religion. 12 The authority of augurs is immense; and surely the art of
haruspices is also divinely inspired?

3.41 Livy History of Rome 43.13.1–4, 7–8: Portents in Livy’s history

Livy routinely includes the prodigies for each year in his history. The year in question is
169 BC (during the Third Macedonian War); only about half of his list has been included
here.

1 I am not unaware that, owing to the same disrespect because of which men gener-
ally believe in this day and age that the gods foretell nothing, no portents at all are
publicly reported or recorded in our histories. 2 But, as I write of ancient matters,
not only does my mind in some way become old-fashioned, but certain religious
scruples prevent me from regarding what those very wise men considered wor-
thy of public concern as unworthy of being recorded in my history. 3 At Anagnia
two portents were reported in that year, a shooting star was seen in the sky, and a
cow which spoke; she was being kept at public expense. Also at Minturnae during
those same days the sky appeared to be on fire. 4 There was a shower of stones at
Reate. At Cumae the Apollo on the citadel shed tears for three days and nights . . . 7
Because of the public portents, the Books were approached by the decemvirs, who
proclaimed the gods to whom the consuls should sacrifice 40 larger victims, 8 that
a day of prayer (supplicatio) should be held, that all the magistrates should sacrifice
larger victims at all the couches of the gods, and that the people should wear wreaths.
All this was carried out as the decemvirs prescribed.

3.42 Cicero On Divination 1.103–4: Chance remarks as omens

L. Aemilius Paullus, as consul in 168 BC, defeated Perseus of Macedon at Pydna (see
docs 5.33–34); Tertia (‘third’) was presumably his third daughter. Flaccus is probably
L. Valerius Flaccus, praetor in 63.

128
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
103 I will now give you some well-known examples of omens: when Lucius
Paullus was consul for the second time, and it had fallen to his lot to wage war
against King Perseus, he returned home in the evening on that very same day and
noticed when he kissed his little daughter Tertia, who was still very small, that she
looked rather sad. ‘What’s the matter, Tertia my dear?’ he asked, ‘Why are you
unhappy?’ ‘Oh, Daddy’, she replied, ‘Persa has died.’ He then embraced her even
more closely and said, ‘Daughter, I accept the omen.’ It was actually a puppy by
that name that had died. 104 I heard Lucius Flaccus, the flamen of Mars, tell the
story of Caecilia, daughter of Metellus, who wanted to arrange the marriage of
her sister’s daughter and went to a small sanctuary to receive an omen, according
to ancient custom. For a long time, while the girl was standing and Caecilia was
sitting on a stool, no word was spoken. The girl then grew tired and asked her aunt
to let her sit on her stool for a little while. ‘Certainly’, replied Caecilia, ‘I will let
you have my place.’ And this was an omen of what followed; she died in a short
time and the girl married Caecilia’s husband. I realise of course that these omens
can be made light of and even laughed at, but to make light of the signs sent by the
gods is nothing less than to disbelieve in the gods’ existence.

3.43 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 81.1–3: Omens prior to

Caesar’s death
Suetonius here discusses the sacrificial omens supposedly recorded before Caesar’s death;
cf. doc. 13.69.

1 Caesar’s death was proclaimed beforehand by unmistakable omens. A few

months earlier, the colonists sent to colonise Capua under the Julian law were
breaking up old tombs to construct their houses – the more eagerly because they
discovered a large number of ancient vases – and came across a bronze tablet
in a tomb in which Capys, the founder of Capua, was said to have been buried,
which was inscribed in Greek letters and words to the effect that: ‘When the
bones of Capys are found, his descendant will be murdered by the hand of kins-
men and quickly avenged with great disasters to Italy.’ 2 No one should think
this fictional or fraudulent, because the authority is Cornelius Balbus (cos. 40),
an intimate friend of Caesar’s. Shortly afterwards, Caesar learnt that herds of
horses, which he had dedicated on crossing the River Rubicon and allowed to
wander unguarded, were stubbornly failing to graze and were weeping copi-
ously. Also, while he was performing a sacrifice, the haruspex Spurinna warned
him to ‘Beware the danger, which will not come later than the Ides of March.’ 3
On the day before the Ides, a ‘king’ bird, with a sprig of laurel, flew into the hall
of Pompey pursued by various birds from a nearby grove, which tore it to pieces
there. And on that night, on which dawned the day of his murder, he seemed to
himself in a dream to be flying above the clouds and to shake hands with Jupiter,
while his wife Calpurnia dreamt that the gable ornament of the house collapsed
and her husband lay stabbed in her embrace; suddenly the doors of the bedroom
opened of their own accord.

129
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
3.44 CIL I2 2173–89: Oracular responses (1)
Cicero deprecates the use of the sortes, ‘lots’, at Praeneste (modern Palestrina), which were
written on oak and drawn as a form of divination, commenting that only the common peo-
ple (vulgus) of Praeneste use them and that everywhere else they had gone out of fashion
(Div. 2.85–87; cf. doc. 3.33). These sortes, inscribed on bronze, generally in hexameters,
apparently date to the first century BC. Their place of origin is unknown.

2173 Believe that what has been made crooked can hardly now be made
straight.
2174 Do you believe what they say? Things are not so. Don’t be foolish.
2175 If you are wise about what is uncertain, take care that things don’t
become certain.
2176 Don’t let lies arise from truth by being a false judge.
2177 That horse is very beautiful, but you can’t ride him.
2178 It’s an uphill road; you are not allowed to follow by the road you want.
2179 He is afraid of everyone; it is better to follow what he fears.
2180 Many men are liars. Don’t believe them.
2181 An untrustworthy enemy (will arise from) a trustworthy man, unless
you take care.
2182 I command it; and if he does it for him he will rejoice for ever.
2183 Seek joyfully and willingly, and you will rejoice for ever because it will
be granted.
2184 We sortes (‘lots’) are not the liars you said; you consult like a fool.
2185 Now do you ask me? Now do you consult? The time has now passed.
2186 I help very many; when I have helped, no one thanks me.
2187 After all your hopes have collapsed, do you consult me?
2188 Do not despise what you run away from, what you throw away, what is
granted you.
2189 Why do you seek advice after the event? What you ask does not exist.

3.45 CIL XI.1129 a, c: Oracular responses (2)

Oracular replies on a bronze tablet, written in prose, found at Forum Novum; they appar-
ently date to the first century BC.

(a) Why do you ask advice now? Be at peace and enjoy your life.
. . . You have death far from you . . . It is not possible for death to be fas-
tened on you before your fate comes.
. . . An illness is revealed . . .
(c) She who was previously barren will give birth.

3.46 Cicero On Divination 2.98–9: Astrology gains ground

Astrology was not part of traditional Roman beliefs, but Chaldaean astrologers from the
East were expelled from Rome in 139 BC, and Cato the Elder advised his bailiff not to
consult them.

130
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
98 And if it matters under what aspect of the sky or composition of stars every liv-
ing thing is born, then necessarily the same conditions affect inanimate things; can
any statement be more absurd than that? Indeed, Lucius Tarutius of Firmum, our
good friend, who was excessively learned in Chaldaean computations, calculating
from the fact that our city’s birthday was on the Parilia, the date when we are told
it was founded by Romulus, asserted that Rome was born when the moon was in
Libra, and from this did not hesitate to prophecy Rome’s destiny. What incredible
power delusion has! . . . 99 But why say more? They are refuted daily. I remember
numerous prophecies which the Chaldaeans made to Pompey, to Crassus, even to
the late Caesar, saying that none of them would die except in old age, at home,
and with great renown!

AUGURY
Magistrates took the auspices (‘auspicia’), with an augur present as an advisor. There were
five categories: from the sky (lightning, thunder, hailstorms and the like), from the move-
ments of birds (flight, cries and number, as in doc. 3.47), from the sacred chickens (docs
3.52–54), from four-legged animals (any unusual behaviour thereof) and from unusual
events. The auspices were taken for all state activities, in particular the elections, and, if
pronounced unpropitious, assemblies could be adjourned or their acts declared null and
void.

3.47 Ennius Annals 80–100: ‘A most glorious omen’

According to legend, Rhea Silvia (or Ilia), a Vestal Virgin of Alba Longa who was beloved
of Mars, gave birth to twins, Romulus and Remus, who were raised by a she-wolf. Here
Romulus, standing on the Aventine, and Remus, on the Remuria, take the auspices at dawn
to see who should rule the city and earn the right to have it named after him. The number
of the birds, their direction and the fact that they headed towards ‘places of favourable and
fine omen’ are all relevant.

80 Then carefully – with great care – both eager

For rule, they concentrate on divination and augury;
. . . on a hill . . .
Remus dedicates himself to divination and on his own
Keeps watch for a favourable bird. But handsome Romulus on high
85 Aventine searches, and watches out for the high-flying breed.
They are contesting whether they should call the city Roma or Remora.
All men are filled with care as to which should be the ruler:
Just as when the consul intends to give the signal
All men wait, eagerly watching the race’s starting-gate to see
90 How soon he will dispatch the chariots from the painted mouth:
Thus the people waited and held their tongues, to learn
Who should be granted the victory of great kingship.
Meanwhile the white sun withdrew into the depths of night.
Then bright light, irradiated, beaming forth –

131
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
95 Just then from the height came a most glorious omen,
A bird flying on the left, just as the golden sun was rising.
Three times four sacred forms of birds left the sky,
Taking themselves to places of favourable and fine omen.
Thence Romulus sees that to him, in due form,
100 By divination, had been granted a kingdom’s stable throne and land.

3.48 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2.5.1–6.2: Romulus and the auspices

Romulus insisted on consulting the auspices when the people wished to grant him sover-
eignty, and his kingship was confirmed by a flash of lightning from the left to the right, a
favourable direction. After this it became the practice that the gods had to sanction any king
or magistrate. Lightning was considered unfavourable only during elections.

5.1 As the people approved, he proclaimed a day on which he would consult the
auspices about the kingship, and when the time came he rose at daybreak and
left his tent. After taking his stand under the open sky in a clear space and offer-
ing the customary preliminary sacrifice, he prayed to King Jupiter and the other
gods whom he had taken as the leaders of his colony that, if they wished him to
be king of the city, favourable signs would appear in the sky. 2 After his prayer
lightning flashed across the sky from left to right . . . 6.1 This custom relating to
the auspices long continued to be observed by the Romans, not only while the city
was a monarchy but also after the overthrow of the monarchy in the election of
consuls and praetors and other legal magistrates. 2 It has, however, ceased in our
own day, except for a certain semblance of it which remains for form’s sake. For
those who are about to take up office spend the night outside and, rising at dawn,
offer certain prayers under the open sky, and some of the augurs present state that
they have seen lightning from the left – which was not there.

3.49 Varro On the Latin Language 7.8: An old formula

for taking the auspices
In this extract Varro is quoting from the augural books. The trees are boundaries and the
four quarters for the auspices set within them. A templum was a rectangular area in the
sky that had been marked out, within which the augur or magistrate would look for aus-
pices from birds (see doc. 3.50). It could also be an area of ground so marked out, as here
described by Varro. Important templa were the curia, rostra and comitium, since these were
places where political decisions were made.

On the earth templum is the name given to a place used for the sake of augury
or the taking of auspices and restricted by certain formulaic words. The form of
words is not the same everywhere; on the citadel (on the Capitoline hill) it is as
follows:

Temples and wild lands be mine in this way, up to where I have named them
rightly with my tongue.

132
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
Of whatever kind that truthful tree is, which I consider that I have mentioned,
temple and wild land be mine on the left.
Of whatever kind that truthful tree is, which I consider that I have mentioned,
temple and wild land be mine on the right.
Between these points, temples and wild lands be mine for direction, observa-
tion and interpretation, just as I consider that I have named them rightly.

3.50 Livy History of Rome 1.18.6–10, 20.7: The augur marks off the
heavens
The lituus, the ‘crooked staff without a knot’, was a badge of office for augurs. Jupiter was
the god of auspices, and so the augur here calls upon him; Jupiter was Elicius because the
signs were elicited, ‘drawn’, from him.

18.6 Summoned to Rome, Numa Pompilius instructed that the gods should be con-
sulted in his case, just as for Romulus, who at the founding of Rome had assumed
power after taking auguries. He was therefore conducted by an augur, to whom as
a mark of honour a permanent state priesthood was granted from then on, to the
citadel, where he sat on a stone facing south. 7 The augur with veiled head took
his seat on Numa’s left, holding in his right hand the crooked staff without a knot,
which they call the lituus. Then, looking out over the city and the country beyond,
he prayed to the gods and marked off the heavens from east to west, declaring the
southward side to be ‘right’ and the northward side ‘left’. 8 He fixed in his mind a
point straight in front of him as far away as his eyes could reach, changed the staff to
his left hand, placed his right upon Numa’s head and prayed in the following words:
9 ‘Father Jupiter, if it is Heaven’s will that this man, Numa Pompilius, whose head
I touch, should be king of Rome, make clear to us specific signs within those limits
I have set.’ 10 Then he described the auspices that he wished to be sent. When they
were sent, Numa was proclaimed king and went down from the augural site (tem-
plum). . . . 20.7 Numa consecrated an altar on the Aventine to Jupiter Elicius, whom
he consulted by augury as to what signs from heaven it should be proper to regard.

3.51 Cicero On Divination 1.30–1: The sacred staff

The temple of the Salii was burnt in the Gallic attack traditionally dated to 390 BC. Attus
Navius was the augur of Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth king of Rome.

30 From where did you augurs inherit that staff which is the most conspicuous
mark of the office of augurs? It is indeed the one with which Romulus marked
out the boundary lines for observing omens when he founded the city. Now this
staff of Romulus is a curved wand, slightly bent at the top, which derives its name
from its resemblance to the curved trumpet which gives the signal for battle. It
was placed in the temple of the Salii on the Palatine, and when the temple was
burnt down it was found intact. 31 What historian of antiquity fails to mention that
many years after Romulus, in the reign of Tarquinius Priscus, the boundary lines
for observations were marked out with this staff by Attus Navius?

133
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
3.52 Livy History of Rome 6.41.4–10: Patrician control of augury
In 367 BC the tribunes Sextius and Licinius successfully proposed that half of the Board
of Ten in charge of the Sibylline Books (decemviri sacris faciundis) should be plebeians;
Sextius was also to be the first plebeian consul: see docs 1.48–49. This is an extract from
Livy’s version of the speech made by Appius Claudius Crassus against the tribunes when
they sought re-election for the tenth time; cf. doc. 1.56.

4 What am I to say about religious observances and auspices, disregard and insult
of which involve the immortal gods? This city was founded under auspices, and
who is unaware that all its measures are carried out under auspices, whether in war
or peace, at home or on the battlefield? 5 Who then controls the auspices by ances-
tral tradition? Why, the patricians, for no plebeian magistrate is elected under
auspices; 6 and the auspices are ours to such an extent that not only do the patri-
cian magistrates elected by the people have to be elected under auspices but we
can ourselves, without the people’s vote, take auspices and appoint an interrex. In
fact, we can take them in our capacity as private citizens, which plebeians cannot
do even when in office. 7 So whoever by creating plebeians as consuls removes
auspices from the patricians – who alone can take them – deprives the state of
auspices. 8 They can laugh now, if they like, at religious scruples: ‘So what does it
matter if the chickens will not feed, if they are slow to come out of their hencoop,
if a bird squawks an unlucky omen?’ These are trivial matters, but it was by not
despising these trivial matters that your ancestors built up this great Republic – 9
and now we, as if we no longer had any need of the gods’ goodwill, are defiling all
the sacred rites. So, let pontiffs, augurs and kings of the sacrifices (the rex sacro-
rum) be chosen from the common people; let us place the flamen dialis’ headdress
on anyone’s head, as long as he is a man; and hand over the shields, shrines, gods
and the gods’ service to those whom divine law excludes; 10 let laws be proposed,
and magistrates elected, without taking of the auspices; let neither the centuriate
nor curiate assemblies be sanctioned by patricians.

THE SACRED CHICKENS

Employing haruspicy or taking the auspices was not always convenient for the commander
in battle. Chickens, kept in a cage, provided a mobile divination kit: when they were fed,
it was an auspicious omen if they ate greedily and the pellets fell from their beaks; if they
did not eat, it was a bad omen. Sacred chickens are depicted on an aes signatum (bronze
ingot), minted at Rome c. 260–242 BC: two chickens face each other, eating, so giving a
favourable omen.

3.53 Cicero On the Nature of the Gods 2.7–8: Do not ignore the
chickens!
Publius Claudius Pulcher, as consul in 249 BC, lost his fleet at Drepanum, having previ-
ously ignored the unfavourable auspices of the chickens (they were presumably too sea-sick
to eat). Because of this he was held responsible for the defeat and charged with perduellio
(treason) and fined.

134
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
7 Shall we not be moved by the temerity of Publius Claudius in the First Punic
War? He was laughing at the gods in jest when the chickens were removed from
their cage and would not feed, ordering them to be thrown into the water to drink,
as they didn’t want to eat. But the joke, when the fleet was defeated, brought
many tears to him and a great catastrophe to the Roman people. And did not his
colleague Junius in that same war lose a fleet in a storm when he did not obey the
auspices? As a consequence, Claudius was condemned by the people and Junius
committed suicide. 8 Caelius writes that Gaius Flaminius, after neglecting the
dictates of religion (religio), fell at the battle of Trasimene, which gave our state
a great blow. The fate of these men demonstrates that our empire was extended
by commanders who obeyed the dictates of religion. And if we want to compare
our national characteristics with those of others, we shall find that, while in all
other respects we are either their equals or even their inferiors, yet in our sense of
religion, that is, in reverence for the gods, we are greatly superior.

3.54 Cicero On Divination 1.27: Chickens and ‘forced augury’

Quintus Cicero is complaining here that the chickens were left hungry and then fed in such
a way that a favourable omen was inevitable.

Among us Romans the magistrates make use of auspices which are ‘forced’; for,
when the pellets are thrown, bits have to fall from the chicken’s beak as it is eat-
ing. But according to what you augurs have written, if anything falls to the ground,
a favourable omen (tripudium) has taken place, and what I spoke of as a ‘forced’
augury you call the most favourable of omens (tripudium solistimum). And so
many auguries and auspices, as Cato the Wise complains, have been entirely lost
and abandoned by the carelessness of the college.

DEDICATIONS AND VOWS

Dedications were a means of thanking the gods for ‘services rendered’. Often such dedica-
tions were vowed in moments of crisis and the vow fulfilled when the crisis passed success-
fully. Dedications could range from small inscribed tablets to temples and monuments. For
other dedications, see esp. doc. 3.60 (healing); docs 4.33, 46, 5.33, 42–43 (victory); doc.
6.55 (manumission); docs 7.77, 84–85 (by Roman women).

3.55 ILS 4906: A dedication at Furfo, 58 BC

Furfo is 60 miles east of Rome. Since the calendar was then in disarray (doc. 3.30), 13 July
58 BC would actually have been 13 April, in a better season for flowers. A special provi-
sion allows iron into the temple, and provision is made that dedications in the temple can
be sold, but for the temple’s benefit.

Lucius Aienus, son of Lucius, and Quintus Baebatius, son of Sextus, dedicated the
temple of Jupiter Liber at Furfo on 13 July in the consulship of Lucius (Calpurnius)
Piso and Aulus Gabinius (58 BC), in the month of Flowers, laying down these

135
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
regulations and these boundaries, that the lowest foundations are to be constructed
of stone for the purpose of this temple, 5 and that towards that temple and the stair-
case, constructed of stone columns on this side of the staircase leading towards the
temple, and the posts and beams of this temple are to stand; that it be permissible
under human and divine law to touch, repair, cover, remove, drive in, clean out,
use iron, push forward and realign. If any gift be given, presented or dedicated to
that temple, that it be permitted to use or sell it; when it has been sold, it is to be
secular. Let the sale or lease be in the hands of whomever 10 the village of Furfo
has elected as aedile, so that they feel that they are selling or leasing that object
without crime or impiety; no one else is to have this power. Whatever money is
received, that money may be used to buy, lend, put out at interest or give, so that
the temple may be improved and more handsome. Any money used for those pur-
poses is to be secular, as there is no fraud involved. Any objects bought with the
money, bronze or silver, given for purchase, those things should be subject to the
same regulations as if they had been dedicated. 15 If anyone here steals a sacred
object, his fining is the responsibility of the aedile, whatever amount he wishes;
and if the village of Furfo by majority vote wishes either to acquit or condemn,
this is to be allowed. If anyone sacrifices at this temple to Jupiter Liber or to the
Genius of Jupiter, the skins and hides are to belong to the shrine.

3.56 Livy History of Rome 36.2.1–5: A public vow to Jupiter

When the consuls of 191 BC drew lots for their provinces, Acilius drew Greece, which had
been invaded in 192 by Antiochus, king of Syria (docs 5.28–31). The senate decreed that
there be a supplicatio to invoke the aid of the gods for the forthcoming war. A supplicatio
could be held as an expiation ceremony or, as in this case described by Livy, in connection
with a vow, as a thanksgiving. Statues of the gods were placed on couches (pulvinaria), the
temples were opened, and the populace was called upon to worship the gods. The consul
here repeats the words after the pontifex maximus as part of the procedure to ensure that
the exact ritual formulas were used (see doc. 3.26).

1 To Acilius fell Greece, to Cornelius Italy. 2 With the casting of lots determined,
the senate passed a decree that, since the Roman people had at that time ordered
there to be a war with King Antiochus and those under his authority, the consuls
should proclaim a period of prayer (supplicatio) for its success and that the consul
Manius Acilius should vow great games to Jupiter and gifts at all the couches of
the gods (pulvinaria). 3 The consul made this vow, repeating it after the pontifex
maximus, Publius Licinius, in the following words: ‘If the war which the people
has ordered to be undertaken with King Antiochus shall be brought to a conclu-
sion deemed satisfactory by the senate and people, 4 then the people will hold in
your honour, Jupiter, great games for ten consecutive days, and will offer gifts
at the couches of the gods of whatever value the senate shall decide. 5 Whatever
magistrate shall hold these games, at whatever time and place, let these games be
duly celebrated and these gifts be duly offered.’ Then the period of prayer, to last
for two days, was proclaimed by both consuls.

136
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GODS
The Romans were not in principle opposed to the introduction of new gods, as is indicated
by their acceptance of Aesculapius, the Magna Mater and their practice of ‘calling out’
the gods of states with which they were at war. But the Roman state as represented by the
senate had a clear sense of what was appropriate within a Roman context. It was the sen-
ate (never the people) which decided which foreign gods gained legitimacy and worship
within the formal apparatus of the state religion. The state’s interest was active, as can be
seen in the Bacchanalia, when the senate took steps to persecute its adherents. Isis began
to be popular at Rome in the closing decades of the Republic, but the senate destroyed her
temples on more than one occasion in the 50s and 40s BC.

3.57 Livy History of Rome 5.21.1–3, 22.3–7: The evocatio of

Juno, 396 BC
For the sack of Veii, see doc. 1.61. Evocatio was the procedure by which the Romans would
call out the main god of an enemy city, promising them a cult at Rome, and sometimes a
temple. The enemy would thus be deprived of divine support. The general in command
would undertake the evocatio – in this case the dictator Camillus. Juno’s temple was built
at Rome on the Aventine Hill in 392 BC; it housed the wooden statue of Juno brought from
Veii.

21.1 A great multitude came out and filled the camp. After taking the auspices,
the dictator then went out and commanded the troops to arm themselves: 2 ‘Under
your leadership’, he declared, ‘Pythian Apollo, and inspired by your divine guid-
ance, I proceed to the destruction of the city of Veii and to you I vow a tenth part
of its spoils. 3 And at the same time, Queen Juno, who dwells now in Veii, I pray
that you come with us, the victors, to our – soon to be your – city, where a shrine
worthy of your greatness will receive you’ . . .
22.3 Now that all the wealth belonging to the human residents had been car-
ried out of Veii, they started to remove the gifts to the gods and even the gods
themselves, but more in the fashion of worshippers than of looters. 4 For young
men were selected from the whole army who washed themselves clean and put
on white garments, and these were assigned the task of carrying Queen Juno to
Rome. They entered her shrine with reverence and at first were awe-struck at the
thought of approaching her with their hands, 5 because the statue by Etruscan
custom was to be touched only by a priest of a specific family. Then one of
them, whether touched by divine inspiration or a youthful sense of humour,
said, ‘Do you wish, Juno, to go to Rome?’ and the others shouted together that
the goddess had nodded yes. 6 It was later added to the tale that her voice had
also been heard saying she was willing; at any rate, we are told that she was
moved from her station by machines of little power as if she went with them
of her own accord and was light and easy to handle during the transfer, and
reached the Aventine safe and sound, 7 the eternal home to which the vows of
the Roman dictator had summoned her, where Camillus afterwards dedicated to
her the temple he had vowed.

137
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
3.58 Macrobius Saturnalia 3.9.6–9: Carthaginian cults transferred
Serenus Sammonicus was an antiquary killed in AD 211; Furius is thought to be L. Furius
Philus (cos. 136 BC), a friend of Scipio Aemilianus. The formulae seem to be of the correct
date and would have been spoken by Scipio, the besieging general, in 146 BC. Macrobius
at 3.9.3 states that this practice explains why the Romans were careful not to reveal the
name of the tutelary god of Rome or the Latin name of the city.

6 We must be careful to make a distinction, unlike some who have incorrectly

supposed that a single formula (carmen) is used both to call the gods out of a
city and to devote the city itself to destruction. I have found both formulas in the
fifth Book of the Secret World (Res Reconditae) of Sammonicus Serenus, who
stated that he had come across them in an extremely ancient book by one Furius.
7 The formula to call the gods out of a city encircled by a siege is as follows:
‘Whether god or goddess, under whose protection are the people and state of
Carthage, and to you especially who have been charged with the protection of
this city and people, I pray and do reverence and ask a favour of you all, that
you abandon the people and state of Carthage, forsake their places, temples,
shrines and city, 8 and depart from these; and that you bring fear, terror and
bewilderment upon that people and state; and that, once you have abandoned
them, you come to Rome, to me and to mine; and that our places, temples,
shrines and city may be more acceptable and pleasing to you; and that you take
me and the Roman people and my soldiers under your charge that we may know
and understand this. If you shall so have done, I vow to you that I shall
construct temples and celebrate games.’ 9 With these words victims should be
sacrificed, and the authority of the entrails examined to see if they predict these
events for the future.

3.59 Aesculapius, 292 BC

Following a plague in 293 BC, one of Aesculapius’ sacred serpents was brought to Rome
by ship and his healing cult established on the island in the Tiber, chosen by the snake itself;
a relief of Aesculapius’ snake can still be seen there. Healing was by incubation, which was
a practice where sick individuals slept overnight in the temple, hoping that the god would
appear to them in a dream and heal them.

(i) Livy History of Rome 10.47.6–7

The year (293 BC) had in many ways been a happy one, but this served as
insufficient consolation for one disaster, a plague which raged through both town
and countryside; the calamity was considered a portent, and the (Sibylline) Books
were consulted to find what limit or remedy the gods proposed for this misfor-
tune. It was discovered in the books that Aesculapius should be summoned from
Epidaurus to Rome; nothing, however, could be done in that year, as the con-
suls were occupied with the war, except that a one-day supplication was held for
Aesculapius.

138
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
(ii) Livy Periochae 11

When the state was suffering under a plague, the envoys, who had been sent to
fetch the statue of Aesculapius over from Epidaurus to Rome, brought with them
a serpent, which came on board their ship of its own accord and in which it was
believed that the divinity himself dwelt. When it went ashore on the island in the
Tiber, a temple to Aesculapius was built there.

3.60 ILS 3833, 3834: Early dedications to Aesculapius

These dedications were discovered in the River Tiber. The first (3833) dates to the third
century BC; the second is a little later.

3833 To Aesculapius: a gift dedicated by Lucius Albanius, son of Kaeso.

3834 To Aesculapius: a gift given willingly and deservedly by Marcus Populicius,
son of Marcus.

3.61 Livy History of Rome 29.14.10–14: The Magna Mater, 204 BC

The Magna Mater, ‘Great Mother’, was also known as Cybele or the Idaean goddess (from
Mount Ida). Frequent showers of stones in 205 BC led to a consultation of the Sibylline
Books. An oracle was found there that said, ‘If ever a foreign enemy invaded the soil of
Italy, he could be driven out of Italy and vanquished, if the Idaean Mother were brought
from Pessinus to Rome’ (Livy 29.10.5). A delegation was sent to Pessinus in Phrygia to
obtain the black meteoric stone of the Idaean Mother, the Magna Mater. P. Cornelius Scipio
Nasica (praetor in 194) was chosen to go to Ostia to meet the goddess. She was carried into
Rome on 4 April 204; Claudia Quinta’s reputation for virtue was in doubt, but, when the
ship stuck on a sandbank at the mouth of the Tiber, soothsayers announced that it could
only be moved by a virtuous matron. Claudia pulled the ship off, thus proving her inno-
cence (doc. 7.30). The Megalesia in the Magna Mater’s honour lasted six days and was first
held in 191 BC (the ludi Megalenses, doc. 2.70).

10 Publius Cornelius Scipio was instructed to go to Ostia with all the matrons to
meet the goddess; he was to receive her himself from the ship and then hand her,
once she was on land, to be carried by the matrons. 11 When the ship arrived at
the mouth of the River Tiber, he did as he had been ordered, rowing out to sea,
receiving the goddess from her priests, and bringing her to land. 12 The foremost
matrons of the city, among whom the name of Claudia Quinta alone is illustrious,
received her. Claudia’s reputation, which, it is recorded, had before been uncer-
tain, made her virtue, shown by her attendance on the goddess, more noteworthy
to posterity. 13 The matrons carried the goddess, passing her from hand to hand
one after another; the whole city poured out to meet her, and incense burners
were placed in front of the doorways along the route, with people praying, as
they lit the incense, that the goddess would enter the city of Rome graciously and
propitiously. 14 They carried the goddess into the temple of Victory, which is on
the Palatine, on 4 April, and that day was declared a festival. Crowds of people

139
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
brought gifts to the goddess on the Palatine, and a lectisternium was held and
games called the Megalesia.

3.62 Lucretius On the Nature of the Universe 2.610–32: The Galli

The activities of Cybele’s priests, the Galli, and the rites in her honour were considered to
be most un-Roman, especially the self-mutilation (castration) of the priests; here Lucretius
(94–55/51 BC) describes a procession in her honour. Roman citizens were not allowed to
become Galli or to take part in the procession or worship the goddess in the Phrygian way.

610 Various nations, according to the ancient tradition of her rites, call her
Idaean mother and assign her bands of Phrygians
As her attendants, because it was that region first, they say,
Out of all the earth, which began to produce crops.
They give her Galli as attendants, to show that those who violate their
mother’s will
615 And treat their fathers with ingratitude,
Should be thought unworthy
Of producing living descendants in the sunlit world.
Tightly stretched drums thunder out, struck by palms, and curved cymbals,
And horns threaten with their hoarse-sounding blare,
620 While the hollow flute inspires the heart with Phrygian tunes.
They carry weapons before her as symbols of violent frenzy,
That the ungrateful minds and impious hearts of the crowd
May be terror-struck with fear of the goddess’s power.
So, when she is first carried into a large city
625 And silently bestows wordless blessings on mankind,
People strew her path along the entire route
With lavish gifts of copper and silver, with a snow-shower of roses
Shadowing the Mother and her bands of attendants.
Next armed group of attendants, called by the Greeks
630 Phrygian Curetes, hold mock battles
And dance in rhythm, delighted by the bloodshed,
Shaking, with a nod, the terrifying crests upon their heads.

3.63 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 36.13.1–3: The Great

Mother’s priest
Aulus Pompeius was tribune in 102 BC. Battaces, priest of the Great Mother, arrived from
Pessinus in 102 to state that rites of purification were needed; the context is the ongoing
wars with the Cimbri and Teutones, concluded in 101.

1 A certain man called Battaces, who was a priest of the Great Mother of the
gods, arrived from Pessinus in Phrygia. He stated that he had come on the orders
of the goddess and obtained an audience with the consuls and senate, where he

140
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
said that the temple of the goddess had been polluted and that rites of purification
had to be publicly performed to her at Rome. He wore a robe which, like the rest
of his dress, was exotic and totally alien to Roman custom; he had a huge golden
crown and a brightly coloured cape interwoven with gold, denoting royal rank. 2
He made a speech to the people from the rostra and inculcated in the populace a
feeling of religious awe, and was thought worthy of state lodgings and hospitality.
He was, however, forbidden to wear his crown by Aulus Pompeius, one of the
tribunes. Brought back to the rostra by another of the tribunes and asked about the
purification of the temple, he gave answers which imparted religious awe. When
he was attacked on factional grounds by Pompeius and sent back with insults to
his lodgings, he did not appear in public again, saying that it was not only he who
had been outrageously and impiously treated, but the goddess as well. 3 Pompeius
was immediately struck with a burning fever, after which he lost his voice and
was seized with quinsy, dying on the third day, and it seemed to the populace that
his death was divinely inspired to avenge his actions against the priest and god-
dess, for the Romans are very much given to religious awe. Accordingly, Battaces
was allowed to wear his costume and sacred robe, was honoured with noteworthy
gifts, and was escorted by a large crowd of both men and women when he set out
on his journey home from Rome.

3.64 Valerius Maximus On Memorable Doings and Sayings 1.3.4:

Opposition to the cult of Isis
The goddess Isis first made an appearance in Rome in the 50s BC. Her worship was opposed
by the senate. Isis was worshipped particularly by women, but the personal soteriology of
the cult also attracted men. In 53 and 50 BC the senate had the temples of Isis and Serapis
demolished, and Octavian in 28 BC forbade Egyptian cults inside the pomerium.

When the senate decreed that the temples of Isis and Serapis be destroyed, and
none of the workmen dared to touch them, the consul Lucius Aemilius (Lepidus)
Paullus (cos. 50 BC) took off his toga praetexta, grabbed an axe, and smashed it
against the door of that temple.

THE BACCHANALIA, 186 BC

Full narrative at Livy 39.8–19. The Greek cult of Bacchus (Dionysus) spread from southern
Italy to Rome, and in 186 BC the senate took action. Possibly the cult was becoming simply
too public (note the women going to the Tiber with torches). Livy’s account of how the cult
came to the attention of one of the consuls, Postumius, is rather dramatic (see doc. 7.63 for
the role of Hispala Faecenia), but the details of the senate’s treatment of the cult must be cor-
rect. According to Livy, 7,000 men and women were involved (39.17.6). Many of the accused
committed suicide, and others tried unsuccessfully to escape from Rome. Those convicted
of debauchery or murder were put to death, while women were handed over to their family
councils for punishment if the death penalty was required (doc. 7.16). The cult was strictly
controlled from that date, not only in Rome but throughout Roman Italy.

141
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
3.65 Livy History of Rome 39.8.3–18.8: ‘All crime and lust’
8.3 Both consuls were assigned the duty of investigating secret conspiracies. It
started when an obscure Greek arrived in Etruria. He was not with any of those
arts which that most learned of all races brought to us in great numbers to cultivate
our minds and bodies, but a dealer in sacrifices and soothsaying; 4 nor was he one
who imbues minds with falsehood by practising his rites in public and openly
proclaiming his profession and doctrine, but a celebrant of secret, nocturnal cer-
emonies. 5 There were mysteries which were at first divulged only to a few, but
which then began to be widely disseminated among men and women. The delights
of wine and feasting were added to the religious rites, to allure more people into
joining. 6 When their minds were inflamed with wine, and night, and the mingling
of men and women, young and old, had annihilated all sense of decorum, all kinds
of vice first came into being, since all had at hand the chance to indulge in the
pleasure to which nature most inclined them. 7 There was not just one kind of
depravity, promiscuous debauchery between free men and women, but false wit-
nesses, forged seals and wills, and perjured informants were all the product of this
same workshop, 8 as well as poisonings and murders so secret that sometimes the
bodies were not even available for burial. Much was dared by cunning, and more
by violence. The violence was concealed because, amid the wailing and the crash-
ing of kettle-drums (tympana) and cymbals, no sound of shrieks could be heard
from this scene of debauchery and murders. 9.1 This evil, with all its virulence,
spread from Etruria to Rome like the contagion of a plague. At first the size of the
city with its greater capacity and tolerance for such evils concealed them: finally
information reached the consul (Spurius) Postumius (Albinus). . . .
13.8 Hispala then disclosed the origin of the mysteries. At first, she said, it was
a rite for women and it was a rule that no man be admitted to it. Three days had
been set aside each year on which, during the day, initiations into the Bacchic
rites were conducted; it was customary for the matrons to be made priests in turn.
9 Paculla Annia, a Campanian, when priest, had altered all this, supposedly at
the god’s behest: for she had been the first to initiate men, her sons Minius and
Herennius Cerrinius; she had held the mysteries by night rather than by day, and
instead of three days a year had made five days in each month into days of initia-
tion. 10 From the time that the mysteries were held indiscriminately, and with
men mixing with women, and with the licence of night-time added as well, no
crime or depravity had been omitted. There was more debauchery among men
with one another than among women. 11 Any of them who were less tolerant of
submitting to outrage or more reluctant to commit crime were sacrificed as vic-
tims. To consider nothing to be impious was the highest type of religious belief
among them. 12 Men, as if out of their minds, would make prophecies, throw-
ing their bodies about violently as if under divine inspiration; matrons, dressed
as Bacchantes, would run, with their hair unkempt, down to the Tiber carrying
flaming torches, plunge the torches into the water and (because they contained
a mixture of live sulphur and calcium) pull them out with the flame still alight.
13 People were said to have been snatched away by the gods (in fact they were
bound to a machine and carried off out of sight to hidden caves): they were the

142
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
ones who had refused either to join in conspiracies or take part in crimes or suffer
sexual violation. 14 The number of adherents was immense, amounting almost to
a second nation; among them were some men and women of the nobility. Within
the last two years it had been laid down that no one over the age of 20 should be
initiated: they sought out young people of this age who would engage in both
wickedness and debauchery . . .
14.3 When both witnesses were secured in this way, Postumius brought the
matter before the senate, setting out all the points in order, first what had been
reported, then what he had himself discovered. 4 The senators were seized with
great alarm, both for the public, in case these conspiracies and assemblies might
be harbouring some secret treachery or danger, and privately each for himself, in
case any connection of their family might be involved in the evil . . . 17.6 More
than 7,000 men and women were said to have been involved in the conspiracy.
However, it was evident that the ring-leaders of the conspiracy had been Marcus
and Gaius Atinius of the Roman plebs and the Faliscan Lucius Opicernius and the
Campanian Minius Cerrinius: 7 all the crimes and wickedness had sprung from
them, and they were the high priests and founders of the cult. Care was taken that
they were arrested at the earliest opportunity. They were brought before the con-
suls and confessed, asking for no delay in being brought to trial . . .
18.3 Those who had simply been initiated and who had repeated at the priest’s
dictation, in accordance with the ritual formula, the prayers which contained the
impious conspiracy to commit every crime and lust, but had not been involved
in any of those deeds against either themselves or others which they had bound
themselves on oath to commit, were left in prison; 4 those who had dishonoured
themselves by debauchery or murder, who had been polluted by false witness,
forged seals, the substitution of wills and other kinds of fraud, suffered capital
punishment. 5 More were killed than thrown into prison. There was an immense
number of men and women in both categories. 6 Convicted women were handed
over to their family, or to those whose authority they were under, so that these
could punish them privately: if there was no appropriate person to exact the pun-
ishment, it was inflicted by the state. 7 The consuls were then given the task of
destroying all forms of Bacchic worship, first in Rome and then through the whole
of Italy, except for places where an ancient altar or statue had been consecrated.
8 The senate then decreed that for the future there should be no Bacchanalia in
Rome or in Italy.

3.66 ILS 18: The senate’s resolution, 186 BC

This document is a letter of the consuls of 186, including the actual senatus consultum,
written to the people of the Ager Teuranus in Bruttium; it was found on a tablet of brass at
Tiriolo in Bruttian territory and was presumably a copy of the letter made to be publicly
displayed. It is the oldest extant surviving senatus consultum.

The consuls (Quintus) Marcius (Philippus), son of Lucius, and Spurius Postumius,
son of Lucius, consulted the senate on the Nones (7th) of October in the temple of
Bellona. Present as witnesses to the record were Marcus Claudius, son of Marcus,

143
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
Lucius Valerius, son of Publius, and Quintus Minucius, son of Gaius. Regarding
the Bacchanalia, they resolved that the following decree be made known to
Rome’s allies:
‘Let none of them be minded to maintain a place devoted to Bacchus; if there
are any people who say that it is necessary for them to maintain a place devoted to
Bacchus, they must come to the praetor urbanus at Rome, 5 and, when their words
have been heard, our senate shall decide concerning these matters, provided that
not fewer than 100 senators are present when the matter is discussed. Let no man,
whether Roman citizen or Latin by name, or any of the allies, be minded to attend a
meeting of Bacchant women unless they have first approached the praetor urbanus
and he has given them authorisation through a vote of the senate, provided that not
fewer than 100 senators were present when the matter is discussed.’ Passed.
10 ‘Let no man be a priest; let not any man or woman be a master (magis-
ter, i.e., administrator); nor let anyone be minded to keep a common fund; nor
let anyone be minded to make any man or woman a master or vice-master; nor
henceforward let anyone be minded to swear together, nor vow together, nor make
mutual promises, nor pledge to others, nor be minded to plight faith to each other.
15 Let no one be minded to hold sacred rites in secret, whether in public or pri-
vately, nor be minded to hold rites outside the city, unless he has first approached
the praetor urbanus, and he has given them authorisation through a vote of the
senate, provided that not fewer than 100 senators were present when the matter is
discussed.’ Passed.
‘Let no one in a group of more than five, men and women together, 20 be
minded to hold sacred rites, and let not more than two men and not more than
three women be minded to attend there, unless with the agreement of the praetor
urbanus and senate as written above.’
You are to proclaim this in a public meeting (contio) for a period of no fewer
than three market-days (seventeen days), and so that you may be acquainted with
the vote of the senate, this vote was as follows: ‘Should there be any who act
contrary to what has been recorded above, 25 the senate resolves that proceedings
for a capital crime should be taken against them; and the senate thought it right
that you shall inscribe this on a bronze tablet and you shall order it to be put up
where it can most easily be seen; and that you ensure that those places devoted to
Bacchus which exist be dissolved as recorded above, 30 unless there be anything
sacred there, within ten days of the receipt of this letter.’ In the Ager Teuranus.

3.67 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 2.19.2–5: Roman worship

Dionysius here compares Roman ritual practices with Greek. Dionysius’ point about the
Romans’ non-acceptance or transformation of foreign cults is borne out by his example of
the Magna Mater (the Idaean goddess): docs 3.61–63.

2 No festival is observed by the Romans by the wearing of black or as a day of

mourning with women beating their breasts and lamenting over the disappearance
of gods, as the Greeks do over the abduction of Persephone or the misfortunes of

144
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
Dionysus and other such events; nor may one see among them, even though their
customs have now been corrupted, any instances of divine possession, Corybantic
frenzies, religious begging rituals, Bacchic rites and secret mysteries, all-night
vigils of men and women together in temples or any other trickery of this kind, but
there is a reverence in all their words and actions in respect of the gods, which is
not seen among either Greeks or barbarians; 3 and the thing that I have marvelled
at most of all is that, although the city has attracted tens of thousands of peoples
who are compelled to worship their native gods according to the customs of their
homelands, it has never publicly adopted any of these foreign practices, as many
other cities have done, but, even when she has followed oracles which instructed
her to introduce certain rites, she celebrates these according to her own customs
after banishing all mythical nonsense, as in the case of the rites of the Idaean god-
dess. 4 For the praetors perform sacrifices and games for this goddess every year
according to Roman customs, but her priest and priestess are Phrygians and they
process through the city, begging for alms as is their custom, and wearing images
on their breasts and striking their kettle-drums, to the accompaniment of their
followers playing songs to the goddess on their flutes; 5 no native-born Roman,
however, either ritually begs for alms or processes through the city accompa-
nied by flute-players wearing a multicoloured robe, or worships the goddess with
the Phrygian rites – a law and decree of the senate has prohibited this. The city
is extremely cautious with respect to religious customs which are not native to
Rome and regards as inauspicious all pomp and ceremony which lacks decorous
behaviour.

CURSE TABLETS AND SYMPATHETIC MAGIC

Magic was known to the Romans as early as the XII Tables, where the phrases ‘whoever
shall have bewitched the crops’ and ‘whoever shall have cast an evil spell’ occur (doc.
1.50). Beneficent magic was also practised, as in the cures in which Cato uses common
spell techniques, where incomprehensible nonsense words are employed and ingredi-
ents (here the reed) are handled and chanted over (doc. 3.70). Curse tablets aimed to gain
power over a person, generally for malevolent purposes (as in doc. 3.69), and invoked the
deities of the underworld – here the Roman goddess Proserpina (equivalent to the Greek
Persephone), wife of Pluto, god of the underworld.

3.68 Cicero On the Nature of the Gods 2.71–2: Superstitio versus

religio
Cicero distinguishes between the concepts of superstitio and religio. Religio involves ritu-
als handed down over generations and concerned primarily the worship (cultus) of the
gods. At Div. 2.149, Cicero describes superstitio as listening to a prophet, sacrificing,
watching the flight of birds, consulting astrologers or soothsayers, and noting thunder and
lightning and prodigies.

71 Religio has been distinguished from superstitio not only by philosophers but
also by our forebears. 72 People who passed entire days in prayer and sacrifice so

145
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
that their children would outlive them were called superstitious (from superstes:
survivor), and the word later came to have a wider meaning. Those, however, who
diligently reviewed and retraced everything pertaining to the cultus (worship) of
the gods were known as religious, from relegere (to retrace, or re-read).

3.69 CIL I2 1614, 1615, 2520: Curses

These three inscriptions are curse tablets (defixiones). No. 1614 is a round tablet of lead
(an uncommon type), supposedly found at Cumae, written in a mixture of Latin and Oscan;
no. 1615 is small bronze plate discovered in a tomb at Cumae. 2520 comprises five thin
plates of lead discovered at Rome. Each plate is wrapped around a nail and curses a single
person – in the example given here, an individual named Plotius. Each of the five follows
the same wording, so that gaps in the curse against Plotius can be filled in from the other
plates. They date to the first century BC (between about 80 and 40 BC). These five curses
are all inscribed by the one hand.

1614 Lucius Harines, son of Herius Maturus, Gaius Eburius, Pomponius, Marcus
Caedicius, son of Marcus, Numerius Andripius, son of Numerius. May the fancua
of them all stand straight up! May their breath be dry!

1615 To face judgement (among the dead): Naevia Secunda, freedwoman of

Lucius, or whatever name she goes under.

2520 Good and beautiful Proserpina, wife of Pluto, unless I ought to call you
Salvia (‘Saviour’), may you tear from Plotius health, body, colour, strength, vig-
our. May you deliver him over to Pluto your husband. May he not be able to avoid
this by his own devices. May you deliver him to the fourth-day, the third-day, the
every-day fever (i.e., malaria), and may they wrestle and struggle it out with him;
may they vanquish and overcome him until they tear away his life. Wherefore
10 I deliver this victim to you Proserpina, unless, Proserpina, I ought to call you
Acherousia (i.e., goddess of the underworld). May you send, I pray, someone to
summon the three-headed dog to tear out Plotius’ heart. Promise that you will
give him three victims, dates, dried figs, a black pig, if he should have finished
before the month of March. These things, Proserpina Salvia, I will give you when
you have gratified my wish. I give you the head of Plotius, (slave) of Avonia,
20 Proserpina Salvia, I give you Plotius’ forehead, Proserpina Salvia, I give you
Plotius’ eyebrows, Proserpina Salvia, I give you Plotius’ eyelids, Proserpina
Salvia, I give you Plotius’ pupils, Proserpina Salvia, I give you Plotius’ nostrils,
lips, ears, nose, tongue, teeth, so Plotius may not be able to say what pains him;
his neck, shoulders, arms, fingers, so he may not be able to help himself in any
way; 30 his chest, liver, heart, lungs, so he may not be able to feel what gives
him pain; his intestines, stomach, navel, sides, so he may not be able to sleep; his
shoulder-blades, so he may not be able to sleep soundly; his testicles, so he may
not be able to urinate; his buttocks, anus, thighs, knees, shanks, shins, feet, ankles,
soles, toes, nails, so he may not be able to stand by his own strength. Should there
have been written, 40 whether great or small, any curse, in whatever way Plotius

146
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
has properly (i.e., according to the laws of magic) written anything (i.e., against
me) and committed it, thus I deliver Plotius to you, and commit him that you may
deliver and commit that fellow in the month of February. Damn him!, to hell with
him!, damn him utterly! May you commit him, may you hand him over, so he may
not be able to see, look on or regard any month further!

3.70 Cato the Elder On Farming 160: Ritual nonsense performs a cure
Pliny Nat. Hist. 28.20 refers to magical prayers with ‘foreign unpronounceable words’.
Alternative spellings for the incomprehensible words in Cato’s spell are given in different
manuscripts.

In case of dislocation it may be cured by the following spell. Take a green reed 4 or
5 feet long and split it down the middle, and let two men hold it to their hips. Begin
to chant, ‘motas vaeta daries dardares astataries dissunapiter’ and continue until the
pieces meet (another manuscript has ‘motas vaeta daries dardaries asiadarides una
petes’). Brandish a knife over the pieces and, when they meet so that one touches
the other, grasp with the hand and cut at right and left. Bind it to the dislocation or
fracture and it will heal. And meanwhile chant every day in the following way in the
case of a dislocation, ‘huat haut haut istasis tarsis ardannabou dannaustra’ (another
manuscript has ‘huat haut haut ista pista sista dannabo dannaustra’).

FESTIVALS
Calendars recorded the dates of festivals and the deities so honoured. The range of gods
covered the whole array of the Roman pantheon, from the mighty Jupiter himself to the
deity of rust; for women’s festivals, see docs 7.75–82.

3.71 Accius Annals 2–7: The origins of the Saturnalia

Lucius Accius was born in 170 BC at Pisaurum in Umbria. He states that the annual Roman
festival of the Saturnalia began in Greece. However, Saturn is an Italian and Roman deity,
his name deriving from satus: sowing. His festival commenced on 17 December and lasted
for several days. Even the parsimonious Cato the Elder issued extra rations to his farm
personnel for the festival (doc. 6.36).

Most of the Greeks, and especially Athens, celebrate a festival

In honour of Saturn, which by them is known as the Cronia;
In celebration of this day, through all the fields and cities,
They joyfully hold feasts, and each man waits upon
His own slaves; that same custom has been handed down from there to us,
So that here, too, slaves feast with their masters.

3.72 Livy History of Rome 9.30.5–10: Secession of the flute-players

This incident took place in 311 BC when Rome was concluding a war with the Samnites.
For the role of flute-players at sacrifices, see doc. 3.26. The ‘period of three days’ was the
festival of the flute-players celebrated each year on 13–15 June.

147
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
5 I would have passed over an incident of the same year as being hardly worthy
of mention, had it not seemed to concern religion. The flute-players, annoyed
at having been forbidden by the last censors to hold their feast in the temple of
Jupiter according to ancient custom, headed off in a body to Tibur, with the result
that there was no one in the city to play at sacrifices. 6 Concerned by the religious
implications of the incident, the senate sent delegates to Tibur requesting them to
try to return the men to Rome. 7 The Tiburtines courteously promised to do so,
summoned them to the senate house and urged them to return; when they were
unable to persuade them, they handled them with a measure not inappropriate to
their natural disposition. 8 On a public holiday, various people invited some of
them home on the pretext of celebrating the feast with music, loaded them with
wine (to which that type of man is generally well disposed) and got them off to
sleep. 9 In this condition they threw them into carts, still fast asleep, and carried
them off to Rome. The carts were left in the forum and the players knew nothing
about it until daylight found them there – still inebriated. 10 The people then gath-
ered round and prevailed with them to stay, and they were permitted to wander the
city in festive dress for a period of three days a year, making music and enjoying
the licence which is now customary, while those who played at sacrifices were
given back the right of feasting in the temple. This happened at a time of anxiety
over two serious wars.

3.73 Festus 190: The October horse

Two-horse chariot races were held on the Ides of October (15 October) in honour of Mars.
The head was presumably a symbol of fertility, and, as well as ensuring prosperity
for the coming year, the festival marked the end of the campaigning season. The
regia was the house of the pontifex maximus at the edge of the forum. The sacred rite
might be the Parilia, celebrated on 21 April. This is the only documented example of a
horse sacrifice in Rome; cf. Plut. Rom. Quest. 97.

The October Horse is so called from the annual sacrifice to Mars in the Campus
Martius during the month of October and is the victorious team’s right-hand horse
in the two-horse chariot races. It was customary for there to be a competition for
its head between the residents of the Suburra and those of the Sacra Via, which
was taken very seriously. The winners, if the latter, would attach it to the wall of
the Regia or, if the former, the Mamilian tower. Its tail was taken to the Regia so
speedily that the blood from it could be dripped onto the hearth to become part of
the sacred rite.

3.74 Ovid Fasti 4.905–42: A dog sacrifice for mildew

The Robigalia (from Robigus or Robigo, the deity of mildew or grain rust) was celebrated
on 25 April. The flamen Quirinalis is propitiating the malevolent force of Robigus by pre-
siding over a sacrifice, after first invoking him and offering a prayer. The festival took
place on the Via Claudia, at the fifth milestone; the dog-star is Sirius.

148
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
905 On that day, as I was returning to Rome from Nomentum,
A crowd of people in white robes blocked the middle of the road.
A flamen was going to the grove of ancient Mildew,
To give to the flames the entrails of a dog and a sheep.
I immediately went closer to learn about the ritual.
910 Your flamen, Quirinus, pronounced these words:
‘Harsh Mildew, spare the sprouting grain,
And let their smooth tips quiver on the surface of the ground.
Allow the crops, nurtured by the stars of a propitious sky,
To grow until they become ready for the sickles.
Your power is not slight: the corn, which you have marked,
The farmer sadly gives up as lost.
Neither winds, nor rain storms harm the corn,
Nor the marble-like frost which whitens the brown grain,
As much as does the sun when it warms the wet stalks:
920 Then is the time, dread deity, for you to show your anger.
Spare, I pray, and keep your scabby hands off our harvests.
Do not harm our fields: it is enough that you have the power to do so.
Grasp not tender crops, but hard iron.
First destroy anything which can destroy others.
You will more profitably devour swords and harmful weapons:
There is no need of them – the world is at peace.
Let the hoes and hard mattock and the curved ploughshare,
The farm equipment, shine brightly: but let rust stain weapons,
And when someone tries to pull a sword from its sheath,
930 Let him feel it stick from long disuse.
But do not pollute the corn, and may the farmer always
Be able to offer prayers to you in your absence.’
Thus he spoke: from his right hand hung a loosely woven napkin
And he had a bowl of wine and a casket of incense.
On the fire he placed the incense, wine, sheep’s entrails,
And the foul guts of a disgusting dog – we saw him.
Then to me he said: ‘Do you ask why these rites are assigned an unusual
victim?’
I had asked that. ‘Learn the reason’, said the flamen.
‘There is a Dog, which they call the Icarian dog, and when that star rises
940 The earth is scorched and dry, and the crops ripen too early.
This dog is put on the altar in place of the starry dog,
And the only reason for this is his name.’

RELIGION AND POLITICS

Roman state religion was dominated by the elite, as shown by Polybius, who suggests that
religion could be manipulated to keep the ‘masses’ in check (doc. 3.76). The most fre-
quently manipulated area of religion was divination, because an unfavourable declaration

149
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
of omens by the presiding magistrate could terminate meetings of the assembly and could
stop elections in the comitia centuriata; see docs 12.43, 54.

3.75 Plutarch Life of Cato the Younger 42.1, 4–5: Pompey’s and the
auspices in 55 BC
While presiding over the elections of praetors for 54, Pompey as consul in 55 BC obstructed
the election of Cato by claiming to have heard thunder. Similarly, M. Calpurnius Bibulus
as consul in 59 BC had attempted to obstruct legislation by his colleague, Julius Caesar,
through proclaiming that the omens were unfavourable (doc. 12.43).

1 Cato would not back down, but came forward as a candidate for the praetorship,
wanting to have a base of operations for his conflicts against them (Pompey and
Crassus) . . . 4 When the first tribe called forward voted for him, Pompey suddenly
lied and proclaimed that he heard thunder and then disgracefully dissolved the
assembly (since they were accustomed to consider such things as inauspicious and
not to ratify anything after a divine sign had occurred). 5 They then resorted again
to immense bribery, drove the best citizens from the assembly, and so, by force, got
Vatinius elected praetor instead of Cato.

3.76 Polybius Histories 6.56.6–12: The political uses of religion

The Roman aristocrats themselves considered that religion was crucial, not for keeping
the common people under control but for the state’s survival. The Romans’ relations
with the gods, as expressed in sacrifices and festivals and the expiation of prodigies,
assured the support of the gods for Rome’s supremacy.

6 But it is in religious belief that the Roman commonwealth seems to me to be

vastly superior (to other states). 7 I believe that what is an object of derision among
other peoples, namely superstition, is actually the element that holds the state
together; 8 for these matters are treated with such pomp, and introduced to such
an extent into both public and private life, that they have a place of pre-eminence.
This may seem remarkable to many people. 9 My view is that this practice has
been adopted for the sake of the common people. 10 If it had been possible to form
a state composed of wise men, this approach might not have been necessary; 11
but since the common people is always easily swayed and full of lawless desires,
unreasoning anger and violent passions, the only course is to restrain the masses
through vague terrors and suchlike dramatisations. 12 For this reason I believe that
the ancients were not acting at random or haphazardly when they introduced to the
masses notions about the gods and beliefs in the underworld – rather people nowa-
days are acting at random and foolishly in throwing them out.

FUNERARY PRACTICES
See doc. 1.53 for funerary regulations in the XII Tables. The Romans of the Republic
believed that those who died joined the di manes, the shades of the deceased, and had no

150
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
particular ‘existence’ after death. They were honoured at the Parentalia festival, while at the
Lemuria festival the unburied dead were placated. The bodies of the dead and burial places
were considered polluting; the flamen dialis could not go to a cemetery or touch a corpse
but was allowed to attend funerals (doc. 3.21). Cremation became increasingly common as
the Republic progressed.

3.77 Polybius Histories 6.53.1–54.3: Funerals and politics

The public funeral procession was the preserve of the nobiles. It celebrated the deeds of
the deceased and his ancestors, reminding the public of his services to the state. The masks
(imagines) of the ancestors had a ‘conspicuous place’ in the house. They were made of wax,
and each was kept in its own wooden cupboard in the atrium of the house (cf. doc. 2.27).

53.1 Whenever one of their distinguished men dies, as part of his funeral proces-
sion he is carried with all honour into the Forum to the so-called Rostra, some-
times conspicuous in an upright position, or, more rarely, reclining. 2 With the
whole people standing around, his son, if he has one of adult age to follow him
and who happens to be present or, if not, some other relative mounts the Rostra
and discourses on the virtues of the deceased and his successful achievements
during his lifetime. 3 As a result, the populace, when such facts are recalled to
their minds and brought before their eyes – not only those who played a part in
these achievements but also those who did not – feel such deep sympathy that
the loss seems not to be confined to the mourners but to be a public one which
affects the whole people. 4 Next, after burying the body and performing the usual
ceremonies, they place the image of the deceased in the most conspicuous place
in the house, enclosed in a wooden shrine. 5 This image is a mask fashioned into
a remarkable likeness in both its modelling and its painting. 6 On the occasion of
public sacrifices, they display these masks and carefully decorate them, and when
any distinguished member of the family dies they take them to the funeral, where
they are worn by men who seem most to resemble the original in both height and
general bearing. 7 These men also wear togas with purple borders, if the deceased
had been a consul or praetor, a purple one, if a censor, and a purple one embroi-
dered with gold, if he had celebrated a triumph or performed a similar achieve-
ment. 8 They all ride in chariots with the fasces, axes and other insignia appropri-
ate to the dignity of the offices held by each in his lifetime carried before them,
and when they arrive at the Rostra 9 they all seat themselves in a row on chairs
of ivory. There could be no more edifying sight for a young man who aspires to
fame and virtue; 10 for who would not be moved by the sight of the images of
men renowned for their excellence, all together as if alive and breathing? What
spectacle could be more glorious than this?
54.1 Moreover, the speaker over the man about to be buried, when he has
finished his address on the subject of the deceased, goes on to speak of the suc-
cesses and achievements of each of the others whose images are present, begin-
ning with the oldest. 2 Through this practice, this constant renewal of the fame of
brave men, the glory of those who performed some noble deed is made immor-
tal, while the renown of those who served their country well becomes common

151
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
knowledge and a heritage for those to come. 3 But the most important conse-
quence is that young men are inspired to endure everything for the common good
for the sake of winning the glory which accompanies brave men.

3.78 ILS 6082: Regulations against cremations

This inscription, dating probably to c. 150–120 BC, is a senatus consultum concerning ‘the
hill village’ and was found on the Esquiline hill in Rome. It effectively bars cremations
from this area and so reserved it for the bodies of the poor (citizen paupers, slaves, the
bodies of executed criminals, and the like). Here the ustrinae are permanent crematoria, the
foci ustrinae causa temporary burning sites, i.e., pyres for a single corpse.

Senatus consultum concerning the hill village:

. . . and that they should take care and guard it on the decision of the aediles of
the plebs, whosoever they might be; and that there shall be no burning grounds
(ustrinae) for corpses on those sites or in the vicinity, nor hearths (foci ustrinae
causa) 5 for burning the dead, nor shall those who have rented these sites from
the mountain village choose to make dung-heaps or throw dirt within those
sites, and if anyone shall have made dung-heaps or thrown dirt in these sites,
there shall be (a fine of ) . . . sesterces, his property shall be confiscated and
pledges taken.

3.79 CIL 12 2123: Presentation of burial sites (except for gladiators)

A stone tablet found at Sassina in Umbria. Burial sites of a specified size could be chosen
while one was still alive; descendants could use the plot.

. . . Horatius Balbus, son of . . . , to his fellow townsmen and other residents, at

his own expense gives burial sites, except for gladiators and those who strangled
themselves with their own hand and those who 10 followed an unclean profession:
to each a site 10 feet in front and 10 feet in depth between the bridge over the
Sapis and the upper monument which is on the edge of the Fangonian estate. In
those places where no one has been buried, anyone who wishes shall make a tomb
for himself while still alive. In those places where someone has been buried, 20
it will be permitted to have a monument only for him who has been buried there
and his descendants.

3.80 CIL I2 1578: Funerary feast for a father, c. 60 BC

L. Papius Pollio set up this inscription as a memorial to his father. Though in Italian towns
there could be praetors or consuls, it was normal for there to be a duoviri iure dicundo, a
‘Board of Two for pronouncing justice’; see doc. 2.11, cf. 2.80. Gladiatorial shows were
originally given at funerals: see docs 2.78–79.

152
 RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
Lucius Papius Pollio, son of Lucius, of the Teretine tribe, member of the Board of
Two, in honour of his father Lucius Papius, son of Lucius, of the Falernian tribe,
gave a feast of mead and pastry to all the colonists of Sinuessa and Caedex and a
gladiatorial show and a dinner to the colonists at Sinuessa and the Papii. He set
up a memorial at the cost of 12,000 sesterces 5 by the will and testament (of his
father) and with the approval of Lucius Novercinius Pollis, of the Pupinian tribe,
son of Lucius.

3.81 Cicero On the Laws 2.57: Inhumation practices

‘The same fate’ which Cicero refers to here is Sulla’s scattering of Marius’ remains in the
River Anio. Before Sulla, the Cornelii had been inhumed.

Maybe it was because he was afraid that the same fate might happen to his body
that Sulla, for the first time among the patrician Cornelii, instructed that he be cre-
mated. For Ennius says about Africanus, ‘Here he is laid.’ And correctly; for ‘laid’
is used of those who are buried. But their place of burial is not a grave until the
proper rites are performed and the pig slaughtered. And the term now in general
use for all who are buried, that they are interred, was then restricted to those bod-
ies where earth was thrown on and covered them, and pontifical law confirms this
custom. For, until a clod of earth is thrown onto the bones, the place where a body
is cremated has no religious character; when the clod is thrown on, the burial has
taken place and it is called a grave, and from that point many sacred laws protect
it. And so, in the case of a person who has died on a ship and has then been thrown
into the sea, Publius Mucius (Scaevola) proclaimed his family free from pollution,
because none of the bones lay above the earth; but his heir had to provide the sow,
and a holiday of three days had to be kept.

3.82 Crawford RRC 385.1: The temple of Jupiter Capitolinus

This denarius of 78 BC depicts the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, which had burned down
during Sulla’s capture of the city in 83 BC.

Obverse: Head of Jupiter, facing right, with laurel wreath.

Reverse: Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. The temple is shown with three closed
doors between four columns; Jupiter’s thunderbolt is shown in the temple’s
pediment. The three doors are the entrances to the three cellas (chambers), each
devoted to one to the Capitoline triad: Jupiter, Juno and Minerva.

153
 4

The Punic Wars: Rome against Carthage

Rome fought three great wars against the Phoenician city of Carthage in Africa:
the First (264–241 BC), the Second (218–201 BC) and the Third Punic War (149–
146 BC), which ended with the total destruction of Carthage and the enslavement
of its inhabitants in 146 BC, the same year as the Roman destruction of Corinth.
The Carthaginians were Phoenicians, Poeni, hence the term ‘Punic’ Wars. The out-
break of the First Punic War in 264 BC marks the beginning of the Middle Republic.
This is because the First Punic War was a watershed in Roman history and dramati-
cally altered Rome. Before the war, Rome dominated Italy but had no overseas
possessions: the intervention in Sicily was in fact the first time that the Romans
had sent an army overseas. By the end of the Punic Wars, a century later, Rome
had possessions in the Mediterranean and was embarked on a round of conquests
that continued unabated to the end of the Republic. The First Punic War began the
process of territorial expansion; by 146 Rome’s chief rival was destroyed, and the
Romans had possession of Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Carthaginian Africa, parts of
Spain and, through activities in the eastern Mediterranean, Illyria, Macedonia and
Epirus, with de facto control of Greece. Rome was transformed from the dominant
city in Italy into the main Mediterranean power, while in the first century BC it
would go on to conquer the Greek East.
Carthage was a colony of Tyre, founded about 814 BC, in modern Tunisia,
near the city of Tunis. Phoenician ships had been cruising the Mediterranean
since about 1000 BC, trading wherever they could. Legend has it that the Libyans
offered Elissa, or Dido, the amount of land which an ox-hide could cover: she cut
it into very thin strips to encompass more land than the Libyans had bargained for
and founded Carthage. The city was ideally positioned, with an eastern peninsula
of hills protecting its two harbours. Being strategically situated, it prospered, and
it in turn sent out its own colonies; by 246 BC Carthage controlled the North
African coastline from Cyrene, a Greek colony, to the Atlantic, as well as western
Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. In the sixth century, in Sicily, the Carthaginians and
the Greek colonies, which had been established since the eighth century, became
rivals, while Sardinia and Corsica (in neither of which the Greeks had an inter-
est) became Carthaginian. Southern Spain was dominated by Carthage by around
500 BC, and after the First Punic War the Carthaginians extended and tightened
their control there. The Carthaginian colonies were established primarily for trade

154
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
but often involved, as at Carthage, the political and economic domination of the
neighbouring indigenous inhabitants. Tribute was levied from the peoples the
Carthaginians dominated, and this was a marked difference between Carthage and
Rome, though the Romans did levy troops from the Latin allies. The Carthaginian
army was made up of their Libyan subjects and mercenaries, again in contrast to
Rome; despite this, these troops were generally loyal and in Spain and in Italy
proved a match for the Romans. At the beginning of the First Punic War, the
Carthaginians had both ships and elephants; the Romans had neither but soon
had a navy that eclipsed that of the Carthaginians, who were primarily a maritime
power, unlike the Romans, who had previously had no experience at sea.
As evidenced by the three treaties between Rome and Carthage (docs 4.1–3), the
relationship between the two cities had been amicable, but once Rome had gained
control of southern Italy, including Rhegium, the city across the straits from the
island of Sicily, conflict was inevitable. The First Punic War was not sought by
either side; rather, it was the result of the escalation of a situation which arose quite
fortuitously. The Mamertines, a band of mercenaries from Campania, had gained
control of Messana, near the north-eastern tip of Sicily, from which they plundered
the north-eastern part of the island (doc. 4.7). When they were opposed by Pyrrhus
and Hiero II of Syracuse, they appealed first to Carthage, which installed a garrison,
and then to Rome. When the Romans expelled the Carthaginian garrison, Carthage
and Hiero united against Messana, and Appius Claudius Caudex (cos. 264) was sent
by Rome to raise the siege, after which Rome proceeded to besiege Syracuse. This
was the first military expedition made by Rome outside of Italy, and the Romans
clearly intended to challenge any further expansion on the part of Carthage and gain
possession of as much of the island as possible. Concerned for her possessions there,
Carthage then sent an army into Sicily, which was defeated by the Romans, who
besieged and violently sacked Agrigentum, Carthage’s ally. After inconclusive con-
flict on land, the Romans decided in 261 that they had need of a fleet to challenge
Carthage’s supremacy at sea. In 260 they constructed a fleet of 100 quinqueremes
equipped with ‘ravens’, which enabled them to board enemy ships without endan-
gering their own, with which Duilius won the battle at Mylae (docs 4.8–10). The
Romans’ practical genius had involved the potential rowers practising on dry land
prior to taking to sea (doc. 4.8).
When events in Sicily appeared to have resulted in a stalemate, the Romans
decided to invade Africa (doc. 4.11). To prevent this, the Carthaginians met
them in 256 at a great naval battle off Ecnomus in eastern Sicily. Roman vic-
tory ensured that the invasion would go ahead, but after an initial success the
army led by the consul M. Regulus Atilius was cut to pieces in 255 by a force of
Carthaginian mercenaries led by the Spartan general Xanthippus with the help of
a contingent of elephants, while, following this defeat, much of Rome’s fleet was
destroyed by bad weather off Camarina (doc. 4.13). Again, after a victory over
the Carthaginian navy and the capture of Panormus, the Roman fleet was mostly
destroyed in a storm in 253 after a raid on Africa; a further fleet was annihilated
in 249 at Drepana (apparently because the consul, P. Claudius Pulcher, refused
to pay attention to the warning of the sacred chickens). The Carthaginians, after

155
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
recovering from the Roman invasion of Africa and the effect it had in deterring
their allies from participating, sent reinforcements to Sicily in 251, while the
impact the elephants had had on the Roman army in Africa led to their employ-
ment in Sicily and deterred the Romans from fixed battles, though Rome besieged
the city of Lilybaeum from 251 to 240 (docs 4.14–16). With both sides nearing
exhaustion, Hamilcar Barca (father of Hannibal) took command in Sicily, wag-
ing guerilla warfare on the Romans until 243, when the latter once again com-
mitted themselves to naval warfare. In 243, using contributions from wealthy
citizens, they raised another fleet, which, led by C. Lutatius Catulus, defeated the
Carthaginians in 241 (doc. 4.16). Hamilcar was instructed to negotiate a peace,
and the Carthaginians evacuated Sicily, which thus became Rome’s first overseas
province (except for the kingdom of Syracuse). In reparation, Carthage agreed to
pay an indemnity of 3,200 talents over a ten-year period (doc. 4.17).
Carthage took some time to recover from the defeat, especially as its mercenar-
ies, not having been paid, were in a state of revolt. When Rome decided to extend
its control over Sardinia, which provided much of Carthage’s grain, Carthage in
return decided to push further into Spain to secure its silver mines, with the com-
mand given to Hamilcar and, after his death in 229, to his son-in-law Hasdrubal.
By 226 Hasdrubal had reached the River Ebro, which he gave an undertaking
to the Romans not to cross. When in 221 Hannibal took control and took the city
of Saguntum in 219 with the approval of Carthage, war was inevitable. Polybius
argues that the siege of Saguntum and the crossing of the Ebro were only the begin-
nings of the war, not its causes, and claims that the agenda of the Barca family,
the resentment of the Carthaginains over the peace terms of the First Punic War,
and Carthaginain successes in Spain were in fact what provoked the Second Punic
War (docs 4.22–28). Rome decided to react to the issue of Saguntum by declar-
ing war, and after a confrontational embassy to Carthage it was agreed that it was
inevitable (doc. 4.29). While Roman sources tend to ascribe the war to Hannibal’s
hatred of Rome and imply that it was undertaken on his own initiative, it is clear that
Hannibal sought advice from Carthage over the Saguntum issue and that, at the time
of Rome’s declaration of war in 218, he had not yet crossed the Ebro.
With war declared, the consuls took command of their armies, P. Cornelius
Scipio taking charge of the army in Spain and Ti. Sempronius Longus leaving
for Africa to ensure the Carthaginians had no time to reinforce their troops in
Europe. While the normal procedure would have been to take ship for Italy,
Hannibal, who left his brother Hasdrubal in Spain, defied expectation by lead-
ing his army, including some 37 elephants, across the Alps. Longus was recalled
and Scipio left his brother Gnaeus in charge in Spain, returning to Italy by sea to
confront Hannibal, who crossed the Alps in about 15 days and began besieging
cities in Cisalpine Gaul. While sources argue about the number of troops he lost
en route, after his arrival in Italy Hannibal commanded some 40,000 infantry and
10,000 cavalry: Polybius takes issue with historians who magnify the numbers
and difficulty involved (doc. 4.31). When the armies met, Hannibal was victori-
ous at Ticinus in November 218 and again at the River Trebia against an army
commanded by both consuls. Now in command of northern Italy, the consuls of

156
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
217, C. Flaminius and Gn. Servilius Geminus, were sent to check his approach.
Flaminius was trapped in an ambush at Lake Trasimene in June 217 and killed in
battle. Of the Roman army, 15,000 men were lost and 10,000 captured, suppos-
edly because, as a novus homo, Flaminius had neglected the auspices (doc. 4.32).
As a result of the magnitude of this disaster, the Romans appointed a dictator,
Q. Fabius Maximus ‘Cunctator’ (‘Delayer’; doc. 4.34). Hannibal then proceeded
south to Campania and Samnium, while Fabius shadowed him but avoided bat-
tle, allowing him to plunder Italian cities. However, in 216, at Cannae in Apulia,
Hannibal forced the Roman army, again led by two consuls, into meeting him
and annihilated it: 70,000 Romans were killed and 10,000 captured, whom Rome
refused to ransom (docs 4.35–37). Emergency measures at Rome now included
human sacrifice in the Forum Boarium following the conviction of two Vestals
for unchastity and, instead of ransoming captured soldiers, the unprecedented pur-
chase of 8,000 slaves to serve in the army. Businessmen at Rome in 215 were
also asked to make loans to the state to help supply the army in Spain (doc. 4.38,
40). Much of southern Italy, including Capua, now defected to Hannibal, though
central Italy and the colonies remained loyal to Rome. Hannibal achieved little
over the next three years (215–213), although he made an alliance with Philip of
Macedon in 215 (doc. 4.45), but in 212 he took Tarentum, which led other Greek
cities to defect. His attempt to relieve the siege of Capua by threatening Rome was
unsuccessful, and he was increasingly pushed south, with Rome regaining Capua
in 211 and Tarentum in 209 (docs 4.41–44).
In Spain the Scipio brothers managed successfully to prevent reinforcements
reaching Hannibal, capturing Saguntum in 211, but both died in battle, while
in Italy Hannibal managed to ambush the Roman army in Lucania in 208, and
both consuls, M. Claudius Marcellus, who had recaptured both Syracuse and
Tarentum, and T. Quinctius Crispus, were killed (docs 4.46–48). Roman suc-
cesses continued in Spain, with the younger Scipio (Africanus) capturing New
Carthage in 209 and defeating Hasdrubal at Baecula in 208: Scipio was only 24
years of age and a private citizen but had been given consular imperium for the
purposes of this campaign. Hasdrubal slipped into Italy in 207 with the intention
of joining up with Hannibal, but was defeated and killed at the Metaurus River in
June (docs 4.49–50): Hannibal no longer had any hopes of reinforcements, and
Scipio drove the Carthaginians from Spain in 206. Scipio, who, despite the suc-
cesses of Fabius’ strategy, has generally been viewed as the Roman commander
primarily responsible for the defeat of Hannibal, crossed to Africa in 204 with a
relatively small force on account of Fabius’ opposition (doc. 4.52) and defeated
the Carthaginians twice in 203. Hannibal, who had remained in southern Italy,
was now recalled to Carthage and was comprehensively defeated at Zama in 202,
after which he persuaded the Carthaginians to make terms (docs 4.53–55). Scipio
celebrated a triumph (doc. 4.59), and Carthage retained its possessions in Africa
but had to surrender its fleet, prisoners of war and elephants and undertake not to
rearm or make war without Rome’s permission, as well as pay 10,000 talents in
indemnities (doc. 4.58). Hannibal became chief magistrate (suffete) of Carthage
and attempted to reorganise the city’s finances so that Carthage could pay off the

157
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
war indemnity, but was accused by his opponents of intriguing with Antiochus III
of Syria. In 195 he fled to Antiochus, whom he encouraged to make war against
Rome, and then to Prusias of Bithynia, and took poison in 183 or 182 rather than
be surrendered to Rome.
Carthage had been weakened but quickly recovered, and this, together with
Hannibal’s anti-Roman activities, became of concern to Rome, and a pro-war
faction began to emerge there. Masinissa of Numidia, Rome’s ally, continually
encroached on Carthaginian territory, and when Carthage complained to Rome
a fact-finding embassy, which included Cato the Elder, was sent in 153. Cato in
particular was concerned at how prosperous Carthage had become (doc. 4.61),
and when Carthage, unsuccessfully, declared war on Masinissa in 150, in contra-
vention of the peace treatry, this provided the excuse for Rome to declare war in
149. While the Carthaginians were prepared to surrender ‘to the faith of Rome’,
they were not prepared to abandon their city or settle 10 miles from the sea, and
the consuls, M. Manius Manilius and L. Marcius Censorinus, were sent to Africa
to begin the war. Little was achieved, and to expedite the campaign P. Cornelius
Scipio Aemilianus, the son of L. Aemilus Paullus but adopted by P. Cornelius
Scipio, the son of Scipio Africanus, was elected consul for 147, although he had
not yet held the praetorship and was several years underage (doc. 4.62). Scipio
walled off the city and harbour and finally took Carthage by storm under horrific
conditions for the inhabitants, calling on its gods to abandon the Carthaginians
and remove to Rome (docs 4.63–64, 3.58). The city was destroyed, its territory
became the Roman province of Africa, and 50,000 people were taken into slav-
ery. While traces of Carthaginian culture lingered in the Mediterranean (doc.
4.65), a great commercial empire and civilisation had been destroyed to quieten
Roman paranoia. Following the sack of Carthage, Scipio Aemilianus celebrated
his triumph, and both he and Rome moved on to yet further conquests across the
Mediterranean (doc. 5.53).
The three Punic Wars were not an ideological struggle between different cul-
tures and societies. If Rome had not won, Carthage would probably have dom-
inated the Mediterranean. Its imperial system was no better or worse than the
Roman; its culture was in significant respects materially richer and it had its own
literature, which has not survived. Rome won, and the Mediterranean’s history
went one way rather than the other. If Hannibal had won, whether that history
under Carthage would have been any worse or less successful – or even less
bloodthirsty – will never be known.
Ancient sources: it can be no coincidence that it was in the period of the
Punic Wars that the Romans began to write their history: there was clearly a sense
that Rome’s achievements were worth recording. The basic sources for the Punic
Wars are Polybius and Livy, who drew on him. Other sources used by Polybius,
such as Philinus and Fabius Pictor (see docs 4.4–5, 21), have not survived.
For the First Punic War, the basic narrative is Polybius Book 1. There are
also the fragments of both Diodorus 22–4 and Dio 9–11. Livy’s account survives
only in the Periochae 12–19. Philinus of Acragas (Latin: Agrigentum; modern
Agrigento) in Sicily, who appears to have been a contemporary witness, wrote

158
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
a history, which does not survive, in Greek of the First Punic War. He favoured
the Carthaginians, understandably given the Roman treatment of his own city.
Polybius clearly had access to his account (see doc. 4.4). Naevius’ Latin epic The
Song of the Punic War (Carmen belli Poenici; doc. 4.18) on the First Punic War is
mainly lost; Naevius served with the army at the close of the war.
The main surviving accounts of the Second Punic War are those of Polybius
Books 3–4 and 7–15 and Livy 21–30 (Books 11–20 are lost): note Ridley 2000.
Diodorus 25.15–27.18 and Appian Spanish Wars (Iberike) 1–37, Hannibalic Wars
and Punic Wars (Libyka) 1–66 are also relevant. Various other histories no longer
survive: the Romans Fabius Pictor and L. Cincius Alimentus both wrote in Greek
and were contemporaries of the Second Punic War; Polybius drew on Fabius but
tended to be critical of his work (see doc. 4.21). Cato, in his lost Origines, dealt with
the Second Punic War (incidentally the first history of Rome to be written in Latin),
concerning which one sentence survives (Astin 1978: 211–39). Quintus Ennius
(239–169 BC), in his poetic Annals, covered the foundation of Rome down to his
own day; Parts 7–9 of the Annals dealt with the Second Punic War. He stressed the
role of the gods in Rome’s constant expansion. Cornelius Nepos (c. 110–24 BC)
also wrote biographies (which survive) of Hannibal and Hamilcar, and Plutarch of
Fabius Maximus and Marcellus. Two Greek authors, Sosylus of Sparta and Silenus
of Caleacte, both accompanied Hannibal on campaign (Nepos Hannibal 13.3) and
presumably had a pro-Carthaginian viewpoint. They were stigmatised by Polybius
as not historical but as retailing the gossip of the barber’s shop (3.20.5; FGrH 176
& 177). It is a great loss, as with Philinus’ history of the First Punic War, not to have
these perspectives. For other references in the ancient sources to these lost accounts,
see Walbank I.64–5, 333; Rich 1996: 3–14; Lancell 1998: 25–8; Daly 2002: 17–25.
For the Third Punic War, Polybius was an eye-witness to the destruction of
Carthage, but unfortunately his narrative of this event is largely lost (36.1–8, 16;
38.19–22). In addition, nothing of major substance survives from Diodorus and
Dio, and Livy’s account survives only in the Periochae (47–51). Appian Punic
Wars (Libyka) 74–135 is therefore a crucial account (doc. 4.63), especially as he
probably used Polybius’ lost eye-witness account. Cato the Elder’s role is narrated
by Plutarch Cato the Elder (Cato Mai.) 26–7 (doc. 4.61). On the whole, then, the
sources are written from the Roman point of view: the Punic side of events is lost.
While Polybius could be critical of individual Romans, his perspective is none-
theless a Roman one. But his account is credible and reliable and certainly lacks
the enthusiastic pro-Roman stance of Livy. For Polybius as a source for the wars:
Walbank I.27–9; Lazenby 1996: 2–6; Goldsworthy 2000: 19–23.
This chapter is not a narrative history (which is detailed and complex) of the
Punic Wars or a discussion of internal politics at Rome in this period.

ROME’S TREATIES WITH CARTHAGE: 508, 348, 279 BC

Polybius gives the details of three treaties between Rome and Carthage, from the year of
the first consuls (509/8) and from 348 and 279 BC. These treaties, in which Rome appears
to be the junior partner, safeguarded Carthaginian interests: it is clear that trading interests

159
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
were crucial to them. In signing these treaties Rome indicated that its interests were land-
bound in the Italian peninsula and that there was an absence of a Mediterranean focus or
any conception of sea-power at Rome.

4.1 Polybius Histories 3.22.1–23.6: The treaty of 508 BC

This treaty of ‘friendship between the Romans and the Romans’ allies and between the
Carthaginians and the Carthaginians’ allies’ is not mentioned by Livy (7.27.2; cf. Diod.
16.69.1), but its authenticity is guaranteed by Polybius’ reference to the text being in an
‘ancient’ form of Latin and difficult to understand. The kings were expelled in 509/8, and
the newly inaugurated Republic may well have been renewing an existing treaty between
the kings and Carthage, or the fledgling state may have felt it needed friends. Certainly at
this stage Carthage was the more powerful: Carthage regulates Roman trading within its
own sphere of interest, and in turn Rome receives a guarantee that Carthage will not inter-
fere with Latin towns.

22.1 The first treaty between Rome and Carthage dates to the consulship of
Lucius Junius Brutus and Marcus Horatius, the first consuls instituted after the
expulsion of the kings, and by whom the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was
founded. 2 This was 28 years before Xerxes’ crossing to Greece. 3 I have
recorded below as accurate an interpretation as I can. For the difference between
the ancient language and that of the Romans today is such that only some of it
can be made out by the most intelligent men through careful examination. 4 The
treaty is basically as follows: ‘On these terms there is to be friendship between
the Romans and the Romans’ allies and between the Carthaginians and the
Carthaginians’ allies: 5 the Romans and the Romans’ allies are not to sail with
long ships beyond the Fair Promontory 6 unless forced by storm or by enemies;
if anyone should be forcibly carried beyond it, he is not permitted either to buy
or to take anything except for the repair of the ship or for sacrifice, 7 and shall
leave within five days. 8 Those coming for trade shall do no business except in
the presence of a herald or official secretary. 9 The price of whatever is sold
in their presence shall be owed to the seller by the guarantee of the state, if sold
in Libya or Sardinia. 10 If any Roman comes to the part of Sicily which is under
Carthaginian control, he shall enjoy equal rights. 11 The Carthaginians shall
do no wrong to the peoples of Ardea, Antium, Laurentium, Circeii, Terracina
or any other of the Latins who are (Roman) subjects; 12 as to those who are
not subjects, they shall keep their hands off their cities; if they take one, they
shall hand it over undamaged to the Romans. 13 They shall not build a fort in
Latium. If they enter the country as enemies, they shall not spend the night in
the country.’
23.1 The Fair Promontory is the one which lies in front of Carthage to the
north; . . . 5 From the phrasing of the treaty they show that they consider Sardinia
and Libya as their own; concerning Sicily they distinctly express themselves
otherwise, mentioning in the treaty only the parts of Sicily which are under
Carthaginian rule. 6 Similarly the Romans include only Latium in the treaty and
do not mention the rest of Italy, because it was not under their authority.

160
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
4.2 Polybius Histories 3.24.1–15: The treaty of 348 BC
This treaty of friendship is not dated by Polybius but is probably the same as the one which
Livy and Diodorus date to 348, and which they incorrectly regarded as the first treaty. As
in the treaty of 508, the Carthaginian sphere of interest is clear. Sicily is still only partly
in Carthaginian hands, while Carthaginian territory in Libya has increased. Mastia and
Tarseum refer not to Spain, as sometimes thought, but to places near Carthage itself; Rome
and its allies were being excluded from the western Mediterranean.

1 Later on they made another treaty, in which the Carthaginians include the
Tyrians and the people of Utica. 2 It also includes Mastia and Tarseum, in addi-
tion to the Fair Promontory, as places beyond which the Romans may not either
plunder or found a city. 3 The treaty is basically as follows: ‘There is to be friend-
ship on the following terms between the Romans and the Romans’ allies, and
the Carthaginians, Tyrians and Uticans and their allies. 4 The Romans shall nei-
ther plunder or trade nor found a city beyond the Fair Promontory, Mastia and
Tarseum. 5 If the Carthaginians capture any city in Latium which is not subject to
the Romans, they may keep the property and captives, but shall give up the city.
6 If any Carthaginian captures anyone who is a member of a city with a written
treaty of peace with Rome, but which is not subject to them, he may not bring
him into Roman harbours; if one should be brought in and a Roman take hold of
him (i.e., makes him his slave), he shall be set free. 7 Likewise, the Romans shall
not do this. 8 If a Roman takes water or provisions from any country which the
Carthaginians control, he shall not use these provisions to wrong anyone whose
people have a treaty of peace or friendship with the Carthaginians. 9 Likewise, the
Carthaginians shall not do this. 10 If they do so, the person shall not punish them
privately; if anyone does this, his wrongdoing shall be public. 11 No Roman shall
trade or found a city in Sardinia or Libya . . . (nor remain there) except to take
on provisions or repair his ship. If a storm take him there, he shall leave within
five days. 12 In the part of Sicily controlled by the Carthaginians and at Carthage
he may do and sell anything which is permitted to a citizen. 13 A Carthaginian
in Rome may do likewise.’ 14 Again in the treaty they lay stress on Libya and
Sardinia as their own possessions and close all means of approach to the Romans,
15 but concerning Sicily they clearly state the opposite, mentioning the part sub-
ject to them.

4.3 Polybius Histories 3.25.1–5: The treaty of 279 BC

Polybius does not date this treaty, but it is clearly the one referred to by Livy (Per. 13; Diod.
22.7.5) as being in 279/8 BC. Each side was to support the other against Pyrrhus of Epirus,
in western Greece. The Carthaginians did not want Rome making peace with Pyrrhus, who
was a principal enemy of Carthage in Sicily, for he would then be free to assist the Greek
cities in Sicily against Carthage (see doc. 1.74). The Carthaginians are therefore gener-
ous in this treaty, which is no longer concerned only with excluding the Romans from the
Carthaginian sphere of interest but offers the use of the Carthaginian navy. Roman sea-
power was clearly negligible. There were later treaties in 241 and 238 BC: Polyb. 3.27–8
(doc. 4.17).

161
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
1 The Romans made another final treaty at the time of the invasion of Pyrrhus,
before the Carthaginians had started the war for Sicily; 2 in this they maintain
everything in the existing agreements and add the following: 3 ‘If they make an
alliance with Pyrrhus, both shall make it a written condition that there shall be
provision that they shall go to the assistance of each other in the country which is
under attack; 4 whichever has the need for help, the Carthaginians shall provide
the ships for transport and attack, but each shall provide the pay for their own
men. 5 The Carthaginians shall aid the Romans by sea, if necessary. But no one
shall force the crews to land against their will.’

4.4 Polybius Histories 3.26.1–7: Historical methodology at its worst

The historian Philinus of Akragas accompanied Hannibal on campaign. Polybius rejects
Philinus’ treaty of 306 BC (3.26.3), perhaps a fabrication to put the Romans in the wrong,
as he has seen the treaties between Rome and Carthage on bronze tablets, and Philinus’
treaty is not one of them. The location of the quaestors’ treasury is unknown.

1 Since the treaties were such, and preserved as they are even today on bronze
tablets near the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in the quaestors’ treasury, 2 who
cannot reasonably be amazed at Philinus the historian, not because he is igno-
rant of them – for that is not remarkable, since even in my day the oldest of the
Romans and Carthaginians, and even those who seemed to be particularly conver-
sant with public affairs, were ignorant of them – 3 but how and on what grounds
did he think to write the exact opposite, that there was a treaty between Rome and
Carthage through which the Romans had to keep away from the whole of Sicily
and the Carthaginians from the whole of Italy, 4 and that the Romans broke the
treaty and their oath when they made their first crossing to Sicily? There is not
and never has been such a document at all. 5 But he states this in his second book
quite explicitly . . . 6 Of course, if anyone wants to criticise the Romans for their
crossing to Sicily, because they accepted the Mamertines into their friendship and
afterwards helped them in their need when they had broken their treaty not only
with Messana but also with Rhegium, his disapproval would be only reasonable.
7 But if anyone considers that they made their crossing in violation of the treaty
and their oath, he is clearly ignorant of the truth.

THE FIRST PUNIC WAR: SICILY

In doc. 4.4, Polybius indicates that the Roman crossing into Sicily to help the Mamertines
(doc. 4.7) caused the First Punic War (264–241 BC). This was the first Roman military
expedition outside Italy and it was to have enormous implications. The treaties between
Rome and Carthage proved inadequate to deal with the situation. The Romans had no
real pretext for interfering in Sicily, except perhaps for fears that Carthage might then use
an extended control of Sicily to acquire a position in Italy. Once the Romans invaded,
they quickly made up their mind to conquer the whole island, and in 23 years succeeded
in securing control of it. The main source for the First Punic War is the Greek historian
Polybius; the relevant books of Livy are lost.

162
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
4.5 Polybius Histories 1.14.1–6: Polybius’ methodology
Polybius here sets out his historical methodology, imputing bias to the Greek historian
Philinus and the Latin Fabius Pictor as being pro-Carthaginian and pro-Roman respec-
tively; while he drew on other sources, these were the most important. Fabius Pictor was
the first Roman historian and wrote in Greek, recording a history of Rome from its begin-
nings down to his own time. Elsewhere Polybius makes clear why the Punic Wars are an
attractive topic for historical writing: he can speak to and question those who participated
in the events, and he himself lived through some of them (4.2.2, 12.4c.2–5, 12.25e).

1 I have been persuaded to concentrate on this war by a factor equally important to

those already mentioned, namely that the historians considered to be the greatest
authorities on it, Philinus and Fabius (Pictor), have failed in my view to record
the truth as they should have done. 2 I do not want to imply that these men have
intentionally lied, judging from their lives and principles; but they do seem to
me to have been something in the position of people in love. 3 For, through his
convictions and partisan stance, Philinus considers that the Carthaginians acted
wisely, well and courageously in every case, and the Romans in the opposite
way, while Fabius takes a completely different view. 4 In other spheres of life
one should perhaps not rule out such favouritism, for a good man ought to love
his friends and his country and share his friends’ hatred of their enemies and their
love of their friends; 5 but, when a person takes on the role of a historian, he has to
forget everything of this sort and often speak well of his enemies and award them
the highest praises when their actions demand this, while criticising and severely
censuring his closest friends, should their errors of conduct demand this. 6 For,
just as a living creature deprived of its eyes is totally incapacitated, so, when his-
tory is deprived of truth, nothing is left but an unprofitable tale.

4.6 Polybius Histories 6.51.1–8, 52.1–6, 56.1–4: Rome versus Carthage

This passage is from Polybius’ discussion of the Roman constitution in Book 6. The ‘kings’
of Carthage were two annual officials known as suffetes; the Carthaginian senate (geron-
tion) had 300 members. Aristotle (Politics 1273a35–9) also states that at Carthage the high-
est offices were for sale, resulting in wealth being of more account than merit. ‘Although
they were totally defeated’ (51.8) refers to Cannae in 216 BC.

51.1 The Carthaginian constitution appears to me to have been originally well

designed in its general features. 2 For there were kings, and the gerontion had aris-
tocratic powers, while the people were supreme in their own sphere; the arrange-
ment of the whole system was similar to that of the Romans and Spartans. 3 But
at this time, when the Hannibalic war commenced, that of the Carthaginians was
worse and that of the Romans better . . . 5 For, just as Carthage had previously
been stronger and more prosperous than Rome, by the same degree Carthage had
now begun to decline and Rome was at its peak in its system of government. 6
As a result the people in Carthage had already taken over most of the power of
decision-making, while at Rome the senate still possessed this. 7 It was for this

163
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
reason, with the people making decisions on one side and the most distinguished
men on the other, that the Romans’ deliberations on public affairs were superior.
8 And, although they were totally defeated, they were finally victorious over the
Carthaginians in the war through their wise decision-making.
52.1 To pass to the details, such as the conduct of war to start with, the
Carthaginians are superior at sea, as is natural, both in training and in equipment,
because from olden times this practice has been their national pastime and they
have had much more to do with the sea than any other people, 2 while the Romans
are much better exponents of warfare on land than the Carthaginians. 3 For the
Romans devote themselves to this entirely, while the Carthaginians completely
neglect their infantry, though they do pay some small attention to their cavalry.
4 The reason for this is that they employ foreign and mercenary troops, while the
Romans use natives and citizens. 5 So in this respect, too, it must be admitted
that Rome’s constitution is better than that of Carthage; for Carthage has always
to place her hopes of freedom on the valour of mercenaries, but the Romans on
their own courage and the support of their allies. 6 As a result, if the Romans are
defeated at the outset, they always retrieve their defeat, but the Carthaginians the
opposite . . .
56.1 The customs and laws regarding money-making are also better at Rome
than at Carthage, 2 for at Carthage nothing is disgraceful which leads to profit,
while at Rome nothing is more disgraceful than accepting bribes and making dis-
honest gains; 3 the Romans’ approval of money-making in an honest way is no
stronger than their disapproval of profit by forbidden means. 4 Proof of this is that
at Carthage they win magistracies by open bribery, but at Rome the penalty for
this is death.

4.7 Polybius Histories 1.10.1–11.5: The Mamertines

11.2: Polybius writes of the ‘gains’ that would accrue to the Romans; by this he means the
booty and plunder, including (as it turned out) profits from the sale of the 25,000 inhabit-
ants of Agrigentum as slaves and the ransoming or enslavement of the 27,000 people of
Panormus (see doc. 6.9). The wealthier citizens who voted for war in the comitia centuriata
(to help the Mamertines, not as a vote of war against Carthage) clearly hoped to gain from
the enterprise.

10.1 The Mamertines, who had previously lost their support from Rhegium, as I
stated above, had now suffered a total defeat on their home territory for the rea-
sons I have just mentioned, and some of them had recourse to the Carthaginians,
offering to put themselves and the citadel under their protection, 2 while oth-
ers sent an embassy to Rome, offering to hand over the city and begging them
as a people of the same race to give them assistance. 3 The Romans for a long
time were undecided because of the obvious illogicality of giving them assis-
tance. 4 Only a short while earlier, the Mamertines’ fellow citizens had suffered
the ultimate penalty for breaking their treaty with the people of Rhegium, and
now to try to help the Mamertines, who had done exactly the same not only at
Messana but at Rhegium as well, was an injustice which it was hard to excuse.

164
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
5 The Romans were not unaware of this, but they saw that the Carthaginians had
subjugated not only Libya but also large parts of Spain, and that they possessed
all the islands in the Sardinian and Tyrrhenian Seas, 6 and were worried that, if
they also gained control of Sicily, they might be very difficult and formidable
neighbours, encircling them on every side and threatening every part of Italy. 7 It
seemed evident that they would soon be in control of Sicily unless the Mamertines
received assistance. For, once Messana was in their hands, 8 they would shortly
conquer Syracuse, as they were masters of nearly all the rest of Sicily. 9 As the
Romans foresaw this and considered it necessary not to abandon Messana and
allow the Carthaginians, as it were, to build a bridge for crossing to Italy, they
debated the question for a considerable time, 11.1 and the senate even in the end
did not authorise the proposal for the reasons just stated. They considered that the
illogicality of helping the Mamertines was equally balanced by the advantages of
assisting them. 2 The people, however, were worn out by recent wars and in need
of all kinds of restorative and, when the generals pointed out that the war would
be for the general good for the reasons just stated and the obvious and enormous
gains which each of them would privately incur, resolved to send assistance. 3
When the measure had been authorised by the people, they appointed one of the
consuls, Appius Claudius, as commander and ordered him to cross with assistance
to Messana. 4 The Mamertines threw out the Carthaginian general who already
held the citadel, partly by threats and partly by deception; they welcomed Appius
and placed the city in his hands. 5 The Carthaginians crucified their general, think-
ing that he lacked both judgement and courage in abandoning the citadel.

4.8 Polybius Histories 1.20.9–21.3: A Roman fleet

Appius Claudius sent a small initial force under C. Claudius to Messana and then moved
his two consular legions using ships from Rhegium and other cities. Rome was unprepared
for naval warfare, but in 261 decided to construct a fleet. Hiero, tyrant of Syracuse, agreed
to aid the Carthaginians. Appius Claudius defeated both Hiero and the Carthaginian com-
mander Hanno. Hiero came over to the Roman side, and most cities revolted from Syracuse
and Carthage and joined Rome. But the war against Hanno and the Carthaginians was to
go on until 241 BC, as Rome now aimed at the expulsion of the Carthaginians from Sicily.

20.9 Observing how the war was dragging on, the Romans then for the first time
undertook the building of ships, 100 quinqueremes and 20 triremes. 10 As the ship-
wrights were entirely inexperienced in building quinqueremes, since none of the
communities of Italy used such ships at that time, the enterprise caused them much
difficulty. 11 From this, anyone might see the spirited and reckless nature of the
Romans’ determination. 12 For it was not that they had reasonable resources for it,
but no resources at all, nor had they ever given any thought to the sea, but once they
first had the idea they undertook it so boldly that, before they had any experience at
all of the matter, they at once undertook a naval battle against the Carthaginians, who
had held undisputed command of the sea from their ancestors’ time. 13 Evidence for
the truth of what I am saying and for their unbelievable daring is this: that when they
first undertook to send their forces across to Messana, they not only had not a single

165
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
decked ship, but no warship at all, not even a single boat, 14 but they borrowed pen-
teconters and triremes from the Tarentines and Locrians, and also from the Eleans
and Neapolitans, and transported their troops across in them at considerable risk. 15
On this occasion the Carthaginians put to sea to attack them as they were crossing
the straits, and one of the decked ships (quinqueremes) advanced too far in its eager-
ness and as a result ran aground, falling into the Romans’ hands. They then used this
as a model, constructing their whole fleet along these lines, 16 so that, had this not
happened, it is clear that they would in the end have been prevented from carrying
out their plan from lack of experience. 21.1 Thereupon, those who were charged
with constructing the fleet were busy with preparation of the ships, while those
who collected the crews were teaching them to row on land in the following way.
2 Seating the men on their benches on dry land, in the same order as on their seats
on the ships themselves, and stationing the boatswain in the middle, they got them
all used to falling back together, bringing their hands back, and again to bending
forward, pushing out their hands, and to beginning and stopping these movements
at the boatswain’s orders. 3 When they had been trained, they launched the ships as
soon as they were finished and, after practising for a short time at sea, sailed along
the coast of Italy as their general had commanded.

4.9 Polybius Histories 1.22.1–11: The ‘raven’

Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Asina (cos. 260 BC) went from Messana with 17 ships to Lipara
after receiving an offer to betray the island. When the Carthaginians trapped Scipio’s fleet
in the harbour he surrendered (Polyb. 1.21.8). Despite receiving the nickname ‘Asina’
(‘donkey’), he went on to another consulship in 254 BC. As the battle of Mylae was to
prove (doc. 4.10), the Carthaginians did not know at this stage how to deal with the raven
(corvus, plural: corvi), which gave the Romans the advantage of boarding enemy ships
without damaging their own.

1 After this the Romans approached the Sicilian coastline and, when they learnt
of the disaster that had happened to Gnaeus, immediately sent a message to Gaius
Duilius (cos. 260 BC), the commander of the land force, and awaited his arrival,
2 while at the same time, hearing that the enemy’s fleet was not far away, began to
prepare to fight at sea. 3 As their ships were poorly constructed and hard to manoeu-
vre, someone suggested to them the machines which later came to be called ‘ravens’
as an aid in battle. Their construction was as follows: 4 on the prow stood a round
pole 4 fathoms in length and in width 3 palms in diameter. 5 This had a pulley at
the top and round it was put a gangway with cross planks nailed to it, 4 feet in width
and 6 fathoms in length. 6 In the gangway was an oblong hole, and it went round
the pole at a distance of 2 fathoms from its near end. The gangway also had a railing
on each of its long sides to the height of a knee. 7 At its end was fastened a piece
of iron like a pestle with a point on it with a ring at the other end, so that the whole
thing resembled machines for making bread. 8 To this ring was tied a rope with
which, when they rammed other ships, they raised the ravens by using the pulley
on the pole and let them down on the deck of the enemy ship, sometimes on the
prow and sometimes bringing them round when the ships collided side on. 9 Once
the ravens were fixed in the planks of the deck, connecting the ships together, if

166
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
they were broadside on, they boarded from all directions, but if on the prow they
attacked by passing over the raven itself two abreast; 10 the leaders covered the
front by holding up their shields, and those who followed secured the two flanks
by resting the rims of their shields on the top of the railing. 11 So, after adopting
this device, they looked out for the opportunity to fight at sea.

4.10 ILS 65: Gaius Duilius, consul 260 BC

In 260, with the Roman ships equipped with the ravens, Duilius gave command of the
army to the military tribunes and took control of the fleet (Scipio had been taken prisoner).
With the enemy ravaging Mylae on the north coast of Sicily, Duilius sailed against
the Carthaginians, commanded by Hannibal (not the Hannibal of the Second Punic War).
The Romans boarded the Carthaginian ships, and it became ‘like a land battle’ (1.23.7). The
Carthaginians surrendered or were slaughtered; the Romans had won their first naval bat-
tle, but the bulk of the Carthaginian fleet was still intact. Duilius then raised the siege of
Segesta and captured Macela.

. . . and the Segestaeans . . . he delivered from siege; and all the Carthaginian
legions and their mighty leader (Hamilcar) after nine days fled their camp in broad
daylight; and he took their town Macela 5 by storm. And, in the same command
as consul, he had a success with ships at sea, the first to do so, and he was the
first to equip and train naval crews and fleets; and with these ships he defeated
in battle on the high seas the Punic fleets and likewise all the mightiest forces
of the Carthaginians in the presence of Hannibal 10 their commander. And, by
force, he captured ships with their crews: namely, one septireme and 30 quinque-
remes and triremes, and sank 13. Captured gold: 3,600 . . . pieces. Captured sil-
ver, together with booty: 100,000 . . . pieces. 15 Total sum taken in Roman money
2,100,000 . . . He was also the first to give the people booty from a naval battle
and the first to lead free-born Carthaginians in triumph . . .

4.11 Polybius Histories 1.26.1–3: The Romans invade Africa

The Romans proved unable to press home an advantage in Sicily and resolved to defeat the
Carthaginians on their home territory, while the Carthaginians were determined to stop the
Romans getting to Africa. A great naval battle was fought at Ecnomus off eastern Sicily in
256, with the Romans, again using the ravens, victorious. This meant that the invasion, the
first of the Roman invasions of Carthaginian Africa, could go ahead.

1 The intention of the Romans was to sail to Libya and divert the war there, so
that the Carthaginians might find not Sicily, but themselves and their country in
danger. 2 The Carthaginians were resolving on doing exactly the opposite, for,
knowing that Libya was easily accessible and that all the people in the country
would be easily overcome by anyone who once invaded it, they were not able to
allow this, 3 but were eager to run the risk of fighting a naval battle.

4.12 Livy History of Rome F10: An unusual problem in Africa

The incident of the giant serpent is a curious story which does not appear in Polybius.
M. Atilius Regulus, suffect-consul, was sent to Africa in 256 (L. Manlius Vulso was the

167
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
other consul). After initial success in laying waste to Carthaginian territory, Vulso was
recalled to Rome, leaving Regulus with 40 ships, 15,000 infantry and 500 cavalry to con-
tinue the campaign into 255.

Let me also mention the serpent described equally carefully and elegantly by Titus
Livius. For he states that, in Africa at the Bagradas River, there was a snake of
such size that it prevented the army of Atilius Regulus from using the river; many
of the soldiers were seized in its huge mouth and large numbers of them crushed
by the coils of its tail, nor could it be pierced by weapons hurled at it, but, finally,
when it was attacked on all sides by missiles from catapults it collapsed under the
frequent, heavy blows from the stones and seemed to everyone, both allied troops
and legions, to be more frightful than Carthage itself. With the waters stained with
its blood and the area around polluted with the noxious smell of its dead body, it
drove the Roman camp away from there. He also says that the beast’s skin, which
measured 120 feet, was sent to Rome.

4.13 Appian The Punic Wars 1.3–4: A Spartan general

Polybius gives a different account of this battle in 255 BC, stressing the role of the ele-
phants which trampled a large part of the Roman army. An important part was also played
by the superior generalship of the Spartan Xanthippus and his outflanking tactics; Appian’s
references to ‘heat, thirst and fatigue’ are also credible. Regulus was captured and, later
in 250, sent on an embassy to Rome, keeping his word that he would return to Carthage
whatever the outcome. The Romans had not expected defeat in Africa and, after manning
a fleet in 255 BC, defeated the Carthaginian navy, captured 114 ships and rescued the
Romans still in Libya, but in Sicily a huge storm off Camarina left only 80 Roman ships
out of 364 undamaged.

3 Events began with the Sicilian war when the Romans attacked Libya with 350
ships, took several towns, and left in command Atilius Regulus (256 BC), who
captured another 200 towns, which handed themselves over to him through hatred
of the Carthaginians, and advanced, ravaging the countryside. The Carthaginians
requested a general from the Spartans, thinking that their misfortunes were due
to lack of a leader. They sent them Xanthippus, and Atilius, camped beside a
lake in the season of burning heat, marched round it against the enemy, his sol-
diers suffering severely from the weight of their weapons, heat, thirst and fatigue,
and under attack from missiles from the heights above them. As he approached
towards evening, a river separated them, and he immediately crossed the river in
order to terrify Xanthippus, but Xanthippus drew up his forces and sent them from
his camp, hoping to overcome an enemy which was exhausted and in such distress
and thinking that night would be on the side of the conquerors. Xanthippus was
not disappointed in his hope; for, of the 30,000 men led by Atilius, only a few
with difficulty escaped to the city of Aspis, while all the rest were killed or taken
prisoner. Among the prisoners was the general Atilius, the consul.
4 Not long afterwards (250 BC), the Carthaginians, tired of fighting, sent
Regulus together with their own ambassadors to Rome to obtain peace for them

168
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
or return without it; Atilius Regulus secretly urged the Roman magistrates to
continue the war with all their strength and returned to certain torture, for the
Carthaginians killed him by shutting him up in a cage full of spikes. Xanthippus’
success was the beginning of his misfortunes; the Carthaginians, in order that the
credit for the victory might not seem due to the Spartans, pretended to honour him
with numerous gifts and escorted him with galleys to Sparta, but instructed the
captains to throw him overboard with his Spartan companions. In this way he paid
the penalty for his success.

4.14 Polybius Histories 1.39.10–12: Beware of elephants

After the great success of the elephants in 255, the Carthaginians took them to Sicily:
Hasdrubal, following the destruction of the Roman fleet, crossed to Lilybaeum with 140
beasts (Polyb. 1.38.2). The Romans built a new fleet of about 200 ships and in 254 suc-
cessfully took Panormus, modern Palermo, the most important Carthaginian possession in
Sicily (1.38.7–10), confining the Carthaginians to a small part of western Sicily.

10 The Carthaginians now possessed the secure control of the sea as the Romans
had withdrawn from it, and had great hopes of their land forces. 11 This was not
unreasonable; for the Romans, when the report got round about the battle in Libya
of how the beasts had broken their ranks and killed most of their men, 12 were so
terrified of the elephants for the next two years following this period that, even
though they were often drawn up in the district of Lilybaeum or that of Selinus 5
or 6 stades from their enemy, they were never bold enough to begin a battle and
would never come down to level ground at all, through fear of the charge of the
elephants.

4.15 Appian Of Sicily and the Other Islands F1: Financial difficulties,
252 BC
By 252 the Romans controlled most of Sicily and in 256 and 253 had invaded Africa.

The Romans and Carthaginians were both at a loss for money, and the Romans
were no longer able to build ships, being exhausted by taxes, though they
raised an infantry force and sent it to Libya and Sicily year after year, while the
Carthaginians sent an embassy to Ptolemy, son of Lagus, king of Egypt, ask-
ing to borrow 2,000 talents. He was on friendly terms with both Romans and
Carthaginians and tried to reconcile them. Being unable to do so, he said that one
should help friends against enemies, but not against friends.

THE LAST YEARS

By 252–251 BC, both sides were exhausted. In 250 Hasdrubal, commander of the
Carthaginian forces, attacked Panormus with his elephants, but Rome held the city (Polyb.
1.40). The Romans then besieged Lilybaeum, a Carthaginian stronghold, which withstood
the siege from 251 to 240 (holding out beyond the treaty of 241). The Romans suffered

169
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
their only naval defeat in the First Punic War, under the consul for 249 BC, P. Claudius
Pulcher. He decided to attack the Carthaginian fleet at Drepana, setting out at night in an
(unsuccessful) attempt to avoid detection. Although the forces were evenly balanced at
first, the Carthaginians gained the upper hand: 30 Roman ships, including that of Claudius,
escaped; 93 were captured. Back at Rome, Claudius was fined: several sources, but not
Polybius, record that the sacred chickens had refused to eat before the battle, a bad omen,
so Claudius had them thrown into the sea (doc. 3.53). The other consul, L. Junius Pullus,
took charge of the fleet, which was then destroyed by a storm. The Romans now abandoned
naval warfare for several years, instead putting their hopes in the siege at Lilybaeum and
land warfare.

4.16 Polybius Histories 1.58.9–59.8: The final gamble, 243/2 BC

Under their overall commander, Hamilcar, the Carthaginians had from 249 BC kept the
Romans at bay, effectively destroying their naval power at the battle of Drepana in 249 and
maintaining control of both Drepana and Lilybaeum despite the Roman sieges. In 243 BC
the Romans decided to return to naval warfare and built another fleet.

58.9 The Romans and the Carthaginians were worn out with the hard work of cop-
ing with a succession of crises and at length began to despair, with their strength
paralysed and drained by taxes and expenses continuing over many years. 59.1
Nevertheless, the Romans, as if fighting for their lives, although for nearly five
years they had entirely withdrawn from naval operations because of the disasters
they had suffered, and because of their belief that they could win the war through
their land forces alone, 2 when they saw that their work was not progressing as
they had calculated, especially on account of the audacity of the Carthaginian
general (Hamilcar), decided for the third time to place their hopes on naval forces,
3 considering that this plan, if they could strike an opportune blow, was the only
way of putting a successful end to the war. And this they finally achieved. 4 On the
first occasion they had withdrawn from the sea, yielding to the blows of fortune;
on the second it was because of their defeat at the battle of Drepana; 5 now they
made their third attempt (at Aegusa), through which they won a victory and shut
off the Carthaginian legions at Eryx from their supply-line by sea, making a final
end to the whole war. 6 It was a struggle for existence rather than an attack. There
was no money in the treasury for the purpose; yet through the patriotism and gen-
erosity of the leading citizens funds were found to carry it out. 7 By ones, twos
and threes, according to their means, they undertook to provide a fully equipped
quinquereme, on the understanding that they would be repaid if all went well.
8 In this way 200 quinqueremes were swiftly fitted out, all of them constructed
on the model of the ‘Rhodian’ ship. The Romans then appointed Gaius Lutatius
(Catulus) as commander and sent him out at the beginning of the summer.

ROMAN SUCCESS
In 23 years, Rome had passed from having no navy to defeating the Mediterranean’s great-
est maritime people. This was partially because Rome had greater resources, rebuilding

170
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
fleets wrecked by storm, though with great financial hardship (doc. 4.16). It also had more
manpower because of her allies, who served both in the army and in the fleet as naval allies
(socii navales). Roman losses were huge: the census figures for before the war were 292,234
adult males, as against 241,212 in 247/6 BC. Naval losses in particular were enormous. All of
Sicily except for Hiero’s Syracuse now came under Roman administration in 241.

4.17 The peace treaty of 241 BC

In 241, C. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 242) besieged Drepana, as the Carthaginian fleet had
returned to Carthage. Hearing of his activities, the fleet went back to Sicily, and battle
was joined off Lilybaeum at the Aegates islands. Fifty Carthaginian ships were sunk and
70 captured. The war in Sicily was over. All of Sicily was now under the control of Rome,
which had acquired its first overseas territory.

(i) Polybius Histories 1.61.8–63.3

1.61.8 The Roman general (Lutatius) sailed away to Lilybaeum and the legions
and occupied himself with the arrangements for the captured ships and men –
a tremendous task, as the prisoners captured alive in the engagement were not
many fewer than 10,000. 62.1 After this unexpected defeat, the Carthaginians
were still prepared to continue the war under the influence of their passions and
ambition but were at a loss with regard to reasoned argument. 2 They were no
longer able to provision their forces in Sicily with the enemy in control of the
sea; and if they gave these up and, as it were, became their betrayers, they had no
other men or leaders whom they could use to continue the war. 3 For this reason
they quickly sent to (Hamilcar) Barca, giving him full powers. He acted like an
extremely good and sensible leader. 4 While there had been some reasonable hope
in events, he had omitted nothing, however reckless or dangerous, but put to the
test every hope of success in war, if ever any general did. 5 But, with fortunes
reversed, and no reasonable hope left of saving the troops under his command, he
showed his intelligence and good sense in yielding to events and sending envoys
to negotiate for peace terms. 6 For a general ought to be able to tell both when
he is victorious 7 and when defeated. Lutatius gladly accepted the proposals, as
he was aware that his side was already worn out and exhausted by the war, and he
succeeded in putting an end to the conflict in a treaty in which the terms were basi-
cally as follows: 8 ‘On the following terms there shall be friendship between the
Carthaginians and Romans, if approved by the Roman people. The Carthaginians
are to withdraw from the whole of Sicily and not make war on Hiero or bear arms
against the Syracusans or the Syracusans’ allies. 9 The Carthaginians are to hand
over to the Romans all prisoners without ransom. The Carthaginians shall pay the
Romans over 20 years 2,200 Euboic talents.’ 63.1 When these conditions were
referred to Rome, the people did not accept the treaty but sent ten men to inves-
tigate matters. 2 On their arrival, they made no great changes to the conditions
but imposed slightly more severe terms on the Carthaginians. 3 They reduced the
term of payment by half and added 1,000 talents to the sum, and demanded that
the Carthaginians withdraw from all the islands lying between Italy and Sicily.

171
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
4 This was how the war between Romans and Carthaginians over Sicily ended
and these were the peace terms, the war having lasted for 24 years continuously, 5
which is the longest, most continuous and greatest of any I have ever heard of. In
it, apart from the rest of the battles and equipment, on one occasion, as I said earlier
on, more that 500 quinqueremes in total, and on another close to 700, were engaged
in conflict with each other. 6 The Romans also lost about 700 quinqueremes in this
war, including those destroyed in shipwrecks, and the Carthaginians about 500.

(ii) Polybius Histories 3.27.1–10

3.27.1 At the end of the war for Sicily, they made another treaty, with the follow-
ing conditions: 2 ‘The Carthaginians are to withdraw from all the islands which
lie between Italy and Sicily. 3 The allies of each are to be secure from attack by
the other. 4 Neither is allowed to impose contributions, construct public buildings,
or enlist soldiers in the others’ territory, nor to make alliances with the allies of
the other. 5 The Carthaginians are to pay 2,200 talents within ten years and 1,000
immediately. 6 The Carthaginians are to hand over to the Romans all prisoners
without ransom.’ 7 Later, at the end of the Libyan war (238 BC), when the Romans
had passed a decree declaring war on the Carthaginians, they added an additional
clause to the treaty: 8 ‘The Carthaginians are to withdraw from Sardinia and pay
another 1,200 talents’, as I said above. 9 In addition to these, the last agreement
was made with Hasdrubal in Spain (226 BC) ‘That the Carthaginians are not
to cross the river Ebro in arms.’ 10 These were the official contracts between
Romans and Carthaginians from the beginning up to the time of Hannibal.

4.18 Naevius The Song of the Punic War: The first national epic
Naevius was a Roman citizen, born c. 270 BC, who served in the First Punic War and began
to produce plays in Rome in 235. His Song of the Punic War greatly influenced Ennius and
Vergil. 4.31: Little is known of Regulus’ activities in Malta; 6.39: the reference is perhaps
to Hamilcar on Mount Eryx, between Panormus and Drepana, a scene of tussles between
the two sides; 7.41–43 refers to the provisional peace of 241 arranged between C. Lutatius
Catulus and Hamilcar.

4.31–2 The Roman crosses over to Malta, an island undamaged;

He burns, ravages, lays waste, and puts an end to the enemy’s occupation.
6.39 Proudly and disdainfully he wears out the legions.
7.41–3 This also they agree, that their fortifications shall be such
As to conciliate Lutatius; while he agrees
To return the numerous prisoners held as hostages.

THE SECOND PUNIC WAR

Polybius notes that the historians of the Second Punic War provide two reasons for its
outbreak (the Carthaginian siege of Saguntum and the crossing of the Ebro, the latter
breaking the treaty of 226 BC). He argues that, while these were the beginnings of the

172
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
war, they were not its causes, and he differentiates between origins and initial incidents,
much as Thucydides (1.23.4–6) saw that the pretexts for the Spartans declaring war on the
Athenians were not the ‘truest cause’.

4.19 Polybius Histories 2.24.2–17: Roman manpower, 225 BC

The figures given by Polybius here may derive from Fabius Pictor’s account, which prob-
ably came from official Roman lists provided by the various communities of Italy; the
figures add up to 768,300. The context is a survey of Italian manpower carried out in 225
BC to ascertain available forces when Italy was threatened by a Gallic invasion.

1 To make it clear from the facts how great were the resources that Hannibal dared to
attack, and how great was the Romans’ empire which he boldly confronted, and on
which he so nearly achieved his aim of inflicting major disasters, 2 I must state what
resources and number of troops were available to them at that time. 3 Both of the
consuls commanded four legions of Roman citizens, each consisting of 5,200 infan-
try and 300 cavalry. 4 The allied troops in each consular army totalled 30,000 infan-
try and 2,000 cavalry. 5 The Sabines and Etruscans, who had temporarily come to
Rome’s assistance, had 4,000 cavalry and more than 50,000 infantry. 6 The Romans
massed these troops and stationed them on the border of Etruria, under the command
of a praetor. 7 The Umbrians and Sarsinates, who lived in the Apennines, totalled
around 20,000, and there were 20,000 Veneti and Cenomani . . . 9 In Rome itself
there was a reserve force, prepared for all contingencies of war, of 20,000 Roman
infantry and 1,500 cavalry and 30,000 allied infantry and 2,000 cavalry. 10 The lists
of men able to fight that were sent back were as follows: Latins, 80,000 infantry
and 5,000 cavalry; Samnites, 70,000 infantry and 7,000 cavalry; 11 Iapygians and
Messapians, 50,000 infantry and 16,000 cavalry; 12 Lucanians, 30,000 infantry and
3,000 cavalry; Marsi, Marrucini, Frentani and Vestini, 20,000 infantry and 4,000
cavalry. 13 In Sicily and Tarentum there were two reserve legions, each consisting
of about 4,200 infantry and 200 cavalry. 14 The total for Romans and Campanians
came to 250,000 infantry and 23,000 cavalry; . . . 16 so the total number of Romans
and allies able to bear arms was more than 700,000 infantry and 70,000 cavalry, 17
while Hannibal invaded Italy with fewer than 20,000 men.

4.20 Livy History of Rome 22.36.1–4: Roman manpower in 217 BC

Livy was clearly frustrated in his attempt to ascertain the precise numbers of combatants
following the battle of Trasimene in 217. In 218 there were six legions, and five more were
raised before Trasimene in 217, bringing the total to 11 (some 55,000 men). The loss of
two legions at Trasimene was immediately made up, and by Cannae there were 13 legions
in service. Rome could field 14 legions even after Cannae, and the number peaked in 212
and 211 with 25 legions in the field: the numerical strength of individual legions varied,
from 4,500 to 5,500 men.

1 The armies were also increased; the size of the forces added to the infantry and
to the cavalry I should hardly venture to say for certain, so greatly do authors

173
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
differ on both the number and type of forces. 2 Some say 10,000 new troops were
conscripted as replacements, others that four new legions were raised so that they
took the field with eight; 3 some say that the numbers of infantry and cavalry in
the legions were increased by 1,000 infantry and 100 cavalry, 4 so that each was
composed of 5,000 infantry and 300 cavalry, and that the allies gave double the
number of cavalry but the same number of infantry and that at the time of the bat-
tle of Cannae there were 87,200 men under arms.

4.21 Polybius Histories 3.6.1–8, 9.6–10.6: The causes of the Second

Punic War
Polybius argues that Carthage was justified in going to war because of its loss of Sardinia,
but that Rome could put Hannibal in the wrong because he had attacked Saguntum. He
probably does not place enough stress on disagreements both at Carthage and at Rome
about foreign policy and Hanno’s opposition to Hannibal (doc. 4.29). Polybius’ account is,
however, largely valid: there was genuine anger at Carthage over the loss of their posses-
sions. Rome decided to make the issue of Saguntum a reason for war. 3.9.9: ‘civil distur-
bances’ refers to the mercenaries’ revolt at Carthage (237–229 BC).

6.1 Some of those who have written the history of Hannibal and his times, as they
wanted to show us the causes that led to this war between Rome and Carthage,
put forward as its first cause the Carthaginians’ siege of Saguntum 2 and as its
second their crossing of the river called by the locals the Iber (Ebro), contrary to
treaty. 3 I could agree that these might be called the beginnings of the war, but I
can by no means concede that they were its causes. 4 You could just as well say
that Alexander’s crossing to Asia was the cause of his war against Persia and
Antiochus’ landing at Demetrias the cause of his against the Romans, neither of
which is either plausible or true . . .
9.6 But to return to the war between Rome and Carthage, from which this
digression has taken us, we must consider its first cause as being the anger of
Hamilcar, surnamed Barca, the father of Hannibal. 7 His spirit was unconquered
by the war for Sicily, since he thought that he had kept the army at Eryx under his
command with its energies unimpaired, and that he had made peace only through
force of circumstances after the defeat of the Carthaginians in the naval battle
(at the Aegates islands), and he maintained his resolve, watching for a chance to
strike. 8 If the mercenaries’ mutiny against the Carthaginians had not occurred,
he would soon have found another opportunity and resources, as far as was in his
power. 9 He was, however, fully occupied with these civil disturbances which
took all his attention. 10.1 After the Carthaginians had put down this mutiny, the
Romans declared war against them, and the Carthaginians were at first willing
to negotiate on all points, thinking that, as right was on their side, they would
win . . . 3 But, as the Romans took no notice, they yielded to circumstances.
Though deeply resentful, they were powerless to prevent it, and withdrew from
Sardinia as well as agreeing to pay another 1,200 talents in addition to the previ-
ous sum, to avoid being forced into another war at that time. 4 This, then, should
be taken to be the second and most important cause of the war which followed.

174
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
5 Hamilcar added the anger felt by his fellow citizens at this to his own rage and,
as soon as he had put down the mutiny of the mercenaries and secured the safety
of his country, at once threw all his resolution into the conquest of Spain, with the
design of using these resources for the war against the Romans. 6 The success of
the Carthaginian project in Spain must be considered as the third cause of the war,
for this additional strength caused them to enter into it with confidence.

HANNIBAL
Hamilcar spent nine years in Spain (237–229) and on his death in 229 was succeeded by
his son-in-law Hasdrubal; on Hasdrubal’s assassination in 221 BC, Hannibal succeeded as
Carthaginian commander of military operations in Spain. The Carthaginians acquired great
wealth, not just from war but, like the Romans after them, from exploiting the Spanish
silver mines. They now needed to pay back the indemnity to Rome and to make up for
the financial loss of western Sicily and Sardinia. In 226 BC, the peace treaty of 241 was
renewed by Hasdrubal, except that it now took Spain into consideration, indicating a
Roman concern with Carthaginian expansion there (docs 4.27–28). In his examination of
the issues leading to the outbreak of the war, Polybius does not see Hannibal as a cause,
preferring to look further back, to Hamilcar and 241 BC. But Hannibal must be taken into
account: he attacked Saguntum, with the blessing of Carthage, despite the Roman request
not to do so; without him, there might never have been a Second Punic War.

4.22 Livy History of Rome 21.1.3–5: Hannibal’s hatred of Rome

Livy’s comment on the hatred felt by the Carthaginians ties in with Polybius’ first and
second causes of the war. Polybius 3.11.5–7 tells the same story of Hannibal’s oath, which
lends credibility to it. He has the sacrifice made to Zeus, but the actual Carthaginian deity
involved will have been Ba’al Shaman, Zeus’ equivalent. The oath was religious in nature,
and binding.

3 The hatred, too, with which they fought was almost greater than their strength, for
the Romans were angry that the conquered should of their own accord be attack-
ing their conquerors, while the Carthaginians believed that the conquered had
been treated with arrogance and greed. 4 There is also a story that, when Hannibal
was about nine years old, in a childish way he coaxed his father Hamilcar, who
had finished the African war and was sacrificing prior to leading the army to
Spain, to take him with him. Hamilcar led the boy to the altar and made him swear
an oath, touching the offerings, that as soon as he could he would be the enemy of
the Roman people. 5 The loss of Sicily and Sardinia tormented Hamilcar’s proud
spirit; for he believed that Sicily had been surrendered in premature despair and
that Sardinia had been wrongly snatched by the Romans during the African revolt
with an indemnity imposed on them to make matters worse.

4.23 Polybius Histories 3.14.9–15.13: Hannibal and Saguntum, 220/19 BC

3.15.7: Hannibal is referring to the civil dissension that had broken out in 221 BC at
Saguntum, in which some of the Saguntines had appealed to Rome against another faction.

175
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
Roman ambassadors to Saguntum had organised the execution of the leaders of the other,
pro-Carthaginian group. Hannibal made this a ground of complaint against Rome and, to their
demand that he keep his hands off the city, made no promises. The Roman envoys saw war
as inevitable and sailed to Carthage. The siege of Saguntum began in April or May of 219
BC and went on for eight months, during which time the city received no assistance from the
Romans. 3.15.8: ‘were behaving unjustly towards some of the people who were subject to
Carthage’ refers to Saguntine attacks against the Turdenti, allies of the Carthaginians.

14.9 Following their defeat, none of the peoples south of the Ebro River, except
the Saguntines, ventured to face the Carthaginians lightly. 10 As far as he could,
Hannibal tried to keep his hands off this city, as he wished to give the Romans no
acknowledged excuse for war until he had secured possession of the rest of the
country, following his father Hamilcar’s suggestions and advice.
15.1 But the Saguntines kept sending to Rome, partly because they were anx-
ious on their own account and foresaw what was going to happen, and partly
because they wished that the Romans should not be taken by surprise by the
Carthaginians’ growing power in Spain. 2 The Romans, who had frequently disre-
garded them, on this occasion sent envoys to investigate the situation. 3 Hannibal
at the same time had subdued the tribes he intended and returned with his forces
to winter at New Carthage, which was in a way the showpiece and capital of
the Carthaginians in Spain. 4 He found there the embassy from Rome and gave
them an audience, listening to what they had to say. 5 The Romans affirmed that
he should keep away from Saguntum, which lay under their protection, and not
cross the River Ebro, in accordance with the treaty made in Hasdrubal’s time.
6 Hannibal, who was young and full of martial energy, successful in his plans,
and encouraged by his long-time hatred of the Romans, 7 replied to them that he
was protecting the interests of the Saguntines and accused the Romans of having
unjustly executed some of the leading men, when a short time previously civil
conflict had broken out and they were called in as arbiters. The Carthaginians, he
said, would not overlook this violation of good faith; for it was an ancestral tradi-
tion of theirs to ignore no victim of injustice; 8 and he sent to Carthage asking
what action he should take, as the Saguntines, relying on their alliance with Rome,
were behaving unjustly towards some of the people who were subject to Carthage.
9 He was wholly influenced by his unreasoning and violent anger, and so did not
give the true reasons but took refuge in groundless pretexts, as people generally
do when they disregard their duty under the influence of a pre-existing passion. 10
How much better it would have been had he demanded that the Romans restore
Sardinia, and at the same time the indemnity which they had unjustly exacted,
taking advantage of Carthage’s misfortunes and, if this was rejected, to threaten
her with war!
11 But now, by keeping silent about the real cause and inventing a non-existent
one about the Saguntines, he appeared to be embarking on the war not only with-
out reason but even without justice. 12 The Roman envoys, seeing clearly that war
was unavoidable, sailed to Carthage, wishing to make a similar appeal to them; 13
of course they never expected that there would be war in Italy, but in Spain, using
Saguntum as a base.

176
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
4.24 Polybius Histories 3.8.1–8, 11: Hannibal’s initiative?
Polybius records Fabius Pictor’s view that Hannibal started the war on his own initiative;
cf. Livy 21.5.1–3. Polybius, however, makes it clear that Hannibal sent to Carthage for
advice on what to do concerning Saguntum (doc. 4.23).

1 Fabius, the Roman historian, says that, besides the injury done to the Saguntines,
one of the causes of the Hannibalic war was Hasdrubal’s arrogance and love of
power. 2 He tells us how, having acquired great power in Spain, he arrived in
Africa and tried to dissolve the laws of Carthage and change the constitution into
a monarchy. 3 The leading statesmen, however, foresaw his plan and united to
oppose him, 4 whereupon Hasdrubal, mistrusting them, left Africa and for the
future governed Spain along his own lines, paying no attention to the Carthaginian
senate. 5 Hannibal from boyhood had shared and admired Hasdrubal’s policy
and, when he succeeded to the command of Spain, had used the same approach
to dealing with affairs as Hasdrubal. 6 As a result, he now began this war against
the Romans on his own initiative and against Carthaginian opinion, 7 with not one
of the leading men in Carthage approving Hannibal’s conduct towards Saguntum.
8 After saying this, Fabius tells us that, after the capture of this city, the Romans
demanded that the Carthaginians should either hand over Hannibal to them or
accept war . . . 11 But they were so far from doing any of this that they carried on
the war continuously for 17 years in accordance with Hannibal’s policy, and did
not abandon the war until they had finally lost every hope because of the danger
threatening their country and its inhabitants.

4.25 Livy History of Rome 21.4.1–10: Hannibal the man, 221 BC

Hannibal went to Spain as a boy of nine with his father Hamilcar in 237. There was clearly
interest in Hannibal’s character and what made him ‘tick’.

1 Hannibal was sent to Spain, where immediately on his arrival the whole army
received him with enthusiasm; 2 the old soldiers believed that Hamilcar himself
had returned to them as he was when he was young, seeing in Hannibal the same
force of expression and energy of glance, the same countenance and features. But
soon he brought it about that his likeness to his father was the least consideration
in gaining him support; 3 never was the same nature more adaptable to the most
diverse things – obeying and commanding. As a result you could not easily tell
whether he was dearer to the general or the army; 4 there was no one Hasdrubal
preferred more when anything bold or difficult was to be done, nor did the men
show more confidence and daring under any other leader. 5 To recklessness in
incurring danger he added the greatest judgement when in the midst of the dan-
gers themselves; his body could not be exhausted or his mind overcome by any
hard work; 6 he was equally tolerant of cold and heat; his manner of eating and
drinking was regulated by natural desire not pleasure; his times of waking and
sleeping were not delineated by day and night; 7 what remained when his work
was done was given to rest, which he summoned not with a soft bed or silence – he

177
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
was often seen by many lying on the ground wrapped up in a military cloak among
the sentinels and pickets. 8 His clothes were no different from those of his fellows,
though his arms and horse did stand out. He was undoubtedly the best of horse-
men and infantry; the first to enter battle, and the last to leave once the fighting had
begun. 9 These excellent qualities were equalled by his great vices: inhuman cru-
elty, perfidy more than Punic, no regard for truth or the divine, no fear of the gods,
no reverence for an oath, no religious scruples. 10 With this disposition for virtues
and vices he served for three years under Hasdrubal’s command, omitting nothing
that should be done or seen by one who was to become a great commander.

4.26 Polybius Histories 9.25.1–4: Hannibal’s greed

Polyb. 9.22–6 is taken up with a discussion of Hannibal’s character. The Carthaginian sources
may have been individuals Polybius had met in Greece or Italy. For the Carthaginians’ respect
for wealth, see 4.6.

1 Hannibal does seem to have been exceptionally fond of money, as was his
friend Mago, who commanded in Bruttium. 2 I obtained this account both from
the Carthaginians themselves 3 (for locals know not only in which direction the
wind lies, as the proverb says, but also the character of their compatriots) 4 and
in more detail from Masinissa, who dwelt at length on the love of money as a
characteristic of all Carthaginians, and especially of Hannibal and Mago, who was
known as the Samnite.

WHOSE FAULT: ROME OR CARTHAGE?

The background to the Ebro treaty, signed in 226 BC, is sometimes seen as the threat to
Rome and Italy from the Gauls, but it is clear that the Romans had become concerned about
Carthaginian expansion in Spain. Saguntum was within the area, south of the Ebro River, in
which by the treaty of 226 the Carthaginians could operate, but the treaty clearly envisaged
the continuing independence of the city.

4.27 Polybius Histories 3.30.1–4: Both sides to blame

Polybius argues that the Carthaginians had ‘good cause’ to go to war but that, if the cause
was the destruction of Saguntum, then the Carthaginians were in the wrong for having
broken the treaty.

1 It is an undisputed fact that the Saguntines many years before Hannibal’s time
had placed themselves under Rome’s protection. 2 The greatest evidence for this,
and one accepted by the Carthaginians themselves, is that, when political conflict
broke out in Saguntum, they turned not to the Carthaginians, although they were
close at hand and were already involved in affairs in Spain, but to the Romans,
and with their help restored the political situation. 3 So, if one were to regard the
destruction of Saguntum as the cause of the Hannibalic War, it must be admit-
ted that the Carthaginians were in the wrong in beginning the war, both from the

178
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
point of view of the treaty of Lutatius, in which the allies of each power were to
be secure from attack by the other, and from that of the agreement with Hasdrubal,
in which the Carthaginians were not to cross the Ebro in arms. 4 But if we take
the cause of the war to have been the annexation of Sardinia and the additional
indemnity, then it must certainly be agreed that the Carthaginians had good reason
to enter on the Hannibalic war, for, after yielding to circumstances, they were now
retaliating with the help of circumstances against those who had wronged them.

4.28 Livy History of Rome 21.2.7: Livy’s on the Ebro treaty

That the treaty was signed by Hasdrubal rather than the Carthaginian state gave the
Carthaginians grounds for arguing that they need not necessarily observe it (doc. 4.29).

It was with Hasdrubal, because of his amazing skill in encouraging the Spanish
tribes to join the Carthaginian empire, that the Roman people had renewed their
treaty (i.e., that of 241 BC), laying down that the River Ebro should be the bound-
ary for each empire, while the Saguntines, situated between the two empires,
should preserve their independence.

4.29 Livy History of Rome 21.18.1–19.5: Q. Fabius Maximus as envoy

at Carthage
Cf. Polyb. 3.20.6–21.10, 33.1–3. The first Roman embassy to Carthage had met Hannibal
to no avail at New Carthage in Spain and then sailed to Carthage, where Hanno ‘the Great’,
commander in the First Punic War, was the lone Carthaginian voice for peace and for
observing the treaty (of 226 BC). The Carthaginian council supported Hannibal and his
actions in Spain (Livy 21.10.1–11.2). When the Roman embassy returned home, news
came that Saguntum had fallen, and the senate, ‘ashamed’ at not helping the city, prepared
for war, though, according to Livy, they did not undertake war lightly, recognising the skill
of their enemy (21.16). Before declaring war, a second embassy was sent to Carthage;
for Roman ceremonies for declaring war, see doc. 3.14. 2.18.1: M. Livius Salinator and
L. Aemilius Paullus had been the consuls for 219; 2.18.13: the story of the toga is also in
Polyb. 3.33.2–3.

18.1 When these arrangements had been made, to make sure they observed all
the due ceremonies before making war, the Romans sent to Africa an embassy of
older men, Quintus Fabius, Marcus Livius, Lucius Aemilius, Gaius Licinius and
Quintus Baebius, to put to the Carthaginians the question whether Hannibal had
attacked Saguntum on the orders of the state, 2 and if, as seemed to be likely, they
admitted the act and defended it as state policy, to declare war on the Carthaginian
people. 3 After the Romans had arrived at Carthage and the senate granted them
a hearing, Fabius put only the single question which they had been instructed to
ask. One of the Carthaginians replied: 4 ‘Even your previous embassy, Romans,
when you demanded that we hand over Hannibal for besieging Saguntum on his
own initiative, was somewhat rash; but your present embassy, though expressed
up till now more mildly, is in fact more harsh. 5 On that occasion Hannibal was

179
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
accused and his surrender demanded; now you are trying to extort from us a con-
fession of guilt and immediate reparation as if we had already confessed. 6 Now,
in my view, you should be asking not whether Saguntum was attacked on the
state’s orders or on the decision of an individual, but whether justly or unjustly; 7
the inquiry into the acts of one of our citizens, whether he acted on our authority
or his own, and his punishment is up to us; with you we have only one point for
discussion – whether what he did was permissible under the treaty. 8 Therefore,
since you want there to be a distinction between what commanders do on orders
from the state and what they do on their own initiative, consider the treaty made
between us and you by Gaius Lutatius, your consul, in which the allies of both
sides were protected but nothing was stipulated about the Saguntines, since they
were not as yet your allies. 9 But you will perhaps say that in the treaty which
Hasdrubal made the Saguntines are especially mentioned. To which I will say
only the answer learnt from you. 10 For you have denied that you were bound by
the treaty which the consul Gaius Lutatius originally made with us, because it had
been made neither on the senate’s authority nor the people’s command; and so an
entirely new treaty was made with the state’s approval. 11 If you are not bound by
your treaties unless they are made by your authority and command, then neither
is Hasdrubal’s treaty, which he made without our knowledge, binding on us. 12
So say no more about Saguntum and the Ebro, and produce the thought that has
long been developing inside your mind!’ 13 At this, the Roman, gathering his
toga into a fold, replied, ‘Here we bring you peace and war: take which you will!’
With his words, they cried out no less aggressively that he might give them what
he wished; 14 when he shook out the fold again and said that he gave them war,
they all replied that they accepted it and that they would fight in the same spirit in
which they accepted it.

WAR IN ITALY
At the Roman declaration of war in 218 BC, Hannibal had not yet crossed the Ebro River
and the Romans thought they had the advantage. They appointed one of the consuls of 218,
P. Cornelius Scipio, to a command in Spain, with 24,000 men and 60 ships, while the other
consul, Ti. Sempronius Longus, was sent to Africa, with 26,000 men and 160 ships. But, as
doc. 4.31 indicates, Hannibal was one step ahead. His crossing of the Alps with infantry,
horses and elephants has captured the imagination of both modern and ancient writers – too
much so on the part of the latter, according to Polybius. Polybius himself made the crossing
and his references to eye-witnesses are important: they were one of his main sources for the
war. Hannibal’s crossing took about 15 days, probably in early November 218.

According to Polybius, Hannibal arrived in Italy with 12,000 African and 8,000
Spanish infantry and about 6,000 cavalry. At the crossing of the Rhône he had
38,000 infantry and 8,000 cavalry (Polyb. 3.60.5), which meant he lost 18,000
men from that point to the descent from the Alps. Hannibal took 37 elephants with
him when he crossed the Rhône and presumably the same number across the Alps.
They were present at the battle of Trebia; only one survived by 217, but reinforce-
ments reached Hannibal in 215 BC.

180
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
4.30 Ennius Annals 256–57: The war begins
Sections 7–9 of Ennius’ Annals dealt with the Second Punic War. These lines here graphi-
cally describe Hannibal’s advance from New Carthage in spring 218.

Finally with great force the four-footed horses and riders and elephants
Hurl themselves forward.

4.31 Polybius Histories 3.47.6–9, 48.10–12: Crossing the Alps

Polybius disparages writers exaggerating the difficulties Hannibal faced in crossing the
Alps. Livy’s numbers for the losses (28.31.3–5) are unrealistic, particularly given that
Hannibal had native guides and that the inhabitants were opposed to the Romans; they
were to supply warm clothing and footgear and food to the Carthaginian army (Polyb.
3.48.10–12). After being joined by Gauls from northern Italy, Hannibal had 40,000 infantry
and 10,000 cavalry at Cannae (Livy 22.46.6–7).

47.6 Some of those who have written about this crossing, because they wanted
to astonish their readers with their marvellous tales about these places already
mentioned, have, unnoticed, fallen into the two vices most alien to all writing
of history – for they are forced into the making of false statements and self-
contradiction. 7 On the one hand, they describe Hannibal as a general unrivalled
in courage and foresight, but at the same time they present him to us as totally
without judgement 8 and are unable to find a solution or way out of their falsehood
except by introducing gods and the children of gods into a pragmatic history. 9
For they show the impassability and rugged character of the Alps to be such that
not only horses and troops accompanied by elephants but even active infantrymen
would have difficulty in crossing them, while at the same time they describe to
us the desolation of the country as being such that, unless some god or hero had
met Hannibal and shown him the way, his whole army would have been lost and
utterly perished, unquestionably falling into both the above mentioned vices. . . .
48.10 Of course Hannibal did not act as these writers suggest but conducted
his enterprise with great common sense. 11 For he had clearly ascertained the
natural wealth of the country into which he planned to descend and the resent-
ment of its people towards the Romans, and to deal with the difficulties of his
route he employed native guides and scouts who were going to share his aims. 12
I can speak with confidence on such matters because I made inquiry about what
happened from men who were present on these occasions, and have inspected the
country and crossed the Alps to see and learn for myself.

CATASTROPHE FOR ROME

Hannibal had evaded Scipio, who decided not to pursue him by land. He left the army with
his brother Gnaeus in command to proceed to Spain, and himself went by sea to northern
Italy (Polyb. 3.49.1–4; Livy 21.32.1–5). Hannibal arrived in Italy, took Taurini (Turin), and
began besieging cities in Cisalpine Gaul. Rome was astir: talk of the sack of Saguntum had
only just ended, and Hannibal was already in Italy, attacking cities. Tiberius Sempronius

181
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
Longus, the other consul, who had got as far as Lilybaeum in Sicily on his expedition
to Africa, was recalled. In November 218 the armies met in a skirmish at Ticinus, and
Hannibal was victorious; Scipio was wounded but saved by his son (doc. 4.51). The first
real battle came in December, at the River Trebia which flows into the Po. The Romans suf-
fered a major defeat under the other consul, Longus, and most of the army was annihilated.
Hannibal now dominated northern Italy.

4.32 Polybius Histories 3.83.1–84.7: Trasimene, 21 June 217 BC

In 217, the consuls Gaius Flaminius and Gnaeus Servilius Geminus were sent to guard
the Apennines (Italy’s mountainous backbone). In June, the Romans under Flaminius,
who was killed in battle, were again defeated, losing 15,000 men in an ambush at Lake
Trasimene, 140 kilometres north of Rome; the defeat was put down to Flaminius’ neglect
of the auspices (as a novus homo). Hannibal could now move freely in central Italy.

83.1 The road led through a level defile with high hills on each side all along its
length, while in front crossways was a steep ridge, difficult to climb, and behind was
the lake, with only a narrow access to the defile between the lake and the hillside.
2 Hannibal skirted the lake and passed through the defile, occupying the ridge in
front and encamping on it with his Spaniards and Libyans, 3 while he brought his
slingers and pikemen round to the front and stationed them in an extended line under
the hills lying to the right of the defile. 4 Similarly, taking his cavalry and Celts in a
circle round the hills on the left, he deployed them in a continuous line, so that the
last of them were at the entrance to the defile which lay between the lake and the
hillside. 5 After making these preparations in the night and surrounding the defile
with troops in ambush, Hannibal stayed quiet. 6 Flaminius followed behind him,
eager to engage with him; 7 he had encamped on the previous day at a very late
hour close to the lake itself, and on the next day, as soon as it was dawn, he led his
vanguard beside the lake into the above-mentioned defile, wanting to keep in touch
with the enemy. 84.1 It was an unusually misty morning, and Hannibal, as soon as
the greater part of the enemy’s column had entered the defile and the vanguard had
already made contact with him, gave the signal for battle and sent messages to the
men waiting in ambush, attacking the enemy simultaneously from all sides. 2 Their
sudden appearance took Flaminius totally by surprise, and, as the condition of the
air made it still very difficult to see clearly and the enemy were charging at and
attacking them from above in many different places, the Romans’ centurions and
military tribunes were not only unable to do anything necessary to help the situa-
tion but could not even understand what was going on. 3 They were being attacked
simultaneously from the front, from the rear and from the sides, 4 and, as a result,
most of them were cut down in marching order, not able to protect themselves, and
as if betrayed by their commander’s lack of judgement. 5 For, while they were still
considering what they ought to do, they were being killed without knowing how. 6
It was at this point that some of the Celts attacked and killed Flaminius himself, who
was in the greatest distress and difficulty. 7 So in the defile nearly 15,000 Romans
fell, unable either to yield to circumstances or to do anything, but considering it their
most important duty to adhere to their tradition of not fleeing or leaving their ranks.

182
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
4.33 ILS 11: Marcus Minucius, dictator
This dedication is on the side of an altar found at Rome. The disaster at Trasimene led
to the appointment by the comitia centuriata of a dictator, Q. Fabius Maximus; they also
appointed as his master of horse M. Minucius Rufus (cos. 221). Minucius, who did not
keep to Fabius’ delaying tactics, was killed in battle at Cannae.

Marcus Minucius, dictator, son of Gaius, vowed this dedication to Hercules.

4.34 Ennius Annals 360–62: Fabius Maximus ‘Cunctator’

‘Cunctator’ means the delayer. Upon appointment as dictator in 217 after the disaster at
Trasimene, Fabius carried out extensive religious rites and restored confidence at Rome.
His policy was to avoid pitched battle, but the policy of allowing the Carthaginians to pil-
lage and loot Roman and Latin territory and property was unpopular. In 216 consuls were
elected as usual: L. Aemilius Paullus (cos. 219) and the novus homo C. Terentius Varro.
Cicero (Off. 1.84) quotes these lines by Ennius in praise of Fabius.

One man by his delays restored our state for us.

He put no rumours before our safety;
Therefore in after times – even today – this hero’s glory shines forth, more than
once it did.

4.35 Polybius Histories 3.113.1–118.5: Cannae, 216 BC

The Romans refused to adhere to Fabius’ delaying strategy and confronted Hannibal at
Cannae; the result vindicated Fabius. The Roman army of eight legions and an additional
40,000 allied troops (80,000 men all told) was commanded on alternate days by each of
the two consuls (Varro on the day of the battle). Hannibal, with about 40,000 foot and
10,000 cavalry, was clearly outnumbered. The battle was an outstanding military disaster
of the first order for the Romans: one consul, L. Aemilius Paullus died, while the other
(C. Terentius Varro) escaped, 70,000 Romans were killed and 10,000 were captured. This
was probably the greatest casualty rate in a day for any European army in history. Hannibal
lost 6,700 men. But the loss of the men was not Rome’s greatest problem, for it refused to
ransom its surviving defeated soldiers (doc. 4.36); rather, the defection of allies and loss of
territory was the greatest blow.

113.1 On the very next day it was Gaius Terentius Varro’s turn to take command,
and at the first sign of sunrise he moved his troops out of each encampment, 2
crossing the river with those from the larger camp, whom he drew up at once in
battle-order, while he stationed those from the other camp alongside them in the
same line, all facing south. 3 The Romans’ cavalry he positioned near the river on
the right wing and the infantry next to them in the same line, placing the maniples
more closely together than had been done before and making the depth of the
maniples many times greater than the front; 4 he drew up the allied cavalry on
the left wing; and in front of the whole army and some distance away he drew
up the light-armed troops. 5 Counting the allies, there were 80,000 infantry and a

183
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
little more than 6,000 cavalry. 6 At the same time, Hannibal sent his slingers and
pikemen across the river and placed them in the front of his army, while he led the
rest of his troops out of camp, crossing the river in two places and drawing them
up facing the enemy. 7 On his left, near the river, he put his Spanish and Celtic
cavalry opposite the Roman cavalry, and alongside these half of his heavy-armed
Libyans, then his Spaniards and Celts. Beside these he positioned the other half
of his Libyans and put his Numidian cavalry on the right wing. 8 When he had
drawn up his whole army in a straight line, he took the middle companies of the
Spaniards and Celts and brought them forward, keeping the rest in contact with
these but making the front crescent-shaped and thinning the line of battle, intend-
ing to have his Libyans as a reserve force in the battle, and let the Spaniards and
Celts bear the brunt.
114.1 The Libyans were armed in the Roman style, as Hannibal had equipped
them all with selected spoils from earlier battles; 2 the Spaniards’ and Celts’
shields were similar, but their swords totally different; 3 the thrust of the
Spaniards’ swords was no less effective than their cut, but the Gallic sword was
able only to cut, and not at close quarters. 4 With their companies drawn up alter-
nately, the Celts naked and the Spaniards in their national costume, short tunics
edged with purple, they were a strange and awe-inspiring sight. 5 Altogether the
Carthaginian cavalry numbered about 10,000 and their infantry, including the
Celts, not much more than 40,000. 6 Aemilius commanded the Romans’ right
wing, Gaius (Terentius) the left, and Marcus (Atilius) and Gnaeus (Servilius
Geminus), the previous year’s consuls, the centre. 7 Hasdrubal commanded the
Carthaginian left, Hanno the right; Hannibal himself the centre, with his brother
Mago. 8 As the Roman line looked south, as I said before, and the Carthaginians
north, neither was troubled by the rising sun.
115.1 The advance guards were the first to engage, and at first, with only the
light-armed troops involved, the conflict was even, but, as soon as the Spanish and
Celtic cavalry on the left met the Romans, the conflict was truly barbaric; 3 for
there were none of the customary wheeling movements, but having once engaged
they dismounted and fought hand to hand. 4 When the Carthaginians prevailed
and killed most of the enemy in the engagement, with all the Romans fighting with
great bravery, they started driving the rest along the river, slaughtering them with-
out mercy, and then the heavy infantry took over from the light-armed troops and
fell on each other. 5 For a short time, the ranks of the Spaniards and Celts stayed
firm and fought bravely with the Romans; then, under the pressure, they gave way
and fell back, losing the crescent shape. 6 The Romans’ maniples bravely pursued
them and easily cut through the enemy’s line, as the Celts were drawn up thinly,
while the Romans had crowded together from the wings to the middle where the
action was; 7 for the wings and the centres did not engage simultaneously, but
the centres first, as the Celts were drawn up in a crescent shape, a long way in
advance of their wings, with the convex front of the crescent facing the enemy. 8
The Romans, pursuing these and putting pressure on the centre and that part of the
enemy’s line that was giving way, pushed so far forward that on each side of their
flanks they now had the Libyans in their heavy armour; 9 of these, those on the

184
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
right wing faced left and charged the enemy flank from the right, 10 while those
on the left faced right and, re-forming, did the same from the left, the situation
making it clear how to act. 11 As a result, as Hannibal had planned, the Romans,
in their pursuit of the Celts, were caught in the middle of the Libyans. 12 They
no longer kept formation, but turned either singly or in companies and fought the
enemy who were attacking their flanks . . .
116.7 At this point Hasdrubal seems to have acted with great skill and com-
mon sense; seeing that the Numidians were very numerous and most skilful and
formidable against a fleeing enemy, he allowed them to deal with those in flight
(i.e., the Roman cavalry) and led his men to the conflict between the infantry,
eager to assist the Libyans. 8 Falling on the Roman legions from the rear and mak-
ing successive attacks with his companies simultaneously from various points, he
encouraged the Libyans and subdued and terrified the spirits of the Romans. 9 It
was at this point that Lucius Aemilius, after several severe wounds, lost his life
in hand-to-hand combat, a man who did his duty to his country, if ever anyone
did, both during the whole course of his life and on this final occasion. 10 As long
as the Romans could turn and present a front to the enemy that surrounded them,
they held out; 11 but, while the outer ranks kept falling and they were increasingly
hemmed in, they were all finally killed, including Marcus and Gnaeus, the previ-
ous year’s consuls, who in this conflict had acted like brave men worthy of Rome.
117.1 This was the outcome of the battle between the Romans and Carthaginians
at Cannae, a battle which had the bravest men as both victors and vanquished. 2
This was clear from events. For, of the 6,000 cavalry, 70 escaped to Venusia with
Terentius, and around 300 of the allied horse found safety in the cities in scat-
tered groups; 3 of the infantry, some 10,000 were captured fighting, but not in the
battle itself, and perhaps only 3,000 escaped from the conflict to the neighbour-
ing cities. 4 All the rest, some 70,000, died bravely, the main contribution to the
Carthaginians’ victory, both on this occasion and formerly, being the number of
their cavalry . . . 6 Of Hannibal’s army, about 4,000 Celts fell, 1,500 Spaniards
and Africans, and 200 cavalry . . .
118.2 The Carthaginians, through this action, came into immediate control of
nearly all the rest of the coast; 3 the Tarentines at once surrendered, while the
Argyrippans and some Campanian towns invited Hannibal to them, while all the
rest now looked towards the Carthaginians. 4 These had great hopes of becoming
masters of Rome itself at the first attempt; 5 the Romans at once gave up hopes of
keeping their supremacy in Italy because of this defeat and were in great fear and
danger on their own account and that of their ancestral city, expecting Hannibal
to arrive at any moment.

4.36 Polybius Histories 6.58.2–13: Conquer or die!

Following the defeat, the senate refused to ransom the 8,000 men who had been guarding
the Roman camp, even though it was not their fault that they had not engaged in the battle;
it preferred to enrol slaves in the army (doc. 6.1). The reason was partly to avoid giving
Hannibal monetary resources with which to carry on the war (Livy 22.26.1–2), but at the

185
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
same time they were upholding the doctrine of ‘no surrender’ on any terms. Hannibal there-
fore sold the prisoners into slavery.

2 When, after his victory at Cannae, the 8,000 men who were guarding the camp
came into Hannibal’s hands, he took them all prisoner and allowed them to send
a deputation home on the subject of ransom and release. 3 They chose ten of their
most distinguished men and he sent them off, after making them swear an oath
that they would return to him. 4 One of the men selected, as he was going out
of the camp’s palisade, said he had forgotten something and went back, leaving
again after collecting what he had left behind, and thinking that by his return he
had kept his faith and absolved himself of the oath. 5 When they arrived in Rome,
they begged and entreated the senate not to begrudge the prisoners their release
but allow each of them to pay 3 minas and return to their families; for Hannibal,
they said, had allowed this; 6 they were worthy of release: for they had not been
guilty of cowardice in the battle, or done anything unworthy of Rome, but had
been left behind to guard the camp and, when all the others had been killed in
the battle, had been forced by circumstances to surrender to the enemy. 7 But the
Romans, despite having encountered serious defeats in their battles and having
now, so to speak, lost all their allies, and despite the fact that they were expecting
Rome itself to be threatened any day, 8 listened to what they said but neither dis-
regarded their dignity under the pressure of disasters nor neglected any necessary
step in their consideration, 9 but, seeing that Hannibal’s purpose was, through
this action, both to obtain funds and to deprive the men opposed to him in battle
of their high spirit, by showing that if defeated they might still hope for safety,
10 were so far from agreeing to this request that they took no account either of
pity for their relatives or of the future value which these men would be to them,
11 but thwarted Hannibal’s calculations and the hopes he had placed in them and
refused to ransom the men, while they imposed a law on their troops that, when
they fought, they must either conquer or die, as there was no hope of safety for
them if they were defeated. 12 Consequently, after deciding this, they sent away
the nine envoys, who returned willingly according to their oath, while they put the
man who had tried to trick his way out of the oath into chains and returned him
to the enemy, 13 so that Hannibal’s pleasure at his victory in the battle was not so
great as his disappointment, when he saw with amazement the steadfastness and
high spirit of the Romans in their resolutions.

4.37 Ennius Annals 276–77: Ennius on Cannae

Propertius Odes 3.3.9–10: ‘and (Ennius) sang . . . of the victorious delays of Fabius, and the
unlucky battle at Cannae, and the gods being turned (to hear) our pious prayers.’ Hannibal’s
African and Spanish mercenaries were remarkable for their loyalty and discipline; here
Hannibal is offering his troops Carthaginian citizenship.

He who will strike an enemy, I promise, will be a Carthaginian,

Whoever he may be, whatever country he comes from . . .

186
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
4.38 Livy History of Rome 22.57.2–6, 9–12: Emergency measures
Polyb. 3.112.8–9 comments on the religious activity at Rome just before Cannae and notes
that the Romans considered no rites unseemly or undignified which would propitiate the
gods. In 228, 216 and 113 BC, a Gallic couple and a Greek couple were buried alive in
the Forum Boarium at Rome after a consultation of the Sibylline Books. In 216 and 113
the burials occurred after Vestal Virgins were convicted of unchastity. On this occasion, in
216, two Vestals had been convicted of unchastity, a great pollution. Their conviction was
not unusual as a response to Roman disasters (cf. doc 7.93).

2 The Romans were terrified, moreover, not only by these immense disasters but
also by numerous prodigies, and in particular because two Vestals in that year,
Opimia and Floronia, had been convicted of fornication, and one of them had been
buried alive, as the custom is, near the Colline Gate, while the other had commit-
ted suicide; 3 Lucius Cantilius, a pontifical secretary (one of those who are now
called lesser pontiffs), who had slept with Floronia, was scourged so harshly in
the comitium by the pontifex maximus that he died under the lashes. 4 Since this
impious crime, being in the midst of so many disasters, was, as often happens,
converted into a portent, the decemvirs were ordered to consult the (Sibylline)
Books, 5 and Quintus Fabius Pictor was sent to Delphi to ask the oracle what
prayers and supplications they should use so as to appease the gods and what
the end of these immense disasters would be. 6 Meanwhile, on the instructions
of the Books of Fate, some extraordinary sacrifices were made, among which
a Gallic man and woman and a Greek man and woman were buried alive in the
Forum Boarium in a place enclosed with stone, which had even on an earlier
occasion been saturated with the blood of human victims, a rite most untypical of
Roman practice . . . 9 On the senate’s authority a dictator, Marcus Junius (Pera),
was appointed, with Tiberius Sempronius (Gracchus) as his master of horse, and
after proclaiming a levy they enlisted young men over the age of 17 and some still
wearing the toga praetexta. 10 From these they made up four legions and a thou-
sand horsemen. They also sent to the allies and the Latins to supply their soldiers
according to agreement. They ordered that armour, weapons and other things be
prepared and took down old enemy spoils from the temples and porticoes. 11 The
levy had a novel appearance owing to the scarcity of free men and the crisis: they
bought with state money 8,000 young, strong slaves and armed them, asking each
first if he were willing to serve. 12 They preferred these as soldiers, though at less
expense they could have redeemed the prisoners of war.

4.39 Livy History of Rome 22.51.1–4: Hannibal fails to march on Rome

The story of Maharbal (son of Himilco), commander of the Libyan cavalry, urging Hannibal
on the battlefield of Cannae to march on Rome, is not found in Polybius. It is possibly an
invention of Livy or one of his sources in order to express amazement that after such a spec-
tacular victory Hannibal did not march on the city. If Hannibal had done so, the outcome of
the war might have been markedly different. Hannibal did march on Rome in 211 to draw off
Roman forces from their siege of Capua but did not settle down to besiege the city.

187
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
1 While the other officers had crowded round Hannibal, congratulating him on
his victory and counselling him, now that he had brought so great a war to an end,
to rest himself and allow it to his exhausted soldiers for what remained of that
day and the following night, 2 Maharbal, the cavalry commander, considered that
now was least of all the time for inactivity: ‘On the contrary’, he said, ‘that you
may understand what has been achieved in this battle, on the fifth day you will
banquet, as victor, in the Capitol! Follow – I will go on ahead with the cavalry so
the Romans may know that you have arrived before they know you are coming.’
3 The suggestion seemed to Hannibal too delightful and immense for his mind
to be able to grasp it all at once. So he said that he praised Maharbal’s goodwill
but needed time to think about his advice. 4 To which Maharbal replied, ‘Truly,
the gods do not give the same man all their gifts: you know how to win battles,
Hannibal, but you do not know how to use victory.’ That day’s delay is generally
believed to have saved Rome and the empire.

4.40 Livy History of Rome 23.48.4–49.3: Appeals to

businessmen, 215 BC
In this emergency situation, businessmen, especially those who had profited from the busi-
ness of war, were asked in 215 to make loans to the state, with deferred repayment, and to
supply the army.

48.4 At the end of summer, a letter came from Publius and Gnaeus Scipio, reporting
the extent and success of their campaign in Spain, but that the army needed money
for pay, clothing and grain, while allies in the navy were in need of everything. 5
With regard to the pay they would, if the treasury was empty, find some way of
obtaining it from the Spaniards; the rest had certainly to be sent out from Rome or
else neither the army nor the province could be kept. 6 When the letter was read out,
there was no one among them all who did not admit that the statements were true
and the demands reasonable . . . 9 Therefore, the senate came to the conclusion that,
unless the state could be supported by credit, its assets were insufficient to keep it
going. 10 They decided that the praetor, Fulvius, should appear before the assem-
bly, inform the people of these public needs, and urge those who had increased
their family property through state contracts to allow the state, from which they had
acquired their wealth, 11 time to make payment and to contract to supply what was
needed for the army in Spain, on condition that they be the first to be paid when
there was money in the treasury. 12 The praetor put this to the assembly and named
a day on which he would let the contracts for providing clothing and grain to the
Spanish army and whatever else was needed for the allies in the navy. 49.1 When
that day came, three companies of 19 men came forward to take up the contracts,
but they had two demands: 2 one, that they should be exempt from military service
while they were engaged in this public business, the other, that the cargoes on their
ships should be at the risk of the state as regards the threats of enemies or storms. 3
When both these demands were agreed to, they took up the contracts, and the state
was carried on with private money.

188
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
THE IMPACT ON THE ALLIES
Hannibal’s attempt to stir up revolt and ‘free’ the Italians after the battles of Trebia (218
BC) and Trasimene (217) had not led to any defections, perhaps because of the length of
time many of the Italian peoples had been allies of Rome. Moreover, the outcome of the
contest was not yet clear. But even after Cannae the Latin allies remained firm, despite the
fact that Hannibal let the allied troops return home without ransom, as he had after Trebia
and Trasimene – clearly in order to win over their communities.

4.41 Polybius Histories 3.77.3–7: Hannibal and the allies, 218–217 BC

Hannibal told the captured allies after Trebia and Trasimene that he had come not to fight
them but to free them: he was in Italy fighting for (not against) the Italians. Capua took
up his offer but emphasised its independence of the Carthaginians (doc. 4.42). Hannibal,
according to Livy (34.60.3), had expected the allies’ support and defection from Rome.

3 Hannibal, while wintering in Cisalpine Gaul, kept the Romans whom he had
captured in battle imprisoned, giving them just enough to eat, 4 but he continued
to show great kindness to those from the allies and later called them to a meeting
and spoke to them, stating that he had not come to make war on them but on the
Romans on their behalf. 5 So, if they were sensible, they should accept his friend-
ship, 6 for he had come primarily to restore the freedom of the Italian people, as
well as to help them recover the cities and territory which had been taken from
each of them by the Romans. 7 Having spoken in this way, he sent them all to
their homes without ransom, as he wished by doing so to win over the inhabitants
of Italy to his side and at the same time to turn their loyalties against Rome, while
inciting to revolt those who thought their cities or harbours had suffered decline
under Roman rule.

4.42 Livy History of Rome 23.4.6–8, 6.5–8, 7.1–3: Capua

secedes, 216 BC
Following Cannae, the situation in Campania changed. Capua, an Oscan city, produced
the most spectacular of the revolts against Rome, which included the Samnites, Bruttians,
Lucanians, Uzentini, and almost all the Greek coastal cities and the Cisalpine Gauls.
Despite these defections, the Romans did not consider peace, even though allies made up
about 50 per cent of Roman manpower. Hannibal had gained more allies, but he had also
acquired responsibilities, among them the need to protect these cities, especially Capua,
which was recovered by Rome in 211 (doc. 4.44), as well as Tarentum in 209, Locri in 205
and Croton in 203.

4.6 To the Campanians’ contempt for the laws, magistrates and senate, there was
now added, after the disaster at Cannae, scorn too for the power of Rome, for
which they used to have some respect. 7 The only thing which held them back
from immediate secession was that the ancient right of connubium (intermarriage)
linked many distinguished and powerful families with the Romans, 8 and the
strongest bond was that 300 horsemen, the most noble of the Campanians, were

189
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
serving in the Roman army, chosen by the Romans and sent to garrison Sicilian
cities . . . 6.5 Finally the majority view prevailed that the same envoys who had
gone to the Roman consul should be sent to Hannibal. 6 Before they went, and
before the plan to secede was settled, I find in some annals that envoys were sent
to Rome by the Campanians, with the demand that, if they wished them to aid
the Roman state, one of the consuls should be a Campanian; 7 anger was aroused
and they were ordered to be removed from the senate house, and a lictor was sent
to lead them from the city and order them stay for the rest of that day outside
Roman territory. 8 There was once a very similar demand made by the Latins, and
because Coelius and other writers have with some reason omitted it I have been
afraid to set this down as certain.
7.1 The envoys came to Hannibal and made peace on these conditions: that no
Carthaginian general or magistrate should have any jurisdiction over a Campanian
citizen and no Campanian citizen should be forced to serve in the army or perform
any other service; 2 that Capua was to have its own laws and magistrates; that the
Carthaginians should give the Campanians 300 of their Roman prisoners, whom
the Campanians were to choose, with whom there would be an exchange for the
Campanian cavalry who were serving in Sicily. 3 These were the terms; in addi-
tion to this agreement, the Campanians committed the following crimes: for the
populace suddenly seized prefects of the allies and other Roman citizens, some of
them on military duty, others engaged in private business, and ordered them all to
be shut up in the baths, as if under guard, where they might die in a terrible way,
suffocated by the extreme heat.

4.43 Livy History of Rome 24.1.13: Hannibal and the Locrians, 215 BC
Livy includes Locri and the other Greek cities among the defectors, but in 216 these cities
initially opposed Hannibal: the Locrians surrendered to Hannibal in 215 but allowed the
Roman garrison to leave secretly; they finally made peace with Rome in 204.

By Hannibal’s order, the Locrians were given peace: they were to live in free-
dom under their own laws, their city should be open to the Carthaginians, their
harbour was to be in the control of the Locrians, and the alliance was to stand on
the condition that the Carthaginians should help the Locrians and the Locrians the
Carthaginians in peace and war.

4.44 Livy History of Rome 26.16.5–10, 13: The fate of Capua, 211 BC
In 215, Rome’s activities in Spain prevented reinforcements reaching Hannibal; the
Romans hemmed him into southern Italy with some success. In 214, the consuls M.
Claudius Marcellus and Q. Fabius Maximus ‘Cunctator’ (also consul in 215, and his son in
213) pushed Hannibal further south. But 213 saw several Greek cities go over to Hannibal,
including Tarentum, which was recaptured in 209. The year 212 saw preparations for
the recapture of Capua, which occurred in the following year; 53 Capuan senators were
beheaded (because, as Roman citizens, they were traitors).

190
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
5 From Cales the Romans returned to Capua and the surrender of Atella and
Calatia was received. There too punishment fell on the leaders responsible. 6 Thus
some 70 leading senators were executed, while approximately 300 Campanian
nobles who were imprisoned, and others who were sent under guard to cities of
the Latin allies, died in various ways: the rest of the citizens of Capua were sold.
7 Discussion continued about the city and the remaining land, some being of the
opinion that a city so powerful, so close and so unfriendly ought to be destroyed.
But present advantage triumphed; on account of the land, which was well known
to be the most fertile of any in Italy, the city was saved so there might be a home
for the farmers. 8 To populate the city, the foreign residents, freedmen, and retail-
ers and craftsmen were allowed to stay: all the land and buildings became the pub-
lic property of the Roman people. 9 But it was decided that Capua should remain
a city only in the sense of a place of habitation, and it was to have no political
body — no senate, no assembly of the people, no magistrates: 10 without a public
council, without military authority, they thought the mob, having nothing in com-
mon with each other, would be incapable of agreement; a praetor would be sent
each year from Rome to administer justice . . . 13 The enemy had to admit what
power the Romans possessed to exact punishment from disloyal allies and how
helpless Hannibal was to guard those whom he had taken under his protection.

THE TIDE TURNS

4.45 Polybius Histories 7.9.1–17: The alliance between Hannibal and
Philip of Macedon, 215 BC
Cf. Livy 23.33.10–12; App. Mac. 1. Philip V of Macedon approached Hannibal after
Cannae for this alliance; Rome knew of the alliance through capturing Xenophanes,
Philip’s ambassador, who was returning to the king with the treaty (this may be the source
of Polybius’ copy). The alliance brought Hannibal no material value, but its psychological
effect and propaganda value in Sicily and southern Italy among the Greek cities which had
rebelled might have been important. It is clear that there was no Carthaginian intention to
destroy Rome, only to limit its power.

1 The sworn treaty made between Hannibal the general, Mago, Myrcan, Barmocar,
and all the Carthaginian senators with him and all the Carthaginians serving under
him, and Xenophanes the Athenian, son of Cleomachus, the envoy whom King Philip,
son of Demetrius, sent to us on behalf of himself, the Macedonians and the allies.
2 In the presence of Zeus, Hera and Apollo; in the presence of the god of
Carthage, Heracles and Iolaus; in the presence of Ares, Triton and Poseidon; in
the presence of the gods who battle for us and of the sun, moon and earth; in the
presence of rivers, harbours and waters; 3 in the presence of all the gods who pos-
sess Carthage; in the presence of all the gods who possess Macedonia and the rest
of Greece; in the presence of all the gods of the army who preside over this oath.
4 Hannibal the general, and all the Carthaginian senators with him, and all the
Carthaginians serving under him, propose that, in respect of what seems good to

191
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
you and to us, we should make this sworn treaty of friendship and goodwill to be
friends, kinsmen and brothers, 5 on the following conditions: That King Philip
and the Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks who are their allies shall protect
the Carthaginians, the sovereign people, and Hannibal their general and those
with him and those subject to the Carthaginians who have the same laws; also the
people of Utica, and all cities and peoples subject to the Carthaginians, and our
soldiers and allies; 6 also all cities and peoples in Italy, Gaul and Liguria, with
whom we are in alliance and those in this country with whom we may hereafter
be in alliance;
7 That King Philip and the Macedonians and the other Greeks who are their
allies shall be protected and guarded by the Carthaginians who are serving with us,
by the people of Utica, and by all cities and peoples that are subject to Carthage,
by our allies and soldiers, and by all peoples and cities in Italy, Gaul and Liguria,
who are our allies and such other as may hereafter become our allies in Italy and
the neighbouring regions;
8 That we shall make no plots against each other, nor set ambushes against
one another, but with all zeal and goodwill, without guile or treachery, we will be
enemies of those who make war against the Carthaginians, excepting the kings,
cities and harbours with whom we have sworn treaties and friendships;
9 That we shall also be the enemies of those who make war against King Philip,
excepting the kings, cities and peoples with whom we have sworn treaties and
friendships;
10 That you will be our allies in the war which we now wage against the
Romans, until the gods grant victory to us and to you, 11 and you will give us such
help as we need or as we agree on;
12 That when the gods have granted us victory in the war against the Romans
and their allies, if the Romans ask us to make terms of peace, we shall make such
an agreement that shall include you also, 13 on the following conditions: That
the Romans shall never be permitted to make war on you; that the Romans shall
no longer have authority over Corcyra, Apollonia, Epidamnus, Pharos, Dimale,
Parthini or Atintania; 14 and that they shall hand back to Demetrius of Pharos all
those of his friends who are in Roman territory;
15 That if the Romans should make war on you or on us, we shall help each
other in the war, as may be required by either side; 16 that we shall do the same
if any others do so, excepting the kings, cities and peoples with whom we have
sworn treaties and friendships; 17 that, if we decide to withdraw from or add to
this sworn treaty, we will withdraw or add such conditions as are agreed by both.

4.46 ILS 12, 13: Marcus Claudius Marcellus in Sicily

Below are two dedications found at Rome, dated to 211 BC; at 13, vovit, vowed, was
originally inscribed and replaced by dedit, gave, when the vow was fulfilled. M. Claudius
Marcellus (271–208 BC, five times consul) was victorious in Sicily between 214 and 212.
Consul for the first time in 222 BC, he had defeated the Gauls, killing their chief in sin-
gle combat (thus winning the spolia opima) and capturing their capital. In 214 Marcellus

192
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
took up the command against Syracuse, which had revolted on the death of Hiero, and
conquered it in 211 BC. Most Sicilian cities now joined Rome, with the notable exception
of Agrigentum. In 208 Marcellus, his son, and his fellow consul (T. Quinctius Crispinus)
were mortally ambushed by the Cathaginians at Venusia. For his descendant and namesake,
Augustus’ nephew, see doc 15.36.

12 Marcus Claudius, son of Marcus, consul, took this (as booty) from Enna (in Sicily).
13 To Mars, Marcus Claudius, son of Marcus, consul, gave this.

4.47 Plutarch Life of Marcellus 30.6–9: Marcus Claudius Marcellus

and Greek art
Archimedes, the great mathematician, was killed in the capture of Syracuse, to Marcellus’
regret; his many inventions had aided the defence of the walls. Plut. Marcell. 21.1–6 tells
how Marcellus brought Syracuse’s works of art to Rome to adorn the capital, the first mas-
sive influx of Greek art into Rome.

6 The monuments which Marcellus dedicated, besides those in Rome, were a

gymnasium at Catana in Sicily and statues and tablets from Syracuse in the tem-
ple of the gods named the Cabiri in Samothrace and in the temple of Athena at
Lindos. 7 On his statue there, as Posidonius tells us, the following epigram was
inscribed:

8 This man, stranger, was the great star of his country, Rome,
Claudius Marcellus, of distinguished ancestors,
Seven times consul he protected her in warfare
Through which he launched plentiful death at the enemy.

9 The rank of pro-consul, which he held twice, the writer of the epigram has
counted with his five consulates.

4.48 Plutarch Life of Fabius Maximus 22.5–6, 23.1: Tarentum

recaptured, 209 BC
The Romans had lost Tarentum in 213 through the revolt of the aristocrats. According
to Plutarch, Q. Fabius Maximus ‘Cunctator’ took the city by treachery with the help of a
Bruttian contingent (whom he then slaughtered); Livy 27.16 says that the Bruttians were
killed because of a feud with Rome.

22.5 At that point Fabius’ love of honour appears to have taken a nose dive: he
ordered his men to kill the Bruttians first, to hide the fact that he took the city by
treachery; however, he failed to win credit for this and incurred a charge of bad faith
and savagery. 6 Many of the Tarentines were slaughtered too, 30,000 were sold
as slaves, and the city was sacked by the Roman army, while 3,000 talents found
their way into the treasury . . . 23.1 It is said that Hannibal had arrived within only

193
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
40 stades of the city, and in public remarked, ‘The Romans have another Hannibal;
we have lost the city of Tarentum as we took it’ – though in private he then told his
friends for the first time that he had seen for a long while that it would be difficult for
them to conquer Italy with their existing forces, and now he saw it was impossible.

THE METAURUS, 22 JUNE 207 BC

The Carthaginians had other military commitments in Spain and Sicily, and briefly in Sardinia
(215), and Hannibal had had essentially to manage with the force he brought in 218 plus
some additions from Italy. Mago Barca’s contingent intended for Italy had been deployed
instead in Spain because of Roman activities there. Hasdrubal, the son of Hamilcar Barca and
Hannibal’s brother, left in command of Spain by Hannibal in 218 BC, crossed the Alps and
entered Italy in 207 BC. The brothers planned to join forces in Umbria. Taking 6,000 infantry
and 1,000 cavalry, the consul C. Claudius Nero marched north and joined the other consul,
M. Livius Salinator, at the Metaurus River. Polybius gives 10,000 Carthaginians and Gauls
and 2,000 Roman dead (11.3.3); Livy expands this to 56,000 enemy dead and 8,000 Romans
and allies, and makes it a second Cannae, this time for the Carthaginians. Hannibal could now
expect no more reinforcements and was bogged down in Italy.

4.49 Polybius Histories 11.1.1–3, 3.3–6: Hasdrubal fails to

reinforce Hannibal
1 Hasdrubal’s arrival in Italy was much easier and swifter than Hannibal’s had
been. Rome had never before been so expectant and terrified, awaiting the out-
come . . . 2 None of this pleased Hasdrubal, but with circumstances no longer
permitting delay, since he saw the enemy advancing in battle formation, he was
forced to draw up his Spaniards and the Gauls who were with him. 3 Positioning
his elephants, who were ten in number, at the front, he increased the depth of his
line, making his whole army very narrow, and then, taking up his position in the
centre of the line of battle behind the elephants, he made his onslaught on the
enemy’s left, having resolved that in this crisis he had either to conquer or die . . .
3.3 No fewer than 10,000 Carthaginians and Gauls and about 2,000 Romans were
killed in the battle. Some distinguished Carthaginians were captured alive, and the rest
were slain. 4 When the news reached Rome, they did not believe it at first, because
they had so badly wanted to see this happen; 5 when more messengers came, not only
reporting the event but giving exact details, the city was full of surpassing joy, and
every shrine was decorated, every temple full of offerings and sacrificial victims, 6
and they generally became so confident and bold that everyone thought that Hannibal,
of whom they had been so terrified earlier, was now not even in Italy.

4.50 Livy History of Rome 27.51.11–12: Hasdrubal’s head

It was common for Romans to behead traitors, such as the Capuan senators who had allied
the city with Hannibal (doc. 4.44). The Gauls were head-hunters: after the battle of Ticinus,
some Gallic troops deserted Scipio and brought Hannibal the heads of the Roman soldiers
who had been camped near them (Polyb. 3.67).

194
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
11 After the consul Gaius Claudius (Nero) had returned to his camp, he ordered
that the head of Hasdrubal, which he had kept carefully and brought with him,
be thrown in front of the enemy’s outposts and that captured Africans be dis-
played, just as they were, in chains . . . 12 Hannibal, under the impact of so great
an affliction, both public and private, is reported to have said that he could see the
fate of Carthage.

SCIPIO AFRICANUS
The Scipio brothers had died in Spain in 211. According to Livy, none of the leading men
put themselves forward for the command, when Publius Cornelius Scipio, 24 years old,
suddenly did so (Livy 26.18). Duly appointed commander by the people, the younger
Scipio continued the war as a private citizen, privatus, invested with imperium pro con-
sule, the first privatus to be so invested. In late 210 he arrived in Spain and made for New
Carthage, where the Carthaginians kept huge amounts of supplies, and took it in 209. In
208 he defeated Hasdrubal Barca at the battle of Baecula; Hasdrubal took his remaining
forces for Italy, to bring reinforcements to Hannibal (see doc. 4.49). After a battle at Ilipa
in 206, Carthaginian control of Spain was at an end. Scipio had, in a few years, captured
Carthage’s main overseas possession.

4.51 Polybius Histories 10.3.1–7: Scipio Africanus

The battle near the Po River was the battle of Ticinus in 218 (see Polyb. 3.64). Laelius was
an important source for Polybius on Scipio, having served with him in Spain and Africa.

1 It is widely agreed that he (Scipio) was beneficent and magnanimous, but that
he was also shrewd and discreet, with a mind always concentrated on the object in
view, would be admitted only by those who had been closely associated with him
and who had scrutinised his character, as it were, by the light of day. 2 One of these
was Gaius Laelius (cos. 190), who from his boyhood until the end of his life had
shared in his every word and deed, and who has produced this belief in me because
his account seemed probable and in agreement with Scipio’s actual achievements.
3 He says that Publius’ first distinguished act was during the cavalry battle between
his father and Hannibal near the river called the Po. 4 At the time he was 17 years of
age and, this being his first campaign, his father had put him in command of a troop
of picked cavalry to keep him safe and sound, but when he saw his father in danger,
surrounded by the enemy with only two or three horsemen and badly wounded, he
at first tried to urge his companions to assist his father, 5 and, when they hung back
for a while because of the large numbers of enemy surrounding them, he is said to
have recklessly and audaciously charged on his own against those encircling them.
6 Thereupon the others were also compelled to attack, and the enemy broke up in
terror, while Publius, so unexpectedly saved, was the first to address his son as his
preserver in the hearing of everyone. 7 Having won a universally acknowledged
reputation for bravery through this service, for the future he seldom exposed himself
to danger when the hopes of his entire country depended on him – which is a char-
acteristic not of a leader who relies on luck but of one who possesses intelligence.

195
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
4.52 Plutarch Life of Fabius Maximus 25.1–27.1: Fabius’ disapproval
Once elected to the consulship for 205 BC, Scipio requested Africa as his allocated prov-
ince. Fabius opposed this, probably because he was focusing on driving Hannibal from
Italy, while Scipio wanted to defeat both Hannibal and Carthage. He was given the two
legions in Sicily (the troops who had survived Cannae) and raised volunteers. The recall of
Hannibal in 202 BC meant the end of his plan to capture Italy; for several years since 216
he had really been active only in southern Italy and was eventually more or less confined to
Bruttium and the Lacinian promontory.

25.1 Cornelius Scipio had been sent to Spain, defeating the Carthaginians in
numerous battles and driving them from the country, as well as winning for the
Romans the support of many tribes, large cities, and splendid victories. When
he returned to Rome, he possessed more goodwill and a better reputation than
anyone ever before and was elected consul (205 BC). Recognising that the people
demanded and expected a great exploit from him, he decided that the strategy
of engaging with Hannibal in Italy was quite out of date and over-cautious; he
resolved immediately to pour troops and armies into Libya and ravage Carthage
herself, so transferring the war scene from Italy to Africa, and he encouraged
the people to support this plan with all his enthusiasm. 2 Fabius, however, did
his best to spread fear through the city, on the grounds that they were being led
into extreme risks by a thoughtless young man, and spared neither words nor
deeds which he thought might deter his fellow citizens. He convinced the senate,
but the people thought that he was jealous of Scipio’s success and afraid that, if
Scipio achieved some great and splendid success and either completely ended the
war or took it out of Italy, he himself might appear to be lazy and cowardly for
having let the war drag on for so long. 3 It seems likely that, originally, Fabius’
drive to oppose Scipio was on account of his great caution and foresight, fearing
the risks, which were indeed great, while his effort to prevent Scipio’s increasing
influence made him more violent and extreme and brought in an element of rivalry
and competition. He even tried to persuade (P. Licinius) Crassus, Scipio’s fellow
consul, not to hand over the army but to lead it across himself, if the resolution
was taken, and did not allow Scipio to be given money for the war. 4 Scipio was
therefore forced to find the money himself and raised it privately from the cities in
Etruria, as they were personally devoted to him; Crassus was kept at home partly
by his nature, as he was not quarrelsome but mild, and partly on religious grounds,
as he held the highest priesthood . . .
26.2 Fabius managed to frighten the Romans, and they voted that Scipio should
use only the troops already in Sicily and take with him 300 of the men who had
served him loyally in Spain. Fabius appears to have followed this policy through
his innate caution. 3 But when Scipio crossed to Libya (204 BC), news of won-
derful achievements and victories, splendid in both size and glory, immediately
reached Rome, and immense booty followed as proof of these reports, including
the king of Numidia as a prisoner and the burning and destruction of two enemy
camps together with numerous men, weapons and horses, and envoys were sent
to Hannibal by the Carthaginians, asking and begging him to leave his fruitless

196
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
hopes in Italy and come to help them at home . . . 27.1 Not long afterwards, Scipio
defeated Hannibal in a pitched battle (Zama), overthrowing fallen Carthage’s
pride and trampling it underfoot, thus giving his fellow citizens a joy greater than
any they had hoped for and restoring their supremacy.

4.53 Polybius Histories 15.14.1–9: The Battle of Zama, 202 BC

Scipio had marched his troops out to the Great Plains and Hannibal encamped nearby at Zama,
about 160 kilometres south-west of Carthage. After a conference, requested by Hannibal, they
proceeded to battle. Hannibal had 36,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalry and 80 elephants, outnum-
bering Scipio’s 29,000 infantry and 6,000 cavalry. There was so much carnage that Scipio
re-formed his troops and the battle proceeded as Polybius describes below. The arrival of
the cavalry of Masinissa and Laelius ‘in the nick of time’ was critical for the Roman victory.

1 The space between the remaining armies was full of blood, slaughter and
corpses, and this obstacle to his pursuit of the enemy put the Roman general in a
great quandary; 2 for the slippery nature of the corpses, which were covered in
blood and had fallen in heaps, and the piles of arms, which had been thrown away
at random along with the bodies, would make it difficult for his men to remain in
their ranks while crossing the ground. 3 Nevertheless, after moving the wounded
to the rear of the army and calling back by trumpet those of the hastati who were
pursuing the enemy, he placed these in the front of the battle opposite the enemy’s
centre 4 and, getting the principes and triarii to close their ranks on each wing,
ordered them to advance through the dead. 5 When these had got across and were
in a line with the hastati, the phalanxes engaged with each other with the great-
est eagerness and enthusiasm. 6 As both sides were a good match in numbers,
spirit, courage and armour, the battle was for a long time undecided, with men
falling honourably where they stood, 7 until Masinissa and Laelius returned from
pursuing the cavalry and joined battle fortuitously at the right moment. 8 When
they fell on Hannibal’s men from the rear, most of them were cut down in their
ranks, while few of those who fled managed to escape, as the cavalry were nearby
and the region was level. 9 More than 1,500 Romans fell, and more than 20,000
Carthaginians, with nearly as many being taken prisoner. 15.1 This was the out-
come of the final battle between the two aforementioned commanders, the one
which decided everything in the Romans’ favour.

4.54 Livy History of Rome 30.35.3–11, 37.13: Livy praises Hannibal

35.4: Hadrumentum was Hannibal’s base (Livy 30.29.1). 35.10: Hannibal was nine years
old when he left Carthage for Spain. 37.13: Hannibal was elected as one of the two suf-
fetes in 196. He did not leave Carthage until 195 and thereafter spent several years with
Antiochus III (doc. 5.30) and the years 187 to 183 with King Prusias of Bithynia. He com-
mitted suicide in 183 when Prusias decided to surrender him to Flamininus.

35.3 Over 20,000 of the Carthaginians and their allies were killed on that
day; about the same number were captured, with 132 military standards and

197
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
11 elephants; about 1,500 of the victors fell. 4 In the commotion Hannibal
escaped with a few of his cavalry and fled to Hadrumentum. He had tried
everything possible both before the battle and during it before he left the
fighting, 5 and even by Scipio’s admission and that of all the military experts
he deserved praise for having drawn up his battle-line that day with remark-
able skill . . .
10 After performing this as his last act of military skill, Hannibal fled to
Hadrumentum but was summoned from there to Carthage, returning in the thirty-
sixth year since he had left it as a boy. 11 In the senate house he admitted that
he had been conquered not only in the battle but in the war and that there was
no hope of safety except in treating for peace . . . 37.13 Some authors relate that
Hannibal went straight from the battle to the coast and then, on a ship prepared
for him, sailed immediately to King Antiochus, and that, when Scipio demanded
that Hannibal be surrendered to him before everything else, the answer was that
Hannibal was not in Africa.

4.55 Lucilius Satires 29.3.952–3: Lucilius on Hannibal

This quotation probably concerns Hannibal’s defeat at Zama (202 BC), when Scipio’s tac-
tics neutralised Hannibal’s elephants.

. . . that in this way, I say, that old fox, that old wolf
Hannibal was taken in.

4.56 Ennius Scipio 1–6: Scipio Africanus the hero

Ennius devoted a whole poem to the African campaigns of his friend Scipio, who was given
the cognomen ‘Africanus’ for his victories there. This was the highpoint of his career: he
was censor in 199 and consul again in 194.

From the rising sun above the marshes of Maiotis

There is no one able to match his deeds . . .
If it is right for anyone to ascend to the regions of the gods
To me alone heaven’s great gate lies open . . .
Here lies that man to whom no citizen or enemy
Will be able to render a recompense befitting his services.

4.57 Naevius Fragment: Satires on the Roman commanders

An unassigned fragment from a fabula togata (comedy). Naevius was less generous than
Ennius and appears to have retailed scandal about Scipio; for Scipio’s Hellenising dress
(the pallium), see doc. 5.54.

Even he, who often with his hand gloriously achieved great exploits,
Whose deeds now live and flourish, pre-eminent among all nations,
He, with just a single cloak (pallium), was dragged by his father from his mistress.

198
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
PEACE TERMS
The peace treaty came into effect in 201 BC. After Zama, the defeat of all their forces and
of their last hope, Hannibal, the Carthaginians had to surrender or else endure a long siege.
Hannibal was instrumental in arguing for peace (Polyb. 15.19.1–9, Livy 30.37.7–10). The
Second Punic War was over.

4.58 Polybius Histories 15.18.1–8: Peace terms offered to Carthage

The conditions that Rome had proposed in 203 were a little more lenient. The terms were
crushing, but Carthage would survive.

1 The main points of the terms proposed were as follows: Carthage was to retain all
the cities she had earlier possessed in Africa before entering on the last war against
the Romans, and all her former territory, all flocks and herds, slaves and other prop-
erty; 2 from that day onwards the Carthaginians were to suffer no further injury,
they were to be governed by their own laws and customs and not have a garrison. 3
These were the lenient conditions; the others of an opposite nature were as follows:
the Carthaginians were to pay reparation to the Romans for all acts of injustice dur-
ing the truce; prisoners of war and deserters who had come into their hands at any
time were to be handed over; all ships of war, with the exception of ten triremes,
were to be handed over, 4 as were all elephants; they were not to make war on any
people outside Libya at all, and on none in Libya without the Romans’ consent;
5 they were to restore to King Masinissa all the houses, territory, cities and other
property which had belonged to him or to his ancestors within the boundaries which
were to be assigned to him; 6 they were to provide the Roman army with corn for
three months and with pay until a reply should be received from Rome concerning
the treaty; 7 they were to pay an indemnity of 10,000 talents of silver over a period
of 50 years in instalments of 200 Euboic talents each year; 8 and they were to hand
over as a guarantee of good faith 100 hostages, to be chosen by the Roman com-
mander from the young men between the ages of 14 and 30.

4.59 Livy History of Rome 30.45.1–7: Scipio’s triumph, 201 BC

This is the first time Livy mentions Polybius (cf. 33.10.10: ‘a not unknown author’). Scipio
celebrated his triumph over Hannibal, the Poeni (Carthaginians) and Syphax. (Scipio had
not been given a triumph for his Spanish success because he was a privatus, private citizen,
at that time.) Culleo was a senator, captured in Africa.

1 With peace made by land and sea, and his army embarked on ships, Scipio
crossed to Lilybaeum in Sicily. 2 After sending a large proportion of his soldiers
on board ship, he made his way to Rome through Italy, which was enjoying peace
just as much as the victory, while not only cities poured out to honour him but
crowds of countryfolk also blocked the roads, and on his arrival he rode into
the city in the most distinguished of all triumphs. 3 He brought into the treasury
123,000 pounds of silver in weight. To his soldiers he distributed 400 asses each
from the booty. 4 Syphax by his death was removed rather from the sight of the
spectators than from the glory of the triumphing general; he had died not long

199
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
before at Tibur, where he had been taken from Alba. However, his death attracted
general notice because he was given a state funeral. 5 Polybius states that this
king was led in the triumph, and he is an authority not to be lightly dismissed.
Following Scipio as he triumphed was Quintus Terentius Culleo, wearing a liberty
cap, who for the rest of his life, as was proper, honoured Scipio as the author of
his freedom. 6 Whether his popularity with the soldiers or the favour of the people
first gave him the honorific surname of Africanus, just like Felix for Sulla and
Magnus for Pompey in our fathers’ time, I cannot say. 7 He was certainly the first
general to be distinguished by the name of a nation conquered by him; later, fol-
lowing his example, men who were in no way his equals in victory won eminent
superscriptions for their masks and glorious surnames for their families.

4.60 Livy History of Rome 31.13.1–9: War bonds, 200 BC

In 210, businessmen had loaned money to the state to enable Rome to continue the war
against Hannibal, to be repaid in three instalments. The third instalment of this loan, due in
200, was not actually repaid until 196; even though the Punic War was over, Rome was still
involved in war against Philip of Macedon.

1 When the consuls were ready to set off to their provinces, 2 a number of pri-
vate citizens, who were owed this year the third instalment of repayment on the
loans made in the consulship of Marcus Valerius (Laevinus) and Marcus Claudius
(Marcellus), appealed to the senate, 3 as the consuls had stated that, because the
treasury had hardly enough funds for the new war, which was to be waged with a
great fleet and great armies, there was no money at present to make them this pay-
ment. 4 The senate could not withstand their complaints: if the state wanted to use
for the Macedonian War the money lent for the Punic War, with one war arising
after another, what would happen except that, in return for their generosity, their
money would be confiscated, as if it had been a crime? 5 Since these private citizens
were making a reasonable request, but the state was nevertheless unable to pay back
the loan, 6 the senate decided on a middle course halfway between justice and expe-
diency: that, because many of the creditors said there was land for sale everywhere,
land which they would like to buy, they should be given the opportunity to receive
public land within the fiftieth milestone from the city. 7 The consuls were to give a
valuation on the land and impose a rent of one as per iugerum to show that it was
still public land; 8 when the state was able to pay its debts, if any of them preferred
to have the money rather than the land, he could give the land back to the people. 9
The private citizens happily accepted this arrangement.

THE THIRD PUNIC WAR, 151–146 BC

Rome and Carthage made peace in 201 BC. By the 150s Carthage was once again pros-
perous. Its main problem was with Masinissa, king of Numidia (c. 238–148 BC), who
continually encroached on Carthaginian territory. The Carthaginians complained to Rome
in 153, and an embassy, including Cato, was sent from Rome, which saw how prosper-
ous and populous Carthage had become. Upon his return, therefore, Cato ended every

200
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
senatorial speech with ‘Delenda est Carthago’: ‘Carthage must be destroyed’ (doc. 4.61).
The Carthaginians eventually declared war on Masinissa in 151/50 BC, which provided an
excuse for the Romans. The Third Punic War saw the deaths or enslavement of thousands
of Carthaginians and the destruction of a city with a long history and vibrant culture; it was
almost certainly unnecessary and counts as one of the great tragedies of Mediterranean
history. But Scipio won his gloria (reputation), a great triumph was celebrated, and Rome
moved on to its next round of conquests.

4.61 Plutarch Life of Cato the Elder 26.1–27.5: Carthage

must be destroyed!
Carthage was of course usually much more than three days by sea from Rome; Cato was a
decisive influence in the declaration of war, but whether he was the foremost articulator of
senatorial fears or actually moulded senatorial policy is unclear. He died in 149 BC.

26.1 The last of Cato’s public services is said to have been the destruction of
Carthage. It was actually Scipio the Younger who completed the work, but the war
was undertaken mainly on the counsel and advice of Cato, in the following way.
2 Cato was sent to the Carthaginians and Masinissa the Numidian, who were at war
with each other, to inquire into the reasons for their conflict. Masinissa had been a
friend of the Roman people from the beginning, and the Carthaginians had entered
into a treaty with Rome after their defeat by Scipio (Africanus), which deprived
them of their empire and imposed a heavy monetary indemnity. 3 Finding, how-
ever, that the city was not, as the Romans thought, in a poor and unprosperous
state, but well populated with good fighting men, teeming with immense wealth,
full of all kinds of arms and provisions for war, and not a little proud of this, Cato
thought that it was not the time for the Romans to be organising the affairs of the
Numidians and Masinissa; rather, if they did not now put a stop to the city which
had always been their most hostile enemy and was now grown to so unbelievable
an extent, they would once more be in danger as great as before. 4 So he quickly
returned to Rome and advised the senate that the former defeats and disasters of
the Carthaginians had lessened not so much their power as their foolishness, and
that these were likely to make them in the end not weaker, but more skilful in
warfare, while their conflict with the Numidians was a prelude to conflict with the
Romans, and peace and treaty were just names for a war which was waiting for
a suitable opportunity to arise . . . 27.1 In addition to this, it is reported that Cato
arranged to drop a Libyan fig in the senate when he shook out the folds of his toga.
To the senators who admired its size and beauty, he remarked that the country
where it grew was only three days’ sail from Rome. 2 And in one respect he was
even more violent, in that, whenever he gave his vote on any issue whatever, he
would add the words: ‘In my view Carthage must be destroyed!’ . . . 5 In this way
Cato is said to have brought about the third and last war against the Carthaginians.

4.62 Appian Punic Wars 17.112: Scipio Aemilianus’ first consulship

The Carthaginians refused to accede to Rome’s demand that they abandon their city and
settle at least 10 (Roman) miles from the sea, and the consuls began the war. P. Cornelius

201
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
Scipio Aemilianus, the second son of L. Aemilius Paullus but adopted by P. Cornelius
Scipio, the son of the Scipio (victor of 201 BC), was then elected to the consulship for 146
BC, though he had not held the aedileship or praetorship; he was also several years under
age. He restored morale in the Roman army in Africa and campaigned as relentlessly as he
did later in 134 at Numantia (docs 5.49–50).

When Piso’s failure and the Carthaginians’ preparations were reported at Rome,
the people were angry and apprehensive over the escalating war – immense and
relentless as it was – with such a close neighbour, and they could not expect
any peaceful resolution, as they had been the first to contravene the agreement.
Remembering the recent achievements of Scipio while still a military tribune in
Libya, and comparing them to current events, and bearing in mind the reports writ-
ten to them by their friends and relatives in the army, they passionately wanted
to send Scipio to Carthage as consul. The elections were approaching, and Scipio
was a candidate for the aedileship (as, because of his age, the laws did not allow
him to hold the consulship) – and the people elected him consul. This was illegal,
and the consuls pointed out the law to them, but they implored and hectored them,
shouting that by the laws of Tullius and Romulus the people had jurisdiction over
the elections and that they could annul or ratify any of the electoral laws as they
chose. Finally one of the tribunes stated that he would strip the consuls of the
right to hold elections unless they submitted to the people’s demand. The senate
then permitted the tribunes to revoke this law and enact it again after one year –
just as the Spartans did when, out of necessity, they freed from dishonour those
who were captured at Pylos, stating, ‘Let the laws sleep today.’ In the same way,
Scipio, while standing for the aedileship, was elected consul, and when his col-
league, Drusus, told him to cast lots to decide which of them would have Africa,
one of the tribunes proposed that the decision regarding this command should
be in the hands of the people – and the people chose Scipio. He was granted by
conscription an army as numerous as those who had been killed and as many
volunteers as he could attract from the allies, and to send to kings and cities, as
he chose, letters written in the name of the Roman people which would bring him
assistance from the cities and kings.

4.63 Appian Punic Wars 8.128–30.610–17, 620: The

end of Carthage
Polybius was with Scipio and an eye-witness of the city’s destruction. Hasdrubal, the
Carthaginian commander, surrendered to Scipio in person, and what was left of Carthage
was destroyed on the senate’s orders.

610 Scipio’s energies were directed towards an attack on Byrsa; this was the most
strongly fortified part of the city, and most of the inhabitants had taken refuge
there. There were three streets leading up to it, with densely packed, six-storey
houses on all sides, from which the Romans were targeted, but they captured the
first houses and from them attacked those on the neighbouring houses. 611 When
they had taken these over, they placed planks and boards over the narrow passages

202
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
between and crossed as if on bridges. 612 While one battle was taking place up
on the roofs, another was going on in the streets as opponents met each other.
Everywhere was full of groaning, shrieks, cries and all kinds of suffering; some
were killed hand-to-hand, others were thrown alive down from the roofs to the
pavement, some falling onto the points of spears, or other sharp points, or swords.
613 No one as yet began lighting fires until Scipio had reached Byrsa; then he set
fire to the three streets altogether and ordered that the burning streets be made
passable so that the troops as they moved position might pass through freely. 614
After this came new horrific scenes, as the fire consumed and ravaged everything,
with the soldiers destroying the houses not little by little, but demolishing them
all at once. 615 The crashing became much louder, and with the stones fell heaps
of corpses. Others were still living, especially old men and children and women,
who had hidden in the recesses of houses, some wounded, others half-burnt, utter-
ing hideous cries. 616 Still others, being hurled and falling from so great a height
along with stones and timbers and fire, were torn into various horrible shapes,
smashed and broken. 617 Nor was this the end of their sufferings; for the stone
movers, who were removing the rubbish with axes, mattocks and poles and clear-
ing the streets to make them passable, removed the dead and those still living into
holes in the ground, some with axes and mattocks, others with the hooks on their
poles, sweeping them like timber or stones, or turning them over with iron tools —
and humans were used for filling up ditches . . . 620 Six days and nights were
spent in such labours, with the soldiers working in rotation so they might not be
worn out with sleeplessness, toil, slaughter and hideous sights.

4.64 Strabo Geography 17.3.14–15: The site of Carthage

Most of these details are taken from App. Pun. 13–14. Ten ships, not 12, were mentioned in
the Second Punic War treaty. Strabo here refers to the numbers of arms surrendered at the
demand of the consuls for 149 BC.

14 Carthage, too, is situated on a kind of peninsula which comprises a circuit of

360 stades, this circuit having a wall, while 60 stades of its length are taken up by
the neck itself from sea to sea, which is where the Carthaginians had their elephant
stalls and is a spacious place. Near the centre of the city was the acropolis, which
they called Byrsa, a fairly steep hill inhabited all around, with at the top the tem-
ple of Asclepius, which the wife of Hasdrubal burnt during the sack, along with
herself. The harbours lie below the acropolis, as does Cothon, a circular island
surrounded by a strait which has ship sheds all around on both sides.
15 . . . The Carthaginians’ power should appear evident from the last war, in
which they were defeated by Scipio Aemilianus and their city utterly destroyed.
For when they began to wage this war, they possessed 300 cities in Libya and
had 700,000 people in the city, and, when they were under siege and compelled
to turn to surrender, they gave up 200,000 suits of armour and 3,000 catapults,
on the understanding that there would not be a war again; but when they decided
to recommence the war, they suddenly organised weapons manufacture, and
each day produced 140 fitted shields, 300 swords, 500 spears and 1,000 catapult

203
 THE PUNIC WARS: ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
missiles, and the women slaves provided the hair for the catapults. Moreover,
though they had only 12 ships from 50 years earlier, in accordance with the treaty
made in the second war, they then, although they had already fled for refuge into
the Byrsa, constructed 120 decked ships in two months, and, since the mouth of
Cothon was being guarded, they dug another mouth, from which the fleet unex-
pectedly sailed out; for old timber had been stored away and a large number of
craftsmen were in waiting and maintained at public expense. But despite all this,
Carthage was still captured and razed to the ground.

4.65 CIL I2 2225: Carthaginians continue in Sardinia

A marble pedestal inscribed in both Latin and Punic, found on Sardinia, dating to not earlier
than the time of Sulla.

To Himilco, son of Idnibal, who superintended the construction of this temple by

the state’s decree, his son Himilco set up this statue.

204
 5

Rome’s Mediterranean Empire

Rome’s first encounter with Macedon (the First Macedonian War) took place fol-
lowing Philip V’s alliance with Hannibal in 215 BC (doc. 4.45); Philip hoped
to force the Romans to withdraw from the Illyrian coast. It was in this context
that the Romans sent envoys to Greek states hostile to Macedon, and Marcus
Valerius Laevinus made a treaty with the Aetolians against Philip in 212/11 BC
(doc. 5.22). This was Rome’s first alliance in the eastern Mediterranean. Before
205, Antiochus III of Syria (223–187) was occupied with restoring Seleucid con-
trol of Armenia and Iran (Polyb. 11.39.11–16), after which he adopted the title
of Great King and attempted to regain control of western Asia Minor. He then
took advantage of the death of Ptolemy Philopator of Egypt in 204 to invade
Coele Syria and seize the Egyptian possessions of Phoenicia and Palestine. The
peace of Phoenice was made between Philip and Rome in 205, but from 203
Philip, after some incursions into Illyria, continued his expansion in the Aegean,
defeating Rhodes, capturing Miletus and attacking Pergamum. In 201 Rhodes and
Attalus, king of Pergamum, requested Roman aid (Livy 31.2.1–3). Envoys were
sent to Philip demanding that he make war against no Greek states and pay com-
pensation to Attalus (Polyb. 16.27.2–3); the envoys then proceeded to Egypt to
request Ptolemy’s support should war eventuate against Philip (Livy 31.2.3–4; cf.
Polyb. 16.34.2–3). Rome decided on war, despite an initial vote against it in the
assembly (which suggests that it was less popular with the people than with the
magisterial class), to be under the command of Publius Sulpicius Galba, one of
the consuls for 200, who received Macedonia as his province (Livy 31.6.1–8.2);
Philip meanwhile was ravaging Attica and besieging Abydus to gain control of
the Hellespont. The Aetolians again joined Rome in 199, and in 198 the Achaean
league broke its alliance with Macedon and defected to Rome. Flamininus, consul
in 198, promoted the image of Rome as liberator of Philip’s Greek possessions
from Macedon and won the support of southern and central Greece by early 197.
Philip was defeated at the battle of Cynoscephalae in 197 and agreed to withdraw
from Greece, including the ‘Three Fetters’ of Greece: Demetrias, Chalcis and
Acrocorinth (doc. 5.23). In 196, at the Isthmian Games, Flamininus proclaimed
the unrestricted freedom of the Greeks (doc. 5.24), and in 194 all Roman troops
were finally withdrawn.

205
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
Antiochus III had taken advantage of Rome’s war against Philip to recover
coastal territories in Asia Minor in 197, attacking Smyrna and Lampsacus in the
winter or spring of 196 and crossing to Europe, where he rebuilt the town of
Lysimachia on the Thracian coast. Hannibal fled from Carthage to Antiochus
in 195, which intensified Rome’s concern. Envoys were sent to Antiochus at
Lysimachia to demand that he leave the autonomous cities of Asia Minor alone
and withdraw from those that had belonged to Ptolemy; if he did not withdraw
from Europe, Rome would interfere on behalf of the freedom of the Greeks in
Asia (Polyb. 18.49.3–51.10). Antiochus continued military activities in Thrace in
193 and 192; meanwhile the disgruntled Aetolians captured Demetrias but failed
to take Sparta and Chalcis (Livy 35.31–9). At their invitation Antiochus crossed
to Demetrias in the autumn of 192, thus provoking war with Rome. In spring
191, the consul Manius Acilius Glabrio took charge with 20,000 men. With little
support from within Greece, Antiochus decided to make a stand at Thermopylae,
and his army was totally defeated. Lucius Scipio (brother of Africanus) and Gaius
Laelius were elected consuls for 190; after arranging a truce with the Aetolians,
in autumn 190 the Scipio brothers led the first Roman army into Asia, where
Antiochus was defeated at Magnesia. He agreed to the Romans’ terms at the peace
of Apamea, signed in 188 (doc. 5.30).
In 184 or 183 Philip was instructed to withdraw his garrisons from Thracian
cities claimed by Eumenes of Pergamum (Polyb. 22.13.1–2, 23.1.1–4, 3.1–3; Livy
39.33.1–34.1, 46.6–9, 53.10). Demetrius, Philip’s younger son, who had been a
hostage in Rome, returned in 183 and was murdered in 180 for supposedly plot-
ting with the Romans to seize the throne (Livy 40.20.3–6, 24.1–8, 54.1–55.8).
Following Philip’s death in 179, his son Perseus tried to reassert Macedon’s
position against the background of increasing intransigence from Rome. When
Eumenes of Pergamum brought charges against Perseus in 172, the latter was
declared an enemy, and the war (the Third Macedonian War) was entrusted to the
consuls of 171 (Livy 42.11.1–13.12, 18.1–5). After some Macedonian successes,
Perseus was finally manoeuvred by Lucius Aemilius Paullus (cos. 182 and 168)
into giving battle at Pydna (Livy 44.41.1–42.9); his army was defeated. He later
surrendered at Samothrace and featured in Paullus’ triumph.
Rome was involved in new theatres of war in the 150s, such as Dalmatia, c. 155
(according to Polybius, to check the effeminacy at Rome caused by 12 years of
peace: 32.13.6–8; Livy Per. 46–47); Spain, from 154 to 133; Macedonia, where a
pretender, Andriscus, had initial successes in 149 but was captured in 148 (Polyb.
36.10.2–7; Livy Per. 49–52); and Carthage and mainland Greece in 146, when
Corinth was sacked and enslaved by the consul Lucius Mummius (doc. 5.41). The
destruction of Carthage by Scipio Aemilianus ended the long tension between
Rome and Carthage (docs 4.62–64), while the sack of Corinth saw Greece, with
Macedonia, become a Roman province. Asia Minor was to follow with the death
of Attalus III in 134/3 (doc. 5.45). In the West, from 201 to 190, one or both
consuls had been assigned to the Gallic region to reconquer the tribes that had
regained their freedom with the arrival of Hannibal. These were finally subdued
by Publius Scipio Nasica as consul in 191. The Latin colonies of Cremona and

206
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
Placentia (both established in 218) were resettled in 206 and reinforced in 190
(Livy 37.46.9–47.2), with further colonies such as Bononia, Forum Livii, Regium
Lepidum, Parma and Mutina, and Aquileia established in the 180s. Spain, at the
beginning of the second century, consisted of cities of Punic or Greek character
on the coast with numerous independent peoples in the interior. The Romans ini-
tially became involved in Spain to drive out the Carthaginians. Following Scipio
Africanus’ victory at Ilipa, two Spanish provinces (Hispania Ulterior, ‘Further’,
and Citerior, ‘Nearer’) were created, signifying that control and conquest of Spain
had become government policy (Livy 32.28.11). In 198 two new praetorships
were created for these Spanish provinces (Livy 32.27.6). Cato was to serve in
Spain as consul in 195 (doc. 5.46), while both Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus
(the elder) and Lucius Aemilius Paullus governed one of the Spanish provinces.
Roman misgovernment led to escalating warfare from the middle of the century
(docs 5.48–49), until the last real stronghold of Spanish resistance, Numantia, was
finally destroyed by Scipio Aemilianus in 133 (docs 5.52–53).
Ancient sources: most valuable is the extensive epigraphic evidence, from
the Hellenistic East and elsewhere, recording treaties (docs 5.22), edicts (docs
5.25, 47), dedications by victorious commanders (docs 5.33, 42–43) and senatus
consulta and letters (docs 5.29, 32, 44–45). Of literary sources, Polybius (c. 200–
c. 118 BC) is the earliest: he was a Greek historian concerned with chronicling
Rome’s rapid rise to power between 220 and 167 (he later continued the work
down to 146) and contemporary with much of the material about which he writes:
he was an eye-witness of certain important events, such as the sack of Carthage
in 146. He consulted all types of sources, was well travelled, spoke with eye-
witnesses and is often critical of other more ‘slip-shod’ historians. He is biased
towards Scipio Aemilianus and his family and, as an Achaean, against the Aetolian
league, yet he attempts to discover the facts and interpret them scientifically. He
frequently quotes or paraphrases treaties (docs 5.23, 28–31, 38). Only books 1–5
of the 40 books of his Histories remain intact; others are represented by excerpts
made by later writers or are extensively used by Livy. Books 21–45 of Livy’s Ab
urbe condita cover the period 218–167 BC, with book 31 beginning the account
of Rome’s domination of the Greek East and focusing through to book 45 on
the conflicts with Philip V of Macedon, Antiochus and Perseus. Livy relies on
literary sources, and from book 31 onwards he clearly used Polybius as his main
source, though he also looked at the works of the first-century writers Q. Claudius
Quadrigarius, Valerius Antias and L. Coelius Antipater and perhaps others; for
missing books of Livy there are the Periochae, fourth-century AD summaries of
the text (see doc. 5.50), which may not always reflect entirely accurately the con-
tents of Livy’s books. His account generally tends to be pro-Roman. Livy gives a
description of the Roman army c. 340 BC, while Polybius records detailed infor-
mation (docs 5.7, 11–20) on the army and its practices in his own day. Appian
of Alexandria was writing in the second century AD; his book on the Spanish
Wars preserves valuable material for the Roman conquest of Spain (docs 5.46,
48, 52–53), especially because many of the sources he used (Polybius was one
of them) are now lost. Pausanias (c. AD 150) wrote a Description of Greece,

207
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
concentrating particularly on monuments and monumental art before 150 BC;
his account of the sack of Corinth (doc. 5.41) is a useful supplement to Polybius.
Plutarch’s Lives have been used minimally in this chapter, though his biogra-
phies of Flamininus, Philopoemen and Aemilius Paullus help to flesh out portray-
als of some of the main characters of the time; Plutarch’s primary aim, however,
is a moralising one. His Life of Titus (Flamininus) preserves a hymn to Flamininus
sung at his festival on Chalcis (doc. 5.26). The 20 books of Aulus Gellius, the
Attic Nights, written in the second century AD, are concerned particularly with
matters of Latin grammar and expression; his discussion of usages often includes
valuable citations of passages of text otherwise lost (e.g., doc. 5.37).

THE IDEOLOGY OF ROMAN MILITARY SUPREMACY

Military glory was always the highest form of prestige in Rome – after all, the Romans
believed that they were descended from the god Mars himself (doc. 5.6). The greatest hon-
our for any Roman magistrate was the victorious command of an army and the award of a
triumph (docs 2.32–35); military virtues were seen as those most essential for any Roman,
and Rome’s destiny was to rule the inhabited world.

5.1 Plutarch Life of Coriolanus 1.6: Valour as the highest virtue

Gnaeus Marcius Coriolanus supposedly received his surname for taking Corioli from the
Volsci in 493 BC. Plutarch contrasts the Greek terms arete, virtue, and andreia (from aner:
the qualities belonging to a man, hence bravery). The Latin virtus (from vir, man) means
manliness or the excellences of a man, particularly that of bravery in combat.

In those days Rome honoured most highly that aspect of virtue concerned with
warlike and military achievements, and proof of this can be seen by the fact that
the Romans have only one word for virtue, which is virtus (valour), and use the
specific virtue of valour to stand for virtue in general.

5.2 Livy History of Rome 9.4.10–14: The army is Rome

When the Romans were trapped at the Caudine Forks by the Samnites in 321, the Samnites
proposed that the Roman army should pass under the yoke (unconditional surrender). Here
Lucius Lentulus (cos. 328) reacts to the suggestion; Rome went into mourning at the news
of this disgrace (doc. 1.67).

10 Indeed I confess that death on behalf of one’s country is a glorious thing, and I
am ready either to devote myself on behalf of the Roman people and legions or to
throw myself into the midst of the enemy; 11 but it is here I see my country, here
are all Rome’s legions, and, unless they choose to rush upon death for their own
sakes, what have they to save by dying? 12 ‘The roofs and walls of the city’, some-
one might say, ‘and the multitude by whom the city is inhabited.’ But, by Hercules,
all these are betrayed, not saved, once this army is annihilated! 13 For who will
protect them then? The common folk, unwarlike and unarmed, I suppose! —
just as it preserved them from the Gallic attack . . . 14 Here are all our hopes and

208
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
resources, and if we save these we save our country, whereas if we give them up
to death we abandon and betray it.

5.3 Livy History of Rome 9.16.16: Papirius Cursor makes a joke!

Papirius Cursor routed the Samnites in 319 and made them pass under the yoke in revenge
for the Roman defeat at the Caudine Forks (cf. docs 1.67, 2.33). No general was harder on
his men.

Indeed, a story is told how his cavalrymen once dared to ask him to let them off
some task in return for a job well done, and that he replied to them, ‘So you won’t
be able to say that I don’t let you off anything, I excuse you from patting your
horses’ backs when you dismount.’

5.4 Lucilius Satires 26.708–11: Rome’s invincibility

One of Lucilius’ earliest books of satire, perhaps written c. 131. For Viriathus, see docs
5.48, 50, for Hannibal, docs 4.22–26.

. . . the Roman people has often been defeated by force and overcome in many battles
But never in an actual war, on which everything depends –
No, we do not know the disgrace of being defeated in war by a barbarian
Viriathus or Hannibal.

5.5 Cicero In Defence of Murena 22: Military excellence

L. Licinius Murena (cos. 63; cf. doc. 12.17) had served with Lucullus in Asia and been
propraetor of Transalpine Gaul in 64. Cicero is defending him for electoral bribery.

Excellence in military service outranks all other forms of excellence. It is this that
has won the Roman people its fame, that has won this city its everlasting glory;
it is this that has made the whole world obey this government; all the activities
within this city, all these glorious pursuits of ours, the applause and the labours
here in the forum, all lie under the care and protection of excellence in warfare.

5.6 Vergil Aeneid 1.275–88: Rome’s great destiny

Jupiter here prophesies to the goddess Venus, mother of Aeneas, ‘ancestor’ of Julius Caesar
and Augustus (here called ‘Julius’), the future military success of Rome, including the
conquest of Greece. Mars was the father of Romulus and Remus; the house of Assaracus
means the Trojans and their Roman descendants; Julus, son of Aeneas, was supposedly the
ancestor of the Julian gens; cf. doc. 15.36 for Augustus’ nephew Marcellus.

275 Then, joyful in the tawny skin of the she-wolf, his nurse,
Romulus will inherit the line and found the walls of Mars,
Calling his people ‘Romans’ after his own name.
For these I limit their empire by no boundaries or periods of time;
I have granted them dominion without end. Yes, even fierce Juno,

209
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
280 Who now with fear wearies both sea and earth and sky,
Shall turn to better counsels, and with me cherish
The Romans, masters of the world, nation of the toga.
This is my decree. As the years slip by, an age will come
When the house of Assaracus shall crush with servitude
285 Phthia and famed Mycenae and hold dominion over conquered Argos.
From this glorious line shall be born the Trojan Caesar,
To make Ocean his limit of empire, the stars the limit of his fame,
A Julius, his name descended from great Julus.

THE IDEOLOGY OF THE MILITARY HERO

Roman citizens were by definition soldiers and liable for service from the age of 17 to 46
(at 46 men joined the seniores). Citizens were called up by the dilectus (levy), for which
the consuls, as commanders, were responsible; the maximum number of annual campaigns
was probably between 16 and 20, while the equites needed to serve only ten. Until Marius,
it was those with property who served (doc. 9.10).

5.7 Polybius Histories 6.39.1–10: Awards for valour

Decorations for wounding or killing the enemy were awarded only for courage above and
beyond the call of duty. The armour of an enemy commander killed in single combat by the
general – known as the spolia opima – was dedicated on the Capitol.

1 The Romans also have an excellent way of encouraging the young soldiers to
face danger. 2 Whenever some of them distinguish themselves in action, the gen-
eral summons the army to an assembly, brings forward those whom he consid-
ers to have conducted themselves with conspicuous excellence, and first makes a
speech in praise of the courageous actions of each one, and of anything else in their
conduct worthy of commendation, 3 and then hands out the following rewards:
to the man who has wounded an enemy, a javelin; and to the man who has killed
and despoiled an enemy, a cup, if he is in the infantry, and horse-trappings, if in
the cavalry – although originally the reward was only a spear. 4 These rewards are
not given to men who have wounded or stripped enemies in a pitched battle or the
capture of a city but only to those who have done so in skirmishes or other similar
situations, in which there was no need to hazard themselves in single combat, but
who threw themselves into this voluntarily and by their own choice.
5 When a city is stormed, the first man to scale the wall is awarded a crown of
gold. 6 In the same way, those who have shielded and saved any of the citizens or
allies receive honorary gifts from the consul, and those whom they saved present
them of their own free will with a crown; if not, the tribunes who judge the case
compel them to do so. 7 A man preserved in this way also reveres his preserver
like a father for the rest of his life and must treat him in every way like a par-
ent. 8 By such incentives, they incite to emulation and rivalry in times of danger
not only those who are present and witness what takes place but those who stay
at home as well; 9 for the recipients of such gifts, apart from their prestige in

210
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
the army and their fame soon afterwards at home, are especially distinguished in
religious processions after their return to their native land, for in these no one is
allowed to wear decorations except those honoured for their bravery by the con-
suls, 10 and they hang up the spoils they have won in the most conspicuous places
in their homes, considering them as the tokens and evidence of their valour.

5.8 Livy History of Rome 7.37.1–3: The grass crown

In a conflict against the Samnites in 345/3 BC the military tribune Publius Decius Mus
(cos. 340) took and held a hilltop; in the Roman victory 30,000 Samnites were killed. Both
consuls celebrated a triumph, with Decius given a place of honour in the procession. Pliny
Nat. Hist. 22.6–13 records eight recipients of the grass crown (the last being Augustus).

1 After the engagement had terminated in this way, the consul called an assembly
(contio) and not only completed the praises of Publius Decius he had begun before
but recounted those due to his recent deeds of bravery, and besides other military
gifts he gave him a golden crown and a hundred oxen, plus one exceptionally
fine fat white one with gilded horns. 2 The soldiers in his troop with him were
granted a double ration of grain for life and, for the time being, an ox each and two
tunics. Following the consul’s presentation, the legions placed on Decius’ head
the wreath of grass for delivering them from a siege, accompanying the gift with
cheering; another wreath, a mark of the same honour, was put on him by his own
troops. 3 Wearing these insignia, he sacrificed the fine ox to Mars and gave the
other hundred to the soldiers who had been with him on the expedition. To these
same soldiers the legions contributed a pound of spelt and a pint (a sextarius) of
wine each; all this was done with great enthusiasm, the soldiers’ cheering demon-
strating unanimous approval.

5.9 Livy History of Rome 42.34.5–14: Spurius Ligustinus

This incident took place in 171 BC, when there was dissatisfaction because some Romans
who had previously served as centurions were drafted as common soldiers. Ligustinus,
being over 46, was enlisting voluntarily. He had been on campaign for 22 of the last 30
years, though he had a small farm and eight children.

5 I became a soldier in the consulship of Publius Sulpicius and Gaius Aurelius

(200 BC). I spent two years as a common soldier in the army which was taken to
Macedonia against King Philip; in the third year, because of my bravery, Titus
Quinctius Flamininus made me centurion of the tenth maniple of hastati. 6 After
Philip and the Macedonians had been defeated and we were brought back to Italy
and discharged, I immediately set out for Spain as a volunteer soldier with the
consul Marcus Porcius (Cato, in 195). 7 Those who have had experience of him
and other commanders through long service know that, of all the generals now
alive, none was a keener observer and judge of bravery. This general judged me
worthy to be made centurion of the first century of the hastati. 8 I became a vol-
unteer soldier again for the third time in the army which was sent against the

211
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
Aetolians and King Antiochus (191). Manius Acilius made me centurion of the
first century of the principes. 9 When King Antiochus had been driven out and
the Aetolians beaten, we were brought back to Italy; twice after that I served in
campaigns where the legions served for a year. I then campaigned twice in Spain,
once when Quintus Fulvius Flaccus was praetor (181) and again when Tiberius
Sempronius Gracchus was praetor (180). 10 I was brought back by Flaccus to
appear with him along with others whom he brought back from the province for
his triumph because of their valour; I went back to the province because Tiberius
Gracchus asked me. 11 Four times within a few years I was chief centurion; 34
times I was rewarded by my generals for valour; I have received six civic crowns.
I have served 22 years in the army and I am over 50 years old. . . . 13 For myself,
as long as anyone who is enrolling armies considers me a suitable soldier, I will
never try to be excused from service. 14 Of whatever rank the military tribunes
think me fit, that is their decision; I shall make sure that no one in the army sur-
passes me in bravery; and, that I have always done so, both my generals and those
soldiers who served with me are my witnesses.

5.10 Pliny the Elder Natural History 7.101–6: The most courageous
Roman
Pliny is here discussing the Roman who most demonstrated outstanding courage. He also
mentions M. Manlius Capitolinus, who repelled the Gauls from the Capitol in 390, but in
Pliny’s view his attempt at kingship negated his achievements.

101 Lucius Siccius Dentatus, who was tribune of the plebs in the consulship of
Spurius Tarpeius and Aulus Aternius (454 BC), not long after the kings had been
expelled, gets an extremely large number of votes for having fought in 120 battles,
been the victor in eight challenges to single combat, and having the distinction of
45 scars in front and none on his back. 102 He also captured spoils 34 times, was
given 18 spear-shafts, 25 badges of honour, 83 torques, 160 armlets, 26 crowns
(including 14 civic crowns, eight of gold, three for being the first to scale the
walls, and one for rescuing others from a siege), a bag of money, ten prisoners
and with them 20 cows, followed in the triumph of nine generals whose victories
were due primarily to him, and furthermore (which I think to be the finest of his
achievements) 103 had one of his generals, Titus Romilius, at the end of his con-
sulship, convicted of maladministration. . . .
104 In these cases, indeed, there are great achievements of courage, but even
more of fortune: while no one, in my view at any rate, can justly rank any man above
Marcus Sergius, even though his great-grandson Catiline lowers his name’s fair
repute. In his second campaign Sergius lost his right hand, and in two campaigns
he was wounded 23 times, with the result that he was disabled in both hands and
both feet, with only his spirit unwounded; although crippled, he served afterwards
in numerous campaigns. He was twice taken prisoner by Hannibal – he was engaged
not just with any old enemy – and twice escaped from Hannibal’s incarceration,
although he was kept in chains or fetters every single day for 20 months. He fought

212
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
four times with his left hand alone, and two horses on which he was mounted were
cut from under him. 105 He had a right hand of iron made for himself and, going
into battle with it tied on, raised the siege of Cremona, saved Placentia, and took 12
enemy camps in Gaul, all of which are known from his speech during his praetor-
ship when he was barred by his colleagues from the sacrifices as disabled – a man
who with a different enemy would have heaped up piles of crowns! . . . 106 Others
have indeed conquered men, but Sergius conquered Fortune too.

THE ROMAN ARMY

The army was a crucial component of Roman culture and civilisation. The Roman ability
to wage war successfully allowed their city-state to emerge from the status of just another
community in Italy to become master of the Mediterranean world. Polybius’ Histories were
written to explain Rome’s rise as the major power, with a long discussion on the Roman
army. He gives the earliest contemporary description of the Roman army, that of the second
century BC (docs 5.12–16), including the equipment of the soldiers of his day, while Livy
describes the army of the fourth century BC (doc. 5.11).
The legion, first with its maniples and later with its cohorts, was flexible and manoeu-
vrable, as opposed to the Greek phalanx, with its emphasis on a fixed line. The size of
the legion in 340 BC was 5,000 infantry with 300 cavalry (doc. 5.11), while its size in the
middle Republic varied between 4,200 or 5,000 infantry (doc. 5.13). Rome’s allies – the
Latins and Italians – provided her with troops; this was their main obligation to Rome.
Cavalry does not appear often in the sources; it seems mainly to have been provided by the
allies and fought in Sicily and in Africa.

5.11 Livy History of Rome 8.8.3–14: Early army organisation, 340 BC

Livy here notes the change in types of shield: the clipeus (plural: clipei) was round and
made of bronze; the scutum (plural: scuta) which replaced it was oval (oblong) and made
of wood covered with bull’s hide. In the mid-fourth century BC the first two lines of the
battle formation were the hastati and principes, each having 15 maniples. Livy divides the
last three lines into the triarii, rorarii and accensi (the last two do not appear in Polybius’
account, indicating that the army had changed by that time). The 15 maniples of the hastati
included 20 light-armed men with the rest being more heavily armed with body armour
and the scutum; the 15 maniples of the principes were all heavily and better armed. These
30 maniples were the antepilani. Behind them, the structure became more complicated.
Here there were 15 companies (ordines, sing: ordo; Livy does not use the word maniples
in describing them), each company having three parts (vexilla); the names of the three
parts were the triarii, rorarii and accensi, placed in that order within the companies (there
were thus 15 ordines, each made up of three vexilla). Livy does not indicate the size of the
maniple in 340 BC, but from his description of the ordines they must have had 60 to 70
men each.

3 The Romans had earlier used round shields (clipei), but after they began to
serve for pay they made oblong shields (scuta) instead of round ones; and what
had earlier been a phalanx, like the Macedonian ones, afterwards began to be a
battle-line formed in maniples, 4 the troops in the rear being drawn up in a number

213
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
of companies (ordines). 5 The first line, the hastati, consisted of 15 maniples,
stationed a short distance apart; the maniple included 20 light-armed soldiers, the
remainder carrying oblong shields – those who were called light-armed carried
only a spear and javelins. 6 This front line of the battle-order contained the pick
of the young men who had reached the age for military service. Behind these
came a similar number of maniples made up of men of more mature age, who
were called the principes, all with oblong shields and especially splendid arms.
7 This body of 30 maniples was called the antepilani, because right behind the
standards were positioned another 15 companies, each of which had three sec-
tions, the first section of each being named the pilus; 8 a company consisted of
three vexilla (standards), a vexillum having 60 soldiers and two centurions, with
one standard-bearer (vexillarius), making 186 men altogether. The first standard
led the triarii, veteran soldiers of proven courage, the second the rorarii, younger
and less experienced men, the third the accensi, the least reliable group, who were
for that reason assigned to the line furthest back.
9 When an army had been drawn up in this order, the hastati were the first
of all to open the battle. If the hastati were unable to overcome the enemy, they
slowly retreated and were received through the gaps between the principes. The
fighting was then the job of the principes with the hastati following them. 10 The
triarii knelt under their standards with the left leg in front, shields resting against
their shoulders, holding their spears fixed in the ground with the point facing
upwards, just as if the battle-line was bristling with a protective fortification. 11
If the principes were also unsuccessful in their fighting, they fell back slowly
from the front line to the triarii (from which comes the proverb, when things are
going badly, ‘to have reached the triarii’). 12 The triarii, rising up when they had
allowed the principes and hastati to pass through the gaps in their lines, would
at once compress their ranks, just as if they were blocking the pathways, and in
one unbroken body, with no more reserves behind, would fall upon the enemy;
13 this was especially disconcerting for the enemy, who had followed up those
they thought defeated only to see a new line suddenly rising up with increased
numbers. 14 There were generally about four legions enlisted, each with 5,000
foot-soldiers and 300 horse to each legion.

POLYBIUS ON ROME’S MILITARY SYSTEM

Polybius’ description of the Roman army falls into two overall sections: (a) 6.19–26 on the
army itself and its various features, such as the enrolment of troops (doc. 5.13), length of
service (doc. 5.12), pay (doc. 5.14) and equipment (doc. 5.15), and (b) 27–42 on the Roman
camp (docs 5.16, 18). These details apply to the time at which Polybius was writing, and
the army he describes is generally thought to be that which had come about as a result of
the Second Punic War.

5.12 Polybius Histories 6.19.1–5: Length of service

Roman citizens who were 17 years old were eligible for military duty. The length of time
required for military service before political office could be sought indicates the martial

214
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
character of Roman society and its political institutions. In this document, the military
tribunes should not be confused with the plebeian tribunes (for which, see docs 1.23–24).
Polybius’ Greek for the years of service of the infantry is corrupt, and is usually emended
by editors to read 16 years, though six years seems more probable. Under Augustus the
term of service was 16 years, but this reflects a period when long service in the armies of
the civil war and the professionalisation of the army had taken place.

1 After electing the consuls, they appoint military tribunes, 14 from those who
have served for five years 2 and ten from those who have served for ten. With
regard to the rest, a cavalryman must complete ten years’ service and an infan-
tryman six before reaching the age of 46, 3 except for those whose property was
assessed at less than 400 drachmae; all these are assigned to naval service. In the
case of a pressing emergency, 4 the infantry are obliged to serve for 20 years. No
one is able to hold political office 5 before he has completed ten years’ service.

5.13 Polybius Histories 6.19.5–21.4: Enlistment of troops

Enlistment took place on the Capitol at Rome. While Polybius refers to an initial day for
recruitment, it is clear that enlistment might take several days, which would be understand-
able given the numbers involved. The tribunes mentioned here are the military tribunes, of
whom there were 24.

19.5 When the consuls are about to enrol soldiers, they announce at a meeting of
the assembly the day on which all Roman citizens of military age must present
themselves. 6 They do this annually. On the appointed day, when those liable for
service have arrived in Rome 7 and assembled on the Capitoline Hill, the junior
military tribunes divide themselves into four groups in the order in which they
have been appointed by the people or consuls, as the main and original division of
the Roman forces was into four legions. 8 The four first appointed are allocated to
the first legion, the next three to the second, the next four to the third, and the last
three to the fourth. 9 Of the senior tribunes, the first two are assigned to the first
legion, the next three to the second, the next two to the third, and the last three to
the fourth.
20.1 Once the division and appointment of the tribunes has been made so that
each legion has the same number of officers, 2 those of each legion take their seats
apart and draw lots for the tribes one by one, summoning each in the order of the
lottery. 3 From each tribe they select four youths who resemble each other as far
as possible in age and physique. 4 When these are brought forward, the officers
of the first legion have the first choice, those of the second legion second choice,
those of the third third, and those of the fourth last. 5 When the next batch of four
are brought forward, the officers of the second legion have first choice, and so on,
with those of the first legion last. 6 Then, when another batch of four are brought
forward, the officers of the third legion have first choice and those of the second
last. 7 By giving each legion the first choice in turn, every legion gets men of
roughly the same standard. 8 When they have chosen the required number, that is,
when each legion has 4,200 infantry, or 5,000 in times of especial danger, 9 they

215
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
then used in earlier times to choose the cavalrymen after the 4,200, but now they
choose them first, the censor selecting them on the basis of their wealth, and 300
are assigned to each legion.
21.1 When the enrolment has been completed in this way, those tribunes whose
duty it is in each legion collect the enrolled soldiers and, picking out of them all
one who seems the most suitable, 2 make him take the oath that he will obey his
officers and carry out their commands to the best of his ability. 3 Then the others
come forward and each in turn swears that he will do the same as the first man.
4 At the same time the consuls send orders to the allied cities in Italy which they
wish to contribute allied troops, stating the number required and the day and place
at which those selected should present themselves. The cities select the men and
administer the oath in a manner similar to the one described and send them off,
after appointing a commander and paymaster.

5.14 Polybius Histories 6.39.12–15: Army pay

The army was at first a volunteer one, but Rome’s continual wars meant that pay had to
be introduced for Roman legionaries by the middle Republic. A Greek drachma (6 obols)
was roughly equivalent to the Roman denarius. At this stage, deductions for expenses were
taken from the pay; a cavalryman’s pay was higher to cover the costs of keeping a horse.
Allies were not paid by the Roman state but received a food allowance.

12 As their pay the infantrymen each receive two obols a day, centurions twice this,
and cavalrymen a drachma. 13 The infantry are each allowed about two-thirds of an
Attic medimnus of wheat a month, and the cavalry seven medimni of barley and two
of wheat. 14 Of the allies, the infantry get the same, and the cavalry one and one-
third medimni of wheat and five of barley. 15 These are provided free to the allies,
but in the case of the Romans the quaestor deducts from their pay the price fixed for
the grain and their clothes and any additional arms they might need.

5.15 Polybius Histories 6.22.1–23.15: Army equipment

The Spanish sword – gladius Hispaniensis – was a short weapon used for chopping and
stabbing at close range and adopted from the Spanish; the surviving example is 76 mm
long. It differs from the long Gallic sword which was used for slashing and needed room
to do so. The legionaries also carried a dagger. While the Roman soldier made use of the
pilum in the initial stages of a battle, he was primarily a swordsman; Polybius records that
each of the hastati had two pila.

22.1 The youngest soldiers, the velites, are ordered to carry a sword, javelins and
shield (parma). 2 The shield is strongly constructed and of sufficient size for pro-
tection; it is circular and 3 feet in diameter. 3 They also wear a plain helmet (i.e.,
with no crest), sometimes covered with a wolf’s skin or something of that sort,
both for protection and as a distinguishing mark by which their officers can recog-
nise them and observe whether or not they show bravery in battle. 4 The wooden
shaft of the javelin measures about 2 cubits in length and a finger’s breadth in

216
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
thickness, and the head is a span long and is so thinly hammered out and finely
sharpened that it is necessarily bent by the first impact and the enemy are unable
to hurl it back; otherwise the weapon could be used by both sides.
23.1 The next in seniority, who are called hastati, are ordered to wear a full set of
armour (panoply). 2 The Roman panoply consists, first, of a shield, the convex sur-
face of which measures 2½ feet (5 hemipodia) in width and 4 feet in length, 3 with
the depth at its rim being the width of a palm, which is made by gluing two planks
together and covering the outer surface first with canvas and then with calf-skin. 4
Its upper and lower edges have a shield-rim which helps it to ward off descending
swordblows and protects it when fixed in the ground. 5 An iron boss is also attached
to it which protects it from violent blows from stones, pikes and heavy weapons
generally. 6 Besides the shield they also carry a sword, which is worn on the right
thigh and called a Spanish sword. 7 This has a sharp point and an effective cutting
edge on both sides, as the blade is very strong and firm. 8 In addition they have two
throwing spears (pila), a bronze helmet and greaves. 9 Some of the pila are thick,
others thin. Of the thicker kind, some are round and a palm’s breadth in diameter,
others a palm square. Those of the thin type that they carry, in addition to the others,
are like moderate-sized hunting-spears, 10 the length of the wooden shaft of all of
these being about 3 cubits. Each is fitted with an iron head which is barbed and of
the same length as the shaft; 11 this is fastened securely by attaching it right along
the shaft up to the middle and fixing it with numerous rivets, so that in battle the iron
will break rather than the fastening come loose, although its thickness at the bottom,
where it touches the wood, is the width of one and a half fingers — they take such
great care to attach it securely. 12 Finally they wear as an ornament a circle of feath-
ers with three upright black or purple feathers, 13 about a cubit in height. With these
placed on the helmet on top of the rest of the armour, every man looks twice his real
height, and it gives him a fine appearance which strikes terror in the enemy. 14 The
common soldiers also wear in addition a bronze breast-plate a span square, which is
placed over the heart and called a heart protector, which completes their armaments,
15 but those who are rated above 10,000 drachmas wear a coat of chain-mail instead
of this heart protector. 16 The principes and triarii are armed in the same way except
that, instead of pila, the triarii carry thrusting spears (hastae).

MILITARY TECHNOLOGY
5.16 Polybius Histories 6.27.1–3, 6.31.10–14, 6.34.1–6:
The Roman camp
This is an extract from a lengthy discussion of the Roman army camp (Polyb. 6.27–42).
Polybius describes a two-legion camp, half of the larger camp when the two consular armies
(i.e., four legions) were together – that is, each two-legion consular army had its own camp
but shared one side of it with the other army. The Roman army would encamp each night, and
such camps were generally temporary, occupied for that night alone, or for longer periods if
outside a besieged town or city. The camp had the appearance of a town, as Polybius notes,
with several streets, including the via principalis (‘main street’), along which was the praeto-
rium (general’s tent), the quaestorium (quaestor’s quarters) and the forum.

217
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
27.1 Their method of laying out a camp is as follows. Once the site for the camp
has been chosen, the position in it most suitable for obtaining a general view
and issuing orders is allocated to the general’s tent (praetorium). 2 They plant a
standard on the spot where they intend to pitch the tent and measure off around
the standard a square plot, each side of which is 100 feet from the standard, so that
the whole area measures 4 plethra (one plethron = 10,000 square feet). 3 Along
one side of this square, in the direction which seems to offer the best facilities for
watering and foraging, the Roman legions are stationed . . .
31.10 The result of these arrangements is that the whole camp forms a square,
and its division into streets and its general plan gives it the appearance of a town.
11 The rampart is dug on all sides at a distance of 200 feet from the tents, and
this empty space serves a number of important uses. 12 To begin with, it provides
the suitable facilities necessary for marching the troops in and out; for they all
march out into this space via their own streets rather than converging into one
street en masse and jostling and trampling each other. 13 It is here, too, that they
collect any cattle brought into camp and booty taken from the enemy and guard
them safely during the night. 14 But most important of all is that, in night attacks,
neither fire nor weapons can reach them, apart from a very few, which are almost
harmless because of the distance and the space left in front of the tents . . .
34.1 As regards the construction of the ditch and stockade, the two sides along
which their two wings are quartered are the responsibility of the allies, the other
two being that of the Romans, one for each legion. 2 Each side is divided into
sections, one for each maniple, and the centurions stand by and supervise each
section, with two of the military tribunes superintending the work as a whole on
each side. 3 They also supervise all other work to do with the camp; they divide
themselves into pairs, drawing lots for their turn, and each pair is on duty for two
months out of every six, supervising all field operations. 4 The prefects of the
allies use the same procedure in dividing their duties. 5 At dawn all the cavalry
officers and centurions parade at the tents of the tribunes, and the tribunes report
to the consul. He gives the necessary orders to the tribunes, 6 and the tribunes
pass them on to the cavalry officers and centurions, and they convey them to the
soldiers when the proper time comes.

5.17 Caesar Gallic War 2.30–31: Siege works in Gaul

Caesar is here engaged in campaigns in Gaul in 57 BC: the Aduatuci were coming to the aid
of the Nervii, but on hearing of their defeat returned home and collected together in a town
of great strength on high rocks with a double wall and only one approach.

30 On the arrival of our army, they made frequent sorties from the fortress and
engaged with our troops in minor skirmishes; later, when they were enclosed by
a rampart 12 feet high, 15,000 feet in circumference, and with forts at frequent
intervals, they stayed inside the town. When the mantlets had been pushed for-
ward and a ramp constructed, and they saw a siege tower being erected at some
distance, they first made fun of us from the wall and loudly criticised us for having

218
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
set up so great a machine at such a distance: by what handiwork and what strength,
they cried, could men of such short stature (for our stature, short when compared
to their own gigantic build, is generally despised by the Gauls) expect to place so
heavy a tower on the wall? 31 When, however, they saw the tower moving and
approaching the walls, they were dismayed at such a novel and unusual sight and
sent envoys to speak to Caesar about peace, in the following way: they consid-
ered, they said, that the Romans did not make war without divine assistance, as
they could move forward with such speed machines of such height: they therefore
submitted themselves and all their possessions to the Romans’ power.

MILITARY DISCIPLINE
Roman military discipline was severe and uncompromising. There was no appeal against
standard punishments to be inflicted for various offences. But to balance the discipline was
the system of rewards (see docs 5.7–10) and the fact that soldiers could not be arbitrarily
punished. The punishments for delinquency on the night-watch are clearly understandable:
this type of laxness endangered the safety of the camp and the lives of all the men within it.

5.18 Polybius Histories 6.34.7–12: The watchword

7 The way they ensure the safe passing round of the watchword for the night is
as follows: 8 from the tenth maniple of every class of cavalry and infantry, the
maniple which is encamped at the lower end of the street, a man is selected who is
relieved from guard duty and who presents himself every day at sunset at the tent
of the tribune. He receives the watchword – that is, a wooden tablet with the word
inscribed on it – and takes his leave. 9 When he returns to his maniple he hands
over the tablet and watchword, in the presence of witnesses, to the commander of
the next maniple, who in turn passes it on to the one next to him. 10 All in turn do
the same until it reaches the first maniples, the ones near the tents of the tribunes.
These men have to return the tablet to the tribunes while it is still light. 11 If all
the tablets issued are returned, he knows that the watchword has been given to all
the maniples and has passed through them all on the way back to him; 12 if one
is missing, he makes inquiry immediately, being able to tell from the inscription
from what quarter the tablet has not returned. The person responsible for the hold-
up meets with the punishment he deserves.

5.19 Polybius Histories 6.37.1–3, 6: Delinquency on the night-watch

Death by beating with cudgels and stoning (the fustuarium) was also the punishment for
those who stole in camp, gave false evidence or were homosexuals (doc. 7.59), as well as
for anyone punished for the same offence three times.

1 A court-martial composed of the tribunes immediately meets to try him, and if

found guilty he is punished by being beaten to death. This is carried out as fol-
lows: 2 the tribune takes a cudgel and just touches the condemned man with it,
3 whereupon all those in camp strike him with clubs and stones, usually killing

219
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
him in the camp itself. 4 But even those able to escape have no hope of safety –
how could they? They are not allowed to return to their homes, and no relative
would dare to receive such a man in his house. So those who have once fallen into
this misfortune are utterly ruined . . . 6 Consequently, because of the severity of this
inescapable penalty, the night-watches of the Roman army are kept impeccably.

5.20 Polybius Histories 6.38.1–4: ‘Decimation’

Decimation was the traditional penalty for desertion or abandoning the standards; Crassus
imposed this penalty on the army defeated by Spartacus (doc. 6.50). Death was by the
fustuarium (doc. 5.19).

1 If it ever happens that a large body of men behave in the same way (i.e., run
away or throw away their weapons) and whole maniples leave their posts under
heavy pressure, they reject the possibility of beating to death or executing all who
are guilty, but find a solution to the problem which is both effective and terrify-
ing. 2 The tribune assembles the legion and brings out to the front those who left
the ranks, reprimands them severely and finally chooses by lot sometimes five,
sometimes eight, sometimes 20 of the offenders, calculating the number so that
it represents as far as possible a tenth of those guilty of cowardice. 3 Those who
are chosen by lot are mercilessly beaten to death in the manner described above,
and the rest are given rations of barley instead of wheat and are ordered to make
their quarters outside the safety of the rampart. 4 The danger and the fear of draw-
ing the lot threatens everyone equally, as there is no knowing on whom it might
fall, and, as the shame of receiving rations of barley falls on all alike, the practice
adopted is the one best adapted to inspire fear and correct such faults.

5.21 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 16.4.2–4: Military oaths

Laelius and Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus were consuls in 190 BC. Booty was an
important incentive for the troops: no more than half the total force was sent to collect it,
the rest remaining on the alert, and after it was sold it was the responsibility of the military
tribunes to ensure that it was equitably distributed.

2 Also in the fifth book of the same Cincius’ On Military Science there is writ-
ten: ‘When a levy was made in ancient times and soldiers were enrolled, the
military tribune compelled them to take an oath in these words: “In the army
of the consul of Gaius Laelius, son of Gaius, and the consul Lucius Cornelius,
son of Publius, and for 10 miles around, you will not commit a theft with malice
aforethought, either alone or with others, of greater value than a silver sesterce
on any one day; and except for a spear, spear-shaft, firewood, fruit, fodder,
wineskin, sack and torch, if you find or carry off anything there which is not
yours, which is worth more than one silver sesterce, you will bring it to the
consul Gaius Laelius, son of Gaius, or Lucius Cornelius, son of Publius, or to
whomsoever either of them should order, or within the next three days you will
reveal whatever you have found or carried off by malice aforethought, or you

220
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
will return it to its owner, whomever you think that to be, as you wish to do
what is right.”
3 ‘When the soldiers had been enrolled, a day was appointed on which they
should appear and answer the consul’s summons; then an oath was taken that they
should be present, 4 with the following exceptions added: “Unless there be any
of the following reasons: a family funeral or days of purification (but not if they
have been appointed for that day in order that he might not appear on that day), or
a serious disease, or an omen which could not be passed by without expiation, or
an anniversary sacrifice which could not be properly celebrated unless he himself
were there on that day, or violence or enemies, or a stated and appointed day with
a guest; if anyone shall have any of these reasons, then on the day following that
for which he is excused for these reasons, he shall come and serve the one who
made that district, village or town subject to levy.”’

ROME’S CONQUEST OF THE MEDITERRANEAN

5.22 SEG 13.382: Treaty between Rome and the Aetolian league
This treaty made by Marcus Valerius Laevinus with the Aetolians against Philip in 212/11
BC was Rome’s first alliance in the eastern Mediterranean. The earliest extant Roman
official document found in Greek, this formal bilateral agreement sets out arrangements for
conducting the war, the division of booty and the terms of peace.

5 If the Romans take by force any cities of these peoples, as far as the Roman
people are concerned the Aetolian people shall be permitted to keep these cit-
ies and their territories; anything else, apart from the cities and territories, that
10 the Romans take, the Romans shall keep. If the Romans and the Aetolians in
concert capture some of these cities, as far as the Roman people are concerned
the Aetolians shall be permitted to keep those cities and their territories; anything
they take apart from the cities shall belong jointly 15 to both. If any of these cities
submits or surrenders to the Romans or the Aetolians, as far as the Roman people
are concerned the Aetolian people shall be permitted to take these people and their
cities and territories 20 into their league.

5.23 Polybius Histories 18.44.1–7: Peace settlement with Philip

The Second Macedonian War ended with Philip’s defeat at Cynoscephalae in Thessaly in
197. The peoples named in the treaty had been part of Philip’s empire in Greece. Livy has
two additional clauses, that Philip should have no more than 5,000 soldiers and no ele-
phants, and that he should wage no war outside Macedonia without the senate’s permission.

1 At this time the ten commissioners came from Rome to deal with affairs in
Greece, bringing with them the senate’s decree about peace with Philip. 2 The
decree’s main points were as follows: all the rest of the Greeks in Asia and Europe
were to be free and subject to their own laws; 3 Philip was to hand over to the
Romans all Greeks under his rule and all towns with garrisons before the start of

221
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
the Isthmian games (June 196 BC); 4 he was to leave free, after withdrawing his
garrisons from them, the towns of Euromus, Pedasa, Bargylia and Iasus, as well as
Abydus, Thasus, Myrina and Perinthus; 5 in accordance with the senate’s decree,
Titus (Flamininus) was to write to Prusias (of Bithynia) about the liberation of the
Ciani; 6 within the same time period, Philip was to restore to the Romans all pris-
oners of war and deserters and all his decked ships, with the exception of five light
vessels and his ship with 16 banks of oars; 7 he was to pay them 1,000 talents, half
immediately and half by instalments over ten years.

5.24 Polybius Histories 18.46.1–47.2: Flamininus ‘liberates’ Greece

Titus Quinctius Flamininus was less than 30 years of age as consul in 198 BC, having held
neither the curule aedileship nor the praetorship. This universal declaration of freedom
for Greeks included Greeks in Asia Minor, doubtless with a view to curbing Antiochus’
activities there; the motive was not ‘philhellenism’ but rather the wish to weaken Macedon.
Many Greek cities honoured Flamininus as a benefactor, while, according to Plutarch, he
was granted divine honours at Chalcis and Argos (the cult of the ‘Titeia’; doc. 5.26).

46.1 With the Isthmian games now approaching, and the most distinguished men
from nearly the whole world gathered there owing to their expectation of what
would take place, many different rumours were current during the whole festi-
val, 2 with some saying that it was impossible for the Romans to withdraw from
certain places and cities, while others declared that they would withdraw from
the places considered to be famous but would keep those which had less appeal
but which were equally useful to them. 3 They even named these on the spot out
of their own heads and competed with each other in their ingenious guesswork.
4 This was everyone’s current concern, and, when the crowd had gathered in the
stadium to watch the games, the herald came forward and, after silencing the
crowds with his trumpeter, made the following announcement:
5 ‘The senate of Rome, and Titus Quinctius (Flamininus) the proconsul, having
overcome King Philip and the Macedonians, leave free, without garrisons, subject
to no tribute, and governed by their ancestral laws, the Corinthians, Phocians,
Locrians, Euboeans, Achaeans, Magnesians, Thessalians and Perrhaebians.’ 6 At
the very start an incredible shout immediately went up, with some people not
having heard the announcement, while others wanted to hear it again. 7 The great
majority of the audience, unable to believe it and thinking that they heard the
words as if in a dream because of the unexpected nature of the event, 8 each
moved by a different impulse shouted to the herald and trumpeter to come forward
into the middle of the stadium and repeat the proclamation, wishing, I think, not
only to hear the speaker but to see him on account of the unbelievable nature of
his announcement. 9 When the herald came forward into the middle and silenced
the uproar with his trumpeter, once more reading out the same proclamation as
before, such a tremendous outburst of cheering arose that those who hear of the
event today cannot easily conceive it. 10 When the noise finally died down, no one
took any further account of the athletes, but all talked away, some to each other,
some to themselves, as if quite out of their senses. 11 Indeed, after the festival was

222
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
over, they were so grateful that they almost killed Titus through their excessive
joy; 12 some of them wanted to look him in the face and call him their saviour,
others were anxious to take his hand, and most people threw garlands and fillets
on him, so he was almost torn in pieces. 13 But, however extravagant their grati-
tude was, one may say with confidence that it was far inferior to the importance
of the event. 14 It was remarkable that the Romans and their general Titus should
be there for this purpose and incur every expense and danger for the sake of the
Greeks’ freedom; it was also a great thing that they employed a force adequate
to realise their purpose; 15 but greatest of all was that no mischance occurred to
oppose their design, with everything leading to that one moment when, by a single
announcement, all Greeks living in Asia and Europe were free, without garrisons,
subject to no tribute, and governed by their ancestral laws.
47.1 When the festival was over, the commissioners first gave an audience
to the envoys from Antiochus, instructing him with regard to the cities in Asia
to keep his hands off those which were autonomous and make war on none of
them, and to withdraw from those he had just captured which had been subject to
Ptolemy and Philip. 2 In addition they declared that he should not cross with an
army to Europe; for none of the Greeks was now being made war on by anyone
or subject to anyone.

5.25 SIG3 593: Chyretiae, 194 BC

Flamininus’ command in Greece was prorogued (extended) until 194. This document con-
cerning the people of Chyretiae in Thessaly demonstrates the kind of settlement made by
Flamininus before the Romans’ departure and his wish to ensure Greek support or neutral-
ity for Rome’s forthcoming confrontation with Antiochus III. ‘Persons who are not accus-
tomed to act according to the highest standards of behaviour’ are the Aetolians who had
sacked Chyretiae in 199. Flamininus in this document returns Chyretian property currently
in Rome’s possession, which had been taken by the Aetolians. The tagoi are Flamininus’
newly appointed magistrates.

Titus Quinctius, consul of the Romans, to the magistrates (tagoi) and people of
Chyretiae, greetings. Just as in all other matters also I have made clear my per-
sonal policy and that of the Roman people, which we have towards you in general,
I have decided 5 in the following matters also to demonstrate in every respect our
support for what is honourable, so that not even in these matters can persons who
are not accustomed to act according to the highest standards of behaviour have the
opportunity to criticise us.
For any of your possessions, in land or buildings, that may still be in the pos-
session of the treasury 10 of Rome, I grant them all to your city, that you may
recognise our magnanimity in this respect too and to show we have no desire for
financial profit in any matter at all, since we value goodwill and a good reputation
above all else. If any do not recover what belongs to them, 15 if they prove to you
and appear to you to be speaking reasonably, as long as you adhere to the deci-
sions given by me in writing, I consider that these should in justice be restored to
them. Farewell.

223
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
5.26 Plutarch Life of Flamininus 16.7: The girls of Chalcis honour
Flamininus
This paean was sung by the girls of Chalcis in Euboea in 191 BC to honour Flamininus
and Roman fides (Greek pistis, ‘good faith’). Flamininus was to be honoured as Chalcis’
patron, and his cult, the Titeia, was established with an elected priest. Plutarch here cites the
last lines of the long cult hymn of praise. This is the earliest extant hymn which mentions
the goddess Roma (see doc. 5.35, 15.55–56); ‘Great Zeus’ may be an attempt in Greek to
reproduce Jupiter Optimus Maximus.

We revere the fides of the Romans,

Which we have solemnly sworn to cherish;
So celebrate, girls, in song and dance
Great Zeus, and Roma, and Titus and the Romans’
Fides; hail, all hail,
Titus our saviour.

5.27 IG XI.4.712: The Delians honour Scipio

Africanus, c. 193 BC
A stele from Delos. There is a crown of leaves above the text to the left and a staff or baton
on the right. The Apollonia was a festival at Delos with competitions in drama and music.

Decreed by the council and people. Antilakos son of Simides proposed the
motion: since Publius Cornelius, son of Publius, Scipio, Roman, being proxenos
and benefactor 5 of the temple and the Delians, bestows all care on the tem-
ple and the Delians, the council and the people decree that Publius Cornelius,
son of Publius, Scipio, Roman, is to be crowned 10 at the Apollonia with the
sacred crown of laurel; the sacred herald is to announce in the theatre, when the
children’s choruses are conducted, the proclamation as follows: The people of
Delos crown Publius 15 Cornelius Scipio, Roman, with the sacred crown of lau-
rel because of his excellence and his piety towards the temple and his goodwill
towards the people of Delos. Lysanias son of Kaibon put the motion to the vote.

ANTIOCHUS III ‘THE GREAT’

Antiochus III of Syria (223–187 BC) had taken advantage of Rome’s war against Philip to
appropriate coastal territories in Asia Minor and had also conducted military activities in
Thrace, especially in 193–192. Hannibal fled to him in 195, which concerned Rome. In the
autumn of 192 Antiochus provoked war with Rome, and in spring 191 the consul Manius
Acilius Glabrio took the field with 20,000 men. Antiochus decided to make a stand at
Thermopylae, and his army was totally defeated. Lucius Scipio (brother of Africanus) and
Gaius Laelius were elected consuls for 190; after arranging a truce with the Aetolians, the
Scipio brothers led the first Roman army into Asia in autumn 190, where Antiochus was
defeated at Magnesia. He agreed to the Romans’ terms at the peace of Apamea, signed in
188 (doc. 5.30).

224
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
5.28 Polybius Histories 21.32.1–15: Treaty with the Aetolian League
En route through Greece in 190 BC the Scipio brothers arranged a six-month truce with the
Aetolians, Antiochus’ main supporters in Greece. In 189 the consul M. Fulvius Nobilior
marched against them and they surrendered. They had to pay 500 talents over six years
and restrict the membership of the Aetolian league. The terms were not reciprocal and the
Aetolians had to agree to ‘uphold the empire and sovereignty of the Roman people’. The
sections in square brackets are supplied from Livy.

1 When the senate had passed a decree and the people had voted in favour of it,
the peace was ratified. The detailed conditions of the treaty were as follows: 2
‘The Aetolian people [shall uphold in good faith] the empire and sovereignty of
the Romans. 3 They shall not permit any enemies making war against the Romans
or their allies or friends to pass through their country, nor shall they provide any
supplies by public consent. 4 [They shall have the same enemies as the Roman
people] and if the Romans make war on anyone, the people of Aetolia shall make
war likewise. 5 The Aetolians shall surrender all deserters, fugitives and prisoners
belonging to the Romans and their allies, 6 excepting those who were taken in
war, returned to their own country and again captured, and excepting those who
were enemies of the Romans at the time when the Aetolians were fighting in alli-
ance with Rome. All of these are to be surrendered, within 100 days of the peace
being sworn, to the magistrate on Corcyra; 7 if any are not found before that date,
they shall be surrendered without fraud when they are discovered; and they are
not to return to Aetolia after the peace is sworn. 8 The Aetolians are to hand over
at once to the consul in Greece 200 Euboic talents, in silver not inferior to Attic
money, paying a third of the sum in gold, if they wish, at the rate of one gold mina
for ten silver minae, 9 and, for the first six years after the swearing of the peace,
50 talents a year; the money is to be brought to Rome. 10 The Aetolians are to give
the consul 40 hostages, not younger than 12 years of age or older than 40, for six
years, whom the Romans are to choose, none of them being a general, hipparch,
public secretary or one of those previously a hostage in Rome. These hostages are
to be brought to Rome: 11 if any of the hostages dies they are to replace him with
another. 12 Cephallenia is not to be included in the treaty. 13 Of the villages, cit-
ies and people previously subject to the Aetolians who were captured or became
friends of the Romans in or after the consulship of Lucius Quinctius (Flamininus)
and Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus (192 BC), none of these cities or their inhabit-
ants is to be annexed by the Aetolians. 14 The city and territory of Oeniadae is to
belong to Acarnania.’ 15 When the oaths were taken, peace was finalised on these
conditions. This was the settlement of affairs in Aetolia and Greece generally.

5.29 SIG3 612: Delphian privileges, 189 BC

This inscription suggests that envoys from Delphi had been sent to discuss their rights of asy-
lum and to request immunity from tribute or exemption from military requisitions by Rome
during the war against Antiochus III. Spurius Postumius was the urban praetor in 189 BC.

225
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
A . . . concerning the freedom of the city and the right of sanctuary for the
temple . . .
B Spurius Postumius, son of Lucius, praetor of the Romans, to the Delphian
League, greetings. The envoys sent by you, Boulon, Thrasycles and Orestas, have
discussed with us the question of sanctuary for your temple and city, omitting no
mark of respect, and made a request concerning freedom and exemption from
tribute, so that the city and territory of Delphi may be autonomous and immune
from taxation. Know then that the senate has resolved that the temple of Apollo
and the city shall have the right of sanctuary, 5 that the city and territory of Delphi
shall be exempt from taxation, and that its citizens shall be autonomous in every
respect . . . being free, administering their own government by themselves and
being responsible for the temple and its precinct, as has been their ancestral right
from of old. For your information, I am sending you a copy.
C May 4. Spurius Postumius, son of Lucius, praetor, consulted the senate in
the comitium . . . Gaius Atinius, son of Gaius, Tiberius Claudius, and . . . assisted
in the drafting. Whereas the Delphians spoke about the right of sanctuary for the
temple, the freedom of the city, the exemption of its territory from taxation, and
autonomy, regarding this matter the senators 5 resolved as follows: ‘Whereas it
was the decision of Manius Acilius (Glabrio) that Delphi should possess those
privileges which had earlier been hers, it was resolved to abide by this decision.’

5.30 Polybius Histories 21.41.6, 9–43.1–3: The treaty of Apamea,

188 BC
The Romans demanded that Antiochus evacuate all of Asia Minor and pay the full cost
of the war. Negotiations failed and Antiochus was defeated near Magnesia, probably in
December 190 or January 189. Antiochus had already made a payment of 3,000 talents;
a further indemnity of 12,000 Euboic talents was imposed (as well as 540,000 modii of
grain), and Antiochus was to surrender most of his fleet and elephants, hand over Hannibal
(who went to Bithynia), pay compensation to Pergamum, and evacuate all Asia north and
west of the Taurus Mountains. Antiochus agreed to these terms at Apamea. Gnaeus Manlius
Vulso (cos. 189) succeeded L. Cornelius Scipio in the command of the war in Asia. The
treaty between Rome and Antiochus was sworn at Apamea and Antiochus was confined to
Syria. The section in square brackets is supplied from Livy.

41.6 The ten commissioners and King Eumenes reached Ephesus by sea in early
summer; they rested there for two days after their journey and went up country
to Apamea . . . 9 On arriving at Apamea and meeting Eumenes and the ten com-
missioners, Manlius Vulso took counsel with them about the situation. 10 They
decided first of all to ratify the sworn treaty with Antiochus, about the conditions
of which I need say no more, but will give the document itself.
42.1 The conditions in detail were as follows: ‘There is to be friendship
between Antiochus and the Romans for all time, if he keeps to the conditions of
the treaty. 2 King Antiochus and his subjects shall not permit the passage through
their territory of any enemies making war against the Romans and their allies,
nor provide any supplies for them; 3 the Romans and their allies shall undertake

226
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
to do likewise towards Antiochus and his subjects. 4 Antiochus is not to make
war on the inhabitants of the islands 5 or on those of Europe. 6 He is to withdraw
from all cities, villages, [lands and forts on this side of Taurus as far as the River
Halys, and all between the valley of Taurus and the mountain ridges that descend
to Lycaonia]; he is to take away nothing except the arms carried by his soldiers;
if anything should be carried away it is to be restored to the same city. 7 He is not
to receive soldiers or anyone else from the kingdom of Eumenes. 8 If any men in
the army of Antiochus are from the cities which the Romans take over, they shall
be brought to Apamea. 9 If there are any men from the kingdom of Antiochus
with the Romans and their allies, they are permitted to stay or leave as they wish.
10 Antiochus and his subjects are to hand over the slaves of the Romans and of
their allies, both those who were captured in war and those who deserted, and any
prisoners they may have taken. 11 Antiochus is to give up, if it is in his power,
Hannibal son of Hamilcar the Carthaginian, Mnasilochus the Acarnanian, Thoas
the Aetolian, Eubulidas and Philo the Chalcidians, and all Aetolians who have
held public office, 12 as well as all the elephants now in Apamea, nor is he to
have any for the future. 13 He is to give up his long ships and their equipment
and fittings and is not to have more than ten decked ships for the future; nor is he
to have any galley rowed by more than 30 oars, nor a ship with one bank of oars
for any war in which he is the aggressor. 14 His fleet is not to sail beyond the
Calycadnus and the Sarpedonian promontory, unless carrying tribute, envoys or
hostages. 15 Antiochus is not to be permitted to hire mercenaries from territory
subject to the Romans or to receive fugitives. 16 All houses of the Rhodians or
their allies in the territory subject to Antiochus shall belong to the Rhodians, as
they did before he began the war. 17 If any money is owed to them, it shall like-
wise be recoverable; and if anything has been taken away from them, it may be
sought and handed back. Goods meant for Rhodes are to be free of duty, as before
the war. 18 If Antiochus has given to others any of the cities which he has to hand
over, he is to remove the garrisons and men from these as well. And if any later
wish to desert (to him) he is not to receive them.
19 Antiochus is to pay to the Romans 12,000 talents of the best Attic silver
over 12 years, paying 1,000 talents per year, the talents weighing not less than 80
Roman pounds, and 540,000 modii of corn. 20 He is to pay to King Eumenes 350
talents in the next five years, 70 a year, at the time appointed for his payments to
the Romans, 21 and in place of the corn, as King Antiochus estimated it, 127 tal-
ents and 1,208 drachmas, which Eumenes has agreed to receive as an acceptable
payment. 22 Antiochus is to give 20 hostages not younger than 18 years of age
and not older than 45 and send others in exchange every three years. 23 If there is
any discrepancy in his payments of money, he shall hand it over in the following
year. 24 If any of the cities or nations against whom Antiochus is forbidden to
make war should first make war on him, he is allowed to make war. 25 He is not
to have sovereignty over these cities or nations or bring them into his alliance. 26
Any wrongs committed by one party against another are to be taken to court. 27
If both parties wish to add clauses to this treaty or remove them by mutual decree,
they may do so.’

227
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
43.1 When this was sworn to, the proconsul immediately sent Quintus Minucius
Thermus and his brother Lucius, who had just brought the money from Oroanda, 2
to Syria, with instructions to receive the king’s oath and ensure that each detail of
the treaty was carried out. 3 He sent letter-carriers to Quintus Fabius (Labeo), the
commander of the fleet, ordering him to sail back to Patara, seize the ships there,
and burn them.

5.31 Polybius Histories 21.45.1–3, 9–11: The final settlement of Asia

Minor
The Romans’ settlement laid down that, of Antiochus’ non-Greek territories, Lycia and Caria
were to belong to Rhodes, the rest to Eumenes II of Pergamum; Greek cities which joined
Rome before the battle of Magnesia were to be free, the others were to be divided between
Rhodes and Eumenes. The Romans at this point did not claim territory in Asia Minor.

1 At Apamea the ten (commissioners) and Gnaeus (Manlius Vulso) the Roman
proconsul listened to all those who presented themselves and, where the dispute
was about land, money or something else, assigned cities upon which both par-
ties were agreed where they could settle the matters under dispute. The general
settlement that they made was as follows. 2 All autonomous towns which had
formerly paid tribute to Antiochus, but had then remained loyal to Rome, they
freed from tribute; all that paid contributions to Attalus were instructed to give
the same sum as tribute to Eumenes. 3 If any had withdrawn from the Roman
alliance and fought with Antiochus, they ordered them to give to Eumenes the
tribute imposed on them by Antiochus . . . 9 Regarding King Eumenes and
his brothers, they had made all possible provision for them in the treaty with
Antiochus, and they now added, in Europe, the Chersonese, Lysimachia and
the adjoining forts and territory, which Antiochus had ruled, 10 and, in Asia,
Hellespontic Phrygia, Greater Phrygia, the part of Mysia which Prusias had ear-
lier taken from Eumenes, Lycaonia, the Milyas, Lydia, Tralles, Ephesus and
Termessus. 11 These were the gifts they gave Eumenes; regarding Pamphylia,
as Eumenes declared it was on this side of the Taurus, and Antiochus’ envoys
said it was on the other, they were unable to reach a decision and referred the
question to the senate.

ROME AS MASTER OF THE MEDITERRANEAN

Following Philip’s death in 179, his son Perseus tried to reassert Macedon’s position but
was declared an enemy of Rome in 172. After some Macedonian successes in the Third
Macedonian War, Perseus was finally manoeuvred by Lucius Aemilius Paullus (cos. 182
and 168) into giving battle at Pydna; his army was defeated and he later surrendered at
Samothrace and featured in Paullus’ triumph. From the late third century, Roman atti-
tudes towards conquests and allies became increasingly aggressive and autocratic. From
182, Rome is seen in honorific inscriptions as the ‘common benefactor’ of the Greeks
and is considered the superior power even when it is not directly the subject of the
inscriptions.

228
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
5.32 SIG3 643: The Romans instruct Delphi
This edict or letter presents Roman charges against Perseus made before the Amphictyons
at Delphi after Rome had declared war on Perseus of Macedon in 171, to encourage them
to assist Rome. Macedonian agents had supposedly attempted to assassinate Eumenes II of
Pergamum at Delphi.

1 . . . you shall administer, as it concerns Perseus, who in violation of what is

fitting came to Delphi with an army in the truce of the Pythian games; it was not
at all right to allow him either to come forward or to share in the oracle or the
sacrifices or the games or the Amphictyonic Council, in which all the Greeks
participate. 2 For he (10) brought barbarians who dwell beyond the Danube
and who, once before, gathered for nothing good but for the enslavement of all
Greeks, and invaded Greece and marched against the Temple of Pythian Apollo
at Delphi intending to plunder or destroy it, but met with fitting punishment
from the god, and most of them perished. 3 He also broke the oaths, made by
us to his father, and the treaty, which he himself had renewed. 4 (15) He also
made war against the Thracians, our friends and allies, and made them home-
less. 5 Abrupolis, whom we included as our friend and ally in a treaty with him,
he expelled from his kingdom. 6 Envoys sent from the Greeks and the kings
to Rome about an alliance with the Thebans he drowned, and others in other
ways he attempted to put out of the way. 7 He also reached such a degree of
folly that he had it in mind to kill our council by poisons. 8 The Dolopians (20)
were deprived of freedom through his attacks. 9 In Aetolia he planned both
war and slaughter and brought their whole people into upheavals and discord.
10 Also against all Greece he continues to do the worst things, both by devis-
ing other evils and by receiving fugitives from cities. 11 Also, by destroying
the leading men and at the same time courting the masses, he both promised
cancellations of debts and brought about revolutions, making clear his policy
towards both the Greeks and the (25) Romans. 12 As a result, it has happened
that the Perrhaebians and the Thessalians and the Aetolians fell into incurable
misfortunes and the barbarians have become still more terrible to the Greeks.
13 Desiring war against us for a long time, that he might catch us without aid,
when no one was opposing him, and enslave all the Greek cities, 14 he bribed
Genthius the Illyrian and set him against us. 15 He plotted to kill King Eumenes,
our friend and ally, by means of Evander, (30) at the time when Eumenes was
going to Delphi to pay a vow, without considering at all the safe conduct given
by the god to all who come to him and without taking into account that the
sanctity and inviolability of the city of Delphi, for both Greeks and barbarians,
acknowledged by all men, has existed for all time . . .

5.33 ILS 8884: Lucius Aemilius Paullus

After Pydna in 168 BC, Aemilius replaced Perseus’ statue on a monument at Delphi
with one of himself on horseback. The frieze recorded scenes from the battle of Pydna.
Significantly the inscription was in Latin, not Greek.

229
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
Lucius Aemilius, son of Lucius, imperator, took this (as booty) from King Perseus
and the Macedonians.

5.34 Livy History of Rome 45.33.1–34.6: Booty from Epirus, 167 BC

Cf. Polyb. 30.15 (doc. 6.9). The Molossians of Epirus had taken the side of Perseus: fol-
lowing a senatorial decree, 70 towns were sacked to provide booty for the army and as an
object lesson. Strabo 7.327 notes that over 100 years later the area was still a desert. Paullus
paid so much into the treasury that all citizens were relieved from the annual tributum,
or land tax. Macedon was eradicated and formed into four separate republics without the
rights of intermarriage or trade. Perseus died in prison, following Paullus’ triumph.

33.1 After the public games had been held (at Amphipolis) and the bronze shields
had been piled onto the ships, the rest of the arms of all kinds were heaped into a
huge pile, and the general, after praying to Mars, Minerva, Mother Lua, and the
rest of the gods to whom it is right and lawful to dedicate the spoils of the enemy,
personally used a torch to kindle it . . . 5 The gaze of the crowd which came was
no more drawn to the stage spectacle, the athletic contests or the chariot races,
than to all the booty of Macedonia which was put on show – statues, paintings,
textiles, vessels of gold, silver, bronze and ivory made with great pains in the pal-
ace (at Pella), 6 not only for immediate show, like the things with which the palace
at Alexandria was filled, but for constant use. 7 These were loaded onto the fleet
and given to Gnaeus Octavius to transport to Rome . . .
34.1 Paullus sent dispatches to Anicius so that there should be no disturbance
over what was going to take place, saying that the senate had granted to his army the
booty from the cities of Epirus which had defected to Perseus, 2 and sent centurions
to the individual cities, to say that they had come to remove the garrisons so that the
people of Epirus might be free like the Macedonians. He also summoned ten leading
men from each city and told these to have all the gold and silver brought into the
public square, while cohorts were sent to all the cities. 3 Those to the cities further
away were sent before those to the nearer ones, so that they would all arrive on the
same day. 4 The tribunes and centurions had been instructed as to what to do. Early
in the morning all the gold and silver was collected; at the fourth hour the soldiers
were given the signal to plunder the town; 5 there was so much booty that a distri-
bution was made of 400 denarii to each of the cavalry and 200 to the infantry, and
150,000 people were led into slavery. 6 Then the walls of the plundered cities were
torn down; there were about 70 communities. All the booty was sold and from this
the amounts given above were paid to the army.

5.35 Melinno F1: Melinno ‘of Lesbos’ on the might of Rome

Stobaeus 3.7.12. Roma, Rome, is here portrayed as a warrior goddess whose rule is both
eternal and unique. Melinno’s date and origins are not known, but the poem is generally
now dated to the early second century BC and was possibly written for performance at
a local festival in honour of Roma. For the later cult of Roma and Augustus, see docs
15.53–54.

230
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
Hail, Roma, daughter of Ares,
Golden-crowned warrior queen
You who live on earth on holy Olympus,
For ever indestructible.

5 To you alone, most revered one, has Fate

Granted royal glory of unbreakable dominion,
So that, with your sovereign power,
You might lead the way.

Under your yoke of strong leather straps,

10 The chests of earth and grey sea
Are tightly bound together; with firm hand you govern
The cities of your peoples.

The longest eternity, which overthrows everything

And shapes the course of life first in this way, then in that,
15 For you alone does not change the wind
Which fills the sails of empire.

Indeed, out of all, you alone give birth to

Strong men, wielders of spears,
Sending forth a well-aiming crop of men
20 Like the fruits of Demeter.

ROME’S IMPERIALIST STANCE

Successful warfare generated prestige (dignitas) and popularity – as well as personal
wealth. According to Cicero (when defending a military man), true gloria was won only in
war (4.5.5) and was the attribute most desired by Roman nobles. A general’s military suc-
cess was signalled by the senate’s award of a triumph, in which the commander was able
to show off booty and captives. Such perceptions naturally added to the intense rivalry for
office among the very competitive magisterial class.

5.36 Polybius Histories 29.26.1, 27.1–11: Rome decides peace or war

In this episode in 168 BC, Gaius Popillius Laenas (cos. 172) prevented Antiochus IV
Epiphanes from making war on Ptolemy VI Philometor. Antiochus had invaded Egypt and
in early 168 was close to capturing Alexandria. An Egyptian embassy to Rome led to direct
Roman intervention: Gaius Popillius Laenas, leader of a Roman commission, threatened
that whichever king failed to withdraw from the war would lose Rome’s friendship.

26.1 Forgetting all that he had written and said, Antiochus was preparing for
war against Ptolemy . . . 27.1 As Antiochus was approaching Ptolemy in order
to occupy Pelusium, 2 Popillius, the Roman commander, when greeted from a
distance by the king, who held out his right hand, gave him the tablet which he

231
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
had ready, containing the decree of the senate, and ordered Antiochus to read it
first, not thinking it right, 3 it seems to me, to give this usual mark of friendship
before he knew whether the intentions of the person greeting him were friendly or
hostile. 4 When the king had read it, he said that he wanted to consult his friends
about this information, but Popillius, on hearing this, acted in a manner thought
to be harsh and extremely arrogant; 5 he had with him a staff cut from a vine,
with which he drew a circle round Antiochus and ordered him to give his decision
about the letter while still inside the circle. 6 The king was startled at this assump-
tion of authority, but, after a few moments of doubt, said he would do all that the
Romans demanded. Popillius and his entourage then all took his hand and greeted
him warmly. 7 The letter told him to cease his war against Ptolemy immediately.
8 As a result, since a specific number of days were granted him, he led his forces
back to Syria, unhappily and with complaints, but giving way to circumstances
for the present. 9 Popillius arranged matters in Alexandria and instructed the
Egyptian kings to agree, telling them to send Polyaratus to Rome, and then sailed
to Cyprus, wanting to use all expedition in expelling the troops there from the
island. 10 When he arrived and found that Ptolemy’s generals had been defeated
in battle and that things in Cyprus were generally all upside down, he soon made
the (Syrian) army withdraw from the country and stayed there until the troops had
sailed to Syria. 11 In this way the Romans saved Ptolemy’s kingdom, or at least
as much of it as had not already been reduced . . .

5.37 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 6.3.16, 38, 48–50: Cato and the
Rhodians, 167 BC
When the economy of Rhodes suffered during the Third Macedonian War against Perseus,
the consul of 169, Marcius Philippus, seems to have suggested that the island attempt to
negotiate between Perseus and Rome. The Rhodian envoys arrived at Rome only after
Perseus’ defeat and were almost declared an enemy of Rome. War was averted by a speech
from Cato (censor 184). This speech was subsequently introduced into Cato’s history
(Origines F95). Gellius is here disagreeing with Tiro, Cicero’s freedman, who wrote a let-
ter to Quintus Axius criticising this speech of Cato’s.

16 And Tiro gives Cato’s own words as follows: ‘And I really think that the
Rhodians did not want us to put an end to the war as we did, or to conquer King
Perseus. But the Rhodians were not the only people who felt like that: in fact I
believe many peoples and many nations felt the same. I rather think that some
of them did not desire our success, not for the sake of making us look small, but
because they were afraid that, if there was no one whom we feared, we would do
whatever we liked. I think that they held that opinion for the sake of their own
liberty, so they would not be entirely subject to our empire and in servitude to
us. Also, the Rhodians never publicly aided Perseus. Consider how much more
cautiously we deal with each other as individuals. For each of us, if he thinks any-
thing is being done against his interests, tries as hard as he can to prevent it; they,
however, let it happen.’ . . . 38 Later on Cato continues: ‘But if it is not right for
honour to be won because someone says that he wanted to do well, but did not do

232
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
so, shall the Rhodians suffer not because they did wrong, but because they are said
to have wanted to do wrong?’ . . . 48 The charge of arrogance, which was brought
at that time particularly against the Rhodians in the senate, he evades and disposes
of it in a brilliant and almost divinely inspired reply. 49 I will give Cato’s actual
words, since Tiro has omitted them: 50 ‘They say the Rhodians are arrogant,
accusing them of something which I should certainly not want to have brought
against me or my children. Suppose they are arrogant? What is that to do with us?
Are you going to be angry, just because someone is more arrogant than we are?’

5.38 Polybius Histories 30.32.6–12: Decree on Achaean

exiles, c. 165 BC
After Perseus’ defeat, 1,000 ‘pro-Macedonian’ Achaeans (from the north-west Peloponnese)
were deported to Italy while others were murdered or exiled. The 1,000 were sent as hos-
tages and remained for 17 years; one of these was Polybius, who was lucky enough to
win the friendship of Scipio Aemilianus. This is one of the occasions on which the exiles’
return was refused. Charops was in charge of a pro-Roman government in Epirus, while
Callicrates had been responsible for the deportation of the 1,000 Achaeans in the first
instance. The issue was finally settled in 150, when Scipio Aemilianus enlisted Cato’s sup-
port; at this point only 300 of the exiles were still alive.

6 The senate listened to what the envoys said in accordance with their instructions
and found it difficult to make a decision, as they were met by objections on every
side; 7 they did not think it was their duty to pronounce judgement, while setting
the men free without trial would, they considered, involve the certain destruction
of their friends; 8 so under force of circumstances, and with the intention of dis-
pelling entirely the hope of the populace for the restoration of those in detention,
in order to make them obey in silence the party of Callicrates in Achaea and in the
other states thought to be friends of Rome, they wrote the following answer: 9 ‘We
are not of the opinion that it is in the interests either of the Romans or of your peo-
ples that these men shall return home.’ 10 When this reply was delivered, not only
did utter despair and helplessness fall upon those who had been summoned to Italy,
but all the Greeks went, as it were, into mourning, as the reply seemed to deprive 11
the poor men of all hope of restoration. And when the reply given about the accused
to the Achaeans was announced in Greece, the people’s spirit was crushed and a
kind of hopelessness came over everyone, 12 while the supporters of Charops and
Callicrates and all the defenders of their policy were again in high spirits.

5.39 Polybius Histories 31.10.1–3, 6–10: The partitioning of Egypt

When in 164 Ptolemy VI Philometor was expelled from Egypt by his brother Ptolemy
VIII Euergetes II, he went to Rome. As Euergetes’ reign was unpopular, it was agreed that
Philometor should have Egypt and Cyprus and Euergetes should have Cyrene. In 162,
however, Euergetes came to Rome and asked for Cyprus, which was granted to him. One
of these Ptolemies, presumably Euergetes, was said to have offered marriage to Cornelia,
mother of the Gracchi: doc. 8.1.

233
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
1 After the two Ptolemies had partitioned the kingdom, the younger Ptolemy
(Euergetes) arrived in Rome, as he wanted to cancel the division which had been
effected between himself and his brother, 2 stating that it was not of his own free
will but by compulsion and under pressure of circumstances that he had done what
he had been ordered to do. 3 He therefore begged the senate to assign him Cyprus,
for, even with this, his share would still be greatly inferior to his brother’s . . .
6 As the senate saw that the divisions had been quite unjust, and as it wanted to
partition the kingdom in an effective way, with themselves responsible for the
partition, they agreed to the requests of the younger brother, as this coincided
with their own interests. 7 For, nowadays, many of the Romans’ decrees are of
this kind, and they effectively increase and build up their own empire through
the mistakes of their neighbours, simultaneously granting a favour and appear-
ing to confer benefits on those who commit the mistakes. 8 Accordingly, since
they perceived the importance of Egypt’s kingdom and were afraid that, should it
acquire a protector, he might think more highly of himself than he should, 9 they
appointed Titus Torquatus and Gnaeus Merula to accompany Ptolemy as envoys
to Cyprus and put his plan and their own into execution. 10 They immediately dis-
patched them, with instructions to reconcile the brothers and establish the younger
brother in Cyprus without warfare.

5.40 1 Maccabees 8.17–32: Treaty with the Jews, 161 BC

In 162 the Seleucid ruler Demetrius (I Soter), nephew of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–
164), in Rome as a hostage, escaped to Syria and took the throne. Rome allowed him to rule
but later supported opposition against him. The Jews had rebelled under Antiochus IV, and,
after defeating Demetrius’ army in 161, Judas Maccabaeus sent an embassy to Rome to
secure an alliance, which was granted by the senate. No practical help resulted: Demetrius’
army again attacked Judaea and Judas was killed.

17 And Judas chose Eupolemus, son of John, son of Accus, and Jason, son of
Eleazar, and sent them to Rome to establish friendship and alliance with the
Romans 18 and to request that they would take the yoke from them, for they
saw that the kingdom of the Greeks was reducing the Jews to slavery. 19 And
they went to Rome, a very great journey, and came into the senate, where they
spoke and said, ‘Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers and the people of the Jews
have sent us to you to establish with you an alliance and peace, and for us to be
enrolled as your allies and friends.’ And the speech pleased the senate. 22 And
this is the copy of the letter which the senate wrote in reply on bronze tablets
and sent to Jerusalem to be for them there a memorial of peace and alliance:
23 ‘May it be well for the Romans and the nation of the Jews by sea and land
forever, and may the sword and enemy be far from them. 24 But if war comes first
upon Rome or any of their allies in all their dominion, 25 the nation of the Jews
will fight alongside them with all their heart, as the occasion prescribes for them.
26 To those making war they shall not give or supply grain, arms, money or
ships, as seems good to the Romans; and they shall keep their covenants without

234
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
receiving anything for them. 27 In the same way, if war is made on the nation of
the Jews first, the Romans shall fight alongside them wholeheartedly, as the occa-
sion prescribes. 28 And grain, arms, money or ships shall not be given to those
fighting against them, as seems good to Rome; and they shall keep their covenants
and that without deceit.
29 ‘According to these words the Romans have made a covenant with the peo-
ple of the Jews. 30 And if after these words one side or the other should wish to
add or subtract anything, they shall do so as they choose, and whatever they add
or take away shall be ratified. 31 And concerning the wrongs that King Demetrius
is committing against them, we have written to him saying, “Why have you made
your yoke heavy on our friends and allies the Jews? 32 If, therefore, they appeal
any more against you, we shall give the decision for them and shall make war
against you by sea and land.”’

ROME’S CONQUEST OF GREECE

The Achaean exiles returned in 150 BC to find that Sparta was again on bad terms with
the rest of the Achaean league. When Sparta seceded, Achaea was determined to force
her back, ignoring the advice of Roman embassies and of Quintus Caecilius Metellus,
the Roman commander in Macedonia. When the Achaean league declared war on Sparta,
Lucius Mummius (cos. 146) was already on his way with an army to prevent the attack,
while Metellus marched south from Macedonia. The Achaean forces were routed and
Corinth was sacked. Macedonia, including southern Greece, became a Roman province.

5.41 Pausanias Description of Greece 7.16.1, 7–10: The sack of

Corinth, 146 BC
Mummius has gained a reputation as a complete philistine: Polybius himself was present at
the sack of Corinth, and tells us (39.2.1–2) that Mummius’ soldiers played dice on master-
pieces of Greek art. The majority of the artworks, however, did end up at Rome. Mummius
celebrated a magnificent triumph in 145.

1 Mummius brought with him Orestes, who had earlier been sent to deal with the
conflict between the Spartans and the Achaeans, and reached the Roman army at
dawn. After sending Metellus to Macedonia, he waited at the Isthmus for his whole
force to assemble. 3,500 cavalry arrived, while the infantry numbered 23,000; then
came Cretan archers and Philopoemen, who led troops from Attalus, sent from
Pergamum on the Caicus . . . 7 At nightfall, the Achaeans, who had taken refuge in
Corinth after the battle, escaped from the city; most of the Corinthians escaped with
them as well. Mummius at first held back from entering Corinth, though the gates
were open, suspecting that an ambush had been set inside the walls; however, on
the third day after the battle, he took Corinth by storm and burnt it. 8 The Romans
slaughtered most of those they captured, but Mummius sold the women and chil-
dren as slaves; he also sold all the slaves who had been set free and had fought on
the Achaean side and who had not immediately fallen on the battlefield. Mummius
carried off the dedications, which were especially admired, as well as other works

235
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
of art, while he gave the lesser ones to Philopoemen, the general sent by Attalus;
in my time there was still Corinthian booty at Pergamum. 9 Mummius razed the
walls of all the cities that had fought against Rome and seized their arms, even
before commissioners were sent from Rome; when these arrived to act with him,
he began to put down democracies and establish governments where magistrates
were chosen for their property qualifications; tribute was imposed on Greece and
those with property were forbidden to acquire property abroad; all confederacies
based on race, whether Achaeans, Phocians, Boeotians or any other Greeks, were
all put down in the same way. 10 A few years later, the Romans began to feel sorry
for Greece and restored the various ancient racial confederacies and the right to
acquire property abroad, and removed the penalties Mummius had imposed; for he
had ordered the Boeotians to pay 100 talents to the people of Heraclea and Euboea,
and the Achaeans 200 to the Spartans. Although these impositions on the Greeks
were removed by the Romans, a governor was sent out even down to my time; the
Romans call him governor not of Greece, but of Achaea, because they subjugated
Greece on account of the Achaeans, the leaders at that time of the Greek world.

5.42 ILS 20: Lucius Mummius (1)

This tablet was found at Rome on the Mons Caelius and was dedicated by Mummius in
142. He also made dedications at Delphi, Olympia and many other sites.

1 Lucius Mummius, son of Lucius, consul.

Under his leadership, auspices, and command, Achaea was captured and
Corinth 5 destroyed and he returned to Rome for a triumph. On account of these
successful achievements, this temple and statue of Hercules the Conqueror
(Victor), which he had vowed during the war, 10 he dedicates as imperator.

5.43 ILS 21d: Lucius Mummius (2)

Here Mummius makes a dedication at Italica in Spain for the capture of Corinth. He had
been praetor in Hispania Ulterior (Further Spain) in 153.

Lucius Mummius, son of Lucius, imperator, gave this on the capture of Corinth
to the town of Italica.

5.44 SIG3 684: Letter of Q. Fabius Maximus to the people of Dymae

Mummius settled Greece with the help of a commission of ten; democracy was no longer
to be the normal form of government and, according to Pausanias (doc. 5.41), governments
were based on a census qualification. Reactionaries in Achaean Dymae revolted later, with
the aim of cancelling debts, and the pro-Romans appealed to the proconsul Quintus Fabius
Maximus. The proconsul may have been Q. Fabius Maximus Eburnus (cos. 116).

1 In the priesthood of Leon, when Stratocles was secretary of the council. Quintus
Fabius Maximus, son of Quintus, proconsul of the Romans, to the magistrates,
councillors and city of Dymae, greetings.

236
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
Since the councillors, led by 5 Cyllanius, have notified me of the crimes com-
mitted in your city, that is, the burning and the destruction of the archives and the
public records, in which the leader of the entire disturbance was Sosus, son of
Tauromenes, who also drafted the laws in opposition 10 to the constitution given
to the Achaeans by the Romans, which I have already discussed in detail with my
advisory council at Patrae; since, therefore, in committing these actions they seem
to me to be devising a condition of the worst kind of political disorder and upheaval
for all the Greeks, not only by disaffection towards one another and by cancellation
of private debts 15 but also by acting contrary to the freedom granted to the Greeks
in common and our policy; and since the accusers have provided genuine proofs, I
judge Sosus, the leader in what was done and the framer of the law for the abolition
of the constitution granted by us, 20 to be liable to the death penalty, and similarly
Phormiscus, son of Echesthenes, one of the demiurgi, who co-operated with those
who burned the archives and the public records, as he himself confessed.
But since Timotheus, son of Nicias, who drafted the legislation with Sosus,
seems less guilty, 25 I have ordered him to proceed to Rome and have exacted an
oath that he shall be there on 1 September, and I have informed the praetor per-
egrinus that he shall not be allowed to return home until . . .

5.45 OGIS 435: Attalus III of Pergamum

Attalus III, the son of Eumenes II of Pergamum, died probably in September 134, leav-
ing his kingdom to Rome. A committee of five envoys, with the pontifex maximus
Scipio Nasica in charge, went out to settle affairs in 133/132. A pretender to the throne,
Aristonicus, was defeated and sent to Rome, and the Roman province of Asia was created
(see doc. 8.23). This inscription appears to confirm an earlier senatorial decree, with gov-
ernors being instructed to adhere to the proposals of the earlier commissioners, and tacitly
abolishes anything done in the name of the rebel Aristonicus.

Decree of the senate. The praetor Gaius Popillius, son of Gaius, consulted the sen-
ate . . . on the . . . 5 of . . . ember.
Whereas there was a discussion about affairs in Pergamum as to what instruc-
tions should be given to the praetors being dispatched to Asia regarding whether
the regulations, gifts, concessions and fines that had been made by the kings in Asia
up to the death of Attalus 10 should remain in force, the senate resolved as follows
in regard to this affair: ‘Concerning the matters brought up by the praetor Gaius
Popillius, son of Gaius, the senators resolved as follows in regard to this affair: any
regulations and fines or gifts and concessions which were made by King Attalus and
the other kings, 15 and which took place at least one day before the death of Attalus,
shall be valid, and the praetors dispatched to Asia shall alter nothing without good
reason, but shall allow these to remain in force in accordance with the senate’s
decree.’ 20 Public Servilius . . . assisted in drafting the decree.

THE WESTERN MEDITERRANEAN

Cato the Elder, as consul in 195, was sent to Hispania Citerior (Hither Spain) after the pro-
consul Gaius Sempronius Tuditanus had been killed in battle there in 196. Cato took with

237
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
him two legions, supported by 15,000 allies, 800 cavalry and 20 warships. However, the
conflict there was not resolved, though between 197 and 180 there seems to have been lit-
tle systematic conquest. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (the Elder) was governor of Nearer
Spain from late 180 and returned in 178 with 40,000 pounds of silver, although he was long
remembered for his integrity. In 171, several peoples from both Spanish provinces sent
delegates to Rome to complain of the misconduct of governors. Spain was a profitable pos-
session for Rome: there were 40,000 slaves in the silver mines at New Carthage (originally
organised by Cato), bringing Rome 25,000 denarii a day in revenue.

5.46 Appian The Spanish Wars 6.40–41.161–70: Cato the

Elder in Spain
Cato’s only active army command was during his time as consul in Spain in 195, for which
he was awarded a triumph.

161 When Cato sailed to Spain and arrived at the place called Emporion, the
enemy gathered against him from all sides to the number of 40,000. 162 He
quickly trained his army and, when he was about to engage in battle, he sent
away the ships that he possessed to Marseilles and told the army: ‘Do not be
afraid that the enemy will overwhelm us with their numbers – for a brave spirit
will always overcome superior numbers – but because we have no ships, unless
we win, we have nothing – not even safety . . . ’ 165 When he saw that the cen-
tre of his forces were in particular difficulties, he rushed among them, putting
himself at risk, and threw the enemy into confusion by his deeds and cries, and
was the first to begin the victory. 166 He pursued them all that night, capturing
their camp and killing many of them. On his return, the soldiers embraced him
and celebrated with him as leader of the victory. After this he rested the army
and sold the booty.
167 When all sent embassies to him, he demanded more hostages and sent
sealed letters to each, telling all those who carried them to hand them over on
the same day; he fixed the day by estimating when the letters would reach the
furthermost town. 168 The message instructed all the magistrates of the towns to
destroy their walls on the same day, that on which they received the letters; if they
postponed the day, he threatened them with enslavement. 169 Having recently
been defeated in a great battle, and being ignorant whether these orders had been
given to them alone or to everyone, they were afraid, if they were the only ones,
that they would be powerless, and, if they were with others, that they would be
the only ones to delay, and, as they had no time to send round to each other and
were wary of the soldiers who had come with the letters and were standing right
in front of them, they all considered their own safety to be of prime importance
and hastily dismantled their walls. Once they had decided to obey, they competed
against each other to complete the task quickly. 170 And in this way the towns
along the River Ebro themselves destroyed their own walls on a single day, as the
result of just one stratagem, and, because the Romans could easily attack them,
they remained mostly at peace.

238
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
5.47 ILS 15: L. Aemilius Paullus in Spain, 189 BC
Paullus was in charge of Further Spain as propraetor (191–189 BC), defeating the
Lusitanians in 189. This decree on a bronze plate frees the serfs of the city of Hasta and
allows them to retain the lands they worked, presumably an attempt to weaken Hasta eco-
nomically. The town was captured by the Romans in 186.

1 Lucius Aemilius, son of Lucius, commander-in-chief, decreed that the serfs of the
people of Hasta, who live in the tower of Lascuta, are to be free; he ordered that the land
and town 5 which they possessed at that time they are to possess and hold as long as
this is the wish of the Roman people and senate. Enacted in camp, 19th day of January.

5.48 Appian The Spanish Wars 6.51–52, 59–60 (215–20, 247–55):

Massacre in Spain, 151–150 BC
In 154 the Lusitanians in Further Spain invaded Roman territory and defeated two praetors,
even crossing to North Africa. Though M. Claudius Marcellus, consul for the third time
in 152, was successful in Spain and urged that peace be made, the senate wanted military
triumphs and continued the war. Marcellus’ successor, L. Licinius Lucullus (cos. 151),
without authority, attacked the Vaccaei, a Celtiberian tribe, despite the fact that they were
not at war with Rome; he ordered the killing of 20,000 men at the Vaccaenan city of Cauca
in 151, even though they had surrendered. Sulpicius Galba, praetor in Hispania Ulterior in
151 and prorogued for 150, defeated and accepted the surrender of 8,000 Lusitanians, who
were then butchered. He was brought to trial for his misconduct in Spain but still became
consul in 144. Viriathus survived Galba’s massacre and became the hero of the resistance,
until assassinated by treachery in 139.

215 The war against the Belli, Titthi and Arevaci had in this way come to an end
before Lucullus’ time, but Lucullus, who was eager for glory and needed money
because of his poverty, attacked the Vaccaei, another Celtiberian tribe, neighbours
of the Aravaci, though no vote on this had taken place, nor had the Vaccaei made
war on the Romans or wronged Lucullus himself in any way. 216 He crossed the
river called the Tagus and arrived at the town of Cauca and made camp beside
it . . . 218 On the next day the elders, wearing crowns and carrying olive branches,
again asked Lucullus what they should do to be friends. He demanded that they
give hostages and 100 talents of silver and ordered that their cavalry fight on his
side. 219 When he had received all this, he demanded that a garrison enter the
town. The Caucaei accepted this too, and he led in 2,000 men, chosen for their
courage, whom he told to take up positions on the walls once they were inside.
When the 2,000 had taken the walls, Lucullus led in the rest of the army and with
a trumpet blast signalled that they should kill all the Caucaei of age. 220 The
Caucaei, calling on their guarantees and the gods as witnesses of their oaths, and
cursing the Romans for their bad faith, were savagely slaughtered, with only a few
of the 20,000 men escaping through difficult passages; Lucullus sacked the town
and brought the Romans into disrepute . . . 247 Lucullus had made war without
authority on the Vaccaei and was at that point wintering in Turditania. Learning

239
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
that the Lusitanians were making attacks on the neighbouring regions, he sent out
his best commanders and killed about 4,000 of them. 248 He also killed about
1,500 others as they were crossing the straits near Cadiz, and, when the remainder
took refuge on a hill, he fenced them off with a ditch and captured a vast number
of them. He also invaded Lusitania and ravaged it bit by bit. 249 Galba also rav-
aged it on the other side. When some of their envoys came to Galba, wanting to
confirm the treaty they had made with Atilius, the previous general, and then bro-
ken, he received them and made a truce, pretending to feel sympathy with them
because they were compelled by poverty to plunder, make war and break treaties.
250 ‘For’, he said, ‘the poverty of your soil and your penniless condition force
you to do these things; I will divide you into three and give you, my poor friends,
good land, settling you in fertile country.’
251 Expecting this to happen, they left their own country and gathered at the
place Galba had appointed; he divided them into three groups and showed each
a certain plain, commanding them to remain on this plain until he came and told
them where to settle. 252 When he came to the first division, he instructed them
as friends to put down their arms, and, when they had done so, he fenced them
off with a ditch and sent in men with swords who slaughtered them all, as they
lamented and called on the names of the gods and their guarantees of good faith.
253 In the same way he rushed to the second and third divisions and slaughtered
them, while they were still ignorant of what had happened to the first, repay-
ing treachery with treachery and imitating barbarians in a way not worthy of the
Romans. 254 A few of them escaped, among them Viriathus, who not long after-
wards became leader of the Lusitanians, killing many Romans and achieving great
successes. But I shall speak later of these subsequent events. 255 Galba, who was
more avaricious than Lucullus, then distributed a small amount of the booty to
his troops, and a little to his friends, but kept the rest for himself although he was
already one of the wealthiest of the Romans; but they say that even in peace he
did not stop lying and breaking his word for the sake of gain. Although hated and
brought to court, he escaped because of his wealth.

5.49 Cicero Brutus 89–90: Servius Sulpicius Galba as orator

Despite his breaking faith with the Lusitanians and the disapproval of Cato the Elder, Galba
was still able to avoid condemnation for the massacre in 150 BC by his clever rhetoric
and appeal to family sympathies. Gaius Sulpicius Gallus was a friend of Lucius Aemilius
Paullus and fought at Pydna.

89 From this account of Rutilius, one may deduce that, of the two greatest qualities
an orator may possess – that of arguing shrewdly in order to convince, the other
of speaking impressively in order to sway the hearts and minds of his auditors –
the man who inspires the jurors is far more successful than he who instructs
them: in other words, Laelius possessed craft, Galba forcefulness. This power
was indeed most clearly realised when Servius Galba, as praetor, was accused of
massacring Lusitanians in violation – as it was believed – of his good faith. Lucius

240
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
Libo, tribune of the plebs, aroused the people and brought forward a measure
against Galba personally, while Marcus Cato, though extremely elderly (as I have
mentioned before), spoke in favour of making a vehement attack on Galba; this
speech he included in his Origines a few days or months before he died. 90 Galba
then, requesting no favours for himself, but calling on the faith of the Roman peo-
ple, entrusted to their care, weeping as he did so, his own children as well as the
son of Gaius (Sulpicius) Gallus (cos. 166), whose orphaned condition and tears
inspired remarkable compassion on account of the recent memory of his illustri-
ous father. In this way Galba snatched himself from the flames, as Cato wrote, by
stirring up the populace’s compassion for young children.

5.50 Livy Periochae 54–56: Rome repudiates treaties

From 144, Celtiberian revolt centred on the town of Numantia. Resistance was exacer-
bated by the Romans’ constant repudiation of peace agreements. 54: the treaty made by
Pompeius, consul in 141, was not ratified by the senate. Viriathus defeated at least four
Roman armies, and in 141/0 he surrounded a Roman army and terms were made. Fabius’
treaty was ratified but then disowned at the instigation of Q. Servilius Caepio, the new
governor (cos. 140).
C. Hostilius Mancinus (cos. 137), in attempting to withdraw from Numantia by night,
was trapped and surrounded; terms made by the quaestor Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (tr. pl.
133) saved the lives of the 20,000 Romans but were repudiated by the senate. D. Junius
Brutus (cos. 138) reconquered tribes in 137–136; his Gallaeci campaign in north-west
Spain was in 134. His gift of land was perhaps to soldiers (i.e., veterans) who had fought
against Viriathus, not under him. Aemilius Lepidus Porcina undertook his campaign on his
own initiative and was fined by the senate after his return.

54 The consul Quintus Pompeius conquered the Termestini in Spain (141 BC).
He made a peace treaty with them and the Numantines which was repudiated
by the Roman people . . . Quintus Fabius, as proconsul, won successes in Spain
but spoiled his record by making peace with Viriathus on equal terms (140 BC).
Viriathus was assassinated by traitors at the instigation of Servilius Caepio and
was greatly mourned by his army and given a noble burial. He was a great man and
a great leader, and, in the 14 years in which he waged war against the Romans, he
got the better of them more often than not. 55 The consul Junius Brutus in Spain
gave those who had served under Viriathus land and a town, called Valentia.
Marcus Popillius, after a peace treaty with the Numantines had been repudiated by
the senate, was routed and put to flight by them together with his army. When the
consul Gaius Hostilius Mancinus was sacrificing, the chickens flew out of their
enclosure; later, when he was going on board his ship to set out for Spain, the cry,
‘Stay. Mancinus’, was heard; that these omens were unfavourable was proved by
the outcome. For he was defeated by the Numantines and his camp was despoiled,
and, when there was no hope of saving his army, he made a ignominious peace
with them which the senate refused to ratify. 40,000 Romans were defeated by
4,000 Numantines. Decimus Junius totally subdued Lusitania by storming its cit-
ies right up to the Atlantic Ocean. 56 Decimus Junius Brutus waged a successful

241
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
campaign in Further Spain against the Gallaeci. A different outcome resulted
when the proconsul Marcus Aemilius Lepidus made war on the Vaccaei, and he
suffered a similar disaster to that at Numantia. To release the Roman people from
the sanctity of the Numantine treaty, for which he was responsible, Mancinus was
handed over to the Numantines, who would not accept him.

5.51 Livy Periochae 56: Scipio’s second consulship

The Numantine war had dragged on for two decades and Scipio Aemilianus was sent out
in 134 to end the conflict. He recruited four legions and allies, including Numidian cav-
alry led by Jugurtha with 12 war elephants. Recruitment had been slow, but, when Scipio
Aemilianus volunteered for service, recruits put themselves forward enthusiastically.
Despite a law against second consulships, perhaps passed in 151 BC, the situation was
serious enough for the constitution to be put aside.

As the Numantine war was dragging on because of the failure of the generals,
and not without public shame, the consulship was therefore offered to Scipio
Aemilianus by the senate and Roman people; he was not permitted to accept this
on account of a law which forbade anyone to become consul for a second time, but
was exempted from the laws as in his earlier consulship.

5.52 Appian The Spanish Wars 6.84–85 (363–70): Scipio Aemilianus

ejects camp followers
By 134 only the northern peoples of Spain and the Aravaci of the Numantia region remained
unsubdued. Scipio Aemilianus, as consul in 134, tightened up discipline in the Spanish
troops and evicted all unnecessary camp followers and equipment (including, according to
Livy Per. 57, 2,000 prostitutes).

363 In Rome the people, tired of the Numantine issue, as the war had been much
longer and more difficult than they had expected, chose Cornelius Scipio, the
conqueror of Carthage, to be consul for a second time, as the only person able to
overcome the Numantines. 364 Even at that point he was still younger than the
age limit for consuls, and so the senate, just as when he was elected to fight against
the Carthaginians, once more decreed that the tribunes should repeal the law about
the age limit and bring it in again the next year . . . 367 When he arrived, he drove
out all the merchants, prostitutes, diviners, and fortune-tellers, whom the soldiers
constantly consulted in their anxiety over their lack of success; and, for the future,
he prohibited the importation of anything superfluous, not even a victim prepared
for divination. 368 He also ordered that the wagons and the superfluous items
loaded on them, and the draft animals, except for those he exempted, be sold.
Furthermore, no one was permitted to have any equipment for cooking, except a
spit, a bronze pot and one drinking cup. Their food was restricted to boiled and
roast meat. 369 He forbade them to have beds, and was the first to lie down to
rest on a straw mattress. He also forbade them to ride on mules while marching:
‘For what can be expected in war’, he said, ‘from a man unable to walk on foot?’

242
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
When they rubbed themselves with oil and when they were in the baths, they put
on their own oil, as Scipio joked that it was those, like mules, who had no hands,
that needed others to rub them down. 370 In this way he converted them all to
self-restraint and got them used to respect and fear, as it was difficult to get access
to him and he was averse to granting favours, especially those against regulations.

5.53 Appian The Spanish Wars 6.97–98 (419–24): Numantia, 133 BC

Scipio surrounded Numantia with seven camps and a massive stone wall 9 kilometres in
length and some 3 metres high, starving it out in 133 BC after a siege of eight months. The
populace, which had resorted to cannibalism, were sold as slaves, but Scipio allowed a day
in which those who wished could commit suicide.

419 Such was the love of freedom and of courage in a city that was both barbarian
and small in size. In peace time there were only about 8,000 inhabitants, yet they
inflicted such numerous great defeats on the Romans, made such treaties with
them on terms of complete equality (though the Romans never agreed to make
such treaties with anyone), and frequently challenged in battle such a great gen-
eral, the last to be sent against them, who surrounded them with 60,000 men. 420
He was, of course, a better general than they were, and would not come to grips
with wild beasts, but exhausted them through starvation, an evil which cannot be
fought, through which alone it was possible to take the Numantines and through
which alone they were taken. 421 This is what I have to say about the Numantines,
looking at their small numbers, their ability to bear hardship, their many achieve-
ments, and the length of time they held out; 422 first of all, those who wished
killed themselves, each in his own way; the rest came out on the third day to the
appointed spot, an appalling sight and a completely inhuman one, with their bod-
ies unwashed, full of hair, nails and filth, smelling dreadfully, with their clothes
foul and stinking no less than they did. 423 To their enemies, this made them
seem pitiable, but their expressions made them terrifying; for they looked at the
Romans in a way that displayed their anger, their grief, their suffering, and their
consciousness of their cannibalism. 424 Scipio chose 50 of them for his triumph,
sold the rest and destroyed the city.

THE IMPACT OF GREEK CULTURE ON ROME

Between 211 (Marcellus’ capture of Syracuse) and 146 BC (Mummius’ sack of Corinth
and Scipio Aemilianus’ sack of Carthage), Rome was flooded with the spoils of war; this
included Greek art, as well as goods such as precious metals, gems, money and slaves. Vast
sums were acquired through conquests in both the East and the West.

5.54 Livy History of Rome 29.19.10–13: Scipio Africanus in Syracuse

Fabius Maximus and other senators attacked Scipio for his conduct while he was prepar-
ing for war in Africa. Scipio is here criticised not for his interest in Greek activities per se,
but because he pursues them so openly; he is not behaving in a manner befitting a Roman

243
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
commander on duty. Scipio was a lover of Greek culture and was granted honours by Greek
communities; for satire on his behaviour, see doc. 4.57.

10 Not all the senators’ opinions could be asked on that day because of the party
spirit which was inflamed for and against Scipio. 11 In addition to the crime of
Pleminius and the disastrous situation of the Locrians, even the general’s appear-
ance was the subject of attack, not only as un-Roman but even as unsoldierly: 12
he was said to stroll about in the gymnasium in Greek mantle (pallium) and san-
dals; to give his attention to books and exercising in the palaestra; his entire staff
was enjoying the amenities of Syracuse in idleness and relaxation; 13 Carthage
and Hannibal had been entirely forgotten; and the whole army was being spoiled
by lack of discipline, just as had happened at Sucro in Spain and currently at
Locri, and was to be feared more by allies than by the enemy.

5.55 Livy History of Rome 39.6.3–7.5: Gnaeus Manlius Vulso, 186 BC

Vulso (cos. 189) as proconsul took 40,000 prisoners from the Galatians of central Asia
Minor at Mount Olympus (who were sold to neighbouring tribes) and levied large sums
from different cities for Rome’s ‘friendship’. He celebrated a triumph over the Galatians,
whom he defeated in two battles, and his booty was used to reimburse citizens for their
war loans. Cistophoroi were Asiatic coins worth approximately 4 drachmas; philippei were
Macedonian gold coins worth 20 drachmas.

6.3 At the end of the year, when the magistrates had already been elected, on
the third day before the Nones of March, Gnaeus Manlius Vulso triumphed over
the Gauls (i.e., the Galatians) who live in Asia. 4 The reason for his leaving the
celebration of his triumph so late was to avoid making his defence under the lex
Petillia before the praetor Quintus Terentius Culleo and being consumed in the
flames of another’s trial, where Lucius Scipio had been condemned, 5 in as much
as the jurors were far more hostile to him than to Scipio, because rumour stated
that he, as Scipio’s successor, by allowing all kinds of licence, had ruined the
military discipline which Scipio had strictly preserved. 6 Nor was this the only
grounds on which he was criticised – hearsay accounts of what had occurred in
his province far out of sight – but more damning was the evidence seen daily in
the conduct of his soldiers. 7 For the army which returned from Asia introduced
the beginnings of foreign luxury into the city. They brought to Rome, for the first
time, bronze couches, valuable robes as coverings, tapestries and other textiles,
and – what was at that time considered to be splendid pieces of furniture – tables
with one foot and ornate sideboards. 8 Female lute-players and harpists and other
entertaining acts became a feature of banquets; moreover, the banquets them-
selves began to be prepared with both greater care and expense. 9 It was then that
the cooks – to the men of olden times the most worthless of slaves in both mon-
etary valuation and practical value – began to be worth something, and what had
been merely an occupation now came to be seen as an art-form. But even these
imports, which were then seen as remarkable, were hardly even the seeds of the
luxury which was to follow.

244
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
7.1 In his triumph, Gnaeus Manlius bore 212 golden crowns, 220,000 pounds
of silver, 2,103 pounds of gold, 127,000 Attic 4-drachma pieces, 250,000 cisto-
phori, and 16,320 gold philippei, 2 as well as arms and many Gallic spoils carried
in wagons, while 52 enemy leaders were led before his chariot. He gave the sol-
diers 42 denarii each, twice that to each centurion, three times that to each eques,
and doubled their pay; 3 many soldiers of all ranks, who had been given mili-
tary awards, followed his chariot. Songs which were sung by the soldiers about
their general clearly showed that they were sung about an indulgent commander
who courted their goodwill, and that the triumph was conspicuous more by the
applause of the soldiers than that of civilians. 4 But Manlius’ friends were able
to win popularity with the people as well; 5 at their urging, the senate passed a
decree that the arrears of the tax contributed by the people into the treasury should
be paid out of the money which had been carried in the triumph. The city quaes-
tors scrupulously paid 25 and one half asses for every thousand asses.

5.56 Livy History of Rome 41.28.8–10: Gracchus dedicates a painting

In 174 BC Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (the Elder) commissioned a huge painting,
including a map, as a memorial of his victory in Sardinia. This was placed in the temple of
Mater Matuta at Rome and dedicated to Jupiter.

8 In the same year a tablet was placed in the temple of Mater Matuta with the
following inscription: ‘Under the command and auspices of the consul Tiberius
Sempronius Gracchus, the legion and army of the Roman people conquered
Sardinia. In that province more than 80,000 of the enemy were killed or captured.
9 After the state had been successfully organised, the allies freed, and the rev-
enues restored, he brought the army back home safe and unimpaired and loaded
with booty; for the second time he entered the city of Rome in triumph. To com-
memorate this he dedicated this tablet to Jupiter.’ 10 It had the shape of the island
of Sardinia and on it depictions of the battles were painted.

5.57 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 37.3.1–6: Aristocratic

extravagance
Diodorus is here referring specifically to the period following the Third Macedonian
War (171–168 BC). Paullus brought home after Pydna and his Greek tour huge amounts
of spoils, as well as an artist, Metrodorus, to decorate his triumph. The criticism here is
directed especially against extravagance and epicureanism (qualities very much opposed
to the Romans’ traditional view of their own ancestral frugality). For Cato’s remark, see
Diod. 31.24; cf. Scipio Aemilianus’ disapproval of long-sleeved tunics in his speech against
Sulpicius Gallus: doc. 7.57.

1 In olden days the Romans, by employing the best laws and customs, gradually
increased their power to such an extent that they gained the greatest and most
glorious empire within memory. In more recent times, when most nations had
been subjugated and peace was of long duration, love of ancient custom at Rome

245
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
turned to perdition. 2 For, with the end of warfare, the youth turned to luxury and
licentiousness, using their wealth to obtain their desires. Extravagance was pre-
ferred throughout the city to frugality, leisure to the practice of warlike deeds; the
man considered blessed by the populace was not the man who was ornamented
by his excellences but the man who spent his whole life enjoying the most entic-
ing pleasures. 3 Accordingly, elaborate dishes at expensive dinner parties became
fashionable, and the perfumes of wondrous unguents, the provision of costly, col-
oured draperies and the construction of dining-couches from ivory and silver and
the other most expensive materials by the most skilful artisans. With wines, one
that only moderately delighted the palate was rejected, while Falernian, Chian and
every wine which gave similar pleasure to these were consumed without restraint,
as were those fish and other delicacies which were most highly prized for enjoy-
ment. 4 In line with this, the young men would wear garments of incredible soft-
ness in the Forum, so fine as to be transparent, something similar to women’s
clothes. And since they were providing themselves with everything relating to
pleasure and ruinous ostentation, they soon raised the price of these commodities
to unbelievable heights. 5 A jar of wine sold for 100 drachmas, a jar of Pontic
preserved fish for 400 drachmas, chefs especially gifted in the arts of cookery
for four talents, and male catamites of exceptional beauty for many talents . . . 6
Marcus Cato, a prudent man distinguished for his good conduct, denounced in the
senate the prevalence of luxury at Rome, saying that only in this city were jars of
Pontic preserved fish worth more than men who drove a yoke of oxen, and pretty
boys more than farmland.

5.58 Polybius Histories 31.25.2–8: The social impact of conquest

Polybius is here praising Scipio Aemilianus, his friend and patron; Scipio was 18 years old
at the time to which this passage refers (c. 167/6). With the wealth in money and slaves
that poured into Rome in the first half of the second century, many upper-class Romans
acquired a taste for Greek pursuits, artefacts and extravagance.

2 The first object of Scipio’s desire to lead a good life was to win a reputation for
temperance and in this respect to surpass all the young men of his age. 3 This is
a great prize and one difficult to attain, but was one easy to win in Rome at this
time because of the tendency of most of the young men towards vice. 4 For some
of them had given themselves up to homosexual relationships with boys or to
affairs with courtesans, many to musical entertainments and drinking-parties and
the extravagance these involve, having swiftly become attached to the Greeks’
laxity during the war against Perseus. 5 So unbridled was the licence into which
the youth had fallen in such matters that many paid a talent for a favourite boy
and many 300 drachmas for a jar of Pontic pickled fish. Marcus (Cato), indignant
at this, once said in a speech to the people that the best sign that the state was
degenerating was when lovely boys fetched more than fields and jars of pickled
fish more than ploughmen. 6 It was at the time of which we are speaking that
the current tendency became obvious, first of all because, after the Macedonian

246
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
kingdom fell, they thought that their universal sovereignty was uncontested, 7 and
next because, after the wealth of Macedonia had been brought to Rome, there was
a great parade of riches both in private life and in public. 8 Only Scipio set out
to follow the opposite lifestyle, combating all his desires and shaping his life to
be in all respects uniform and harmonious, gaining in about the first five years a
universal reputation for self-discipline and temperance.

5.59 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 2.24.2–4: Sumptuary

legislation, 161 BC
At the Megalesia nobles gave dinner parties to each other on 4 April; the ludi Romani (in
Cicero’s time) lasted from 5 to 19 September; the plebeian games from 4 to 17 November;
the Saturnalia, originally on 17 December, later lasted for seven days. The lex Fannia in
161 (sponsored by the consul C. Fannius Strabo) prohibited the private entertainment of
more than three people outside of the family, or five on nundinae (market-days), while lay-
ing down the maximum expenditures for daily and limits on annual purchases.

2 Just recently I read in Ateius Capito’s Miscellanies an old senatorial decree passed
in the consulship of Gaius Fannius and Marcus Valerius Messala, in which the lead-
ing citizens, who by ancestral custom ‘interchanged’ at the Megalesian games – that
is, hosted banquets for each other in turn – were instructed to take an oath in front
of the consuls in set terms: that they would spend no more on each dinner than 120
asses, excepting vegetables, bread and wine; that they would not serve foreign wine,
but only that produced locally; and that at a banquet they would not use more than
100 pounds of silverware. 3 But, following that senatorial decree, the lex Fannia
was introduced, which allowed 100 asses a day to be spent at the Roman games,
plebeian games and Saturnalia and, on other specific days, 30 asses a day on ten
further days in each month, and only ten on all other days. 4 It is this law to which
the poet Lucilius refers, when he says, ‘Fannius’ miserable 100 asses’.

5.60 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 15.11.1–2: Edicts on Latin rhetoricians

Cf. Suet. Rhet. 1 (doc. 2.66). Following the Third Macedonian War many Greek intellectu-
als were imported to Rome, and the lectures given by the Greek philosopher Carneades in
Rome in 155 were to prove highly popular (to Cato’s dismay: doc. 5.61). As most rhetori-
cians and philosophers would have been part of private households, this edict in 161 BC
was intended primarily to reassert Roman native traditions. The edict of 92 also aimed at
moral censure rather than the closing of schools of Latin rhetoric.

1 In the consulship of Gaius Fannius Strabo and Marcus Valerius Messala, this
decree of the senate was passed concerning Latin-speaking philosophers and
rhetoricians: ‘The praetor Marcus Pomponius put a motion before the senate.
Following a discussion about philosophers and rhetoricians, they resolved as fol-
lows, that Marcus Pomponius, the praetor, should take heed and ensure in what-
ever way seemed to him to be in the interests of the state and the dignity of his
office that they should not remain in Rome.’

247
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
2 Then some years after that senatorial decree Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus
and Lucius Licinius Crassus, the censors, proclaimed the following edict for
repressing Latin rhetoricians: ‘It has been reported to us that there are men who
have introduced a new kind of training, whose schools the youth frequent; that
these men have adopted for themselves the title of Latin rhetoricians; that young
men sit idle there for whole days. Our ancestors laid down what they desired their
children to learn and to what schools they wished them to go. These innovations,
which are contrary to our ancestors’ customs and principles, neither please us nor
appear proper. Wherefore, it appears to be our duty that we should declare our
opinion, both to those who hold these schools and to those who are in the habit of
attending them, that they displease us.’

5.61 Plutarch Life of Cato the Elder 2.5–6, 22.1–23.6: Cato and
the Greeks
Cato was consul in 195 and censor in 184; he posed as a champion of austerity and old
Roman standards but was not totally opposed to Hellenic culture. In 155 BC, Cato heard
Carneades’ speeches in Rome. Athens had suffered a damaging judgement in her dispute
with Oropus (which was heard by Sicyon, which imposed a fine of 500 talents). Athens
appealed to the senate, using as spokespersons the heads of three major philosophical
schools, who also offered public lectures. These were extremely popular, and this popular
appeal was Cato’s major concern.

2.5 It is said that he did not learn Greek until later in life and was quite old when he
took to reading Greek books, when his oratory benefited a little from Thucydides
but more from Demosthenes. 6 However, his writings are fairly well adorned with
Greek opinions and stories, and many literal translations from Greek can be found
in his maxims and proverbs . . . 22.1 When he was already an old man, Carneades
the Academic and Diogenes the Stoic philosopher came as envoys from Athens
to Rome (155 BC) to request the reversal of a judgement against the Athenian
people . . . 2 The most scholarly of Rome’s young men immediately thronged to
them and became their admiring audience . . . 4 This delighted the other Romans,
and they were pleased to see their young men acquiring Greek culture and asso-
ciating with such remarkable men; 5 but Cato, from the time when this zeal for
eloquence had poured into the city, was unhappy, fearing that the young men,
through turning their ambition in this direction, would come to desire a reputation
for speaking more than one based on exploits and campaigns. And when the phi-
losophers’ fame rose even higher in the city and their first speeches to the senate
were interpreted by that distinguished man Gaius Acilius, at his own desire and
request, Cato resolved to have all these philosophers removed from the city on a
decent pretext. 6 So, in the senate, he criticised the magistrates for detaining for
so long an embassy of men who could easily achieve through persuasion anything
they wished; 7 they ought to make a decision and vote on the embassy as quickly
as possible, so that they could return to their schools and lecture to the young men
of Greece, and the youth of Rome could listen to their laws and magistrates as
before.

248
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
23.2 . . . In an attempt to prejudice his son against Greek culture, he employs a
dictum too bold for an old man, stating like a prophet or visionary that the Romans
will lose their empire once they are infected with Greek learning. 3 But time has
shown these words of evil omen to be groundless, for when the city was at its peak
of empire she adopted every type of Greek learning and culture. He not only hated
Greek philosophers but was also suspicious of Greeks who practised medicine at
Rome. 4 It would seem that he had heard of Hippocrates’ answer, who told the
Great King, when asked for his services for a fee of many talents, that he would
never work for barbarians who were enemies of Greece. Cato said all Greek doctors
had taken a similar oath and urged his son to beware of all of them; 5 he had himself
written a book of medical notes, which he used in treating and regulating the diet of
any of his household who were sick. He never prescribed fasting for anyone but fed
them on vegetables, or bits of duck, pigeon or hare; 6 this diet was light and suitable
for invalids, except for often causing dreams in its eaters, and by employing such
treatment and diet he was in good health himself and kept his family healthy.

5.62 Pliny Natural History 29.14: Cato to his son Marcus

Pliny here cites an extract from a work supposedly addressed by Cato to his son, though it was
perhaps a collection of axioms for a wider audience. For Cato’s home remedies, see doc. 2.17.

I shall speak about those Greek fellows in their proper place, Marcus, my son, mak-
ing clear what I learnt at Athens and convincing you what good comes of looking
at their literature, but without thoroughly studying it. They are a totally good-for-
nothing and incorrigible race of people – take my words as prophetic! When that
race gives us its literature it will corrupt everything – and still worse, if it sends us
its doctors! They have conspired among themselves to murder all ‘barbarians’ with
their drugs, and, what’s more, do this for a fee, to gain our confidence and easily
dispose of us. Moreover, they keep calling us barbarians and bespatter us even more
obscenely than others by giving us the nickname of ‘Opici’ (Oscans).

5.63 Cicero Tusculan Disputations 4.70–71: Nudity and pederasty

Cicero is here referring not to homosexuality per se but to pederasty practised with citizen
youths. There was no moral stigma about relationships with young male prostitutes and
slaves, though it was considered shameful to be the passive partner. One of the main issues
involved in the Bacchanalia was the seduction of young freeborn male adults (stuprum),
and homosexual relationships in the army were severely dealt with (because between cit-
izens): doc. 7.59; cf. 8.22 for Gaius Gracchus. Laius was a character in a lost play of
Euripides, the Chrysippus.

70 Why is it that no one is ever in love with an unsightly youth or a handsome

old man? My view is that this custom appears to have grown up in the gymnasia
of the Greeks, in which such loves were free and permissible; it was well said by
Ennius (F107),

‘Nudity amongst citizens is the beginning of disgrace.’

249
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
Even when such relationships are, as I see they can be, within the bounds of pro-
priety, they cause uneasiness and anxiety – all the more because they are a law
unto themselves and are subject to no outside control. 71 Again, leaving aside
love for women, to which nature has allowed greater licence, who can either doubt
the poets’ meaning in the tale of the rape of Ganymede or fail to understand Laius’
speeches and desires in Euripides’ play?

5.64 Plutarch Roman Questions 40: Roman athleticism

Moralia 274de. This passage gives the Romans’ view rather than Plutarch’s. He is here discuss-
ing why the flamen dialis was forbidden to anoint himself with oil in the open air (doc. 3.21).

The Romans used to be very suspicious of rubbing themselves down with oil,
and they believe that nothing has been more responsible for the enslavement and
effeminacy of the Greeks than their gymnasia and wrestling schools, which give
rise to much idleness and waste of time in their cities, as well as bad practices and
pederasty and the ruin of the bodies of the young men by a regimen of sleeping,
walking, rhythmical movements and strict diet. Through these practices they have
unconsciously left off the practice of arms and have become happy to be called
nimble, beautiful athletes instead of excellent foot-soldiers and horsemen.

5.65 Cicero Tusculan Disputations 1.1–3: Roman native qualities

In his Tusculan Disputations, written in 45, Cicero is trying to make Greek philosophy
accessible to the general reader. He argues that areas of study may be Greek, but virtues
and morals are Roman and the Romans have improved on what they have borrowed. Livius
Andronicus, a Greek, came from Tarentum; he was commissioned by the government in
240 to adapt Greek drama to celebrate the end of the First Punic War (cf. doc. 7.85).

1 I have always been convinced that our fellow countrymen have in every field
shown themselves to be wiser than the Greeks, whether in what they have discov-
ered for themselves or in the ways they have improved upon what they had taken
over from the Greeks, at any rate in those areas which they considered worthy of
their exertions. 2 For we undoubtedly uphold standards of morality, regulate our
lives, and run our families and households in a much better and more honour-
able fashion, while our forefathers organised government with better practices
and laws than anyone else. What shall I say about the science of warfare? In
this our countrymen have shown their superiority, not only through their excel-
lence but even more by their disciplined practice. As for those qualities which are
attained by nature, not through books, they cannot be compared with those of the
Greek or any other race. For where has such dignity, such firmness of character,
such greatness of spirit, such integrity, such trustworthiness – where has such
pre-eminent excellence in every respect been found in any races which could bear
comparison with that of our ancestors? 3 Greece was superior to us in learning
and all kinds of literature, and it was easy for them to win with no competition.
For, while, among the Greeks, the most ancient learned class is that of the poets,

250
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
since Homer and Hesiod lived before the founding of Rome and Archilochus in
the reign of Romulus, we acquired poetry at a later date. About 510 years after
the foundation of Rome Livius (Andronicus) produced a play in the consulship of
Gaius Claudius, son of Caecus, and Marcus Tuditanus, in the year before Ennius
was born, who was older than Plautus and Naevius.

5.66 Varro On Farming 2.1.1–3: The decline of Roman standards

Varro here demonstrates the degree to which Romans could adopt Greek habits and archi-
tecture within their private villas: cf. doc. 2.20 for Scipio Africanus. The ninth days refer to
the market-days (nundinae) on the last day of the eight-day market week.

1 Not without reason did those great men, our ancestors, put those Romans who
lived in the country before those who lived in the city. For, as in the country, those
who live in the villas are lazier than those who are engaged in doing work on the
land, so those who resided in town they thought to be more slothful than those
who dwelt in the country. As a result, they divided up their year in such a way
that they saw to their city affairs only on the ninth days and dwelt in the country
for the remaining seven. 2 As long as they kept up this practice they achieved
both objects – keeping their fields extremely productive through cultivation and
themselves fitter in health and not in need of the city gymnasia of the Greeks.
Nowadays one gymnasium is hardly enough, nor do people consider they have
a villa unless it resounds with many Greek terms for individual locations, called
procoetion (ante-room), palaestra (exercise-room), apodyterion (dressing-room),
peristylon (colonnade), ornithonon (aviary), peripteros (veranda) and oporotheca
(fruit-room). 3 As, therefore, almost all heads of families have nowadays crept
inside the walls, abandoning the sickle and plough, and prefer to employ their
hands in the theatre and circus than in the wheat-fields and vineyards, we hire a
man to bring us grain from Africa and Sardinia so our stomachs can be filled, and
the vintage we store up comes in ships from the islands of Cos and Chios.

ROME AND THE PROVINCES

The term ‘province’ originally implied the area in which a magistrate functioned: by the
second century, provinces had come to mean overseas territories permanently administered
by the Romans. The first was Sicily, mostly acquired in 241 BC following the First Punic
War, which became a unified province in 211, followed by Sardinia and Corsica in 227,
and then in 198/7 by the two Spanish provinces. Macedonia was annexed in 146, Asia in
129, Transalpine and Cisalpine Gaul after 100, Cilicia c. 80, and Bithynia and Pontus,
Crete, Cyprus and Syria in the 70s, 60s and 50s. While provinces were initially allocated
to magistrates and promagistrates by the senate and then by lot, in 123 Gaius Gracchus
legislated that the senate was to decide, before the consular elections (and hence before the
election results were known), which provinces would be consular (i.e., would be held by
the successful consular candidates as promagistrates after their year of office): doc. 8.28.
Promagistrates were often motivated by personal gain (the expenses of election were
immense) and the desire for gloria (and possibly a triumph). Governors could be subject
to prosecution for extortion on their return to Rome, but in practice convictions were rare.

251
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
5.67 Cicero On the Agrarian Law 2.45: The unpopularity of Roman
imperium
Cicero, as consul in 63, is speaking against Rullus’ proposal of a commission of ten who would
be given powers to sell state lands and purchase land for distribution in Italy: doc. 12.13.

Foreign nations can hardly stand our ambassadors, men with slight authority,
who go on free embassies for the sake of their own private affairs. For the name
of imperium is oppressive and feared even when its possessor is insignificant,
because it is your name, not their own, that they abuse when they have left Rome.

5.68 Cicero Against Verres 2.3.66, 120–1, 2.4.1–2: Verres in Sicily

Praetor urbanus in 74, Verres had then been propraetorian governor of Sicily; his term
extended to 71. His governorship is a fine illustration of the abuses perpetrated by many
Roman governors. Cicero had served as quaestor in Sicily and had connections and clients
there, hence his taking the side of the prosecution against Verres. The fine was accessed at
750,000 denarii (a low assessment: Plut. Cic. 8.1), and Verres went into exile at Marseilles.

3.66 You observe, jurors, how great a blaze swept at the tax-gatherers’ approach
not only through the farmers’ fields but even through their remaining possessions,
and not only through their possessions but even through their rights as free men and
citizens, with Verres as governor. You could see some of the farmers hanging from
trees, others being beaten and flogged, still more held as prisoners, others made to
remain standing through banquets, others being convicted by the governor’s per-
sonal doctor and herald; the goods of all of them being meanwhile despoiled and
swept away from their farms. What does all this mean? Is this the government of
Rome? Are these the laws a governor administers? Are these the courts that judge
our loyal allies, our closest province? . . . 120 How then can all this be proven?
By this fact, most of all, that the tax-paying lands of the province of Sicily were
deserted owing to his greed. It was not merely that those who did stay on their land
continued farming on a much smaller scale, but that a great many wealthy men,
important and diligent farmers, abandoned their broad and fertile properties and left
their entire farms derelict. The fact can easily be made clear from the communities’
public records, since by a law of Hiero a return of the number of farmers is officially
made to the magistrates every year. Read out now the total of farmers in the Leotini
district when Verres arrived in the province: 84. The number who made a return in
his third year: 32. So we see that 52 farmers were thrown out in such a way that no
one even came in to take their places. How many farmers were there in the Mutyca
district while you were en route to Sicily? Let us see from the public records: 187.
Well now, in your third year? 86. Owing to his iniquities, a single district feels
the lack of 101 farmers – indeed, our own nation, since the revenues are those of
the Roman people, feels the lack of all these men and their families and demands
their restitution. The district of Herbita in his first year had 252 farmers, 120 in his
third; 132 of its householders were driven from their homes and fled elsewhere.
The Agyrium district – what fine, well-regarded, substantial inhabitants! – had 250

252
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
farmers in the first year of your governorship. And now? How many in your third
year? 130, as you have heard, jurors, from representatives of Agyrium who read it
from their public records. 121 Immortal gods! If you had driven out 170 farmers
from the whole of Sicily, could you be acquitted by a serious court? It is this single
district of Agyrium which is emptier by 170 farmers – can you not then, jurors,
hazard a guess regarding Sicily as a whole?
4.1 I come now to what he himself calls his favourite occupation, his friends a
foolish obsession, and the Sicilians highway robbery; what name I should give it,
I do not know. I will place the facts before you, and you can judge it by its nature,
not its name. First, listen to its general characteristics, jurors, after which you will,
perhaps, have no difficulty in deciding what you think it should be called. I main-
tain that, in the whole of Sicily, such a wealthy, ancient province, in all its towns,
in all its very substantial households, there was not one vessel of silver, not one of
Corinthian or Delian bronze, no precious stone or pearl, nothing made of gold or
ivory, no bronze, marble or ivory statue, no painting or embroidered textile that he
did not seek out, examine and, if he liked it, appropriate . . . 2 In no man’s house,
even though he be his host, in no public place, even though it be a sacred shrine,
in the possession of no man, whether Sicilian, or even Roman citizen, nowhere,
to be brief, has he left anything which struck his eyes or taste, whether private or
public property, belonging to men or gods, in the whole of Sicily.

5.69 Cicero Letters to his Brother Quintus 1.1.8, 13, 22:

Provincial corruption
Part of a letter of advice written by Cicero to Quintus in 60 or early 59 BC, when Quintus
was governing Asia as propraetor (he governed Asia 61–58). Cicero is here clearly con-
cerned with subordinates (and perhaps slaves) accepting bribes to influence the governor’s
judgement; cf. doc. 6.53 for his concerns over Quintus’ freedman.

8 It is a mark of great distinction that you have been two years in Asia in supreme
command and that no statue, picture, dish, garment, slave, beautiful face or offer of
money – all of which that province has in abundance – has caused you to deviate
from the highest integrity and moderation. What can be found so outstanding or
desirable as that your virtue, self-restraint and self-control should not lie hidden and
out of sight in shadow but be displayed to the light of Asia, to the eyes of that most
illustrious province, and to the ears of all races and nations? That these men are not
terrified by your official visits? That they are not exhausted by your expenditure?
That they are not anxious at your approach? That, wherever you arrive, there is the
greatest public and private happiness, since it appears that their city has received
a protector, not a tyrant, the home a guest, not a despoiler? . . . 13 Finally let it be
public knowledge that you will be severely displeased not only with those who
have taken a bribe but with those who have given one, if you come to know of it.
Nor indeed will anyone give a bribe, when it is made perfectly clear that nothing
can be got out of you by those people who pretend to have great influence with
you . . . 22 If such courtesy is welcome at Rome, where there is so much arrogance,

253
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
such unrestricted freedom, such infinite licence generally, and in short so many
magistrates, so many sources of aid, such popular power, such senatorial authority,
how welcome then must the courteousness of a praetor be in Asia, where so great
a multitude of citizens and allies, so many cities, so many states watch for the nod
of a single man? Where there is no legal help, no chance to complain, no senate, no
assembly? It must therefore always be the role of a great man, and one controlled
not only by his own nature but also by the knowledge and study of the finest of the
arts, so to conduct himself in a position of such power that the existence of no other
power may be desired by those over whom he rules.

5.70 Cicero Letters to his Brother Quintus 1.1.32–3: The problems of

being a governor
G. Gracchus in 122 had arranged for the indirect taxes of Asia to be sold to publicani on
five-year contracts, and their rapacity led to the rebellion in Asia of 88 BC (docs 11.8–10).
In this case, the syndicate of publicani had obviously overbid on the contract and demanded
its cancellation (cf. doc. 12.35).

32 To all your goodwill and diligence the publicani present a serious problem; if
we oppose them, we will alienate both from ourselves and from the government a
class which has deserved the best from us and which has, through our efforts, been
brought into association with the government; if, however, we give in to them in
every situation, we will be permitting the total ruin of those people whose safety and
advantage we are bound to consider. If we want to consider the matter truthfully,
this is the one problem in your whole administration. For, as to being temperate,
controlling your passions, keeping your staff in check, maintaining a fair system of
justice, showing yourself to be courteous in investigating cases and in listening to
and giving audiences to men – all this is a matter of splendour rather than difficult.
For it depends not on any hard work but on making up your mind and willingness to
carry it out. 33 How much bitterness this question of the publicani causes among our
allies we have appreciated from our own citizens, who recently, when harbour dues
were abolished in Italy, complained not so much of the tax as of certain offences
by the collectors. I am therefore aware of what happens to our allies in far-off lands
when I hear such complaints from citizens in Italy. And for you to behave in such a
way that you satisfy the publicani, especially when their contract for tax collection
has proved unprofitable, yet not allow our allies to be ruined, seems to require a
certain divine excellence – such as you possess, of course.

5.71 Cicero Letters to Atticus 5.16.2: The desperate state of Cilicia

Cicero wrote this letter to Atticus on his arrival in his province of Cilicia in 51, when he
heard numerous complaints about his predecessor, Appius Claudius Pulcher, who had sup-
ported the publicani against the provincials.

I must tell you that on 31 July I made my eagerly awaited arrival in this desper-
ate and, in fact, totally and permanently ruined province . . . I have heard about

254
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
nothing but inability to pay the mandatory poll tax, the universal sale of taxes, the
groans and laments from the communities, monstrous deeds, as of some savage
beast, not of a human being. In short, these people are absolutely weary of life.

5.72 Cicero Letters to Atticus 6.1.5–6: The (ig)noblest Roman

of them all
Cicero as governor of Cilicia in 51–50 BC discovered that M. Junius Brutus (Cicero’s
friend and later one of Caesar’s assassins), under cover of two agents, Scaptius and
Matinius, was loaning money to the people of Salamis on Cyprus at a rate of 48 per
cent per annum (Cicero as governor had set interest rates at 12 per cent, 1 per cent per
month: Att. 5.21). Cyprus was under the control of the governor of Cilicia. Because of
his connection with Brutus, Cicero left the problem to his successor and ignored the
Salaminians’ difficulties.

5 Now let me tell you about the Salaminians: I see that it came as a surprise to you as
much as it did to me. I never heard him (Brutus) say that the money was his; in fact, I
even have a memorandum of his in which it is stated: ‘The Salaminians owe money
to Marcus Scaptius and Publius Matinius, friends of mine.’ He recommends them
to me; he even adds, as an extra spur to me, that he had gone surety for them for a
large sum of money. I had arranged that the Salaminians should pay off their debt
at 1 per cent a month, with interest to be added annually. But Scaptius demanded 4
per cent. I feared, if he got it, that I would lose your regard; for I would have had to
renege on my own edict and totally ruin a community under the patronage of Cato
and Brutus himself, and one on which I had bestowed favours.
6 And at this very moment Scaptius hands me a letter from Brutus stating that
he, Brutus, was the person concerned, a fact which Brutus had never told me or
you, and requesting that I give Scaptius a prefecture. But I had already told him,
through you, that one would not be given to a businessman: even if I did, it would
surely not be to him. He had been prefect under Appius (Claudius Pulcher) and had
cavalry squadrons with which he locked the senate of Salamis in their senate house
and besieged them, so that five senators died from starvation! And so, on the very
day on which I reached my province . . . I sent a letter ordering the cavalry to leave
the island immediately. For these reasons, I suppose, Scaptius has written Brutus
some injurious remarks about me. However, this is what I have decided: if Brutus is
going to think that I ought to have imposed 4 per cent interest, even though I recog-
nised 1 per cent throughout the whole province and had stated this in my edict, with
the approval of even the most grasping moneylenders; if he is going to complain
because I refused a prefecture to a businessman; . . . if he is going to be annoyed
because I ordered the cavalry recalled, I shall be sorry, of course, to have angered
him, but much sorrier that he is not the man I thought he was.

5.73 Cicero Letters to his Friends 15.4.2–4: A governor’s duties

Cicero is here writing to Cato the Younger from Tarsus during his governorship of Cilicia
in January 50 BC. He had achieved some successes against the Parthians and clearly felt he

255
 ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE
deserved a triumph. Here he is trying to persuade Cato to support a supplicatio; for Cato’s
reply, see doc. 13.19.

2 When I arrived at my province on the last day of July and saw that, on account of
the time of year, I should join my army as quickly as possible, I spent two days in
Laodicea, then four days at Apamea, three days at Synnada, and the same number
at Philomelium. I held large courts of law in these towns and freed many com-
munities from excessively harsh taxation, exorbitant interest payments and false
claims of debt. As the army had been scattered before my arrival by a near mutiny,
and five cohorts, without a legate, without a military tribune, and even without a
single centurion, had encamped at Philomelium, while the rest of the army was in
Lycaonia, I ordered my legate Marcus Anneius to bring those five cohorts to join
the rest of the army, and after the army was assembled in one spot to make camp
at Iconium in Lycaonia. 3 When all this had been diligently carried out, I arrived at
the camp on 24 August, having in the meantime, in the preceding days, in accord-
ance with the decree of the senate, collected a trustworthy band of veterans, a quite
sufficient cavalry corps, and volunteer auxiliaries from the free peoples and allied
kings. Meanwhile, after I had reviewed the army and begun the march into Cilicia,
some envoys sent to me by the king of Commagene reported on 28 August in a state
of panic, but not untruthfully, that the Parthians had crossed into Syria. 4 On hearing
this, I was seriously concerned about Syria as well as my province and in fact about
the whole of Asia . . . I therefore made camp on the border on Cappadocia, not far
from Mount Taurus at the town Cybistra, in order to protect Cilicia and by holding
Cappadocia to prevent any new schemes on the part of our neighbours.

5.74 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 38.11:

An inflammatory governor
C. Fabius Hadrianus, governor of Africa since 84, was so unpopular that the Roman citi-
zens in Utica burned his headquarters with him inside it in 82. Roman officials must often
have inflamed local sensibilities: at some time between 60 and 56 BC, Diodorus was pre-
sent when an Egyptian mob lynched a visiting Roman official for killing a cat, perhaps
accidentally (Diod. 1.83.8–9).

Hadrianus, the propraetor governing Utica, was burnt alive by the Uticans. Although
the deed was terrible, no charges were brought because of the wickedness of the
victim.

256
 6

Slaves and Freedmen

Slavery was a social institution in Rome from the earliest times, and slaves are
included in the lawcode of the XII Tables (doc. 1.32, cf. 1.53), though slaves and
the institution of slavery as such are not defined in the Republic; such definitions
were to be the work of the imperial jurists. To the Romans of the Republic, a slave
was a piece of property and slavery an institution in which human beings owned
by others fulfilled labour requirements for their owners. Slaves, whether acquired
as booty in warfare or raised within the household, were items of property, res
mancipi, a term applied to other types of property such as land and animals, and
so wholly in the ownership of their masters, who had the power of life and death
over them. Slaves were not considered fully competent beings: a master could be
sued for his slave’s wrongs. Slave status depended on that of the mother: if the
mother was a slave so was the child, even if one of the citizen males of the house-
hold was the father.
Rome became a true ‘slave-owning society’ only in the second century BC,
when slaves, both in the mines and, especially, on the latifundia (large landed
estates) became a vital aspect of Roman production. Rome can be said to have
become reliant on slave labour from this time on. The crucial factor was not sim-
ply the acquisition of large numbers of slaves through conquest but the control by
an aristocratic elite which could afford to buy large numbers of slaves to work the
land: Sicily, in particular, came to be dominated by the latifundia of this elite in
the second century BC. Agriculture became a major absorber of slaves, displac-
ing peasant farmers, with social, political and military consequences (see docs
8.5–9). In this sense, Roman slavery best approximates to that of the other major
historical slave-owning society, the United States of America. But, while agricul-
ture in both of these societies provided the bulk of employment for slaves, their
uses in ancient Rome were widespread. Slaves are found in a variety of domestic
situations (doc. 6.14–23), with Greek slaves employed as secretaries and in other
educated roles within the household (docs 6.12, 51, 58), and it was these slaves,
in close contact with their masters and having the possibility of reward for their
service and loyalty, who stood the most chance of being manumitted. Slaves also
carried out a wide variety of tasks in manufacturing and industrial concerns such
as the silver mines (docs 6.28–30) and on the landed estates (docs 6.35–40). The

257
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
‘entertainment industry’ also made use of slaves, as actors and mimes (docs 6.31–
32), while the great playwright Terence himself, born in Carthage, came to Rome
as a slave (doc. 6.59). Gladiators were also slaves, and Spartacus’ slave revolt
began in the gladiators’ barracks in Capua (doc. 6.50).
As in all slave societies, there were important variables in how slaves were
treated in Republican Rome; the most important of these were their occupa-
tions and the character of their masters. The Roman system in the Republic
allowed for slaves on the latifundia to work in chain gangs and those in the
Spanish silver mines to be brutally treated by their overseers (doc. 6.30) – on the
other hand, Cicero could free his trusted slave Tiro, who continued in his for-
mer owner’s employment, and gladly address him as ‘my dear’ (doc. 6.51–54).
Cato the Elder, in contrast, advised selling off old and useless slaves along with
other equipment past its prime (doc. 6.35). Slaves could be and were tortured
for evidence in judicial cases (docs 6.42–43) and, if Cicero is to be believed,
sometimes with shocking results, even by Roman ‘standards’, while those who
did not want to punish their own slaves could contract the torture out to profes-
sionals (docs 6.43–44).
Slaves could resist their enslavement in various ways, by disobedience and lazi-
ness, much caricatured by Plautus but probably reflecting their tendency, if they
could, to work slowly and inefficiently as a means of resisting and ameliorating
their status (doc. 6.24). Another method was to run away, but such slaves could be
recaptured (docs 6.46–47). Those with a tendency to run off were provided with
a slave collar (doc. 6.45). The slave rebellions which broke out in Sicily and Italy
are clearly indicative of the problems associated with slavery (docs 6.48–50). In
all three cases, the slaves that rebelled seemed largely to have been free men who
had been enslaved in Rome’s wars of conquests and who did not accept their ser-
vile status. These rebellions took the Roman authorities some time to suppress but
led to no reflection on the nature of slavery or any improvement in the treatment
of slaves, despite their appeal in modern times: Spartacus’ rebellion and the film
based on his activities has almost made him a modern household name.
There is little actual information about Roman attitudes to slavery in the Republic.
There were certainly none of the discussions, such as those that occurred in the
Greek world of the fourth century BC, about the institution of slavery and whether
it was legal or moral. For Cicero, the human booty of war was simply a welcome
addition to his workforce (doc. 6.11). An understanding of Roman slavery during
the Republic is inhibited by a lack of legal sources for this period, with much of the
best evidence coming from the imperial period. More importantly, a freed slave
such as Tiro has left behind no autobiographical information about life as a slave –
all the sources accept the system and show minimal if any concern for the slave’s
perspective. Publilius Syrus (doc. 6.21) proves perhaps a partial exception, though
his maxims depend on the role being played by the character that speaks them in his
mimes. What is missing most is, of course, accounts of enslavement and the result-
ing servile experience from the point of view of the slaves themselves – men, women
and children – who were captured by the Romans in the extra-Italian conflicts of the
third to first centuries BC, though epitaphs by freedpersons show the relief and

258
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
gratitude of those who had managed to escape the system and acquire Roman citi-
zenship (docs 6.60–65, 7.33). The economic effects of slavery are difficult to assess.
While not essential to the development of the latifundia, the available numbers of
slaves not only squeezed out the labour of the native citizenry but ensured that the
owners of the land received higher profits.
Ancient sources: for the history of the Sicilian slave revolts (135–132, 104–
100 BC) there is the narrative of Diodorus, which depends greatly on Posidonius
(c. 135–51 BC): Diodorus used Posidonius definitely for the first slave revolt and
probably for the second. Unfortunately, Diodorus’ account of the first revolt sur-
vives not intact but in two summaries, one by the ninth-century Byzantine patri-
arch Photius and the second by the tenth-century Byzantine emperor Constantine
VII Porphyrogenitus. That of Constantine is longer and more detailed. Both
accounts agree that it was the cruelty and arrogance of the masters that caused the
revolt. For the revolt of Spartacus, the narrative of Appian Civil Wars 1.116–20
is particularly important (see doc. 6.50). While ancient Greek authors, especially
philosophers, wrote about slavery, there is no body of similar writings for Roman
slavery. While some legal material about Roman slavery in the Republic survives,
as in the XII Tables and in scattered literary sources, the main body of legislation
comes from the imperial period. The evidence for slavery is scattered among the
literary sources. The playwrights give an indication of popular opinions about
slaves in general (docs 6.24–25), while Cicero makes clear how the relationship
between a master and slave could be close (docs 6.51–52). However, while slave
characters speak in plays, the genuine ‘voice’ of a slave and their feelings is never
heard in Republican Rome: it is the masters who record their feelings.

SLAVE NUMBERS IN REPUBLICAN ROME

The XII Tables include a number of laws pertaining to the institution of slavery, and slavery
was obviously an accepted institution in the fifth century BC, though Rome was not yet a
slave-owning society on a large scale. When conquering communities in Italy, such as the
city of Veii, large-scale enslavements such as were later practised do not seem to have taken
place (despite Livy 5.22.1; doc. 1.61) and awards of citizenship were Roman policy (Livy
6.4.4). Slave numbers did not assume significant proportions until Rome entered upon its
wars of conquest outside of the Italian peninsula in the second century BC.

6.1 Valerius Maximus 7.6.1a: Slaves used in war

Valerius refers to the property qualification for serving in the Roman army, which excluded
free but property-less citizens: the Roman state, in its desperation after the disastrous defeat
at Cannae in 216 BC (docs 4.35–36), enrolled slaves. Like the Greeks, the Romans pre-
ferred free men who would fight with unquestioned loyalty and could afford their own
equipment. The Tiberius Gracchus here is the consul of 215 BC, great-uncle of the Tiberius
Gracchus who was tribune in 133. With an army which included these slaves, Gracchus
raised the siege of Cumae and captured the envoys of Philip V of Macedon to Hannibal.
Because of manpower shortages, slaves were used by the Romans as rowers in the Second
Punic War (Polyb. 10.17.11–13; Livy 24.11.7–9).

259
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
During the Second Punic War, when the Roman youth of military age had been
reduced by a number of unfavourable battles, the senate, on a motion of the consul
Tiberius Gracchus, decreed that slaves should be bought out of public moneys for
use in war and in repulsing the enemy. After a bill about this was put to the peo-
ple by the tribunes of the plebs and passed, three commissioners were appointed
to purchase 24,000 slaves. These were bound by an oath that they would give
strenuous and courageous service and that they would bear arms as long as the
Carthaginians were in Italy, and were sent to camp. In addition, from Apulia, from
the Paediculi, 270 slaves were bought as replacements for the cavalry . . . . The
city, which up to this time had scorned to have as soldiers even free men without
property (the capite censi), added to its army as its main support persons taken
from slave quarters and slaves gathered from shepherd huts.

6.2 Athenaeus Deipnosophistae 6.272de, 273ab: Slave numbers of

‘traditional’ Romans
The setting for this discussion about slavery is Alexandria, c. AD 200. In the Republic,
important Romans did not own large numbers of slaves simply for the purposes of ostenta-
tious show. Scipio Aemilianus was sent by the senate to the east in 140 BC.

272d But every Roman (as you know very well, my dear Masurius) 272e owns the
greatest number of slaves he can; in fact numerous people own 10,000, 20,000 or
even more, not for the sake of income, like the extremely wealthy Greek Nicias –
the majority of Romans keep the largest numbers to accompany them when they go
out . . . 273a The Romans of olden days were moderate and superior in every respect.
Scipio Africanus (Aemilianus), for example, when sent by the senate to organise all
the kingdoms of the world so that they would submit to their rightful rulers, took only
five slaves with him, as Polybius and Posidonius tell us, 273b and, when one of them
died on the trip, he wrote to his relatives telling them to buy and send him out another
one in his place. Julius Caesar, the first of all men to cross over to the British Isles, had
a thousand ships but took with him only three slaves, as Cotta, who was serving under
him, relates in his work on the Roman Constitution in our native language.

6.3 Pliny Natural History 33.47: Total slave numbers?

Gaius, in the second century AD (Inst. 1.43), envisages that it was possible for an indi-
vidual to own more than 500 slaves, but this is for the imperial period. That elite Romans
owned dozens if not hundreds of slaves in the last decades of the Republic does not seem
improbable. For Italy in 28 BC, 3,500,000 citizens and 2,000,000 slaves appears to be a
reasonable estimate of the population.

Marcus Crassus (cos. 70, 55) used to say that nobody was rich unless he could main-
tain a legion on his annual income. He owned property worth 200,000,000 sesterces –
being the richest citizen after Sulla . . . In later times we have seen many freed
slaves who were even richer – three equally so, quite recently, during Claudius’
reign: Callistus, Pallas and Narcissus. And, to leave these aside, as if they were still

260
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
in power, there was the case of Gaius Caecilius Isidorus, freedman of Gaius, who,
in the consulship of Gaius Asinius Gallus and Gaius Marcius Censorinus (8 BC),
stated in his will dated 27 January that, in spite of great losses in the civil war, he left
4,116 slaves, 3,600 pairs of oxen, 257,000 other cattle, and 60,000,000 sesterces in
money, and he ordered 1,100,000 to be spent on his funeral.

6.4 Lucilius Satires 6.2.278–81: Urban poverty and self-sufficiency

Gaius Lucilius (c. 180–102/1 BC) was from a senatorial family and served with Scipio
Aemilianus at Numantia (134/3 BC). His poetry was satirical and often attacked political
figures.

He who has no beast of burden, slave, or any companion

Keeps with him his purse and any coins he might have;
He eats, sleeps and washes with his purse; the man’s whole property
Is in the one purse; this purse is tied onto his upper arm.

6.5 Lucilius Satires 30.3.1053–56: A well-equipped household

The varied use of slaves within the household is made clear in this passage. Obviously
even in the late second century BC there were households with numerous specialist slaves.

Take care that there are at home

A weaver, maidservants, slave-boys, a belt-maker, a wool-weaver.
And if you should have enough money, you should add
A large-sided female baker who knows about all sorts of Syrian breads.

6.6 Pliny Natural History 7.128: Top slave prices

Pliny, writing in the first century AD, contrasts these Republican prices with the 50 million
sesterces Clutorius Priscus paid for Sejanus’ attractive eunuch Paezon in Tiberius’ reign.
M. Aemilius Scaurus was consul in 115 BC, and the price of 700,000 he paid (below) was
considerable (though cf. doc. 6.44); Cato the Elder would spend at most 1,500 denarii on a
slave (doc. 6.38, cf. 6.33), and most slaves in the later Republican period cost in the range
of 1,200 to 1,500 sesterces.

The highest price paid up till now for a man born in slavery, as far as I have
been able to ascertain, was when Attius of Pesaurum was selling the grammarian
Daphnis and the princeps senatus, Marcus Scaurus, offered 700,000 sesterces. In
our own time this figure has been exceeded – and quite considerably – by actors
buying their freedom with their earnings; even in the days of our ancestors the
actor Roscius is said to have earned 500,000 sesterces a year.

SOURCES OF SLAVES
In the Republic, the greatest source of slaves was warfare. From the second century BC,
Rome’s wars of expansion resulted in large numbers of enslaved persons, but even in the

261
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
fourth century wars in Italy provided significant numbers of slaves (doc. 6.7). The 150,000
persons enslaved by the Romans when they captured Epirus (doc. 6.9) shows how war
easily outweighed all other sources, though this was an exceptional total; at the sack of
Corinth, Mummius sold all the women and children into slavery; Scipio Aemilianus also
sold all the Numantines, except 50 kept for his triumph (docs 5.41, 53). Freelance slave
traders contributed previously free persons to the slave market, and, according to Plutarch,
Sulla’s settlement of Asia was so harsh that people had to sell their children into slavery
(doc. 11.10).

6.7 Livy History of Rome 9.42.7–8: Italians enslaved in 307 BC

In 307 BC, during the Second Samnite War, the Romans enslaved the allies of the Samnites
after Q. Fabius Maximus (cos. 308) confined the Samnite army in its camp near Allifae.

7 The next day, before it was properly light, they started to surrender, and the
Samnites among them asked to be allowed to go in just their tunics; they were all
sent under the yoke. 8 The allies of the Samnites were protected by no guarantee,
and 7,000 of them were sold into slavery.

6.8 Polybius Histories 10.17.6–15: Slaves captured in war

Captives could be distributed to troops and sold by them to dealers, or all could be sold en
bloc to dealers and the proceeds divided among the soldiers. Here, at Scipio’s capture of
New Carthage in Spain, in 210, some of the prisoners became state property but with the
prospect of manumission.

6 While the military tribunes were organising the collection and distribution of
booty, the Roman general, when the crowd of prisoners, numbering a little less than
10,000, had been collected, ordered first the citizens with their wives and children
to be set apart, and next the craftsmen. 7 When this had been done, he called on
the citizens to be favourably disposed to the Romans and remember how well they
had been treated and dismissed them to their own houses. 8 Simultaneously weep-
ing and rejoicing at the unexpectedness of their deliverance, they prostrated them-
selves before the general and departed. 9 He told the craftsmen that, for the present,
they were public slaves of Rome, but, if they showed goodwill and hard work in
their various crafts, he promised them freedom if the war against Carthage pro-
ceeded successfully. 10 He ordered them to enrol themselves with the quaestor and
appointed a Roman supervisor for every group of 30; their total number was about
2,000. 11 From the other prisoners he chose the strongest, best looking and youngest
and mixed them in with his crews, 12 thus acquiring half as many sailors again as he
had before and manning the captured ships. In this way the crews of the ships were
a little under double what they had been – 13 there were 18 captured ships and he
originally had 35. 14 He promised these men too their freedom, once they had won
the war against Carthage, if they showed goodwill and hard work. 15 By this treat-
ment of the prisoners he made the citizens well disposed and loyal, both to himself
and to Rome, and the craftsmen hard-working in the hope of being set free.

262
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
6.9 Polybius Histories 30.15 (Strabo 7.7.3): Aemilius Paullus takes
150,000 slaves
This passage reflects the huge influx of slaves into Roman Italy in the second century BC.
Aemilius Paullus was the victor in the Third Macedonian War in 168 BC against Perseus
(see docs 5.33–34).

Polybius says that, after his defeat of Perseus and the Macedonians, Aemilius
Paullus destroyed 70 cities in Epirus, most of these belonging to the Molossians,
and sold 150,000 people into slavery.

6.10 Caesar Gallic War 2.33.1–7: A job lot in Gaul

In 57 BC, after the defeat of the Nervii, the Aduatuci retreated to their stronghold; they took
part in negotiations, but then broke the truce. Caesar clearly handed the inhabitants over to
the slave-dealers who followed the armies.

1 Towards evening Caesar ordered the gates to be closed and the soldiers to leave
the town so that the inhabitants might receive no injury at night at the hands of the
soldiers. 2 The townsfolk, it appeared, had formed a plan, believing that, following
the surrender, our troops would leave their posts or at least man them less care-
fully . . . In the third watch they suddenly sallied out with all their forces, on the
side where the ascent to our defences seemed less steep. 3 The signal was swiftly
given by flares, as Caesar had instructed beforehand, and troops from the nearest forts
rushed there. 4 The enemy fought bravely, as might have been expected of brave men
in a crisis, when all hope of deliverance lay in bravery alone, fighting on unfavour-
able terrain against troops who could hurl weapons at them from rampart and towers.
5 About 4,000 men were killed and the rest were driven back into the town. 6 On the
next day, the gates were smashed open, for there were now no more defenders, and,
after our soldiers had been sent in, Caesar sold the whole town as one lot at auction. 7
The purchasers informed him that the number of persons was 53,000.

6.11 Cicero Letter to his Brother Quintus 3.9.4: Slaves from Gaul for Cicero
Cicero is writing from Rome to Quintus in Gaul in December 54. There is no moral or ethi-
cal consideration on Cicero’s part of these slaves as human beings who are to be transported
against their will to an alien culture: Cicero simply appreciates the offer of more hands.

I thank you most gratefully for the slaves, which you promise me; I am indeed,
as you say in your letter, short-handed both at Rome and on my estates. But take
care, my dear brother, that you do not consider doing anything for my conveni-
ence, unless it is entirely convenient for you and totally within your means.

6.12 Pliny Natural History 35.199–200: Rome imports educated slaves

Pliny is here discussing different medicinal earths. The proscriptions referred to are those
of Sulla in 82 BC and of the ‘Second Triumvirate’ in 43 BC (docs 11.19–25, 14.20); for
Publilius, see doc. 6.21.

263
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
199 There is another kind of chalk called ‘silversmith’s’ because used for pol-
ishing silver, but the cheapest kind is that which our ancestors set the custom of
using to denote the victory-line in the circus and mark the feet of slaves brought
from overseas when up for sale; examples are Publilius (Syrus) from Antioch,
the founder of the mimic stage, and his cousin Manilius Antiochus the founder
of astronomy, and Staberius Eros the first grammarian – all of whom our great-
grandfathers could see arrive on the same ship. 200 But why mention these men,
recommended as they are by their literary honours? Other examples they saw
up for public sale were Sulla’s Chrysogonus, Quintus Catulus’ Amphion, Lucius
Lucullus’ Hector, Pompey’s Demetrius, Demetrius’ Auge (although she was also
believed to have belonged to Pompey), Mark Antony’s Hipparchus, and Menas
and Menecrates, who belonged to Sextus Pompeius – as well as a list of oth-
ers whom this is not the occasion to enumerate, who enriched themselves by the
bloodshed of Roman citizens and the licence permitted by proscriptions.

6.13 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 4.1–2: Caesar and the pirates
Piracy in the eastern Mediterranean provided another major source of slaves. Pirates’ activ-
ities became so notorious that Pompey was empowered under the lex Gabinia of 67 BC to
deal with them (see docs 12.8–9).

1 After Lepidus’ revolt had been suppressed, Caesar brought a charge of extor-
tion against Cornelius Dolabella (cos. 81), an ex-consul who had held a triumph;
when he was found not guilty, Caesar decided to withdraw to Rhodes, both so
the ill-feeling would have time to die down and so that he could, while at leisure,
study under Apollonius Molo, the most distinguished teacher of rhetoric at that
time. The winter months had already arrived while he was on his way to Rhodes,
and he was captured by pirates near the island of Pharmacussa. He remained with
them, not without the greatest indignation, for nearly 40 days, accompanied by
only a doctor and two valets. 2 For he had at once sent off his companions and
other slaves to procure the money by which he might be ransomed. Once the 50
talents had been paid and he was left on the shore, he raised a fleet without delay
and went off in pursuit of them. Once they were in his power he put them to death,
as he had often threatened to do to them in jest.

DOMESTIC SLAVES
Slaves were used in a wide variety of contexts: mining, domestic service, education, and
as secretaries to officials. They were barred only from political office and army service,
though they could be enrolled as soldiers and rowers in a crisis (doc. 6.1).

6.14 CIL I2 560: Kitchen slaves on a bronze casket, c. 250 BC

The casket, dated to c. 250–235 BC, on which this inscription appears depicts a countrified
kitchen scene and shows two or more slave cooks having an animated discussion while
preparing a meal. Some of the meanings are obscure.

264
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
A: Prepare the fish (shown cutting up a fish).
B: I have collected the garlic (taking down part of a pig).
B: I have prepared it (holding dish and knife).
A: Beat it some more (holding dish out to B).
B: Boil for me properly (addressing a cauldron).
A: Mix well (stirring the cauldron and holding a plate).
B: I’m here, coming (walking away).

6.15 Varro On the Latin Language 8.6, 10, 21, 83: Naming slaves
For the ease of naming a single slave, see doc. 6.16, where ‘Marcipor’ is the slave (‘puer’)
of Marcus. Roman masters chose not to use the original name of the slave because a new
name was a means of asserting ownership.

6 For example, those who have recently been bought as slaves in a large house-
hold quickly learn to inflect the names of all their fellow slaves in the oblique
cases when they have heard only the nominative . . . 10 In those matters in which
usage was simple, the inflection of the name was also simple, just as in a house
with only one slave there is need for only one slave name, but in a house with
numerous slaves there is need of numerous names . . .
21 There are two kinds of word derivation, voluntary and natural; voluntary
derivation is when an individual of his own accord chooses a word derivation. So,
when three men have brought a slave each at Ephesus, one sometimes derives his
name from that of the seller Artemidorus, and calls his Artemas, another names
his slave from the region where he bought him, so Ion from Ionia, and the third
calls him Ephesius because he bought him at Ephesus. In this way each derives the
name from a different cause, as he chooses . . .
83 Most freedmen set free by a town (municipium) have their names from
the town, though in this matter the slaves of associations and temples have not
observed the rule in a similar way, and the freedmen of the Romans ought to be
called Romanus, like Faventinus from Faventia and Reatinus from Reate. In this
way freedmen whose fathers were public slaves would be named Romanus if they
had been manumitted before they began to take the names of the magistrates who
set them free.

6.16 Pliny Natural History 33.26: ‘Marcipors and Lucipors’

Pliny is here talking about the need to use seal rings to protect possessions. Marcipor and
Lucipor mean ‘Marcus’ boy’ and ‘Lucius’ boy’ – an easy way of denoting a single slave.
Pliny is here recalling the Republic when individual masters had far fewer slaves than in
his time.

To think what life was like in olden days, and what innocence there was when
nothing was sealed! Nowadays even articles of food and wine have to be protected
from theft by a ring. This has been brought about by our legions of slaves, the
crowd of outsiders in our homes, and the fact that we have to employ a nomen-
clator even to tell us the names of our own slaves! In times of old things were

265
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
different – there were just single slaves, Marcipors and Lucipors, part of their
masters’ families, who took all their meals in common with the family, and there
was no need to keep a watch in the house over the household slaves.

6.17 Macrobius Saturnalia 1.11.36–40: Juno Caprotina

Female slaves, like free women, celebrated the festival of Juno Caprotina on 7 July;
caproficus is a wild fig tree.

36 It is well known that the Nones of July is the festival of female slaves, and both
the origin and the reason for the celebration are common knowledge. For on that
day free women and female slaves both sacrifice to Juno Caprotina under a wild
fig tree in commemoration of the generous spirit which was displayed by female
slaves in preserving Rome’s public honour. 37 For, after the city had been cap-
tured and the Gallic onslaught had subsided, the state was reduced to such weak-
ness that her neighbours were on the watch for the chance to attack Rome; they
appointed as their leader Postumius Livius, the chief magistrate of Fidenae, and he
sent instructions to the senate demanding that, if they wished the remnants of their
state to survive, they should hand over to him their married women and unmar-
ried girls: 38 when the senators were wavering in anxious debate, a female slave
named Tutela, or Philotis, promised that she and the other slaves would go to the
enemy under the names of their mistresses, and in the dress of married women
and girls they were handed over to the enemy with the tears of those accompany-
ing them as proof of their grief. 39 When they had been allocated in the camp by
Livius, they tempted the men with copious wine, pretending it was a festival day
at Rome, and after making them drowsy they gave a signal to the Romans from a
wild fig tree near the camp. 40 These were victorious in their sudden attack, and
the senate, grateful for the service, ordered all the female slaves to be manumitted,
gave them dowries from the treasury and permitted them to wear the type of dress
they had assumed. The senate named the day itself ‘Nonae Caprotinae’, after the
wild fig tree from which the signal leading to victory was received, and it resolved
that there should be an annual festival and sacrifice, when the juice of the wild fig
tree should be offered in commemoration of this deed I have narrated.

6.18 Suetonius On Rhetoricians 27: A lucky doorkeeper

Slave doorkeepers served in chains so that they were unable to run away. From a mere
doorkeeper, Voltacilius became an historian, though Suetonius’ comment ‘is said to have
been’ might indicate his disbelief in this background.

Lucius Voltacilius Pilutus is said to have been a slave and even to have served as
a doorkeeper in chains, according to ancient custom, until he was manumitted for
his talents and interest in literature and helped his patron prepare for his work as
prosecutor. Then he became a teacher of rhetoric and taught Pompey the Great,
and wrote a history of his father’s achievements, as well as those of Pompey
himself, in numerous volumes; in the view of Cornelius Nepos he was the first
freedman who undertook the writing of history, which up to that time had always
been written by men of the highest rank.

266
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
6.19 Lucilius Satires 22.624–5: A favourite slave
Books 22–25 of Lucilius apparently consisted mainly of epigrams and epitaphs on his
slaves and freedmen in their own dialects.

A slave neither unfaithful to his master nor useless in any respect.

A little pillar of Lucilius’ household lies here – Metrophanes.

6.20 Papyrus BGU 4.1108 (EJ 262): Contract with a wet-nurse, 5 BC

A papyrus found in Alexandria, Egypt. A long list of conditions follows, including the
provision that Erotarion is not to sleep with a man, become pregnant or nurse another child.

To Artemidorus, chief judge, in charge of the circuit judges and other judges, from
Marcus Sempronius, son of Marcus, of the tribe Aemilia, soldier of the Legion
XXII, cohort . . . and from Erotarion, daughter of . . . with as guardian and protec-
tor my relative Lucius . . . 5 son of Lucius . . . Erotarion agrees that for 15 months
from Phaophi of the present 26th year of Caesar she will nurse and suckle outside
at her own home in the city, with her own milk, pure and unadulterated, the slave
baby named Primus whom Marcus entrusted to her from as long ago as Epeiph in
the previous year, the pay per month for milk and nurture being 10 drachmas and
two jars of oil.

6.21 Publilius Syrus Maxims 414, 489, 596, 616: Maxims of Publilius
Syrus
Publilius was brought to Rome from Antioch as a slave in the late 80s BC. He became a
composer of mimes and performed at Caesar’s games in 46 BC. Pithy sayings by his char-
acters were collected in the first century AD.

414 There are fewer risks in being tame, but it makes you a slave.
489 It is glorious to die instead of being degraded as a slave.
596 If you serve wisely you will have a share in the master’s role.
616 If you don’t like being a slave, you will be miserable; but you won’t stop
being a slave.

6.22 Appian Civil Wars 2.120.505: Slaves indistinguishable

from their masters
Appian is here stressing the ‘degeneration’ of the plebs at Rome in the context of Caesar’s
assassination and the speeches of the ‘tyrannicides’. There was clearly no special clothing
for slaves.

The plebs are now very much intermingled with alien blood, while a freedman has
the same citizen rights as a citizen has, and a man who is still a slave wears the
same clothes as his master; for, except for the senatorial class, the dress of the rest
of the citizens is the same as that of the slaves.

267
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
6.23 Pliny Natural History 7.56: Identical twins
The ‘twin’ boys purchased by Antony were obviously status symbols, perhaps as dining-room
attendants. The value of such attractive young slaves to an owner is reflected in the extremely
high price paid for them as decoration in their own right rather than for any specific services.

While Antony was one of the triumvirs, a slave-dealer, Toranius, sold him two
boys of outstanding beauty as twins, because they looked so alike, though one of
them was born in Asia and the other beyond the Alps. When the deception was
afterwards uncovered from the boys’ accents, the furious Antony violently abused
the dealer, complaining, among other things, of the enormity of the price (which
was 200,000 sesterces). The wily dealer, however, replied that was the reason
why he was selling them at so high a price, since there would have been noth-
ing remarkable in the boys’ similarity of appearance if they had been born of the
same mother, but, as it was, to find boys so exactly like each other from different
countries put them above all market value. He conveyed such fervent admiration
to the mind of ‘the proscriber’ that, from being incensed about the injury done
him, he instead considered that he had nothing in his possession of greater value.

THE TREATMENT OF SLAVES

Cicero (Off. 1.41) believes that masters have an obligation to treat their slaves properly, as
if they were hired workmen (‘the lowest station and fortune is that of slaves, and those who
tell us to treat them like hired workers are quite right to do so: work must be exacted, their
dues paid’). In Plautus’ Pseudolus (doc. 6.24) the punishments of slaves are made an object
of comedy: the slaves are so hardened that the owner hurts himself more than the slave when
he undertakes to flog them. But beneath the humour lies the ugly reality of the whipped
and beaten slave, ordered, bullied and threatened by the master, all over a meal designed to
impress. Note in particular the stock complaints of masters about their slaves, the main one
being that of servile idleness, which was probably an important form of passive servile resist-
ance to slavery. The passage makes clear that the master had physical control of the slave.

6.24 Plautus Pseudolus 133–70: Treatment of household slaves

Plautus was writing between c. 205 and 184 BC. Here Ballio, a relatively well-off if uncul-
tured householder, is giving instructions to his slaves and threatening to punish them for
their laziness. Slavery was implicit in Roman society, and that slaves had to be forced to
work was widely accepted.

Ballio: Get out, come on, out with you, you lazy things, kept at a loss and
bought at a loss,
None of you ever thinks at all of doing anything right;
I can’t get any use out of you, unless I try this treatment!
I’ve never seen any men more like donkeys, your ribs are so hardened
with blows!
If you flog any of them you hurt yourself the most – they actually
wear out the whip,

268
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
And all they think of when they get the chance is to rob, steal, pinch,
loot, drink, eat and run away: this
140 Is their idea of work, and you’d rather leave wolves in charge of sheep,
Than these in charge at home.
I will say that when you look them over they don’t seem too bad:
It’s their work which is no good.
Now – unless you all pay attention to this pronouncement,
Unless you get that sleep and laziness out of your chests and eyes,
I’ll whip your sides till they’re really colourful,
They’ll have more colours that Campanian coverings
Or clipped Alexandrian tapestries with their embroidered beasts.
I gave you all your orders and ‘assigned your provinces’ yesterday,
But you’re so good at being cunning and worthless,
150 I must remind you of your duties with a good thrashing.
True, that’s the way you’re made: your toughness is too much for
me – and this!
Look at that, will you? They’re not even paying attention! Attend to
this, concentrate on this,
Turn your ears here to what I’m saying, you race of men born to be
flogged!
By Pollux! Your hide will never be tougher than my rawhide here.
Now what? Does it hurt? That’s for a slave who ignores his master.
All line up in front of me and pay attention to what I tell you.
You there, with the pitcher, fetch the water, and make sure the cook’s
pot is filled.
You with the axe, I appoint you to the province of wood-chopping.
Slave: But the axe is blunt.
Ballio: Well, what if it is? You’re all blunted with thrashings, too:
160 But is that any reason why I shouldn’t get work out of you all?
Now you – I order you to make the house shine. You’ve got your
job, hurry up, go on in!
You, put the couches straight. You, clean the silver, and put it away.
Now, when I come back from the forum, make sure I find everything
ready:
Swept, sprinkled, polished, smoothed, cleaned and all as it should be.
Today’s my birthday and you all ought to celebrate it.
Make sure the ham, skin, sweetbreads and udder are put to soak in
water, do you hear?
I want to entertain some classy gentlemen in high style so they think
I’ve got money.
Get indoors and hurry along with all this quickly, so there’s no delay
when the cook comes;
I’m off to market to see what sort of fish I can buy.
170 Boy, you go on in front: we must take care no one cuts a hole in my
purse.

269
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
6.25 Plautus The Two Menaechmuses 966–84: A sensible slave
A household slave, Messenio, is soliloquising; his master (Menaechmus Sosicles) is one of
the brothers of the play’s title.

This is the proof of a good slave, who looks after his master’s business,
Sees to it, gives it his care, and thinks about it,
That when his master is away he cares for his master’s business diligently,
Just as if he were present, or even more so.
970 His back rather than his appetite, his legs than his stomach,
Ought to concern a fellow whose heart is in the right place.
He should remember what good-for-nothings
Get from their masters – lazy, worthless fellows:
Whippings, fetters,
The mill, weariness, hunger, bitter cold –
These are the rewards of laziness.
That’s what I’m really afraid of; that’s why it’s better to be good than be bad.
I can much more easily stand a telling-off; but I hate floggings,
And I’d much rather eat the meal than do the grinding.
980 That’s why I follow master’s orders, carry them out properly and quietly;
And I find it pays.
Others can do as they think proper; I’ll be just where I should be:
Let me keep a sense of fear, and avoid making mistakes, so I’ll always be
there when master wants me.
I shan’t have much to fear. Master will soon reward me for my service.

6.26 Seneca the Younger On Anger 3.40.1–4: Man-eating lampreys

Vedius Pollio, an equestrian, was a friend of Augustus and, at some point, proconsul in Asia.
He died in 15 BC and left his enormous villa and part of his estate to Augustus in his will.

1 To rebuke someone who is angry and to lose your temper in return serves only to
provoke him. 2 You would do better to change your approach and behave affably,
unless you happen to be a person of such importance as to be able to restrain his
anger, as the god Augustus did when dining with Vedius Pollio. One of the slaves
had broken a crystal goblet: Vedius ordered him to be seized and experience an
unusual type of death – he commanded that he be thrown to the lampreys, of
which he had huge specimens in his fishpond. Who would not think that he did
this as a demonstration of extravagance? It was cruelty! 3 The boy shook off their
hands and took refuge at Caesar’s feet, begging only that he might suffer some
other death than being eaten. Caesar was disgusted at this innovation in barbar-
ity and ordered that he be released, that all the crystal goblets be smashed in his
presence, and that the fishpond be filled in. 4 Caesar was able to censure one of
his friends in this way and used his authority wisely: ‘Do you give commands for
human beings to be snatched from a dinner party and be torn to pieces by a new
kind of punishment? If a cup of yours has been broken, is that any reason why a

270
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
person should be disembowelled? Are you so pleased with yourself that you order
that someone be killed in the very presence of Caesar?’

6.27 Suetonius Life of the Deified Augustus 67.1–2: Augustus’

household
For Augustus’ legislation on slavery and manumission, see docs 15.61–64.

1 As patron and master, Augustus was no less strict than friendly and forgiving,
and he honoured many of his freedmen and was very intimate with them, for
example Licinus, Celadus and others. His slave Cosmus, who spoke most disre-
spectfully of him, he only had put in irons. When he was walking with his steward
Diomedes, who hid behind him out of fear when they were charged by a wild
boar, he preferred to accuse him of timidity rather than malicious intent and turned
a matter of some danger into a joke, as there was no harm intended. 2 However,
he forced one of his favourite freedmen, Polus, to commit suicide, after he was
found to have been having affairs with married women, and broke the legs of his
secretary, Thallus, because he accepted 500 denarii for betraying the contents of a
letter. He also had the paedagogus and servants of his son Gaius, when they took
advantage of his illness and death to behave with arrogance and greed in his prov-
ince, thrown into a river with heavy weights tied around their necks.

SLAVES IN INDUSTRY AND MANUFACTURE

Slaves were employed widely in Italian agriculture, though the degree to which they were
employed in industry and manufacture is unclear. Republican Rome was hardly a con-
sumer society: there was no mass market of consumers, and production and consumption
of manufactured items was largely limited to functional, everyday items.

6.28 CIL I2 412, 416, 2487: Early inscriptions denoting slave or

freedman manufacture
Inscriptions by slaves on pottery items made before 220 BC at Cales, north of Naples;
Cales was known for its pottery, which has been found in various parts of Italy. Pottery was
the ancient equivalent of modern plastic; a patera is a shallow dish.

(i) On a patera found at Tarquinii: I, Retus Gabinius, slave of Gaius, made you
at Cales.
(ii) On a patera: Kaeso Serponius made this at Cales in the Esquiline quarter. A
slave of Gaius.
(iii) On a clay vessel: Marcus, at Cales. A household slave (verna).

6.29 CIL I2 889–90, 2663a: ‘Tesserae consulares’

These pieces of bone or ivory (sing.: tessera) with a handle or hole for attachment to
some item give a slave or freedman’s name, his master or patron, the word ‘spectavit’,

271
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
‘inspected’ (or an abbreviation thereof), and date by day, month and consulship. They have
been argued to record the official checking of coins for weight and genuineness as opposed
to counterfeit. These particular tesserae date to the 90s.

(i) Inspected by Capito, slave of Memmius, in November in the consulship of Gnaeus

Domitius and Gaius Cassius (cos. 96).
(ii) Inspected by Menophilus, slave of Lucius Abius, in the consulship of Gaius
Valerius and Marcus Herennius (cos. 93).
(iii) Inspected by Philoxenus, servant of the association of iron-smiths, on the Nones
of April in the consulship of Gaius Coelius and Lucius Domitius (cos. 94).

6.30 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 5.36.3–4, 38.1: Slaves in

Spanish mines
The silver mines in Spain were owned by the Roman state but worked by individual opera-
tors, who turned over a proportion of the profits to the state. Polybius writes that there were
40,000 workers involved in the mines outside New Carthage (34.9.9); Diodorus is here
citing the Stoic philosopher Posidonius (FGrH 87 F117).

36.3 Initially any individuals who came along used to work the mines, and these
acquired great wealth because the silver-bearing earth was accessible and abundant;
later, when the Romans took control of Spain, a large number of Italians took over the
mines and acquired great wealth through their love of profit. 4 They purchase a large
number of slaves and hand them over to the overseers of the mining operations, who
open shafts in numerous places and dig deep into the ground in search of its seams rich
in silver and gold; they not only go a long way into the ground but extend their digging
to the depth of many stades, with galleries twisting and turning in all directions, thus
bringing from the depths the ore which provides their profits. . . .
38.1 The men engaged in the mining operations procure unbelievably large
revenues for their masters, but through their excavations under the earth both by
day and by night they wear out their own bodies, many of them dying because of
the exceptional hardships; they are not allowed any relaxation or rest, but are com-
pelled by the beatings of their supervisors to endure these terrible evils and throw
away their lives in this wretched manner, although some of them who can endure
it suffer their misery for a long time because of their bodily strength or sheer will-
power; but they prefer dying to surviving because of the extent of their suffering.

SLAVES AND THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

The entertainment ‘industry’ was an important one at Rome, and slaves were prominent in it.
Slaves could be actors and mimes, gladiators and prostitutes. Unlike the freedman of Lucius
(doc. 6.32), Protogenes had apparently not been freed, nor had Panurgus (docs 6.30, 32). Some
11 Republican actresses, the majority of them slaves, are known by name: see docs 7.62–65.

6.31 ILS 5221: An entertaining slave

Found in a wall at Preturo, near Amiternum, perhaps dating to c. 165–160 BC. The inscrip-
tion is clearly not the work of a professional.

272
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
Here is laid the delightful mimic actor Protogenes, slave of Clulius,
Who gave great enjoyment to people through his jesting.

6.32 CIL I2 1378: An entertaining freedman

A first-century BC epitaph from a grave at Rome.

For . . . freedman of Lucius, a professional jester (scurra),

A most respectable and excellent
Freedman of utmost trustworthiness,
His patron made this.

6.33 Cicero In Defence of Quintus Roscius the Comedian 28–29: A

comedian’s market value
Quintus Roscius, the famous actor, and Gaius Fannius Chaerea jointly owned a slave,
Panurgus, whom Roscius was training as a comic actor (histrio). When Panurgus was mur-
dered, Roscius accepted a farm worth 100,000 sesterces in lieu of his half of the slave.
However Fannius brought an action that half the farm ought to be his in compensation for
his part-ownership of Panurgus. Cicero argues that the value of the slave was the result of
his training by Roscius; for Roscius, see docs 6.6, 11.39.

28 You state, Saturius, that Panurgus was the property of Fannius. But I maintain
that he belonged entirely to Roscius. For what part of him belonged to Fannius?
His body. What part belonged to Roscius? His training. It was not his appearance
but his skill that was worth money. The part that belonged to Fannius was worth
no more than 4,000 sesterces; the part that belonged to Roscius was worth more
than 100,000 sesterces, for no one judged him by his bodily physique, but valued
him by his skill as a comedian. His limbs by themselves could not earn more
than 12 asses, but his training, received from this man, brought in no less than
100,000 sesterces . . . 29 The hopes and expectations, the devotion and favour
that Panurgus won on the stage were because he was the pupil of Roscius! Those
who loved Roscius supported him, those who admired Roscius approved of him –
in short, those who had heard Roscius’ name considered Panurgus excellent and
accomplished.

6.34 Lucilius Satires 4.2.172–81: A satire on gladiators

This is a satire on a famous gladiatorial fight. Anyone who fought in the arena was either a
slave or a free man who gave up his rights as a free person; for gladiators, see docs 2.74–75.

In the gladiatorial show put on by the Flacci

Was a certain Aeserninus, a Samnite, a vile chap, worthy of that life and station.
He was matched with Pacideianus, best by far
Of all gladiators since the birth of mankind.

273
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
Pacideianus speaks:

‘Indeed I’ll kill him and win, if that’s what you want’, he said.
‘But I think it will happen like this: first I’ll take it on my face,
Then I’ll fix my sword in that blockhead’s stomach and lungs.
I hate the fellow, I’ll fight in a temper, and we’ll wait no longer
Than it takes each of us to adjust our sword to our right hand –
So furiously am I carried away by my passion, anger and hatred for him.’

FARM SLAVES: THEIR OCCUPATIONS AND TRAINING

Slaves had been used in large numbers on landed estates, such as the latifundia, since the second
century BC (doc. 8.6). Their presence there had been an important factor in the Gracchan land
reforms. As is clear from both Cato the Elder and Varro’s agricultural treatises, slaves were
important in farming and were in fact the ‘backbone’ of agriculture. Varro makes clear that
slave-breeding occurred (doc. 6.39), while Cato allowed the male slaves to purchase sexual
gratification as a means of keeping them under control. Slave families thus came into existence,
though legally slaves could not marry, and therefore their families had no legal status.

6.35 Cato the Elder On Farming 2.2–4, 7: Slave duties on an old-

fashioned farm
Even in antiquity, Cato was viewed as a hard master. His manual, written for the farming
gentry c. 160 BC, provided advice on how to make a profit from farming. Clearly agricul-
tural slaves, even when they grew old, did not expect manumission.

2 If the amount of work does not seem to the master to be sufficient, but the overseer
says that he has been industrious, but the slaves have not been well, the weather
has been bad, slaves have run away, he has had public work to do – when he has
given these and many other reasons, call the overseer back to the calculation of the
work and workmen. 3 If the weather has been rainy, mention the work which could
have been done during rain: washing out the wine vats, pitching them, cleaning the
farmhouse, moving grain, carrying out manure, making a manure-pit, cleaning seed,
mending ropes and making new ones; and that the slaves ought to have mended their
rag-coverings and hoods. 4 On festivals, too, old ditches might have been cleaned
out, road work done, brambles cut back, garden dug, meadows cleared, wood bun-
dled, thorns weeded, grain husked, and cleaning-up done. When the slaves were
sick, such large rations ought not to have been issued . . . 7 Inspect the livestock and
hold a sale: sell the oil, if the price is right, and sell surplus wine and grain; sell old
oxen, defective cattle, defective sheep, wool, hides, an old cart, old tools, an elderly
slave, a sickly slave, and anything else superfluous. The paterfamilias (master of the
household) ought to be fond of selling, not of buying.

6.36 Cato On Farming 56–59: Rations for slaves

The slave diet consisted mainly of bread and wine with some relishes. The rations are daily
amounts and are sufficient for daily needs. A hemina is half a sextarius, and a congius is 6

274
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
sextarii or approximately 6 pints (3 litres). A modius is a measure of corn (16 sextarii); a
quadrantal a liquid measure (8 congii). Cato’s ‘pound’ (libra) is actually 13 ounces (0.325
kg). 56: The slaves shackled together receive their ration as bread rather than as grain, as
they cannot make their own bread. 57: The Saturnalia involved a degree of licence on the
part of slaves; the Compitalia was in honour of the Lares Compitales, the lares of the cross-
roads. Three litres were allowed for each slave for these festivals.

56 Rations for the slaves. For the workers 4 modii of wheat through winter and
4½ through summer; for the overseer, housekeeper, superintendent and shepherd
3 modii; for the slaves shackled together 4 pounds of bread through the winter, 5
from when they begin to dig the vineyard until the figs come, then return to 4. 57
Wine ration for the slaves. For three months after the harvest let them drink after-
wine; in the fourth month give them a hemina (half a pint) a day, that is 2½ congii
a month; in the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth month a sextarius (a pint) a day,
that is 5 congii a month; in the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth month 3 heminae
a day, that is an amphora a month; in addition give out a congius per person for
the Saturnalia and Compitalia: total of wine for each person per year . . . . For the
shackled slaves issue an additional amount in proportion to their work; it is not too
much for them to drink 10 quadrantals of wine each year. 58 Relish for the slaves.
Conserve as many windfall olives as possible. Later conserve the ripe olives from
which you will get the least oil and be sparing with them, so they will last as long
as possible. When the olives are eaten up, give out fish-paste and vinegar. Issue
each person with a pint of oil a month. A modius of salt per person per year is
sufficient. 59 Clothing for the slaves. A tunic 3½ feet long and a coat every other
year. Whenever you give out a tunic or coat to anyone, first take the old one and
make rag-coverings of it. You should issue heavy boots every other year.

6.37 Cato On Farming 143.1–3: Supervising the housekeeper

Cato here instructs the overseer on the role of the slave housekeeper. Must is new wine
boiled thick.

1 Take care that the housekeeper performs her duties. If the master has given her
to you as your wife, be satisfied with her. Ensure that she respects you. Make sure
she is not too extravagant. She should visit the neighbouring and other women
as little as possible and not invite them to the house or her part of it. She should
not go out to meals or be fond of going out. She should not take part in religious
worship or get others to do it on her behalf without the orders of the master or
mistress: she should remember that the master sees to religious worship for the
whole household. 2 She should be clean; and she should keep the whole farm-
house clean; she should sweep the hearth every day before she goes to bed. On
the Kalends, Ides and Nones – whenever there is a holy day – she should place a
garland on the hearth, and on those days she should pray to the household gods as
much as she is able. She should take care to have cooked food available for you
and the household. 3 She should keep many hens and eggs. She should have stores
of dried pears, sorbs (berries), figs, dried grapes, sorbs in must, pears, grapes

275
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
and sparrow-quinces preserved in jars and raisins preserved in grape pulp and in
pots buried in the ground, as well as fresh Praenestine nuts buried in a pot in the
ground. She should keep Scantian apples in jars and other fruits that are usually
preserved, as well as crab apples. All these she should make sure she has stored
away diligently every year. She should also know how to make good flour and
fine spelt.

6.38 Plutarch Life of Cato the Elder 4.5–5.2, 21.1–3, 7–8:

Cato – a typical slave owner?
Huge numbers of slaves were imported from the third century BC to the end of the Republic,
but it is also clear that the slave population reproduced itself to some degree, as Cato’s and
Varro’s comments about allowing sexual relationships between slaves makes clear.

4.5 He tells us that he never paid more than 1,500 drachmas for a slave, as he
wanted not the delicate or handsome types but tough workmen like grooms and
herdsmen; and, when they got older, he thought that he ought to sell them and
not feed useless workers. 6 On the whole, he considered nothing was cheap if
you didn’t need it, and what a man didn’t need was expensive even if it cost
only an as; and that you should buy land for tilling and grazing rather than for
watering and sweeping. 5.1 Some people put this down to stinginess on his part,
while others accepted that he kept within his means to make others mend their
ways and learn some moderation. For myself, I consider his conduct towards his
slaves in getting full use out of them like pack-animals, and then, when they got
old, driving them off and selling them, as the mark of a thoroughly inflexible
character, unable to recognise any dealings between man and man except neces-
sity . . . . 2 A good man will take care of his horses even when age has worn
them out and look after his dogs not only when they are puppies but when they
need care in their old age . . .
21.1 Cato acquired a great many slaves whom he bought as prisoners of war,
particularly the young ones, who could still be raised and trained, like pups and
colts. None of these ever entered into another person’s house unless sent there by
Cato himself or his wife. If any one of them were asked what Cato was doing, he
answered only that he did not know. 2 At home, a slave had either to be doing his
work or be asleep, and Cato greatly preferred the sleepy ones, thinking them to
be both more mild-tempered than those who were wakeful and better workers at
anything when they had enjoyed a sleep than those who had not. 3 Considering
also that the greatest reason for misconduct in slaves was their sexual passions,
he arranged at a fixed price for them to sleep with the females, and none of them
was allowed to associate with a woman outside the household . . . 7 He also lent
money to those of his slaves who wished it; they would buy boys and, when they
had trained and taught them at Cato’s expense, would sell them again after a year.
8 Cato kept many of these for himself, accounting to the trainer the highest price
offered. To encourage his son to such practices, he used to say that lessening the
value of an estate was the mark not of a man but of a widow woman.

276
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
6.39 Varro On Farming 1.17.3–7: Varro on slave labour
Varro emphasises rewards rather than punishments and encourages loyalty among the
slaves.

3 Slaves ought to be neither timid nor high-spirited. 4 They ought to have men
over them who have had some training in letters and a degree of education, who
are honest and older than the labourers I have mentioned . . . 5 They are not to be
allowed to control the men with whips instead of words, as long as you can achieve
the same result. You should not acquire too many slaves of the same nation; for
that is the strongest cause of domestic hatreds. The foremen are to be made more
eager by rewards, and care must be taken that they have some property of their own
and are mated to fellow slaves, from whom they can have children, for from such
treatment they become steadier and more attached to the estate. It is on account of
such relationships that slave households from Epirus are more highly regarded and
more expensive than others. 6 The goodwill of the foremen should be acquired by
showing them some consideration, and those of the labourers who are superior to
the others should also be spoken to about the work to be done, since, when this is
done, they are less inclined to think that the master despises them and to believe that
he holds them in some regard. 7 They are made to take more interest in their work
by being treated more liberally in regard to food, or more clothing, or exemption
from work, or by being allowed to graze some livestock of their own on the estate,
or something of the same kind, so that, if some punishment or heavier labour than
usual is imposed on them, their goodwill and friendliness towards their master may
be restored by the consolation derived from such concessions.

6.40 Varro On Farming 2.10.2–8: Varro on herdsmen and their

acquisition
Varro refers to six different ways in which possession of slaves can be legally obtained.
Mancipium was a formal purchase, and cession was when someone ‘ceded’ the ownership
of an item to another; the other four ways were inheritance, possession (usus), as war booty
and through purchase at a public sale. Note the reference to the slave’s peculium, which
was transferable with the slave.

2 The herdsmen should be made to stay on the pasture land the whole day and
feed the herds together, but on the other hand each should spend the night with his
own herd . . . 3 The type of men selected for this should be those that are tough
and swift, nimble, with supple limbs, who are able not only to follow the herd but
protect it from wild beasts and robbers, who can lift loads onto pack animals, run
with speed, and throw the javelin. 4 Not every race is fitted for herding duties, and
neither a Bastulan nor a Turdulan (from southern Spain) is suitable, while Gauls
are ideal, especially for draught animals. In purchasing them there are some six
ways of acquiring legitimate ownership: by legal inheritance; by receiving them,
in proper form, through mancipium from one who had a legal right to do so; by
legal cession, from one who had the right to give them up, and at the proper time;

277
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
by right of possession (usus); by purchase from war booty; or at a public sale
among other property or confiscated property. 5 In the purchase of slaves it is
usual for the peculium to go with the slave, unless specifically excepted, and for
a guarantee to be given that he is sound and has not committed theft or damage;
or, if mancipium is not granted, double the amount is guaranteed, or, if agreed on,
just the purchase price. They should have their food apart during the day, each
with his own flock, but in the evening all those under one supervisor should eat
together . . .
6 Regarding the breeding of herdsmen, it is easy in the case of those who stay
all the time on the farm, because they have a female fellow slave in the farm-
house, and the pastoral Venus looks no further than this. But, for those who tend
the flocks in mountain valleys and wooded country and escape rain storms not in
the farmhouse but in hastily constructed sheds, many have thought it advisable
to send them women to follow the herds, prepare victuals for them and make
them harder working. 7 But these women have to be tough and not ugly, and in
many ways they are as good as the men in their work, as can be seen generally
in Illyricum, for they can tend the herd, carry the firewood and cook the food, or
look after the equipment in the huts. 8 As to nursing their babies, I say only this,
that generally they can feed them as well as bear them. At the same time turning
to me, he said, ‘I have heard you say that when you were in Liburnia you saw
mothers carrying firewood and children whom they were nursing at the same time,
sometimes one, sometimes two, showing that our mothers who lie for days under
their mosquito nets after giving birth are weak and contemptible.’

SLAVES AND THE LAW

The slave was a res mancipi in the ownership of his master, and in the Republic there were no
constraints on how masters treated slaves. Slaves were routinely tortured in law-suits in Rome
(as in Greece; cf. doc. 15.64 for Augustus’ legislation). The rationale was that they could not
be trusted to tell the truth in any other circumstances. Slavery is not defined in the XII Tables,
though manumission is mentioned in Table 5.8. Table 12.2 (doc. 1.45) points to the legal inca-
pacities of slaves: a slave was without rights, and only a person with rights (sui iuris) could
be party to a legal action (legis actio). Therefore slaves themselves could not be sued for any
actions they committed or damage they caused. The master had to pay the prescribed penalty for
his slave’s wrongdoing or hand the slave over for punishment to the wronged party.

6.41 Gaius Institutes 1.52: The legal position of slaves

The legal, codified definitions of slavery come from the imperial period. Writing in the
second century AD, Gaius records details which are nevertheless true for the Republic. The
slave-owner had ‘dominium’ over his slave, including the power of life and death.

Slaves are in the potestas of their masters, and this potestas is acknowledged by
the laws of all nations, for we know that, in all nations alike, the master has the
power of life and death over his slaves, and whatever a slave acquires is acquired
by his master.

278
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
6.42 Cicero In Defence of Roscius of Ameria 77–78: Roscius’ slaves
Roscius was accused in 80 BC of parricide by family members supported by Sulla’s freedman
Chrysogonus. Roscius’ advocates may have been P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (praetor 94 or 93
BC) and M. Metellus (praetor 69 BC). In this case, the accusers have decided that to submit
the slaves of Roscius to torture is too risky, whereas in doc. 6.43 the accuser depends on the
slaves breaking down under torture and agreeing to false charges; cf. docs 6.54, 7.91.

77 There remains the possibility that he committed the crime using the agency of
slaves. O ye immortal gods! What a wretched and calamitous affair! That which
in an accusation of such a kind is generally the salvation of innocent men – that
they should offer their slaves up for examination – is not permitted to Sextus
Roscius! You, the accusers of this man, have all his slaves; not a single boy out of
so large a household has been left to see to his daily meals. I appeal to you now,
Publius Scipio, and you Metellus, when you were counselling him and acting
on his behalf, Sextus Roscius several times demanded two of his father’s slaves
from his opponents for examination; do you not remember that Titus Roscius
refused? Well? Where are those slaves? Jurors, they are part of the household of
Chrysogonus, by whom they are honoured and valued . . . 78 Jurors, everything
in this case is lamentable and scandalous, but nothing more severe or unjust than
this can be pronounced – that a son should not be allowed to examine his father’s
slaves about his father’s death!

6.43 Cicero In Defence of Cluentius 175–78: Slaves remain firm under

torture
Cluentius was charged with having poisoned his stepfather, Oppianicus, who had married
his mother, Sassia. Two of the slaves examined were hers, but the third had belonged to
the deceased Oppianicus, now in the possession of his son, the young Oppianicus (176).
Despite two separate days of the ‘severest tortures’ (177), the slaves would not incriminate
Cluentius. What arouses Cicero’s condemnation is that the slaves were tortured with the
intention of providing false evidence: the use of torture on slaves as such is not condemned.

175 While wandering from place to place as a vagrant and exile, everywhere
rejected, Oppianicus took himself to Lucius Quinctius in Falernian territory,
where he first fell sick and remained seriously ill for some time. Sassia was with
him and was more intimate with a certain tenant farmer called Sextus Albius, a
fine healthy fellow, than even the most dissolute husband could tolerate while
his own fortunes were intact. She thought that the requirements that a marriage
be chaste and lawful no longer applied now her husband had been convicted. It
is said that a trusty slave-lad of Oppianicus’ called Nicostratus, who was inquisi-
tive and totally truthful, used to report much of this to his master. Meanwhile
Oppianicus, who was beginning to recover and was unable to put up with the
Falernian tenant’s misbehaviour any more, set off for Rome – he used to rent
somewhere to stay outside the city gate – but is said to have fallen from his horse
and, being already unwell, hurt his side seriously; he arrived at Rome with a fever

279
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
and died a few days later. The manner of his death, jurymen, is such as to admit no
suspicion; if any should be admitted, it has to be confined to the household within
those four walls.
176 After his death that wicked woman Sassia immediately began to plot
against her son and decided to hold an investigation into her husband’s death.
She bought a slave called Strato from Aulus Rupilius, whom Oppianicus had
employed as a doctor, as if intending to do the same as Habitus when he bought
Diogenes. She said that she was going to interrogate this Strato and one of her
own slaves called Ascla. Furthermore she demanded that young Oppianicus here
should hand over for interrogation the slave Nicostratus, who, she thought, had
been too talkative and loyal to his master. Since he was a boy at the time, and the
investigation was supposedly being held to inquire into his father’s death, he did
not dare refuse, although he believed that this slave was well intentioned towards
himself, just as he had been towards his father. Many friends and associates both
of Oppianicus and of the woman herself were summoned, respectable men distin-
guished in every way. The interrogation was carried out extremely rigorously with
every form of torture. The slaves were tempted with both promises and threats
to make them say something under interrogation, but, encouraged, I believe, by
the high rank of those summoned to witness the inquiry and the violence of the
tortures, they stood by the truth and said they knew nothing.
177 The interrogation ceased for that day on the advice of the friends. Some
considerable time later they were summoned again. The interrogation was held
over again: the severest tortures were vigorously employed. The witnesses
objected, unable to bear it any longer, while the cruel and savage woman was
furious that her schemes were not proceeding as she had hoped. When the torturer
and even his instruments of torture were exhausted and she still did not want to
bring proceedings to a close, one of the witnesses, a man of eminent public rank
and the highest character, proclaimed that he considered that the purpose of the
proceedings was not to find the truth but to force the slaves to say something false.
The others agreed, and it was the view of them all that the interrogation had gone
far enough.
178 Nicostratus was returned to Oppianicus, while Sassia went to Larinum
with her people, grieving over the thought that her son would now certainly be
safe, since neither a true accusation nor even a fabricated suspicion could touch
him, and not only his enemies’ open hostility but even his mother’s secret plots
had been unable to harm him. When she got to Larinum, although she had pre-
tended that she was convinced by the story that her husband had earlier been poi-
soned by Strato, she immediately gave him a well set-up and fully stocked shop at
Larinum so that he could practise medicine.

6.44 AE 1971 88: An exacting business

At Puteoli, during the reign of Augustus, a firm of undertakers ran a torture and execution
business as a sideline. The undertakers’ contract, including details of their rates, was dis-
played on a huge inscription some 2.5 metres wide. They performed public punishments

280
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
as part of their contract, while offering similar services to citizens wanting their slaves
privately punished or executed. The charge for these services was 4 sesterces for each
workman employed.

II 8 Should anyone wish to have a male or female slave privately punished, the
person who wishes to have this exacted shall do as follows: if he wishes to put
the slave on the cross or fork, the contractor shall supply the posts, chains, ropes
for scourgers and the scourgers themselves. The person having the punishment
exacted is to pay 4 sesterces for each of the workers who carry the fork and the
same for the scourgers and the executioner.
11 The magistrate shall give orders for those punishments that he exacts in
his public capacity, and, whenever it is ordered, the contractor shall be ready to
exact the punishment; he shall set up crosses and supply for free nails, pitch, wax,
candles and whatever else is necessary to deal with the person under examination.

RUNAWAYS AND FUGITIVES

There were three basic forms of slave action against their servitude: deliberate destruction
of property and obstruction of whatever work had to be undertaken; flight; and – the most
radical option – revolt against their masters, as in Sicily and with Spartacus. When slaves ran
away, masters took steps to recover their property (doc. 6.47), and the state took an interest
as well (doc. 6.46). Running away was especially common in times of disturbance: Augustus
later claimed to have returned 30,000 slaves to their masters after defeating Sextus Pompeius;
the 6,000 whose masters could not be found were crucified: RG 4.25 (doc. 15.1).

6.45 Lucilius Satires 29.917–18: A collar and chain

Owners could fit iron collars on their slaves, which stated the names of the slave and the
owner, the address to which to return him, and the promise of a reward; cf. Plaut. Capt. 357.

. . . when I bring him back home like a runaway in manacles and a dog-chain
and dog-collar.

6.46 ILS 23: Runaway slaves recovered as a public duty

This milestone near Forum Popillii in Lucania records the achievements either of Publius
Popillius Laenas (cos. 132) or of T. Annius Rufus (cos. 128, propraetor 131) relating to the
serious slave-rising which began in 135. The Via Popillia (or Via Annia) continues the Via
Appia from Capua to Rhegium; ‘the men from Italy’ were perhaps resident in Sicily.

I made the road from Rhegium to Capua and on that road I positioned all the
bridges, milestones and signposts. From here there are 51 miles to Nuceria, 84 to
Capua, 5 74 to Muranum, 123 to Consentia, 180 to Valentia, 231 to the strait at the
statue (at the straits of Messina), 237 to Rhegium: total from Capua to Rhegium
321. Also as praetor in 10 Sicily I sought out the runaways belonging to men from
Italy and returned 917 people. I was also the first to cause cattle-breeders to retire

281
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
from public state land in favour of ploughmen. 15 Here I put up a market and
public buildings.

6.47 Cicero Letters to his Friends 13.77.3: One of Cicero’s slaves

decamps
Cicero wrote this letter to P. Sulpicius Rufus in Illyricum in 46 BC. It seemed credible to
Marcus Bolanus and others that Cicero had manumitted his slave Dionysius, when in fact
he had not done so (he was still at large in 44 BC). Despite doc. 6.46, it is quite clear that
there was no state apparatus in the Republic for helping owners to recover their runaway
slaves.

I beg of you with more urgency than usual, in view of our friendship and your con-
tinual devotion to me, that you particularly exert yourself in the following matter:
my slave Dionysius, who had charge of my library, which is worth a great deal of
money, stole a large number of books and, believing he would not get away with
it unpunished, ran away. He is in your province. Both my friend Marcus Bolanus
and many others saw him at Narona, but they believed him when he asserted that I
had manumitted him. If you should see to returning him to me, I can’t tell you how
grateful I would be. It is a small thing in itself but has made me very upset. Bolanus
will tell you where he is and what can be done. If I should receive the fellow back
through your agency I shall consider that you have done me a very great favour.

SLAVE REVOLTS
Individual slaves could run away and desert their masters, but there was another phenom-
enon in the Roman world, not evident in classical Greece, and that was the slave revolt,
when large numbers of slaves rose up against their masters. The most famous rebellion was
that of Spartacus (73–71 BC), but there were two revolts on a considerable scale in Sicily
(135–132, 104–100 BC). All three major uprisings were crushed ruthlessly. Punishment of
slaves and severity towards them was seen as the best defence against revolt.

6.48 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 34.2.1–23: Rebellion in Sicily,

135–132 BC
Sicily was finally unified as a Roman province in 211 BC, and Rome’s conquests in the
eastern Mediterranean provided a huge influx of slaves to work the Sicilian estates. Under
harsh conditions, the slaves were impelled to revolt. Diodorus gives the slave numbers as
200,000; other sources have 60,000–70,000, which, given the population of Sicily at the
time, is more probable. The revolt commenced in 135 (perhaps earlier) and was finally
quashed in 132, after the Romans had suffered some notable defeats; Rupilius, the consul
who terminated the rebellion, was the third consecutive consul sent out to deal with it. The
second slave revolt followed the same pattern: large numbers of the newly enslaved, and
harsh working conditions, led the slaves to rebel.

1 When Sicily, after the Carthaginian collapse, had enjoyed 60 years of prosperity
in every respect, the slave war arose for the following reason: the Sicilians had

282
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
become so prosperous and acquired such great wealth that they began purchasing
a great number of slaves, on whose bodies they put identifying marks and brands
when they had dragged them home in herds from the slave depots. 2 They used the
young men as herdsmen and the others in whatever way they happened to be use-
ful. But they treated them harshly in their service, and thought that they deserved
only the very slightest care in terms of food and clothing. As a result, most of them
made a living from robbery, and there was bloodshed everywhere, as the robbers
were like scattered armies. 3 The praetors tried to stop them but did not dare to pun-
ish them because of the power and influence of the masters who owned the robbers,
and they were forced to overlook the plundering of the province . . . 4 The slaves,
oppressed by their hardships and often quite unreasonably mistreated by beatings,
could not endure it. When opportunity offered they got together and discussed the
subject of revolt, until they put their plan into action. 5 There was a certain Syrian
slave (Eunus), belonging to Antigenes of Enna, from Apamea by birth, and given
to magic and wonder-working. He claimed to foretell the future through commands
from the gods in his sleep and deceived many by his skill in this direction. Going on
from there, he not only prophesied through dreams but even pretended to see visions
of the gods and hear the future from them while awake . . .
10 There was a certain Damophilus of Enna, a man of great wealth and prop-
erty, but very arrogant in his behaviour. He maltreated his slaves to excess, and his
wife Megallis closely rivalled her husband in her punishments and other inhuman-
ity towards the slaves. Reduced by this savage treatment to the level of animals,
they agreed to revolt and kill their owners. Going to Eunus, they asked him if
their decision was approved by the gods. With his usual marvels, he promised the
gods’ approval and persuaded them to engage in the undertaking at once. 11 They
immediately, therefore, gathered together 400 of their fellow slaves and, having
armed themselves as opportunity presented, fell upon the city of Enna with Eunus
leading them and working his miracle with flames of fire for their benefit. They
broke into the houses and committed great bloodshed, sparing not even breast-
feeding babies. 12 Instead they tore them from the breast and dashed them to the
ground; I am unable to say how they insulted and outraged the women – and this
with their husbands watching. They were joined by a great number of slaves from
the city, who first did their worst to their masters and then turned to the slaugh-
ter of others. (Damophilus and his wife are captured, but their daughter spared
because of the humanity she had shown. Damophilus was killed in the theatre.)
14 After that Eunus was chosen as king, not because of his courage or military
leadership but only because of his marvels and because he had started the revolt, as
well as for his name, which seemed to suggest the favourable omen that he would
bear ‘goodwill’ towards his subjects. 15 Established as master of the rebels in all
respects, he summoned an assembly and put to death all the citizens of Enna who had
been captured, except for those skilled in manufacturing weapons, and these he put
to work in chains. He gave Megallis to the female slaves to deal with as they wished;
they tortured her and then threw her over a cliff. He himself put to death his own
owners, Antigenes and Python. 16 He wore a diadem and adorned himself with all
the other attributes of royalty, proclaimed the woman living with him as queen – she

283
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
was a Syrian and from the same city as himself – and appointed as counsellors men
who seemed to be especially gifted with intelligence, one of whom was Achaeus
(Achaeus by name and an Achaean by birth), a man exceptionally gifted both in
planning and in action. In three days Eunus had armed, as best he could, more than
6,000 men, as well as leading others who had single- and double-edged axes, slings,
sickles, fire-hardened stakes, or even cooking spits. He went about plundering the
whole countryside, and since he kept being joined by a countless number of slaves
he even ventured to do battle against Roman generals, and in the engagements fre-
quently overcame them by weight of numbers, as he already had more than 10,000
soldiers.
17 Meanwhile a man named Cleon, a Cilician, began a revolt of other slaves.
Everyone was buoyed up with hopes that the two groups of revolutionaries would
come into conflict with each other and that the rebels would liberate Sicily from
strife by destroying themselves, but against expectations they joined forces, with
Cleon subordinating himself to Eunus merely at his command and carrying out
the duties of a general towards his king. His personal following consisted of
5,000 soldiers; it was now about 30 days since the beginning of the revolt. 18
Shortly afterwards they engaged in battle with a praetor, Lucius Hypsaeus, who
had arrived from Rome and commanded 8,000 Sicilian soldiers, and the rebels
were victorious, being now 20,000 in number. In a short time their total reached
200,000, and in many battles against the Romans they acquitted themselves well
and were seldom beaten. 19 As this news spread, a revolt of a band of 150 slaves
flared up in Rome, and of more than 1,000 in Attica, and of others on Delos
and in many other places; because of the speed with which forces were brought
against them and the severity of the punishments inflicted, the magistrates of
the communities in each case quickly put an end to the rebels and brought to
their senses anyone on the point of revolting. 20 In Sicily, however, the situation
continued to deteriorate, and cities were captured with all their inhabitants and
many armies cut to pieces by the rebels, until Rupilius (cos. 132 BC), the Roman
commander, recovered Tauromenium for the Romans, after besieging it severely
and confining the rebels under conditions of unspeakable hardship and starvation,
which resulted in their beginning by eating their children and progressing to their
womenfolk, and finally not entirely abstaining from eating each other; it was on
this occasion that Rupilius captured Comanus, Cleon’s brother, as he was try-
ing to escape from the besieged city. 21 In the end, after Sarapion, a Syrian, had
betrayed the citadel, the general seized all the runaways in the city, whom he tor-
tured and threw over a cliff. From there he went to Enna and besieged it in much
the same way, bringing the rebels into extreme hardship and dashing their hopes.
Their leader, Cleon, came out from the city and fought heroically with a few men
until Rupilius displayed him dead, covered with wounds, and took this city too
by betrayal, since it was impregnable to force of arms because of its strength.
22 Eunus took his bodyguard of 1,000 men and fled in a cowardly fashion to a
precipitous region. The men with him, however, realised that their fate was una-
voidable, for the general Rupilius was already marching against them, and killed
each other with their swords by beheading. Eunus, the wonder-worker and king,
who had through cowardice taken refuge in certain caves, was dragged out with

284
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
four others – a cook, a baker, the man who massaged him in his bath, and a fourth
who used to entertain him when he was drinking. 23 Placed in prison, his body
disintegrated into a mass of lice, and he died at Morgantina by a death appropriate
to his villainy. Thereupon Rupilius marched throughout Sicily with a few picked
men and liberated it from every band of robbers sooner than anyone expected.

6.49 Crawford RRC 401.1: The second Sicilian slave revolt

A denarius of 71 BC. The reference is to Manius Aquillius and his suppression of the sec-
ond slave revolt in Sicily as consul in 101 BC and proconsul in 100; the coin was issued
by the consul’s grandson (as indicated by the left and right legends). The soldier may be
taken to represent the consul himself. Issued after the suppression of Spartacus’ revolt, the
coin reminded the public of the achievements of Aquillius’ grandfather in a previous slave
insurrection.
Obverse: Bust of Virtus wearing helmet; legend on right rim: ‘Virtus’.
Reverse: Standing soldier, with shield in left hand; with right hand he raises up a
prostrate kneeling woman.
Legend below: ‘SICIL’; on right rim of denarius: ‘MN AQUIL’; on left: ‘MN F
MN N’.

6.50 Appian Civil Wars 1.116.539–120.559: Spartacus, 73–71 BC

Spartacus had been a free man before he became a slave gladiator (one specialist occupa-
tion of slaves); he and the other escaping gladiators preferred to ‘endanger their lives in
pursuit of freedom’ rather than in the ‘public spectacle’ of the arena. His aim was to lead
his troops north through the Alps, and his decision not to march on Rome, like Hannibal’s,
was perhaps a grave error. He defeated the two consuls of 72 BC. Crassus, probably prae-
tor in 73, was then given proconsular imperium and was successful in driving Spartacus
into the toe of Italy. 554: Crassus clearly had the situation in hand, but in 71 the senate
also appointed Pompey, who had returned from Spain, to the command. Pompey over-
came 5,000 slaves fleeing from the battle and informed the senate that, while Crassus had
defeated the gladiators, he (Pompey) had rooted out the slave revolt. Pompey received a
triumph for his success against Sertorius in Spain; but, as he had fought against slaves,
Crassus was entitled only to an ovatio.

539 At the same time (as the murder of Sertorius, and Perperna’s conquest by
Pompey) there were in Italy some gladiators who were being trained at Capua to
appear in public shows. Spartacus, a Thracian, who had at one time served with
the Roman army but who had become one of the gladiators after being imprisoned
and sold, persuaded about 70 of them to endanger their lives in pursuit of free-
dom rather than in a public spectacle, and with them he overcame the guards and
escaped; 540 they armed themselves with clubs and daggers belonging to some
travellers and fled to Mount Vesuvius, where, after being joined by many runaway
slaves and some free men from the fields, he plundered the neighbouring region,
having as his subordinates gladiators named Oenomaus and Crixus. 541 As he
divided up the plunder equitably, he soon had plenty of men; Varinius Glaber
(actually the praetor Gaius Claudius Glaber) was the first sent against him, and after
him Publius Valerius (actually the praetor Publius Varinius), but not with regular

285
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
armies, just any men they could gather quickly on their route (for the Romans
did not yet consider this a war, but a raid similar to banditry), and when they
attacked they were defeated. Spartacus himself even captured Varinius’ horse –
so close did the Roman general himself come to being a gladiator’s prisoner.
542 After this even more people rushed to join Spartacus, until his army totalled
70,000 and he was making weapons and gathering equipment, when the Romans
sent out the consuls with two legions.
543 Crixus, leading 30,000 men, was defeated by one of the consuls near Mount
Garganus, and both he and two-thirds of his army perished; 544 Spartacus was mak-
ing haste through the Apennines to the Alps and the Gauls beyond, but one of the
consuls got ahead of him and cut off his chance of flight, while the other pursued
him. He turned on them one after another and successively defeated them. 545 They
retreated from there in disorder, and Spartacus sacrificed 300 Roman prisoners to
Crixus and marched on Rome with 120,000 foot-soldiers, after burning any useless
equipment, killing all his prisoners and butchering his pack-animals so he could
move unhindered; many deserters approached him, but he refused to accept any
of them. 546 The consuls met him again in the region of Picenum, and there was
another great conflict and another great defeat, too, for the Romans.
547 Spartacus changed his mind about marching on Rome, on the grounds that
he was not yet powerful enough for that and his whole army was not properly
armed (for no city had joined him, only slaves and deserters and rabble), but he
occupied the mountains around Thurii and took the city itself, and prohibited mer-
chants from bringing in gold or silver and the possession of these by his men, but
they bought a great deal of iron and bronze and did no harm to those who imported
them. 548 Supplied in this way with abundant material, they prepared themselves
well and went out frequently on plundering expeditions. When they next engaged
with the Roman forces they were again victorious and returned laden with booty.
549 This war was now in its third year and terrible for the Romans, though
ridiculed and despised at first because it was against gladiators. When it was time
for the election of new praetors, everyone was overcome by cowardice and no
one stood, apart from Licinius Crassus, distinguished among the Romans by birth
and wealth, who accepted the command and marched against Spartacus with six
legions; when he reached the front he also took over the two legions of the con-
suls. 550 Of these he immediately chose by lot and executed one man out of every
ten for having been so often defeated. Some say instead that, after engaging in
battle with his whole army and having himself been defeated too, he chose by lot
and executed a tenth, about 4,000, of them, undeterred by the number involved.
551 Whatever he did, after demonstrating to the army that he was more to be
feared than defeat by the enemy, he overcame 10,000 of the Spartacans who were
encamped by themselves, killed two-thirds of them, and marched contemptuously
against Spartacus himself. He won a glorious victory over him and pursued him
as he fled to the sea, where he intended to sail to Sicily; catching up with him, he
hemmed him in with ditch, wall and palisade.
552 Spartacus tried to break out and get into Samnite territory, but Crassus
killed about 6,000 of his men in the morning and about the same number towards

286
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
nightfall, with only three of the Roman army being killed and seven wounded – so
great a change in their confidence of victory had come about as a result of their
punishment. 553 Spartacus, who was expecting cavalry to join him from some-
where, no longer went into battle with his whole army but frequently harassed the
besiegers from different sides with sudden and continuous attacks, throwing bun-
dles of wood into the ditch and setting light to them and making their job difficult.
He also crucified a Roman prisoner in the area between the two armies, to show
his own men the sight of what they would suffer if they did not win. 554 When
the Romans in the city learnt of the siege, they thought it would be disgraceful
if the war against gladiators went on any longer and appointed Pompey too, who
had just arrived from Spain, to the command, as they believed that the task of
confronting Spartacus was still a great and formidable one.
555 As a result of this vote Crassus tried in every way to come to grips with
Spartacus, so that the glory of the war might not be Pompey’s, and Spartacus, want-
ing to anticipate Pompey’s arrival, invited Crassus to come to terms with him. 556
When this was scornfully rejected he decided to risk a battle, and, since his cavalry
had now arrived, he broke out through the besieging wall with all his army and fled
to Brundisium with Crassus pursuing him. 557 When Spartacus learnt that Lucullus
too had just arrived at Brundisium after his victory over Mithridates, he despaired of
everything as hopeless and engaged his forces, which were even then very numer-
ous, against Crassus; there was a long and hard-fought battle, to be expected of tens
of thousands of desperate men, and Spartacus, wounded in his thigh with a spear,
fell onto his knee and fought against his attackers holding his shield in front of him
until both he and the great number of those with him were surrounded and killed.
558 The rest of his army broke ranks and were cut down in crowds, the slaughter
being so great that no one could count them; the Romans lost about 1,000 men, and
the body of Spartacus was not found. 559 A large number of his men fled from the
battle to the mountains, where Crassus went after them. They divided themselves
into four parts and kept fighting until all perished except for about 6,000, who were
captured and crucified along the whole road (the Via Appia) from Capua to Rome.

THE MANUMISSION OF SLAVES

Freed slaves retained obligations towards their ex-master and became his clients. These
freedmen became Roman citizens and joined one of the four urban tribes, but they were
ineligible for magistracies and could not hold senatorial or equestrian rank. Priesthoods
were also closed to them. However, these disabilities did not carry through into the second
generation, and sons, if born after their father’s manumission, were free. Various restric-
tions on manumission were introduced by Augustus, suggesting that it was a largely unre-
stricted process until then (docs 15.60–61).

6.51 [Cicero] Letters to his Friends 16.16.1–2: Cicero’s favourite slave

In this letter from to his brother Marcus in 54 or 53 BC, Quintus Cicero expresses his joy
that Marcus has freed his trusted slave secretary Tiro, who is a classic example of a valued
slave playing an important role in the household, as is Statius (doc. 6.53).

287
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
1 With regard to Tiro, my dear Marcus, as surely as I hope to see you and my son
Cicero and my darling Tullia and your son, you have done what gave me the very
greatest pleasure when you preferred that he, who did not deserve his bad fortune,
should be our friend rather than our slave. Believe me, when I had read your letter
and his, I jumped for joy. I both thank you and congratulate you. 2 For if Statius’
faithful service is such a source of great pleasure to me, how valuable should
such qualities be in Tiro, especially when we take into account his literary skills,
his conversational powers and his refinement, which outweigh even the personal
services he can perform.

6.52 Cicero Letters to his Friends 16.18.1, 3: Cicero writes to Tiro

For the first time, in this letter (written after October 47) Cicero addresses Tiro as an equal,
using the address ‘Tullius Tironi (Tullius to Tiro)’: only intimates were addressed without
using the praenomen (i.e., Marcus).

1 Well, what about it? Isn’t it quite right? I certainly think it is – and even that I
ought to add ‘dear’. But, as you wish it, let criticism be avoided – although I have
often treated it with contempt. I’m pleased that perspiring has done you good. But
if my place at Tusculum has helped, merciful gods!, how much more charming I
will find it! But, as you love me – as indeed you either do or make a good pretence
of it, in which, it is true, you succeed very well – however that may be, look after
your health, which, indeed, you have not sufficiently seen to up to now because
you have been devoting yourself to me. You are not unaware of what it demands –
good digestion, proper rest, moderate walking, massage and proper movement of
the bowels. Make sure you return in good health – and I will love not only you but
also my place at Tusculum . . .
3 I will send you the sundial and books, if we have nice weather. But about
yourself, do you have no light reading with you? Or are you composing something
Sophoclean? Show me what you’ve been working on. Aulus Ligurius, Caesar’s
friend, is dead, an excellent man and a friend of mine. Make sure I know when to
expect you. Look after yourself carefully. Goodbye.

6.53 Cicero Letters to his Brother Quintus 1.2.3: An overbearing

freedman
This letter was written by Cicero in late 59 BC advising his brother Quintus not to leave
any incriminating records behind in his province. Quintus’ freedman and secretary Statius
was considered somewhat overbearing.

But what used to irritate me most was when I kept on being told that he had
more influence over you than was called for by the weight of your years and your
experience in government – how many people do you think have pleaded with
me to recommend them to Statius? How many times when talking to me has he
naively used terms such as, ‘I didn’t agree with that’, ‘I warned him’, ‘I urged
him’, ‘I discouraged him’? Although all this demonstrates the highest loyalty (and

288
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
I quite believe it, since that is what you think), nevertheless the very appearance
of a freedman or slave enjoying such favour is totally undignified – and indeed
I maintain (for I should neither speak rashly nor keep anything back designedly)
that all the subject matter of the gossip of those who wish to denigrate you has
been provided by Statius; previously nothing could be understood but that some
people were angry with you for your severity; now, with his manumission, those
who were angry have plenty to talk about.

6.54 Cicero In Defence of Milo 57–58: Milo frees his slaves

Milo was put on trial in 52 for the murder of Publius Clodius Pulcher and was defended
by Cicero (docs 13.1–5). Milo manumitted all his slaves before the trial, and it was clearly
thought that he was worried about what they would reveal under torture. Cicero counters
with the idea that Milo was rewarding his slaves by manumitting them. Milo was convicted
and went into exile.

57 Then why did Milo manumit them? Of course, it was because he feared they
might incriminate him, that they might be unable to endure the pain, that they
might be compelled by torture to confess that Publius Clodius was murdered on
the Appian Way by Milo’s slaves. Why would you need a torturer? What fact are
you looking for? Whether he killed him? He did kill him. Was it justified or not?
That is nothing to do with a torturer. . . . 58 What reward can be great enough for
slaves, so devoted, so brave and so loyal, who saved their master’s life? . . . Had
he not manumitted them, they were to be handed over to torture – the saviours
of their master, the avengers of crime, the averters of death. Indeed, amid all his
misfortunes, there is nothing which Milo views with more pleasure than the fact
that, whatever may befall him, these have been given a well-deserved reward.

6.55 ILS 3491: A freedman pays his vow

On an altar at Rome, dating to before 80 BC. Trypho has made a vow and, now free, fulfils it.

Quintus Mucius Trypho, freedman of Quintus, vowed this as a slave and paid it
willingly and deservedly when free; sacred to the Good Goddess.

6.56 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 4.24.1–6:

Manumission
Here Dionysius comments on slavery under Servius Tullius, though his remarks on warfare
as the most important method of obtaining slaves obviously relate to his own time. He
gives various reasons why slaves might be manumitted, particularly because the ex-slaves
could receive and give their ex-masters the grain dole for which they would now be eligible
(since Gaius Gracchus’ reforms of 122 BC). The liberty cap was worn by freedpersons.

1 As I have come to this section of my narrative, I think that I ought to give the
details of the customs of the Romans of that time with regard to their slaves, to

289
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
prevent anyone blaming either the king, who was the first to undertake to make
citizens of those who had been slaves, or those who accepted the law, for rashly
casting aside traditions. 2 The Romans acquired their slaves by the fairest means:
they either bought them from the state under the spear (i.e., at an auction) from
the spoils of war, or the general allowed them to keep the prisoners they had taken
as well as the rest of the booty, or they obtained the slaves by purchasing them
from others who had acquired them by these same means. 3 Neither Tullius who
established the custom, nor those who accepted it and kept it up, thought that they
were doing anything shameful or harmful to the public interest if those who had
lost their country and their freedom in war and who had served well those who had
enslaved them, or those who had purchased them from these people, were granted
country and freedom by their masters. 4 Most of them received their liberty as a
free gift for their good conduct, and this was the best method of discharge from
their masters, but a few paid a ransom which they had collected by lawful and
honest labour.
In our day, however, this is not the case, but affairs have come to such a
state of confusion, and the traditions of the Roman commonwealth have become
so dishonoured and sordid, that some buy their freedom with money acquired
from robbery, housebreaking, prostitution and every other corrupt means and
are Romans on the spot; 5 others who have been their masters’ collaborators
and accomplices in poisonings, murders and crimes against the gods or state
receive from them their freedom as their reward. Some are freed so that, when
they receive every month the corn given at public expense and any other liber-
ality donated by the powerful to the poorer citizens, they can bring it to those
who granted them their freedom; and others owe it to the lightmindedness of
their master and his thirst for popularity. 6 At any rate, I know of some who
have allowed all their slaves to be freed after their deaths, so that, when dead,
they might be called good men and many people with felt skullcaps (i.e., liberty
caps) on their heads might follow their funeral biers; some of those taking part
in these processions, as could be heard from those in the know, were criminals,
just released from prison, who had committed crimes deserving ten thousand
deaths. But most people are unhappy when they look on these stains that can
hardly be washed away from the city, and condemn the custom, considering it
not appropriate for a pre-eminent city, which thinks itself fit to rule the whole
world, to make such people citizens.

THE OCCUPATIONS OF FREEDMEN

Educated slaves, and those who had served their masters well in other professional capaci-
ties or in domestic service, might be manumitted and follow the same occupations after
manumission (as did Tiro). Many freedpersons, by necessity and because of the demands
of the patron–client system and manumission obligations, will have remained in their
master’s employ. Agricultural and mining slaves were not usually manumitted; many of
the craftsmen and shopkeepers at Rome were freedmen; for freedwomen prostitutes and
actresses, docs 7.62–65.

290
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
6.57 CIL I2 2519: An association of Greek actors
This is from a tablet of stone dedicated by a society of Greek actors. It was discovered in
a tomb near the Praenestine gate. The second part of the inscription was added when the
tomb was later restored by Philo.

Belonging to the association of Greek actors who are in this company (synodos), out
of their common fund. Maecenas Mal . . . , son of Decimus, master of ceremonies
and patron of the company approved it. Marcus Vaccius Theophilus, freedman of
Marcus, and Quintus Vibius Simus, freedman of Quintus, chairman of the company
of Decumiani, 5 superintended the purchase of a site for the tomb and its construction.
Lucius Aurelius Philo, freedman of Lucius, chairman for the seventh time of
the company of the association of Greek singers and those who are members of
this association, superintended the restoration from his own funds.

6.58 Suetonius On Grammarians 7, 10, 13, 15, 17, 21: Freedmen as

literary figures
Educated Greek slaves were an indispensable component of elite family households, where
they served as teachers, doctors, readers, secretaries and even astrologers. Roman educa-
tion, with its strong Greek flavour, required slaves from that country. Staberius was able
to purchase his own freedom through his peculium at a public sale (13), but slaves could
not purchase their own freedom without their master’s consent, even if the peculium was
of sufficient value.

7 Marcus Antonius Gnipho was born free in Gaul but disowned; he was manu-
mitted by his foster-father and educated (in Alexandria, according to some, and
in close association with Dionysius Scytobrachion; but I am unable to believe
this for reasons of chronology). He is said to have been a man of great talent, of
unexampled memory, and educated in Greek no less than in Latin; moreover his
character was affable and good-natured, never stipulating any fees, with the result
that he received all the more from the generosity of his pupils. He first taught in
the house of the Deified Julius (Caesar) when the latter was still a boy, and then in
his own home. He taught rhetoric, too, and gave instruction in the art of speaking
every day, but in declamation only on market-days (i.e., once a week). It is said
that distinguished men also attended his school, among them Marcus Cicero, even
when he was holding office as praetor.
10 Lucius Ateius Philologus was a freedman born at Athens. The well-known
jurist Ateius Capito calls him ‘a rhetorician among grammarians and a grammarian
among rhetoricians’. Asinius Pollio, in the book in which he criticises the writings
of Sallust for being flawed by a striving after archaisms, writes as follows: ‘In this
he was especially encouraged by Ateius Praetextatus, a famous Latin grammarian,
later a critic and teacher of declamation, who finally styled himself Philologus.’ He
himself wrote to Laelius Hermas that he had made great progress in Greek litera-
ture and some in Latin, had been a pupil of Antonius Gnipho, and then a teacher;
also that he had instructed many eminent young men, among them the brothers
Appius and Claudius Pulcher, whom he had also accompanied to their province. He

291
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
appears to have assumed the name Philologus (‘lover of literature’) because, like
Eratosthenes, who was the first to claim the surname, he considered himself a man
of extensive and varied learning. This is certainly evident from his commentaries,
although very few survive; he gives some idea of their number in another letter to
Hermas: ‘Remember to recommend my Hyle to others, in which, as you know, I
collected all kinds of material in 800 books.’ He was afterwards a great friend of
Gaius Sallustius (Sallust) and, after his death, of Asinius Pollio, and when they
began writing history he provided one with a summary of all Roman history from
which he could select what he wished, the other with rules on the art of writing.
13 Staberius Eros was purchased by his own savings at a public sale and man-
umitted because of his commitment to literature; he taught Brutus and Cassius
among others. Some people say that he was so generous that in the times of Sulla
he admitted the children of the proscribed to his school free and without any fees.
15 Lenaeus, freedman of Pompey the Great and his companion on nearly all his
campaigns, on the death of Pompey and his sons supported himself by a school,
teaching in the Carinae, near the temple of Tellus, the quarter where the Pompeys’
house had been, and was so devoted to his patron’s memory that he tore the histo-
rian Sallust to pieces in a savage satire because he had described Pompey as being
of honest face but shameless character . . . It is also said that, when he was still
a boy, he was stolen from Athens but escaped and returned to his homeland and,
after acquiring a liberal education, offered the price of his freedom to his former
master, but was manumitted for free on account of his talents and learning.
17 Marcus Verrius Flaccus, a freedman, was renowned for his method of
teaching. To stinulate the intellects of his pupils he used to set those at the same
level against each other, choosing not only the topic on which they were to write
but a prize to be won by the victor. This would be some beautiful and rare antique
book. As a result he was selected by Augustus as well as tutor for his grandsons
and moved to the Palatine with his whole school, but on the understanding that he
would take no more pupils. He taught in the house of Catulus, which was then part
of the palace, and was paid 100,000 sesterces a year. He died in old age during
the reign of Tiberius.
21 Gaius Melissus was born a free man at Spoleto but exposed because of a
disagreement between his parents. However, through the care and efforts of the man
who brought him up, he received a higher education and was presented as a gift to
Maecenas as a grammarian. Finding that Maecenas appreciated him and treated
him as a friend, even though his mother claimed his freedom, he kept the status of a
slave and preferred this present condition to his real origins. As a result he was soon
freed and became friendly with Augustus. It was Augustus who appointed him to
supervise the arrangement of the library in the portico of Octavia.

6.59 Suetonius Life of Terence 1–5: Terence: a success story

Publius Terentius Afer was born at Carthage, according to Suetonius, and came to Rome as
a slave of Terentius Lucanus. He was the author of six comedies in the 160s BC and was
supported in his work by his patrons Scipio Aemilianus (cos. 147, 134) and Scipio’s friends
C. Laelius (cos. 140) and L. Furius Philus (cos. 136). Note that there are various versions
of his death given here: clearly no one actually knew where he retired.

292
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
1 Publius Terentius Afer, born at Carthage, was the slave at Rome of the sena-
tor Terentius Lucanus, by whom, on account of his talent and appearance, he
was not only given a liberal education but quickly manumitted. Some think that
he was captured in war, but Fenestella shows that this cannot possibly have
been the case, since Terence was born and died between the end of the Second
Punic War (201 BC) and the beginning of the third (149 BC); and if he had
been captured by the Numidians and Gaetulians he would not have been able to
come into the hands of a Roman commander, as commerce between the Italians
and Africans did not begin until after the destruction of Carthage. He lived
on familiar terms with many men of the nobility, and particularly with Scipio
Africanus and Gaius Laelius. It is even thought that he won their favour through
his appearance, which Fenestella also denies, arguing that he was older than
both, although Nepos records that they were all of the same age and Porcius
raises a suspicions of love affairs with these words:

‘While he sought the lusts of noble men and their false praises,
While he drank in the divine voice of Africanus with greedy ears,
While he thought it glorious to dine constantly with Furius and Laelius,
While he was often taken to the villa at Alba for his youthful charms,
Later he found he had lost everything and was in total penury.
So he withdrew from the sight of all to the furthest part of Greece,
Dying at Stymphalus, a town in Arcadia. Neither Publius
Scipio, nor Laelius, nor Furius benefited him,
The three most comfortably well-off nobles of that time.
He did not even have with their assistance a rented house,
Where his little slave could at least announce his master’s death.’

2 He wrote six comedies, and when he offered the first of these, the Andria, to the
aediles, he was told to read it to Caecilius (Statius). When he arrived, he found
Caecilius at dinner, and it is said that because of his humble dress he read the
beginning of the play sitting on a bench near Caecilius’ dining couch, but after
a few lines he was invited to recline at table, and later went through the rest of
the play to Caecilius’ great admiration. Furthermore this play and the other five
delighted the people equally . . . The Eunuch was even acted twice in the same
day and earned more than any previous comedy of this type had ever done, that is
8,000 sesterces; the sum is even included on the title-page . . .
4 After publishing these comedies before he had passed his twenty-fifth year,
either to avoid the gossip about his publishing other people’s work as his own or
to study Greek manners and customs, in case he had not depicted them quite suc-
cessfully in his writings, he left Rome and never returned. Concerning his death,
Vulcacius writes as follows:

‘But when Afer had presented six comedies,

He journeyed from here to Asia, and from the time
He went on board, he was never seen again; thus he vanished from life.’

293
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
5 Quintus Cosconius writes that he died at sea while returning from Greece with
108 plays adapted from Menander. The others record that he died at Stymphalus
in Arcadia or at Leucadia in the consulship of Gnaeus Cornelius Dolabella and
Marcus Fulvius Nobilior (159 BC), after becoming ill from grief and irritation
when his luggage was lost, which he had sent on in advance by ship, and with it
the new plays he had written. He is said to have been of medium height, slender
figure and dark complexion. He left a daughter, who afterwards married a Roman
eques; also gardens of 20 iugera on the Appian Way near the villa of Mars.

FUNERARY INSCRIPTIONS
While the vast majority of funerary inscriptions (epitaphs) and reliefs relating to freedpersons
(and slaves) in the city of Rome come from the imperial period, there are examples from the
late Republic. These inscriptions are invaluable in attesting both to individual manumissions
and to the occupations of the manumitted slaves. It is clear that there was a high frequency of
manumission at Rome and that freedpersons constituted a sizeable proportion of the popula-
tion in the first century BC. The open attitude to citizenship via manumission distinguished
the Romans from other ancient peoples and ensured that, by the end of the Republic if not ear-
lier, large numbers of the citizen residents of Rome were ex-slaves or descended from slaves.

6.60 ILS 8341: A doctor’s family in Rome

The doctor freedman of this inscription had clearly been successful enough to afford a tomb
large enough to contain so many occupants (it was common to include in the inscription
the tomb’s dimensions). The marital relationships mentioned are important: it was often
the case that freedmen married freedwomen (often from the same household) and included
other freedpersons in their tomb.

Gaius Hostius Pamphilus, a doctor, freedman of Gaius, bought this memorial for
himself and for Nelpia Hymnis, freedwoman of Marcus, and for all their freedmen
and freedwomen 5 and their descendants. This is our home for evermore, this our
farm, this our gardens, this our memorial. Frontage 13 feet, depth 24 feet.

6.61 ILS 7642: Quintus the butcher

For another freedman butcher, see doc. 7.33.

Here lie the bones of Quintus Tiburtius Menolavus, freedman of Quintus, who
slaughtered animals for sacrifice.

6.62 ILS 8417: Farewell, be well!

A memorial from New Carthage in Spain (probably first century BC), erected as reward for
Plotia’s good conduct (‘how she behaved’).

Here lies Plotia (often called Phryne), freedwoman of Lucius and Fufia. This
memorial shows how she behaved towards her patron and patroness, her father,
and her husband. 5 Farewell, be well.

294
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
6.63 ILS 1932: Aulus the auctioneer
From Rome, dating to c. 100 BC.

This silent stone asks you, stranger, to stop

While it reveals to you what he, whose shade it covers, entrusted it to reveal.
The bones of a man of honour and great trustworthiness,
Aulus Granius, the auctioneer, lie here.
5 That is all. He wanted you to know this. Farewell.
Aulus Granius Stabilio, freedman of Marcus, auctioneer.

6.64 ILS 8432: Two inseparable slaves

An inscription found at Rome on the Appian Way.

For Aulus Memmius Clarus.

Dedicated by Aulus Memmius Urbanus to his fellow freedman and his dearest
companion.
5 I cannot remember, my most honoured fellow freedman, there having been
any quarrel between us. By this epitaph, I call the gods of heaven and of the under-
world as witnesses that 10 together we stood on the slave-dealer’s platform, that
in the same household we were made freedmen, and that nothing ever separated
us until this your fatal day.

6.65 CIL I2 1570: Grave of a freedwoman

Larcia Horaea was freed by Publius Larcius Nicia and Saufeia, both of whom were them-
selves freedpersons (libertini), and became the wife of Publius Larcius Brocchus, their son.
This inscription was found at Traiectum (on the Liris) and may date to c. 45 BC.

Publius Larcius Nicia, freedman of Publius; Saufeia Thalea, freedwoman of a

matron; Lucius Larcius Rufus, son of Publius; Publius Larcius Brocchus, son of
Publius; Publia Horaea, freedwoman of Publius and his wife.

I was respected by the good and hated by no honourable woman.

I was obedient to my aged master and mistress, but to him I was dutiful,
For they gave me my freedom and he married me.
From when I was a girl I supervised the house for twenty years –
The whole of it. My final day gave its judgement,
And death took my spirit, but did not remove the splendour of my life.

SLAVES AND FREEDMEN OF THE IMPERIAL HOUSEHOLD

The Monumentum Liviae, a subterranean burial site on the Appian Way, gives some indica-
tion of the numbers of slaves and freedmen who served the imperial household. The site,
which was overseen by an association of slaves and freedmen and could hold well over

295
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
1,000 urns, contains the remains of some 90 persons who are specifically stated to belong
to Livia herself, not including their own children and slaves. Most of the staff were men,
except for Livia’s dressers and masseuse, and their named occupations show how special-
ised the staff positions could be. Among the personnel were a steward, financial and sec-
retarial officials, dressers and wardrobe-keepers, cooks, footmen, doctors, craftsmen and
jewel-setters, wetnurses and midwives, and individuals in charge of furniture and pictures,
as well as a pet child (‘delicium’) named C. Julius Prosopas, who had been freed and died
at the age of nine years.

6.66 Dio Roman History 53.30.3: Augustus’ doctor

Unfortunately, after Augustus’ recovery during the epidemic in the first half of 23 BC,
Musa was unable to cure Augustus’ son-in-law Marcellus, who had the same symptoms
(see doc. 15.36).

Even though he had lost the ability to deal with even the most essential matters, a
certain Antonius Musa cured him by using cold baths and drinks of cold water. In
return he received much money from Augustus and the senate and the right to wear
gold rings (he was a freedman), as well as immunity from taxation both for himself
and his fellow doctors, not only for those currently alive but for ones in the future.

6.67 CIL 6.4035: A statue-keeper

Agrypnus Maecenatianus, slave of Caesar Augustus, in charge of statues.

6.68 CIL 6.4045: A masseuse

Galene, slavewoman of Livia, masseuse.

6.69 ILS 1795: Augustus’ food-taster

To the genius of Coetus Herodianus, taster of the divine Augustus, afterwards
also bailiff in the gardens of Sallust, died 5 August in the consulship of Marcus
Cocceius Nerva and Gaius Vibius Rufinus. Julia Prima for her patron.

6.70 ILS 1877: Octavia’s ex-slave

Gaius Octavius Auctus, freedman of Octavia, sister of Augustus, records clerk;
Viccia Gnome, freedwoman of Gaius, his wife.

6.71 ILS 7888: Agrippa’s freedmen

Marcus Vipsanius Zoticus, freedman of Marcus, three times curator of the burial
club, gave urn 14 for himself and for Vipsania Stibas, freedwoman of Marcus,
club-member.
Vipsania Acume, freedwoman of the Marci, wife of Zoticus, slave of Marcus
Agrippa, who was in charge of the monuments of Marcus Agrippa.

296
 SLAVES AND FREEDMEN
6.72 ILS 1926: A family of freedmen
Quintus Fabius Cytisus, freedman of Africanus, quaestorian summoner (viator)
of the treasury, tribunician records clerk, quaestorian records clerk of the three
decuries.
Gaius Calpetanus Cryphius, freedman of Gaius, summoner of the sacred chick-
ens, first husband of Culicina.
Lucius Nymphidius Philomelus, freedman of Lucius, quaestorian records clerk
of the three decuries, dutiful and loyal brother of Cytisus.
Gaius Proculeius Heracleo, freedman of Gaius, father of Culicina.
Proculeia Stibas, mother of Culicina and of Livia Culicina, freedwoman of the
divine Augusta.
Plasidiena Agrestina, daughter of Lucius, wife of Calpetanus Livianus, chief
centurion.

297
 7

Women, Sexuality and the Family

The Roman family was typically an extended one, under the authority of the eld-
est male (the paterfamilias, or ‘father of the family’), and included all descendants
except those who had been emancipated (given their independence by the pater-
familias). Hence the family might comprise not only the head of the household
but children and grandchildren, the wives of married sons and grandsons, adopted
children, and slaves (doc. 7.1). The paterfamilias had almost total control over all
members of the household and was the only one to own property, unless he had
specifically allowed any of his sons a peculium, or fund, of their own or to enter
into legal contracts. This authority over family members was called patria potestas
(doc. 7.2). While he had total power to kill slaves as and when he chose, it appears
that his power of ‘life or death’ over his children was tempered by the custom of
consulting a family council beforehand. However, should the advice of the coun-
cil be in favour, then the offending family member would be put to death with no
guilt incurred by the father (docs 7.12, 14–15, 17). Should the paterfamilias wish,
he could emancipate any of his children, and a son would then be a paterfamilias
in his own right, just as if his father had died (doc. 7.4).
The status of wives varied and, while women needed a male guardian (doc.
7.5), they could either be in the power (manus, or ‘hand’) of their husband or
remain members of their original family and so under the control of their father
or brother. If married by coemptio (a pretend sale), the wife, together with her
property, came into the manus of her husband, giving her the status of one of her
husband’s daughters. However, if married by usus, or cohabitation, the wife could
avoid coming into her husband’s manus if she absented herself from his house-
hold for three nights in the year, and in this case her property remained entirely
separate from that of her husband; nor, should her husband die intestate, was she
considered a member of his family for inheritance purposes (docs 7.10–11). This
form of marriage was referred to in the XII Tables in the fifth century BC, and
by the first century at least it seems to have been the most common form. Where
a wife was not ‘in manu’ to her husband, it was the duty of the wife’s own rela-
tives, not her husband, to exact punishment if she were found guilty of criminal
behaviour, as with those women initiated into the Bacchanalia (docs 7.16–17).
Divorce was relatively easy in Rome (except for those married by confarreatio,

298
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
which was the religious form of marriage restricted to patricians) for both parties,
though the wife’s dowry had to be returned (with certain deductions for children
or misconduct: doc. 7.13).
In being financially independent of her husband, and in possessing far greater
freedom within the household than the citizen women of ancient Athens (doc.
7.28), the materfamilias (‘mother of the family’) had a significant role in the
upbringing of children and grandchildren and in the running of the home gener-
ally. In addition, women were not excluded from meeting men outside their own
families (docs 7.22–23). Stereotypical descriptions of the ‘ideal’ wife, especially
in funeral eulogies and epitaphs, do not disguise the great respect often felt for
wives and mothers and the influence they had over their children (docs 7.30–37).
The relationship between parents and daughters could be extremely close and
indicative of great affection and respect on either side (docs 7.24–27). Anecdotes
regarding marital disagreements, as with Cicero’s brother Quintus and his wife
Pomponia, suggest that many women also felt free to express their views (docs
7.38–41), while their freedom of movement and active social life is confirmed by
the evidence of numerous adulterous liaisons engaged in by upper-class Roman
women, as well as by their involvement in outlawed or non-mainstream religious
rites (docs 7.42–46, 52).
While adultery on the part of the wife was clear grounds for divorce (doc.
7.18), Roman men were free to engage in heterosexual love affairs, as long as they
steered clear of citizen women (docs 7.47–56), and there was no stigma involved
in visiting prostitutes (docs 7.62–64). Following the successful conquests of the
second century BC, many young men engaged in a luxurious and dilettantist
lifestyle, and the cost and availability of high-class prostitutes rose accordingly,
as did that of handsome young boys. While the Romans considered that passive
homosexuality degraded a citizen and made him, at best, an object of ridicule
(doc. 7.60), it was considered normal that Romans should use young male slaves
or prostitutes as passive sexual objects (docs 7.57–61). Indeed, the best-known
love poet of the Republic, Catullus, not only chronicled his supposed affair with
the faithless ‘Lesbia’ but eulogised the attractions of certain young boys (docs
7.47–49, 51, 61).
While women of the early Republic were given both a praenomen (first name)
of their own and the family nomen, by the middle Republic women are distin-
guished only by the female form of their father’s nomen (e.g., Tullia, daugh-
ter of Marcus Tullius Cicero). Where there were numerous daughters they could
be identified by numerals, such as Claudia Quinta (‘fifth’) and Aemilia Tertia
(‘third’), see docs 3.42, 7.30. However, by the late Republic, women could also
adopt the female form of their father’s cognomen and were beginning to be noticed
by historians as individuals, worthy of comment or criticism in their own right (as
with Sempronia: doc. 7.44). By the late Republic, women were well-documented
property owners, and, although historians were in the habit of trivialising their
interests because of their apparent desire for ornaments and cosmetics (docs 7.66–
68), it is clear that ornaments served as conspicous status symbols for the wives
and their husbands in certain religious contexts, such as festivals and processions

299
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
(doc. 7.70). In addition, women could wield significant power as consumers as
well as exercise de facto control over considerable financial investments – for
example, Cicero’s wife Terentia and Hortensia, the daughter of the orator
Hortensius (docs 7.69, 71–72, 74–75).
Roman women also played an extremely significant role in the worship of the
gods, with numerous festivals restricted to women-only participation, including
the important cult of the ‘Bona Dea’ (docs 7.86–88). Many of these cults were
concerned primarily with childbirth and fertility (docs 7.78–81, 83), while others
involved citizen women and prostitutes alike (docs 7.83). Women could also play
an important role in making supplication on behalf of the state in times of crisis
(docs 7.84–85). The six Vestal Virgins not only guarded the ‘sacred things’ in the
temple of Vesta and prepared the mola salsa (meal) for sacrifices but took part in
various state religious ceremonies (docs 7.88, 90). The welfare of the state was
bound up with the preservation of their chastity, and should a Vestal break her
vows it was seen as threatening the security of Rome itself (docs 7.89–91, 93).
Ancient sources: it is the jurists of the imperial period, such as Gaius, Ulpian and
Pomponius, who give definitions of the Roman family and the status of the persons
within it (docs 7.1–7, 9–10, 13). Otherwise, information on Roman families and their
lifestyles has to be gleaned from a variety of literary and historical sources, namely
Livy and Dionysius for early Rome and Plutarch and Valerius Maximus for anecdotal
evidence for family life and the position of women. Cicero’s Letters reveal details of
relationships within his own family, while epitaphs for wives and daughters (docs
7.23–5, 31–33, 37) also show the ways in which they were valued by husbands and
fathers. Comic dramatists (docs 7.38, 7.68) present humorous depictions of married
life, and Catullus (docs 7.46–51) sheds some light on heterosexual love in first-century
Rome. The Fasti of Ovid (43 BC–AD 17) provide a valuable survey of women’s reli-
gious festivals in the first half of the year (docs 7.79–83).

FAMILY LAW
In early Rome, gentes (sing.: gens), or clans, were formed by a number of related families
who possessed a common name and shared a common family cult (such as the Julian gens
or Claudian gens). In the absence of closer family members, the XII Tables laid down rules
on guardianship and intestate inheritance within such gentes (1.35).
Should a paterfamilias (plural: patres familiarum) die intestate (i.e., without a will), the
order of inheritance was, firstly, direct heirs, such as children, grandchildren, and his wife
(if ‘in manu’, i.e., in the power of her husband); then the closest agnate (family member in
the male line of succession), who was linked to the deceased through males (siblings and
paternal uncles); and, finally, gentiles, or clansmen, of the same name. In the first century
BC, cognates were increasingly recognised, so the order of inheritance then became chil-
dren, then husband or wife.

7.1 The definition of a Roman family

In theory the paterfamilias possessed unlimited power over his entire household until
he either died or emancipated his children. Until then, whatever the age of his children
or grandchildren, he was the only one with the right to own property, although he could

300
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
allow his offspring to have control of a fund called a peculium and incur financial obliga-
tions. After his death his descendants (should there be no other direct male ancestor living)
became sui iuris (independent) and the sons were in their own turn patres familiarum.

(i) Justinian Digest 50.16.195 (Ulpian)

1 Let us see how the word ‘familia’ should be understood, for it is understood in
various ways, as it refers to both property and persons; to property, as in a Law
of the XII Tables, where it is said, ‘Let the nearest agnate (the next of kin on the
father’s side) have the estate (familia).’ The term ‘familia’ also refers to persons, as
when the same law referring to a patron and his freedman says, ‘from this familia
into that familia’. In this instance, it is understood that the law refers to persons.
2 The term ‘familia’ also refers to a collection of persons, connected either by
their own legal rights vis-à-vis each other or by a more general kinship relation-
ship. We say that a family is connected by its own legal bond when several per-
sons are either by nature or by law subjected to the potestas of one person — for
example, the paterfamilias, materfamilias, and son and daughter under paternal
control, as well as their descendants, such as grandsons, granddaughters and their
successors. The person who has authority over the household is designated the
paterfamilias, and he is properly called so even if he has no son, for we desig-
nate not merely him as a person but also his legal right. We even style a minor
the paterfamilias when his father dies, and each of the persons who were under
the father’s control begins to have a separate household and take on the title of
paterfamilias. The same thing happens in the case of a son who is emancipated,
for he also begins to have his own familia when he becomes independent (sui
iuris). We also use the term ‘familia’ of all the agnates, because, even though the
paterfamilias may have died and each of them has a separate familia, still all who
were under the potestas of this one man can properly be said to belong to the same
familia, as they have sprung from the same house and gens (clan).
3 We are also accustomed to use the term familia for groups of slaves . . . In
the interdict ‘On violence’, the term familia includes not only all the slaves but
the children as well. 4 Again the term familia is used of all those persons who
are descended by blood from a single ancestor (as we speak of the Julian fam-
ily), referring as it were to persons derived from a single remembered origin. 5 A
woman, however, is the beginning and end of her own familia.

(ii) Gaius Institutes 1.196 (On the Provincial Edict XVI)

The head of the family is himself included in the term ‘familia’. It is clear that
children do not belong to the wife’s family, because anyone who is born to a
father does not belong to his mother’s family.

7.2 Gaius Institutes 1.48–49, 52, 55: Patria potestas

While technically the paterfamilias had the right of ‘life and death’ over members of his
household, in practice, a paterfamilias would not exercise the right of life and death over

301
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
his sons without consultation with a family council (consilium). A paterfamilias, however,
was quite free to disinherit his children (though, in general, feelings were against this).

48 Some persons are legally independent (sui iuris), others are subject to another
person (alieni iuris). 49 Of those subject to another person, some are in potestas
and others in manus to a husband. 52 Slaves are in the potestas of their mas-
ters . . . 55 Similarly, any of our children whom we have begotten in lawful mar-
riage are in our potestas. This right is peculiar to Roman citizens, for there are
almost no other peoples who have such power over their children as we have . . .

7.3 Gaius Institutes 1.97–107: Adoption

The law distinguished between the transfer of a son by his natural father to a new family
and adrogatio (where a person sui iuris, i.e., independent in his own right, placed himself
under another’s potestas). Both practices required public ratification, while testamentary
adoption, such as the adoption of Scipio Aemilianus and his brother Q. Fabius Maximus
Aemilianus, was a purely private practice. The families of P. Scipio Africanus and Q.
Fabius Maximus would otherwise have died out in a generation had they not adopted two
of the sons of L. Aemilius Paullus and Papiria.

97 It is not only natural children, as we have stated, who are in our potestas, but also
those whom we adopt. 98 Adoption takes place in two ways: either by the authority
of the people or by the imperium of a magistrate – as, for instance, a praetor.
99 We adopt, by the authority of the people, those who are their own masters,
and this kind of adoption is called ‘arrogation’, for the reason that he who does the
adopting is asked, that is to say ‘arrogated’, whether he desires to have the person
whom he intends to adopt as his lawful son; and he who is adopted is asked whether
he is willing for this to take place; and the assembled people are asked whether they
direct this to take place. By the command of the magistrate we adopt those who are
under the potestas of their parents, whether they are in the first degree of descend-
ants, such as a son or a daughter, or whether they belong to an inferior degree, such
as a grandson, a granddaughter, a great-grandson or a great-granddaughter.
100 Adoption by the authority of the people can take place only at Rome, while
the other method generally takes place in the provinces before the provincial gover-
nors. 101 The prevailing view is that women cannot be adopted by the authority of
the people; but women may be adopted in the tribunal of the praetor at Rome or in
the provinces in the tribunal of the proconsul or legate . . . 103 It is a rule common to
both kinds of adoption that persons who are incapable of begetting children, such as
eunuchs, can adopt. 104 Women, however, cannot adopt other persons in any way
because they do not have potestas even over their natural children. 105 Similarly, if
anyone adopts another person, either by the vote of the people or by the consent of
the praetor or provincial governor, he can give the son he has adopted in adoption
to another. 106 It is debatable, however, with reference to both forms of adoption,
whether a person can adopt someone who is older than himself.
107 It is peculiar to that kind of adoption which takes place by the vote of the
people that, if he who gives himself to be adopted has children under his control,

302
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
he will not only himself be subject to the authority of the adopter, but his children
will also be under the latter’s authority, as grandchildren.

7.4 Gaius Institutes 1.116–20: Emancipation of family members

Sons could be disadvantaged by emancipation because they would lose their chance of
inheritance if their father died intestate.

116 We now have to explain which persons are subject to mancipation (in man-
cipio). 117 All children, whether male or female, who are under the potestas of
their father, can be mancipated by him in the same way as slaves.
118 The same rule of law applies to anyone who is in the control of another,
and they can be mancipated in the same way by those to whom they have been
sold, just as children may be mancipated by their father; also, while a woman who
is married to the purchaser may occupy only the place of his daughter, even if she
should not be married to him, and not occupy the position of his daughter, she can
still be mancipated by him. 118a In general, mancipation takes place either by
parents or by those who obtain possession by coemptio, when the parents and the
so-called purchasers wish to free the persons from their authority, as will appear
more clearly below.
119 Mancipation, as stated above, is a kind of fictitious sale, and the law gov-
erning it is peculiar to Roman citizens. The ceremony is as follows: not fewer
than five witnesses (who must be Roman citizens above the age of puberty) are
assembled, plus another person of the same status who holds a brass balance in his
hand and is styled the ‘balance-holder.’ The so-called purchaser, holding a piece
of bronze in his hands, then states:
‘I declare that this man belongs to me by my right as a Roman citizen. Let him be
purchased by me with this piece of bronze and bronze balance.’ Then he strikes the
scales with the piece of bronze and gives it to the so-called seller as purchase money.
120 In this way both slaves and free persons are mancipated, as well as any
animals that are subject to sale, including oxen, horses, mules and donkeys, and
also urban and country estates.

7.5 Ulpian Rules 11.1, 27: Guardianship

All women, if they had no father living or were not in manu to a husband, had a tutor.
Freedwomen had their patron as their guardian. Even widows could not have potestas
over their children, so their children needed a tutor. Women who were sui iuris could
inherit and receive legacies, and, while in early Rome women were unable to make a
will, later they could do so with their guardian’s consent. For the will of Hispala, a freed-
woman, see doc. 7.63.

1 Guardians are appointed for both males and females: only for males who have
not yet reached the age of puberty, because of their infirmity of age, but for
females both before and after puberty because of the weakness of their sex, as
well as their ignorance of business matters.

303
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
27 A woman needs the approval of her guardian in transactions of this kind –
that is, if she wishes to bring a legal action; if she accepts a legal or financial
obligation; if she permits a freedwoman of hers to cohabit with another’s slave;
or if she wishes to alienate property transferable by mancipation. The guardian’s
approval is also required by wards for the alienation of property which is not
transferable by mancipation.

7.6 Justinian Digest 50.17.2 (Ulpian On Sabinus): Second-class citizens

Women are excluded from all civil and public offices; as a result they cannot sit on
juries, or perform the duties of magistrates, or bring actions in court, or be guarantors
for others, or act as advocates. Similarly children should not hold any public office.

THE FORMALITIES OF MARRIAGE

The reason for matrimony was, in legal terms, in order to have children. Adult males were
asked by the censors, ‘To the best of your knowledge and belief, do you have a wife?’ (Gell.
4.20.3). There were three types of marriage in Rome: confarreatio, supposedly established by
Romulus, was the only religious marriage performed and allowed no divorce. Certain priests,
such as the rex sacrorum and flamen dialis, had to be married by confarreatio (as did their
parents), and it was presumably restricted to patricians. Coemptio was a fictitious sale of a
girl to her husband which brought the wife in ‘manus’, giving her the status in her new family
of a daughter, subject to her husband’s potestas (see doc.7.10, cf. 7.4). In ‘usus’, the normal
form of marriage in the late Republic, cohabitation for a year was changed into a manus form
of marriage. The wife could, however, avoid passing into her husband’s manus if she stayed
away for three nights during the year (a provision laid down by the XII Tables: doc. 1.38).

7.7 Justinian Digest 23.1.4, 12 (Ulpian On Sabinus): Betrothal

The minimum legal age at marriage for girls was 12 and for boys 14, and before Augustus
(doc. 15.23) betrothals could take place at any age. Though many aristocratic girls may
have married young (between 12 and 15), those outside the elite seem to have married
later. Verbal consent between the parties and patres familiarum was all that was necessary,
though a written contract and dowry arrangements might be formalised.

4 Mere consent is sufficient in contracting a betrothal. It is laid down that parties

who are absent can be betrothed, and this takes place every day.
12 A girl who does not obviously resist the will of her father is understood
to give her consent. A daughter is allowed to refuse her consent to her father’s
wishes only where he selects someone for her husband who is unworthy because
of his habits or because he is of infamous character.

7.8 Livy History of Rome 38.57.5–8: A materfamilias is affronted

Cornelia, younger daughter of Scipio Africanus and Aemilia (daughter of L. Aemilius
Paullus who died at Cannae), was betrothed to Ti. Gracchus the elder in 187. This extract
suggests that a wife expected to be consulted on the selection of a husband for her daughter.

304
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
5 The story goes that the senate, which had happened to dine that day on the
Capitoline hill, rose up and begged that during the banquet Africanus should
betroth his daughter to Gracchus. 6 When the betrothal contract had been duly
made on this public occasion, Scipio returned home and told his wife Aemilia that
he had betrothed their younger daughter. 7 She, indignant as any woman would
naturally be at not being consulted about their daughter, who was hers as well as
his, added that the mother ought to be consulted on the matter, even if his choice
were Tiberius Gracchus. 8 Scipio, pleased that they agreed on this, replied that it
was to Gracchus that he had betrothed her.

7.9 Justinian Digest 23.3.6 (Pomponius On Sabinus): The dowry

While the husband (or his paterfamilias) became the owner of the wife’s dowry, this was
returnable on death or divorce. Deductions could be made from the dowry for the wife’s
misconduct (i.e., one-sixth for adultery) or to provide for children (one-sixth for each child
up to one half of the total). While the dowry could be used to help underwrite some house-
hold expenses, it remained the wife’s, and any non-dotal property the wife inherited or
received remained under her own control as long as she was not in manu. Scipio Africanus
gave each of his daughters a dowry of 50 talents.

Relief is granted to the father by law, for, when he has lost his daughter, he is
entitled to the return of the dowry which he provided, and this is done for his con-
solation, so he may not suffer the loss of both his daughter and the money.

7.10 Gaius Institutes 1.108–15b, 136–37a: Marriage with manus

The paterfamilias’ power over his wife and daughter(s)-in-law was called manus. For a
Roman girl, marriage in manu meant she became part of her husband’s family with rights
equivalent to those of his daughters (i.e., if he died intestate she succeeded as if she were an
agnate). Everything she owned belonged to her husband, being counted as dowry, but any
property, together with her dowry, had to be returned on divorce or the husband’s death. If
a wife was under her husband’s manus, he could appoint a tutor for her in his will or allow
her to choose one for herself. If there were children, the property was divided between
widow and children equally. However, if they were married by free marriage, the wife did
not inherit unless specific provisions were made in the will, and her property remained
entirely separate from that of her husband.

108 Let us now consider persons who are in manus, which is another right pecu-
liar to Roman citizens. 109 While both males and females are found in potestas,
only females can come into manus. 110 In olden days, women passed into manus
in three ways, by usus, confarreatio and coemptio. 111 A woman used to pass into
her husband’s manus by usus if she cohabited with him continuously for a year,
the rationale being that she, as it were, had been acquired by usucapio through
possession during one year and so passed into her husband’s family, where she
occupied the place of a daughter. Accordingly it was provided by the law of the
XII Tables that any woman who did not wish to come into her husband’s manus
in this way should absent herself from him for three nights in each year and thus

305
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
interrupt the usus during each year. But the whole of this institution has been
abolished partly by statutes and partly by disuse.
112 Women come into the manus of their husbands by confarreatio, through a
kind of sacrifice made to Jupiter Farreus, in which the spelt cake (far), from which
the ceremony obtains its name, is employed. Additionally, in the course of the
ceremony, many other rituals are performed and enacted, accompanied by special
formal words, in the presence of ten witnesses. This institution is still in existence
today, for the major flamens – that is, those of Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus, as well
as the rex sacrorum – can be selected only from persons born of marriages cel-
ebrated by confarreatio. Further, these persons themselves cannot serve as priests
unless they are married by confarreatio.
113 When women come into the manus of their husbands by coemptio, it takes
the form of a mancipation, that is, a sort of fictitious sale, in which the man pur-
chases the woman who comes into his manus in the presence of not fewer than
five witnesses, who must be Roman citizens over the age of puberty, and also of
a balance-holder.
114 Through this act of sale a woman can perform a coemptio not only with
her husband but also with a stranger: that is to say, the coemptio takes place for the
purpose of either marriage or a trust. A woman who disposes of herself in this way
to her husband for the purpose of occupying the place of his daughter is said to have
performed a coemptio for matrimonial purposes; but where she does this for some
other purpose, either with a husband or with a stranger, for instance in order to avoid
a guardianship, she is said to have made a coemptio for fiduciary purposes.
115 What takes place is as follows: if a woman wishes to get rid of her exist-
ing guardian and obtain another, she makes this coemptio of herself with their
authority; her purchaser then sells her again to the person she chooses as her
guardian, and he manumits her by the ceremony of the praetor, and by this means
becomes her guardian. He is designated a fiduciary guardian, as shown below.
115a Formerly fiduciary coemptio was performed for the purpose of acquiring
power to make a will, for women, with certain exceptions, did not then have the
right to make a will unless they had made a coemptio and been resold and manu-
mitted . . . 115b Even if a woman makes a fiduciary coemptio with her husband,
she still occupies the place of his daughter; for if a wife comes into the manus of
her husband for any reason whatsoever, it is accepted that she acquires the rights
of a daughter.
136 A woman placed in the manus of her husband by confarreatio is not, for
this reason, currently released from paternal potestas unless coemptio has been
performed . . . However, a woman placed in the manus of her husband by coemp-
tio is freed from her father’s potestas; and it is the same whether she is placed in
the manus of her husband or that of a stranger, although only those who are in the
manus of their husbands are considered to occupy the place of daughters.
137 Women placed in the manus of their husbands by coemptio cease to be sub-
ject to this authority in the same way as daughters under their father’s potestas –
that is, either through the death of the person in whose power they are or because
he has been forbidden water and fire (i.e., exiled).

306
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
137a They also cease to be in the manus of their husbands by a single mancipa-
tion; and if emancipated by a sale they become independent (sui iuris). A woman
who has concluded a coemptio with a stranger can compel him to sell her again to
anyone whom she chooses, but a woman who has been sold to her husband, in whose
manus she is, cannot compel him to do so, any more than a daughter can compel her
father, even if adopted. A woman, however, can, by serving notice of divorce, force
her husband to release her, just as if she had never been married to him.

7.11 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 17.6.1, 9–10: A wife’s property

In his support for the Voconian law (169 BC, doc. 7.69), Cato criticises the economic
power held by wives who are clearly not married in manu. The wife and husband’s fortunes
were entirely separate and the husband was not responsible for his wife’s debts if she was
not ‘in manu’.

1 Marcus Cato, when supporting the Voconian law, spoke as follows: ‘To start with,
the woman brings a large dowry; then she retains a large sum of money, which she
doesn’t entrust to her husband’s control but instead lends to him. Then, later on,
when she is angry with him, she orders a slave of her own to follow him around
and hound him for the money back . . . ’ 9 So, from that property of her own, which
she retained after the dowry was given, she lent her husband money. 10 When she
happens to be angry with her husband, she appoints to dun him for it a slave of her
own – that is, a slave in her possession whom she had kept back with the rest of the
money and not given as part of her dowry, but retained; for it would be inappropri-
ate for the woman to give such an order to her husband’s slave, but only to her own.

7.12 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 2.25.6–27.1:

Romulus’ laws
Carvilius Ruga was not of course the first to divorce his wife, but it appears that this epi-
sode, in 231 BC, was the first legal case in Rome over the return of a wife’s dowry. For the
selling of sons into slavery, see doc. 1.34.

25.6 These offences (of a wife) were judged by her relatives together with her
husband: among them were adultery and, what would seem to the Greeks to be the
least of all faults, if a wife was found to have drunk wine. For Romulus allowed
them to punish both these offences with death, as the worst crimes women could
commit, considering adultery the beginning of madness and drunkenness of adul-
tery. 7 And both these continued for a long time to be met by the Romans with
implacable wrath. The length of time is witness to the excellence of the law con-
cerning women. For it is agreed that in 520 years no marriage was dissolved at
Rome; and in the 137th Olympiad, when Marcus Pomponius and Gaius Papirius
were consuls (231 BC), the first man to divorce his wife was Spurius Carvilius, a
man of distinction, who was compelled by the censors to swear that he had mar-
ried his wife for the sake of children (his wife was barren), and who was hated
for this deed by the people for ever after, although it was done out of necessity.

307
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
26.1 These, then, are the excellent laws which Romulus brought in regarding
women, by which he made them behave better towards their husbands, but those
which he introduced with regard to the respectful and dutiful behaviour of chil-
dren, so that they should honour their parents by doing and saying whatever they
might order them to do, were even more honourable and dignified than these and
greatly superior to our own laws . . . 4 The Romans’ law-giver granted the Roman
father almost total power over his son, valid through the whole of his life, whether
he chose to imprison him, to whip him, to put him in chains to work in the fields,
or even to kill him, even if the son was already involved in public affairs, counted
among the highest magistrates, and lauded for his zeal towards the state . . . 27.1
And the Romans’ law-giver did not even stop the father’s power at that point, but
allowed the father to sell his son, without worrying whether this permission might
be considered as cruel and harsher than natural affection would warrant. And –
what anyone who has been educated in the relaxed customs of the Greeks would
marvel at as savage and tyrannical – he even permitted the father to make a profit
by selling his son up to three times, thus giving more power to a father over his
son than to a master over his slaves.

7.13 Justinian Digest 17.24.1, 2, 10: Divorce

It appears that in the early Republic divorce was permitted only in specific cases (doc.
7.12). The XII Tables (4.3) recognised divorce, but there is no evidence on what grounds.
Persons who were sui iuris could terminate their own marriage, but those in potestas needed
the consent of their paterfamilias. A paterfamilias could bring about a son’s divorce, even
against his son’s wishes.

(i) Paulus On the Edict 35

Marriage is dissolved by divorce, death or captivity, or by any other kind of servi-

tude which may happen to be imposed upon either of the parties.

(ii) Gaius On the Provincial Edict 11

The word divorce is derived either from difference of opinion or because those who
dissolve their marriage go different ways. 1 In cases of repudiation, that is to say,
in renunciation of marriage, the following words are employed: ‘keep your prop-
erty’ or ‘keep the management of your property’. 2 For the purpose of dissolving
betrothals, it is certain that a renunciation must be made, in which case the following
words are used, namely: ‘I will not accept your conditions.’ 3 It makes no difference
whether the renunciation takes place in the presence or in the absence of the person
under whose control one of the parties may be, or of him who is under that control.

(iii) Modestinus Rules 1

A freedwoman who has married her patron cannot divorce herself from him with-
out his consent, unless she has been manumitted under the terms of a trust, and
then she can do so even though she is his freedwoman.

308
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
OLD-FASHIONED FAMILIES

7.14 Valerius Maximus On Memorable Deeds 5.8.1–3:

Traditional fathers
Here are three examples of severe fathers from 509, 485 and 140 BC. L. Junius Brutus
was one of the Republic’s first consuls, holding the office in 509 BC; Spurius Cassius was
father of Sp. Cassius Vicellinus, consul (not tribune) in 486 (also in 502 and 493). Brutus,
an example of parental severity, executed his son as consul, not as a father, and so did not
consult a family consilium; T. Manlius Torquatus, as consul in 340 (doc. 7.15), put his son
to death for disobeying orders. In this passage his descendant convicted his son of misgov-
ernment in 140 BC and drove him to suicide.

1 Lucius Brutus’ glory is equal to that of Romulus, since the latter founded the
city, while the former established its freedom. While he held supreme authority,
his sons attempted to restore the rule of Tarquin, whom he had himself driven out –
he ordered that they be arrested, beaten with rods in front of the tribunal, tied to
a stake, and beheaded with an axe. He divested himself of the role of father to
take on that of consul and chose to live childless rather than to fail to exact public
retribution. 2 Cassius emulated his example. When his son, Spurius Cassius, who,
as tribune of the plebs, had been the first to propose agrarian legislation and gain
popular support in many other ways, laid down his office, Cassius summoned a
council of relatives and friends and condemned him in his house on the charge of
aiming at kingship. He ordered him to be flogged and executed and dedicated his
property to Ceres. 3 In a similar case Titus Manlius Torquatus, a man of unprec-
edented prestige on account of his many exceptional qualities, as well as highly
knowledgeable in both civil law and priestly rituals, did not believe that he needed
even a counsel of relatives and friends: for when Macedonia presented to the sen-
ate via envoys complaints against his son Decimus Silanus, who had governed
that province, he asked the senators to come to no decision on that matter before
he had himself looked into the case of the Macedonians and his son. Then, under-
taking his inquiry with the fullest approval both of that most august order and of
those who had come with the complaint, he sat in his house alone and for two
whole days listening to both sides, and on the third day, after the most detailed
and exhaustive hearing of witnesses, he gave his verdict as follows: ‘Since it has
been proved to my judgement that my son Silanus accepted bribes from our allies,
I adjudge him unworthy of our state and of my house and command him immedi-
ately to leave my sight.’ Shocked by his father’s awful verdict, Silanus could not
endure to look any longer on the light of day and killed himself by hanging the
following night. Torquatus had now enacted the part of a severe and conscientious
judge, the state had been satisfied, Macedonia had its revenge, and the father’s
severity could have been alleviated by the son’s repentant death – but he did not
take part in the young man’s last rights, and, at the exact time when the funeral
was being conducted, gave his attention to those wishing to consult him: for he
saw that the mask of Torquatus the Imperious himself, conspicuous in its severity,
was displayed in the very atrium in which he was sitting, and as a very sagacious

309
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
man he realised that the effigies of one’s ancestors, with their designations, are
usually placed in the first part of the house to ensure that their descendants should
not only read of their virtues but imitate them.

7.15 Livy History of Rome 7.4.4–7: An imperious paterfamilias

Lucius Manlius ‘Imperiosus’ was dictator in 363 BC. His son grew up to be the famous Titus
Manlius Torquatus, who as consul put his own son to death for disobeying orders in 340.

4 Among other charges, the tribune brought up Manlius’ treatment of his son,
who, though found guilty of no misconduct, had been banished from his city,
home and household gods, from the forum, public view, and the company of his
equals, and consigned to servile labour, all but in a prison or penitentiary, 5 where
this young man of the highest rank and son of a dictator could learn by daily mis-
ery how truly ‘imperious’ his father was. And what was his fault? 6 That he was
not sufficiently quick with words and not ready with his tongue! Should his father
not have tried to help this natural infirmity, if he had any humanity in him, rather
than chastising it and making it conspicuous by his persecution? . . . 7 But Lucius
Manlius aggravated his son’s difficulties by adding to them, putting heavier pres-
sure on his natural backwardness, and, if there were any spark of natural ability in
him, quenching it by his uncultivated lifestyle and rustic upbringing among cows
and sheep.

7.16 Livy History of Rome 39.17.5–6, 18.5–6: The Bacchanalia

For the full narrative of the events of 186 BC, see doc. 3.65.

17.5 The names of many suspects were reported to the authorities, and some
of these, both men and women, committed suicide. 6 More than 7,000 men
and women were said to have been involved in the conspiracy . . . 18.5 More
were killed than thrown into prison. There was an immense number of men
and women in both categories. 6 Convicted women were handed over to their
family, or to those whose authority they were under, so that these could punish
them privately: if there was no appropriate person to exact the punishment, it
was inflicted by the state.

7.17 Valerius Maximus On Memorable Deeds 6.3.8–9: Wife-beating

Both Publicia and Licinia were supposed to have poisoned their husbands and were put
to death by their own relatives. This took place c. 154–150 BC. As with the Bacchanalia,
it appears that husbands had no right to kill their wives without the consent of their blood
relatives, even if they were only in manu. Wine-drinking by women was thought to lead to
adultery (cf. docs 7.12, 18).

8 Publicia, who had poisoned her husband, the consul Postumius Albinus (cos.
154), and Licinia, who had done the same to her husband, Claudius Asellus, were

310
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
strangled by the decree of their relatives: for those men of severity did not think
that in so obvious a crime they should wait for a lengthy public enquiry. And so
they made haste to punish the guilty, whom they would have defended had they
been innocent. 9 Their severity was aroused to exact punishment by a great crime,
that of Egnatius Mecennius, for a far slighter reason. He beat his wife to death
with a cudgel because she had drunk some wine, and his action found no one to
prosecute or even criticise it, for all the best men considered that the penalty she
had paid to injured sobriety was a good precedent. For assuredly any woman who
desires to drink wine without moderation closes the door to all virtues and opens
it to all vices.

7.18 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 10.23.1–5: Alcohol and adultery

This passage cites a speech of Marcus Porcius Cato the Elder. For adulterous wives and
their punishments, see docs 7.42–46; Cato here highlights the double standards of morality
in Rome.

1 Those who have written about the life and culture of the Roman people say
that the women of Rome and Latium ‘lived an abstemious life’ – that is, that they
always abstained from wine, which in the early language was called temetum, and
that it was customary for them to kiss their relations for the purpose of detection,
so that, if they had been drinking, the smell would give this away. 2 But they say
that the women were accustomed to drink the second pressing, raisin wine, myr-
rhed wine and other drinks of that kind which taste sweet. 3 Indeed, these things
are related in those books which I have mentioned, but Marcus Cato states that
women were not only censured but also punished by a judge no less severely if
they had drunk wine than if they had committed a heinous act such as adultery. 4 I
have copied the words of Marcus Cato from his speech On the Dowry, in which it
is also stated that husbands had the right to kill wives caught in adultery: ‘When a
husband’, he says, ‘divorces his wife, he judges the woman as a censor does, and
has full powers if she has committed any wrong or disgraceful act; she is punished
if she has drunk wine; if she has done wrong with another man, she is condemned
to death.’ 5 However, regarding the right to put her to death, he wrote as follows:
‘If you should catch your wife in adultery, you may with impunity put her to death
without a trial; but, if you should commit adultery or indecent acts, she should not
dare to lay a finger on you, nor is it lawful.’

7.19 Livy Periochae 68: The parricide’s punishment

The summary of Livy is presumably referring to the first historical occasion (in 101 BC) on
which this punishment was inflicted; Tarquinius Superbus used this punishment for crimes
against religion (doc. 3.38). The penalty for parricide was to be sewn alive in a sack with a
dog, cock, ape and viper and thrown in the river.

Publicius Malleolus, who had killed his mother, was the first to be sewn up in a
sack and thrown into the sea.

311
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
Child mortality in the first week of life was very high; as a result girls were not named
until their eighth day, boys on their ninth, before which they were ‘more like a plant than
an animal’ (Plut. Rom. Quest. 102). Perhaps some 25 to 30 per cent of those born alive died
in their first year and 50 per cent before they were ten. Legally speaking, children under
12 months were not to be mourned. The XII Tables laid down that an especially deformed
child was to be quickly killed (doc. 1.34). The poor were often constrained by poverty to
abandon children: see doc. 8.10 for the poor before 133 BC. It was the father’s decision
whether to keep or abandon the new baby by ‘picking him up’ and thus accepting him into
the family: see doc. 1.35.

7.20 Plutarch Life of Cato the Elder 17.7, 20.1–3: Cato’s family
This provides an interesting sidelight on the austere Cato (234–149 BC): a reactionary, he
represented old Roman virtues and respect for traditional practices. His wife was Licinia;
for Cato’s regulation of public morals as censor, cf. doc. 7.58.

17.7 Cato expelled another person from the senate who was thought to have a
good chance of winning the consulship, Manilius, because he kissed his wife in
daytime with his daughter watching. For his own part, he said, he never kissed
his wife except during loud thunder; and it was a joke of his to say that he was a
happy man when it thundered.
20.1 He was also a good father, a kindly husband, and a manager not easily to
be despised, nor did he give only a subsidiary attention to this, as a matter of little
or no importance. So I think I should recount appropriate episodes of his conduct
in such matters. 2 He married a wife who was more well-born than rich, consider-
ing that, although both alike may possess dignity and pride, the high-born in their
fear of disgrace are more obedient to their husbands in all that is honourable. 3
He used to say that the man who struck his wife or child laid hands on the most
sacred of objects. He also used to say that he thought it was more praiseworthy to
be a good husband than a great senator; and that there was nothing else to admire
in Socrates in olden times except that he always treated his bad-tempered wife and
stupid sons with kindness and gentleness.

7.21 Plutarch Life of Cato the Elder 20.4–7: Cato’s son

Cato’s history, the Origines, covered the history of towns in Italy, especially Rome. This
was the first history of Italy in Latin; only fragments survive today.

4 Once his son was born, Cato considered no business so urgent, except gov-
ernment duties, as to prevent him from being there while his wife was bath-
ing and swaddling the baby. 5 She nursed it with her own milk and often gave
her breast to her slaves’ infants, so that from this common nurture they should
develop goodwill towards her son. And when the child was old enough to learn,
Cato himself took him in hand and taught him to read, even though he had an
accomplished slave, called Chilon, who was a teacher and had taught many boys;
6 Cato, however, did not think it right, as he himself says, for his son to be told

312
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
off by a slave, or to have his ears pulled when he was slow at learning, or to owe
so priceless a thing as his education to a slave. Therefore, he was himself his read-
ing teacher, his law teacher, his athletics coach, teaching his son not only to hurl
a javelin, fight in armour, and ride a horse but also to box, endure both heat and
cold, and swim strongly through the eddies and surges of the river. 7 He also says
that he wrote his history with his own hand and in large letters so his son might
have the chance to become acquainted at home with Rome’s ancestral traditions;
and he states that he was careful to avoid indecent language no less in his son’s
presence than in that of the holy virgins who are called Vestals.

7.22 Cicero Brutus 210–11: Women’s role as educators

See doc. 8.25 for fragments of a letter attributed to Cornelia. Laelia is the daughter of Gaius
Laelius (cos. 140 BC and friend of Scipio Aemilianus). She married Q. Mucius Scaevola
‘the Augur’ (cos. 117). One of her daughters, the Muciae, married M’. Acilius Glabrio, the
other Lucius Licinius Crassus (cos. 95); one of her granddaughters, the Liciniae, married P.
Cornelius Scipio Nasica and was the mother of Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (cos. 52).

210 It makes a great difference what kind of speakers one hears at home every day,
the people whom one has been talking with from childhood, and the way in which
fathers, tutors and even mothers speak. 211 I have read the letters of Cornelia,
mother of the Gracchi; it is clear that her sons were not so much raised at her
breast as through her conversation. I have often frequently heard Laelia, daughter
of Gaius, speak; clearly her speech was coloured by her father’s refinement, and
I have also heard her daughters, both Muciae, whose speech I knew well, and
her granddaughters the Liciniae, one of whom, the wife of Scipio, I expect you,
Brutus, have also sometimes heard speak. ‘Yes, with pleasure’, replied Brutus,
‘and the more so, as she was Lucius Crassus’ daughter.’

7.23 ILS 8394: Eulogy for Murdia, a perfect mother

This first-century BC marble tablet in honour of Murdia records a funerary eulogy by
the son of her first marriage. On her death she left her money to her second husband but
ensured that her son by her first husband received the money she had inherited from his
father and that all her sons were treated equally in her will.

She made all her sons equal heirs and gave her daughter a share. Her maternal
love was demonstrated by her care for her children and their sharing equally. She
left a specified sum to her husband so that the dowry, which was his right, should
be increased by the acknowledgement of her good opinion. Recalling the memory
of my father, and following the advice of that and her own trustworthiness, she
left me a legacy after a valuation had been made, not to show preference for me
over my brothers 10 and insult them but because, mindful of my father’s gener-
osity, she thought what she had, at her husband’s discretion, received from my
patrimony ought to be returned to me, so that, after preserving it in her usus, she
might restore it to my ownership.

313
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
This was typical of her behaviour; she was married by her parents to wor-
thy men; she safeguarded her marriages by her obedience and probity; as a wife,
she was the more welcome for her merits, the more beloved for her fidelity, and
left the more honoured for her discretion. After her death, she was unanimously
praised by the citizens for the division of her property, which demonstrated her
gratitude and trustworthiness towards her husbands, her fairness towards her chil-
dren, and her genuine love of justice.
20 Eulogies of all good women are generally straightforward and similar to
each other, because the innate merits women safeguard require very little variety of
expression, and it is enough that all of them have behaved in the same way deserving
of good repute. As it would be a hard task to discover new praises for a wife, since
her life is troubled by less diversity, stock phrases have necessarily to be employed,
in case any of the proper maxims be left out and discredit all the rest.
My mother, who was dearer to me than anything, deserved all the more praise
for being the equal of all respectable women with regard to her modesty, probity,
chastity, obedience, skill at wool-working, diligence and trustworthiness, nor was
she second to anyone when her virtue, 30 industry and wisdom were put to the
test, showing herself to be outstanding. . . .

7.24 CIL I2 1837: A beloved daughter

This epitaph was discovered at Monteleone; cf. doc. 3.42 for Aemilius Paullus and Tertia.

Posilla Senenia, daughter of Quartus, and Quarta Senenia, freedwoman of Gaius.

Stranger, stop and at the same time read through what is written here:
A mother was not permitted to enjoy her only daughter,
On whom some god or other, I believe, cast an evil eye.
Since it was not permitted for her to be adorned by her mother while she was
alive,
She did this after her death, as was right, at the end of her time,
And honoured with a monument the girl whom she had loved.

7.25 CIL I2 1222: A beloved daughter (2)

A marble tablet found at Rome.

If anyone has a grief to add to mine,

Let him stand here and weep with not a few tears.
A sorrowful parent has here laid to rest his only daughter,
Nymphe, whom he cherished and enjoyed with tender love,
While the shortened time of the Fates allowed it.
She, so dear to her family, has now been snatched from her home and is cov-
ered with earth.
Her lovely face and figure praised as lovely
Are all now insubstantial shadow and her bones just a little ash.

314
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
7.26 [Cicero] Letters to his Friends 4.5.1, 4–6: A letter of condolence
Tullia, Cicero’s only daughter and eldest child, born sometime between 79 and 76/5 BC,
was married to C. Calpurnius Piso Frugi between 63 and 58, to Furius Crassipes in 56
(divorced in 51), and then to P. Cornelius Dolabella in 50. Servius Sulpicius Rufus (gov-
ernor of Greece) is writing a letter of condolence to Cicero in mid-March 45, on the death
of Tullia after the birth of her second son by Dolabella: both boys subsequently died. Her
death devastated Cicero.

Servius to Cicero, greetings.

1 After the news about the death of your daughter Tullia reached me, I was
really, as I ought to have been, deeply and painfully sorry, and I felt that this
calamity had struck us both. If I had been in Rome, I would have been with you
and shown my grief to you in person. . . .
4 Recently, so many distinguished men died at the same time, so great a weak-
ening of the power of the Roman state occurred, all our provinces were shaken
to their depths; can you be moved so deeply by the loss of the poor soul of one
poor woman? Even if she had not died now, she must nevertheless have died in
a few years because she was mortal. 5 You too must remove your mind and your
thought from these things and dwell instead on matters which are worthy of your
character: that she lived as long as was good for her, that is, she lived while there
was a Republic; she saw you, her father, praetor, consul and augur; she was mar-
ried to young men from noble families; she enjoyed almost all of life’s blessings;
and, when the Republic died, she left life. How then, can you or she quarrel with
Fortune on this account? . . .
6 There is no grief which the passage of time does not lessen or soften. It is
unworthy of you to wait for the time to pass rather than anticipating it with your
own good sense. If any consciousness remains in those below, her love for you
and her dutiful devotion to all her family were such that she certainly does not
wish you to act like this. Yield to your dead daughter, yield to others, your friends
and family, who are distressed because of your grief, yield to your country so that,
if need arises, it can use your service and counsel.

7.27 Cicero Letters to Atticus 12.46: Tullia’s death

Tullia died at Cicero’s villa at Tusculum in mid-February 45 BC, a month after giving birth
to her second son. Cicero wrote this letter from his house at Lanuvium on 15 May 45.

I think I shall overcome my feelings and go from Lanuvium to Tusculum. For I

must either give up my property there forever (since my sorrow will remain the
same, although it may be better hidden) or else realise that it doesn’t matter in
the slightest whether I go there now or in ten years. Certainly it will not possibly
remind me of her any more than do the thoughts that consume me perpetually,
day and night. You will ask, ‘Is there no help in books?’ In this case, I am afraid,
they actually make it worse; perhaps I would have been tougher without. For in an
educated mind there is nothing rough or unfeeling.

315
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
WIVES AND THEIR ROLE
As with Murdia (doc. 7.23), stereotypes of women’s epitaphs include the terms old-
fashioned, domestic, chaste, obedient, charming, not extravagant or given to orna-
mentation, religious, and devoted to household work. The term univira (married to only
one man) was a point of especial honour.

7.28 Cornelius Nepos Great Generals Preface 6–7: Roman versus

Greek women
While the Roman matron might spend much of her time at home, she was not secluded
there or kept from the sight of visitors.

6 Much of what we consider to be respectable the Greeks think to be disgraceful.

What Roman, for example, would be embarrassed at taking his wife to a din-
ner party? What wife (materfamilias) does not hold the place of honour in her
house and circulate in full public view? 7 Things are very different in Greece;
there women are not admitted to dinner parties, except for ones with just family
members, and she stays in the more retired part of the house called the ‘women’s
apartments’, to which no man has access unless he is a close relative.

7.29 Valerius Maximus On Memorable Deeds 6.7.1: A blind eye

A ‘good’ wife obviously considered it beneath her to comment on her husband’s love affairs
within the household (whether with male or female slaves); Aemilia is here unusual, not
in the fact that she ignores the liaison, but because she rewards the girl of her own accord.
Africanus died in 183 BC.

To touch on wifely fidelity too, Tertia Aemilia, wife of the elder Africanus and
mother of Cornelia of the Gracchi, was so accommodating and forbearing that,
although she knew that one of her slave girls was having an affair with her hus-
band, she pretended not to know of it, so that she, a woman, should not accuse the
great hero, conqueror of the world, of lack of self-control. And she was so little
interested in revenge that, after Africanus’ death, she freed the slave girl and mar-
ried her to one of her own freedmen.

7.30 Pliny Natural History 7.120: Selecting the best

Sulpicia was chosen, c. 215 BC, as the most chaste woman in Rome, to dedicate a statue
of Venus Verticordia, ‘changer of hearts’, which was erected to improve female morals; the
festival day was 1 April. Claudia Quinta was accused of unchastity: in 204 a ship carrying
the black stone of Cybele (the Magna Mater) from Pessinus to Rome was grounded, and
the soothsayers announced that only a chaste woman could move it; Claudia was able to
pull it free (cf. doc. 3.61).

The first time a woman was judged the most chaste by the vote of all the matrons
was Sulpicia, daughter of Paterculus and wife of Fulvius Flaccus, who was

316
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
selected from a previously chosen 100 to dedicate the statue of Venus in accord-
ance with the Sibylline Books; and on another occasion, in a test of her piety,
Claudia, when the Mother of the Gods was being brought to Rome.

7.31 ILS 8403: The perfect wife (1)

This epitaph is now lost, but it probably dates to 135–120 BC.

Stranger, my message is short; stand by and read it through.

This is the unlovely tomb of a lovely woman.
Her parents gave her the name of Claudia.
She loved her husband with her whole heart.
She had two sons, of whom one
She leaves on earth, the other she has placed under the earth.
Her conversation was charming, yet her bearing correct.
She kept the house, she made wool. I have spoken. Depart.

7.32 ILS 8398: The perfect wife (2)

Found at Rome, dating to the first century BC.

Here lies the renowned, dutiful, virtuous, chaste

And modest Sempronia Moschis,
To whom thanks for her merits
Are here returned by her husband.

7.33 ILS 7472: The perfect wife (3)

A stone slab now in the British Museum, found at Rome near the Via Nomentana. It dates
to c. 80 BC; the couple were Greek ex-slaves who served the same family.

Lucius Aurelius Hermia, freedman of Lucius, a butcher on the Viminal Hill.

She who preceded me in death, my only wife, chaste in body, a loving woman
possessed of my heart, lived faithful to her faithful husband. Equal in devotion,
she never in bitter times shrank from her duties.
Aurelia, freedwoman of Lucius.

Aurelia Philematium (‘Little Kiss’), freedwoman of Lucius.

In life I was called Aurelia Philematium,
Chaste and modest, not knowing the crowd, faithful to my husband.
My husband was a fellow freedman, whom I’ve now lost, alas!,
And was in real truth more than a father to me.
He took me to his bosom when I was seven years old,
And at the age of forty I am in death’s power.
He always flourished through my constant care. . . .

317
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
7.34 Catullus 96: Calvus and Quintilia
Gaius Licinius Calvus, an orator and poet, was a friend of Catullus and a colleague of
Cicero (Cic. Fam. 15.21.4). Poems 14 and 50 are also addressed to Calvus.

If anything welcome or acceptable from our grief

Is able to reach the dumb grave, Calvus,
By the longing with which we renew our old loves
And weep for friendships lost in times past,
Surely Quintilia does not grieve so much for her premature death
As much as she rejoices in your love.

7.35 Plutarch Life of Julius Caesar 5.1–5: Eulogies

for Caesar’s women
Caesar had previously refused to divorce his first wife, Cornelia, daughter of Cinna, despite
Sulla’s orders. Both his aunt Julia (the widow of Marius; doc. 9.5) and his wife died in 69
BC. The first person to deliver a eulogy for a woman was Q. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 102),
for his mother Popilia. The next were for Caesar’s wife and aunt.

1 The first proof Caesar received of the people’s goodwill towards him was when
he competed for the post of military tribune against Gaius Popilius and was elected
(for 71 BC). 2 A second and much clearer proof was when, after the death of his
aunt Julia, the wife of Marius, he delivered a brilliant eulogy of her in the forum
and was daring enough to bring out in the funeral procession images of Marius,
which were then seen for the first time since Sulla’s regime, when the Marians had
been declared public enemies.
3 Some people cried out against Caesar for this, but the populace answered
them enthusiastically, welcomed Caesar with applause, and admired him for hav-
ing brought back into the city after so long, as if from the dead, the honours due
to Marius. 4 It was an ancient Roman tradition to give funeral orations for older
women, but it was not customary for young women, and Caesar was the first to
make a funeral oration when his own wife died. 5 This also brought him popular
favour and gained the sympathies of the populace, who loved him as a tender-
hearted man, full of feeling.

7.36 Cicero Letters to his Friends 14.1.1: Cicero to Terentia

Cicero divorced Terentia for extravagance and dishonesty in 46 BC after a marriage lasting
some 33 years. This letter was written to her in mid-November 58 BC after he was exiled in
November 58 and shows his affection for Terentia and their daughter. Numerous affection-
ate letters are addressed to her during this period.

Many people’s letters and everyone’s conversation tell me about your amaz-
ing courage and fortitude, and that you are not exhausted by your hardships of
mind and body. Woe is me! That you, with such courage, loyalty, probity and

318
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
generosity, should have fallen into such great tribulations on my account! And
that our darling Tullia should receive such grief from a father in whom she used
to take such delight! . . .

7.37 ILS 8393: the Laudatio ‘Turiae’

An inscription discovered in Rome, which presents an oration in a deceased wife’s honour,
probably delivered over the grave. Cicero records that families preserved funeral orations,
as they did ancestral masks (imagines): Brut. 61. The woman is known as ‘Turia’ because
of a conjectured identification with the wife of Quintus Lucretius Vespillo (perhaps cos.
19 BC). The inscription is evidence for women’s involvement in legal and political issues,
since it appears that, after her father and mother had been murdered in 49, she brought the
killers to justice, secured her inheritance, and saved her husband during the proscriptions
of the Second Triumvirate (docs 14.20).

I.3 You were suddenly orphaned before the day of our marriage, when both your
parents were murdered together in a lonely part of the countryside. It was mainly
through you, since I was on my way to Macedonia and 5 your sister’s husband
Gaius Cluvius on his way to the province of Africa (49 BC), that the death of your
parents did not go unavenged. You put so much energetic work into this act of
duty in asking questions and demanding punishment that we would not have been
able to do any more, even had we been there. The credit is due to you and that
most devoted lady your sister.
10 While you were involved in this and ensured that the guilty be punished,
you left your father’s house in order to protect your virtue and took yourself to my
mother’s house, where you awaited my return. Both of you were then pressured
to state that your father’s will, in which we were the heirs, had been invalidated,
since he had married his wife by coemptio, which would have made it necessary
for you, with all your father’s property, to pass into the guardianship of those who
were 15 bringing the case. Your sister would have got no share at all, because she
had passed into the manus of Cluvius, and, although I was not there, I heard about
the courage with which you heard their proposals and the presence of mind with
which you resisted them.
18 You defended our common interests by the truth: that the will had not been
invalidated, and in order that we both be the heirs, rather than you alone possess-
ing the entire property, you were determined to 20 uphold your father’s actions in
the same way that, if you had not won your point, you intended to share with your
sister and were not going to let yourself pass into the guardianship of someone
who had no legal right over you, and for whom no relationship of clan (gens) with
your own family could be proved, which might force you to do that. For even if
your father’s will had been invalidated, nevertheless that right did not belong to
those who claimed it, since they did not belong to the same clan. 25 Because of
your persistence they gave up and did not take the case any further; by this deed
of duty towards your father, devotion towards your sister, and loyalty to me, you
single-handedly succeeded in the defence you had undertaken.

319
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
27 Marriages of such length, which are ended by death and not broken by
divorce, are rare. In our case our marriage lasted till its forty-first year, without
a disagreement. Would that the final ending had come about through me instead,
since it would have been more appropriate for me, as the elder, to yield to fate!
30 Why should I mention your domestic virtues – your modesty, obedience,
kindliness, good nature, dedication to wool-making, piety without superstition,
inconspicuous dress and understated elegance. Why speak about your affection
for your relatives and your devotion towards your family, for you looked after
my mother just like you did your own parents and gave her the same care, you
who have innumerable other merits which you share with all matrons who care
for their reputation? The merits which I claim for you are your very own, and few
women have encountered such situations 35 in which they have had to undergo
such trials or demonstrate such merits: fortunately fate has ensured that women
rarely face these.
37 We have preserved all the patrimony you received from your parents with
mutual diligence, for you did not want to make your own what you had transferred
completely to me. We divided our duties so that I had guardianship of your prop-
erty, and you the preservation of mine. On this subject I shall omit much so that
I do not take a share in what is properly yours – 40 let it be enough that I have
indicated your feelings on this matter.
42 Your generosity has been demonstrated both to your numerous intimates and
especially to your beloved family. One could praise by name other women on this
same count, but your sister is the only real equal you have had, for you brought up
your own female relatives 45 who deserved such treatment in our own household.
So that they might make marriages worthy of your family, you presented them with
dowries, and when you had decided on these I and Gaius Cluvius by common con-
sent took it upon ourselves to pay them, as we approved of your generosity, but so
that your patrimony did not suffer we made use of our own properties and gave
our own estates as dowries. I have not mentioned this to glorify ourselves, but so
it is clear 50 that we considered it a matter of honour to carry out the plans which
stemmed from your liberality and devotion to your family.
52 I have decided to pass over many other examples of your generosity . . . (sev-
eral lines missing)
II.2 You provided many kinds of immense support during my exile and
bestowed ornaments on me when you gave me gold and jewellery taken from
your body, and then, after outwitting the guards posted by our opponents, con-
tinually enriched my absence with slaves, money and provisions. 6 Your courage
urged you to beg for my life in my absence, and, overcome by your words, the
clemency of those for whom you prepared them protected me. Whatever you said
was always uttered with firmness of mind. 8 Meanwhile, when a troop of men col-
lected by Milo, whose house I had purchased when he was in exile, tried to make
the most of the opportunities of civil war to break in and loot, you successfully
resisted and defended our house . . . (several lines missing)
11 . . . that I was brought back to my homeland by him, for, if you had not
by taking care for my safety kept something he might save, he would have

320
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
promised his help in vain. And so I owe my life no less to your devotion than
to Caesar.
14 Why should I now reveal our private and secret plans and personal conver-
sations – how I was saved by your advice when I was called by unexpected reports
to face present and imminent dangers? How you did not allow me imprudently to
risk the situation too rashly, but when I took a more sensible approach prepared a
safe hiding place for me and selected as assistants in your plans to save me your
sister and her husband Gaius Cluvius, all united in taking the risk? There would
be no end 20 if I tried to give all the details – it is enough for me and for you that
I was hidden in safety.
21 I declare, however, the bitterest event that ever happened to me in my life is
the way you were treated when I had returned home as a citizen through the good-
will and judgement of the absent Caesar Augustus, when his colleague Marcus
Lepidus, who was in Rome, was troubled by you over my recall, when you threw
yourself to the ground at his feet and were not only raised up but 25 dragged
away forcibly like a slave. Though your body was covered in bruises, your spirit
was quite undaunted, and you continued to urge him about Caesar’s edict and his
pleasure at my recall – even when you had heard the most insulting words and
suffered cruel wounds, you openly persisted so it should be apparent who was the
person responsible for my perils. This was soon to be damaging to him. 29 What
could have been more effective than courage like this – to present Caesar with
the opportunity for clemency, while, together with protecting my life, branding
Lepidus’ hateful cruelty with your outstanding endurance?
32 Why should I continue? Let us spare my speech, which should and can be
brief, so that, in narrating your very great deeds, I should treat them less worthily
than they deserve, when in demonstrating your services to me I present to the eyes
of all commemoration of a life saved.
35 With the world pacified and the state restored, then peaceful and happy
times came upon us. We wanted to have children, which some fate begrudged us.
If Fortune had agreed to continue to look on us favourably, what could either of
us have wanted? But it continued otherwise and put an end to our hopes. What
you undertook to do for this reason, and the measures you attempted to take might
perhaps have been outstanding and praiseworthy in some women, 40 but in you
were not especially remarkable when compared to your other virtues, and I will
pass over them. 41 You despaired over your lack of fertility and grieved because
of my lack of children, in case by remaining married to you I would lose the hope
of having children and be miserable for that reason; so you spoke of divorce and
suggested handing over our empty household to another woman who was fertile,
and that you would yourself find and 45 arrange for me someone worthy of our
well-known love; you declared that you would treat future children as joint and
as your own and would not divide up our inheritance, which until now had been
held in common: it would remain, if I wanted, under my control and, if I wished,
under your management. You would have nothing kept apart or separated from
me, and you would from now on perform the duties and role of my sister or my
mother-in-law.

321
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
50 I have to admit that I was so infuriated that I lost my mind and was so
horrified by your suggestions that I could hardly regain control of myself. How
could you consider a separation before it was dictated by fate! How could your
mind even conceive any reason that, while still alive, you should cease to be my
wife, you who had remained so loyal to me when I was in exile and all but dead!
How could the desire or need for children be so great that I would consequently
55 break faith with you, that I would change certainties for doubts? But why con-
tinue? You stayed with me; for I could not have given in to you without disgrace
to myself and misery for us both. But, for your part, what have you done more
worthy of praise than the effort you made in your sense of duty towards me that, as
I could not have children by yourself, you wanted me to have them through your
agency and that, in your despair of bearing children, 60 you should make available
to me the fertility of another wife?
62 If only the lifetimes of each of us had permitted our marriage to continue
until I, as the elder, as would have been more fair, was carried out for burial, and
you had performed my last rites, and that I had died leaving you as the survivor
to be my daughter in place of my childlessness! 64 Fate decreed that you should
precede me. You left me grief through my longing for you but did not leave me
children to comfort me in my loneliness. But I, too, shall moderate my feelings in
accordance with your judgement and shall follow your advice.
66 Let all your opinions and prescriptions give way to your praises, so these
may be my comfort and prevent me from yearning too much for what I have con-
secrated to immortality for eternal remembrance. What you achieved in life will
not be lost to me, and, fortified by the thought of your renown and instructed by
your actions, may I oppose Fortune, which has not robbed me of everything 70
since it has allowed your memory to blossom through praise. But with you I have
lost my state of repose, and when I think of you, my sentinel and first defence
against dangers, I break down under the calamity and cannot keep to my promise.
Natural sorrow deprives me of my power of self-control; I am overwhelmed by
grief and cannot stand my ground against either the grief or fear that torment me.
When I look back to my previous misfortunes and envisage what the future may
have in store, 75 deprived as I am of such great and valuable protection, my cour-
age fails, and as I gaze on your reputation I do not so much have the strength to
endure as seem destined to longing and sorrow.
77 The conclusion of my oration will be this: you deserved everything, but I
was never able to give you everything as I should. I have considered your com-
mands as my law. I will continue to do for you whatever else I still can. 79 I pray
that your departed spirit lets you rest and so watches over you.

MARITAL DISCORD
According to Gellius (1.6.1–6), Metellus Numidicus (cos. 102 BC) urged men to marry,
saying that, ‘If we were able to exist without wives, fellow Romans, we would all be free
from that troublesome matter; but since nature has so ordained that it is impossible to live
very comfortably with them, and utterly impossible to live without them, we must consider

322
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
our long-term welfare rather than our short-term pleasure.’ Spurius Carvilius Ruga was
supposedly the first to divorce his wife (for childlessness), c. 231 (doc. 7.12). This was a
new kind of divorce with the return of the dowry and without laying criminal blame on the
wife. Unhappy marriages are attested, such as that of Scipio Aemilianus and Sempronia,
sister of the Gracchi (docs 8.21, 7.39).

7.38 Caecilius Statius Plocium 136–55: A domineering wife

Caecilius was a Gaul brought to Rome c. 195 BC; he died in 168. A friend of Ennius, he
wrote comedies from Greek models (fabulae palliatae).

A. Indeed, he is a wretch who doesn’t know how to hide his misery

Out of doors; for my wife, even if I keep quiet, gives the game away by her
looks and actions –
My wife, who has everything you don’t want – except a dowry.
Anyone who’s wise will learn from me . . .
While I long for her death, I live as a corpse among the living.
She says that I secretly consorted with my maidservant; that’s what she charges
me with,
And so by begging, and pleading, and threatening, and scolding she forced me
To sell her.

B. But, tell me, is your wife bad-tempered?

A. Well, what a question!
B. Well, how then?
A. It upsets me just talking about it!
Whenever I come home and sit beside her, the first thing she does
Is give me a kiss with that awful breath of hers.
B. She makes no mistake with that kiss –
She wants you to vomit up what you’ve been drinking outside.

7.39 Cicero Letters to Atticus 5.1.3–4: A quarrelsome wife

Written at Minturnae, 5/6 May 51 BC. Pomponia, sister of Cicero’s friend Atticus, was
married to Cicero’s brother Quintus. The couple were clearly experiencing difficulties
because of expenditure and Quintus’ dependence on his freedman Statius (see docs 5.66,
6.51, 53). They divorced in 44.

3 Now I come to the line written crossways at the end of your letter, in which you
mention your sister. These are the facts of the case. When I reached Arpinum,
and my brother met me, we first had a long talk about you. I then brought the
conversation round to the discussion you and I had about your sister at Tusculum.
I have never seen anything gentler or kinder than my brother’s behaviour at that
time towards your sister, which was such that, if there was any quarrel about
expenditure, there were no signs of it. So passed that day. On the next day we left
Arpinum. Quintus had to stay at Arcanum for a festival, while I went to Aquinum,

323
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
but we lunched at Arcanum. You know his property there. When we arrived,
Quintus said most politely, ‘Pomponia, you invite the women and I’ll ask the
men.’ Nothing, as far as I could see, could have been gentler than his words or
his intention and expression. But she, in everyone’s hearing, said, ‘Oh, but I’m
just a stranger here!’ I suppose because Statius had been sent ahead to see to the
arrangements for our lunch. Then Quintus said to me, ‘There! I have to put up
with that every day!’
4 You will say, ‘So, what’s wrong with that?’ A lot! She really upset me, she
answered with such unnecessary rudeness in word and look. I hid my annoyance
and we all took our places except her. Quintus sent her some food from the table:
she refused it. In short, it seemed to me that nothing could have been more toler-
ant than my brother and nothing more rude than your sister; and I have passed
over many incidents that upset me more than they did Quintus. I then went on to
Aquinum. Quintus stayed at Arcanum and met me the next morning and told me
that she had refused to sleep with him and that, when she was leaving, she was as
bad-tempered as when I had seen her. Actually, you may tell her that in my opin-
ion she behaved with a total lack of courtesy that day.

7.40 Cicero Letters to his Friends 14.20: His last letter to Terentia
This is Cicero’s last extant letter to Terentia, written in October 47. Following his divorce
in 45, after 33 years of marriage, Cicero married his ward Publilia, mainly for her money.
He divorced her the next year because she showed little grief at Tullia’s death. The tub
(labrum) was a large container in which the bathers washed before immersing themselves.

I think I shall arrive at the Tuscan estate either on the Nones (the 7th) or the day
after. See that everything is got ready. I will perhaps have several others with me
and I expect that we shall stay there for a considerable time. If there is no tub in
the bath, see that there is one – the same regarding everything else necessary for
life and health. Goodbye. 1 October, Venusia.

7.41 Valerius Maximus On Memorable Deeds 2.1.6: A consultation for

marital harmony
Viriplaca, ‘pleaser of men’, was an epithet of the goddess Juno, goddess of marriage.

Whenever there was some little argument between husband and wife, they used
to go to the shrine of the goddess Viriplaca on the Palatine hill. There each in turn
stated what they wanted; and, after they had put aside their quarrelsome feelings,
they went back home in harmony. The goddess is said to have obtained this name
because of her power to placate husbands; she certainly deserves to be venerated
and honoured with some outstanding and exceptional sacrifices as the guardian of
peace in everyday and household affairs, who by her very title grants the respect
owed by wives to the superior rank of husband within the yoke of equal affection.

324
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
ADULTERY, CONSPIRACY AND SORCERY
The husband, or the wife’s father, was allowed to kill the wife if caught in the act of
adultery (doc. 7.18), while the seducer could be punished by whipping, castration or rape.
Before Augustus (doc. 15.25), the seduction of wives and daughters was the concern of
the family, though a number of public trials are recorded, presumably where there were no
male relatives to take action.

7.42 Livy History of Rome 8.18.2–11: Sorceresses anonymous

This story, which Livy affects to disbelieve, took place in the context of a bad plague in
331 BC. As with the Bacchanalia, women are shown as ‘out of control’ (see docs 7.16–17).
Only those who had no kinsfolk were punished by the state. While this story is probably
apocryphal, adultery and poisoning were linked in the Roman mind.

2 One thing, however, I should be glad to believe has been falsely handed down –
and not all the authorities mention it – namely that those whose deaths made
the year notorious for the plague were in fact killed by poison; 3 still, I must set
down the story as it has been handed down, lest I destroy confidence in any of my
sources. 4 When leading citizens were suffering from the same kind of disease
which ended in nearly every case with their death, a certain maidservant came to
Quintus Fabius Maximus, the curule aedile, and declared that she would reveal
the cause of this general pestilence if she were given a promise by him that her
evidence would not injure her. 5 Fabius immediately referred the matter to the
consuls, and they to the senate, and with its agreement the promise was made to
the informer. 6 She then disclosed that the city was suffering from the crimes of
its women, and that these poisons were being prepared by married women who
could be caught in the act if they were willing to follow her at once. 7 They fol-
lowed the informer and found certain women brewing poisons and others that
were stored away. 8 These were brought to the forum, and some twenty matrons
in whose houses they had been found were summoned there by an apparitor. Two
of these, Cornelia and Sergia, both from patrician families, asserted that they were
salutary medicines, but when the informer refuted this and told them to drink and
prove her wrong in the sight of all, 9 they took time to confer, and when the crowd
had been sent away referred the question to the rest; finding that, like themselves,
they would not refuse to drink, they swallowed down the poison, and all perished
by their own evil practices. 10 Their attendants were immediately arrested and
informed against a large number of married women, of whom 170 were found
guilty. 11 Before that day there had never been a trial for poison in Rome.

7.43 Valerius Maximus On Memorable Deeds 6.1.12–13: Punishments

for adultery
Most of those mentioned below are unknown; Memmius was married to Sulla’s daughter
Fausta, whom he divorced in 55 BC; for Lusius, see doc. 7.59.

325
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
12 The general Gaius Marius pronounced Gaius Lusius, his sister’s son and mili-
tary tribune, rightly killed by Gaius Plotius, a private soldier, because he had
dared to solicit him sexually. 13 But to run through those who in avenging chastity
made their own injury into a stand for public law: Sempronius Musca whipped
Gaius Gallius, whom he had caught in adultery, with lashes; Gaius Memmius
beat Lucius Octavius, caught under the same circumstances, with thigh bones;
Carbo Attienus and Pontius were seized and castrated by Vibienus and Publius
Cerennius, respectively; the man who seized Gnaeus Furius Brocchus gave him to
his slaves to be raped. None of these suffered a penalty for indulging their anger.

7.44 Sallust The Catilinarian Conspiracy 24.3–25.5:

An unconventional woman
Sempronia, wife of Decimus Junius Brutus (cos. 77 BC), is an example of an educated
aristocratic woman in the republic; she was one of Catiline’s adherents in 63. This passage
demonstrates the independence open to noble women. For the negative connotations of
dancing, see doc. 8.20.

24.3 At that time (the news that Cicero and Antonius were to be consuls for 63)
Catiline is said to have gained numerous supporters of every class, and even of
some women who had at first supported their excessive extravagance by prostitu-
tion and then, when their age put an end to their income, though not their luxuri-
ous tastes, had piled up huge debts. 4 With their help, Catiline believed, he would
be able to rouse the city slaves to his side and set fire to the city, and either get
their husbands to join him or murder them.
25.1 Now among their number was Sempronia, a woman who had often com-
mitted many crimes of masculine daring. 2 In birth and beauty, as well as in her
husband and children, the woman had been well gifted by fortune. Well educated in
Greek and Latin literature, she was more skilled at playing the lyre and dancing than
a respectable women need be, having many other accomplishments which minister
to extravagant tastes. 3 But there was nothing that she valued less than decency and
chastity; you would find it difficult to say whether she was less sparing of her money
or her reputation; her desires were so ardent that she more often made advances to
men than they did to her. 4 Even before this she had often broken her word, repu-
diated debts on oath, and been an accessory to murder; extravagance and poverty
combined had sent her headlong. 5 Nevertheless, her talents were not negligible;
she could write poetry, crack jokes, and converse with modesty, tender feeling or
wantonness; in fact she possessed great wit and considerable charm.

7.45 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 50.1–2: Caesar’s love-life

Suetonius also relates Caesar’s affairs in Gaul and the queens who had been his mistresses.
Eunoe, wife of Bogudes, was supposed to be one and Cleopatra another (52.1). Servilia,
wife first of M. Junius Brutus and then of D. Junius Silanus (cos. 62 BC), was Cato the
Younger’s older half-sister and mother of M. Junius Brutus. In Greek myth, Aegisthus was
the lover of Clytemnestra, wife of Agamemnon.

326
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
1 It is generally believed that Caesar was much disposed to love affairs and to
extravagant behaviour within these affairs, and that he seduced a great many well-
born women, among them Postumia, wife of Servius Sulpicius, Lollia, wife of
Aulus Gabinius, Tertulla, wife of Marcus Crassus, and even Gnaeus Pompey’s wife,
Mucia. Certainly Pompey was reproached by both Curio the Elder and Curio the
Younger and many others for having married Caesar’s daughter for political gain,
when it was on Caesar’s account, whom Pompey had often named in his laments as
‘Aegisthus’, that he divorced his wife after she had given him three children.
2 But above all others he loved Marcus Brutus’ mother Servilia the best, and in
his first consulship he bought her a pearl worth 6,000,000 sesterces, and gave her
many presents during the civil war, as well as letting her buy certain lavish estates
at auction for a trifle; when many wondered at the low price, Cicero quipped: ‘It
was an even better bargain than you think, because a third (tertia) was discounted’ –
Servilia, you see, was also thought at the time to be prostituting her daughter Tertia
to Caesar.

7.46 Catullus 67: A front door tells all

A dialogue with the front door of a house in Verona reveals the gossip relating to the house-
hold, especially the fact that the new bride, after earlier indiscretions, was no virgin and had
been seduced by her father-in-law.

Catullus
Dear to a beloved husband and pleasing to his father,
Greetings, and may Jupiter preserve you with kindly help,
House door, whom they say used once to do kind service to Balbus,
When the old man himself owned the house,
And which they say since then has been doing evil service to his son,
Now the old man’s been laid out and you’ve become the door of married people.
Come, tell us why you’re said to have changed
And abandoned your old loyalty to your master.
House door
It is not (so may I please Caecilius, to whom I’ve been handed over)
10 My fault, though it is said to be mine,
Nor can anyone speak of any wrong done by me:
But people will say that the door does it;
Whenever any ill deed is discovered
They all shout at me, ‘Door – it’s your fault!’
Catullus
It’s not enough for you to say it with a single word,
But to do it so that anyone may know and see it.
House door
How can I? No one asks or is concerned to know.
Catullus
I want to know: don’t hesitate to tell me.

327
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
House door
First then, that she was handed over to us a virgin, as is said,
20 Is a lie. It was not her husband who was the first to touch her
Whose ‘little dagger’ hangs more listless than a young beetroot
And never erects itself to mid-tunic.
Instead his father is said to have dishonoured his son’s bed
And polluted the wretched house;
Either because his impious mind burned with blind lust,
Or because the son was impotent, with barren seed,
So they had to find one more vigorous
Who could unloose her maiden tie.
Catullus
You speak of a father distinguished by remarkable affection,
30 Who comes in the lap of his own son.
House door
And yet Brixia under the cliffs of Cycnea,
Brixia, which golden Melo runs through with its soft stream,
Brixia, beloved mother of my own Verona,
Says he isn’t the only one known to have had her;
But she tells about Postumius and the love of Cornelius,
With whom she was involved in wicked adultery.
Catullus
Here someone might say, ‘What? How do you, door, know all this?
You who are never allowed to be away from your master’s threshold,
Nor to listen to the people, but fixed under this lintel
40 Are only accustomed to close and open the house?’
House door
I have often heard her talking in a secretive voice
Alone with her maids about these crimes of hers,
Speaking by name of those of whom I spoke, as if
She thought that I had neither tongue nor ear.
Moreover, she added someone, whom I don’t want to mention
By name, lest he should raise his red eyebrows.
He is a tall man, once troubled by a great lawsuit
About a false womb and a lying pregnancy.

HETEROSEXUAL LOVE: CATULLUS AND LESBIA

‘Lesbia’ has generally been supposed to have been the pseudonym of Clodia Metelli, one
of the three sisters of the tribune P. Clodius Pulcher. This Claudia (Clodia) was married
to Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer (cos. 60 BC). Metellus died in March 59, and shortly
afterwards Clodia is supposed to have begun an affair with M. Caelius Rufus. In April
56 Clodia Metelli was in court as a witness against Caelius, whom she claimed owed her
money. Cicero, who defended him, concentrates on a character assassination of Clodia as
an ageing prostitute who might have poisoned her husband, and who had an incestuous
relationship with her brother. Lesbia, however, is probably a poetic construct, compiled
from stereotypes of Roman women rather than a real-life lover of Catullus.

328
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
7.47 Catullus 7: An idyllic relationship
In Roman eyes this picture of Catullus would have been uncontrolled and inappropriate,
and the poem is deliberately intended to shock his readership.

You ask how many kissings of you,

Lesbia, will be enough and to spare.
As great a number as the grains of Libyan sand
That lie on silphium-bearing Cyrene,
5 Between the desert oracle of Jupiter Ammon
And the sacred tomb of legendary Battus,
Or as many as are the stars, in the silent night,
That see men’s clandestine loves –
To kiss you with so many kisses
10 Is enough and to spare for your infatuated Catullus,
Which busybodies could not count up
Nor an evil tongue bewitch.

7.48 Catullus 85: Love and hate

I hate and love. Why I do so, perhaps you will ask.
I do not know, but I feel it to be so, and I am in torment.

7.49 Catullus 43: A less than gallant address

Catullus also addresses Mamurra’s girlfriend, Amaena, in poem 41, where she propositions
him for the price of 10,000 sesterces. Clearly the poem is yet another attack on Caesar’s
architect Mamurra: cf. poems 29 and 57 (doc. 12.89).

Greetings, girl without a tiny nose

Without a pretty foot or black eyes
Or long fingers or a dry mouth,
Not to mention, in truth, a tongue of minimal refinement,
5 Lady friend of the bankrupt of Formiae (Mamurra).
Are you beautiful, as the province (Cisalpine Gaul) declares?
Is our Lesbia compared with you?
O what a world! So stupid! So undiscriminating!

7.50 Catullus 45: Septimius and Acme

Septimius is not known, but the name Acme suggests a Greek freedwoman. In Roman divi-
nation the left was the fortunate side, while in Greek the right was favourable; for Roman
divination, see docs 3.37–54.

Septimius, holding his love Acme in his arms, says, ‘My Acme,
If I do not love you desperately and if I am not prepared to go on loving you
everlastingly all my years

329
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
5 As much as the most devoted of lovers ever could, may I in Libya or parched
India
Encounter on my own a green-eyed lion.’ As he said this, Love, on the left, as
before
On the right, sneezed approbation. Then Acme, slightly tilting her head
11 And kissing the love-drunk eyes of her sweet boy with those rosy lips,
Says, ‘As I hope, my life, my dear Septimius, that we may to the end serve
this one master,
15 The passion that burns in my tender marrow is far greater and fiercer than in
yours.’
As she said this, Love, as before on the left, sneezed approbation on the right.
Now starting with a good omen, they love and are loved with interchanged hearts.
21 Poor love-sick Septimius prefers Acme to any Syria or Britain:
In Septimius alone his faithful Acme takes her pleasure and desires.
Who ever saw people more blessed? Who ever saw a more auspicious love?

7.51 Catullus 58: Disenchantment

Many of Catullus’ poems to Lesbia are works of invective, accusing her of deceit and
shameful affairs with others: cf. poems 11, 37 and 36 (where Lesbia, ‘my girl’, wants him
to stop writing invective against her).

Caelius, my Lesbia, well-known Lesbia,

Lesbia whom Catullus alone loved
More than himself and all his own,
Now in the street-corners and alley-ways
Performs oral sex with the descendants of high-minded Romulus.

7.52 Cicero In Defence of Caelius 32–35, 47–49: Lesbia by

another name
Clodia was, according to Cicero, one of the forces behind Calpurnius Bestia’s prosecu-
tion of Marcus Caelius Rufus on a charge of attempted murder and robbery in 56 BC;
49: Lucius Herennius Balbus was one of the prosecutors. Cicero shows Caelius as a
naive, pleasure-loving young man and Clodia as a seductress and quasi-prostitute. Appius
Claudius Caecus, her ancestor, was censor in 312 and consul in 307 and 296. Baiae was a
fashionable resort and spa near Cumae.

32 And indeed I never thought I should have to engage in quarrels with women,
especially with one whom all have generally considered to be a ‘friend’ to every-
one rather than anyone’s enemy. 33 But first I will ask her whether she prefers me
to deal with her severely, solemnly, and in an old-fashioned way or indulgently,
mildly and politely. If in that serious traditional fashion I will have to raise up from
the dead one of those bearded men of old, not with a little trimmed beard, such as
she takes delight in, but with one of those rough ones, as seen on old statues and
busts, who can rebuke the woman and speak on my behalf, so she may perhaps not

330
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
be enraged with me. Let me conjure up, therefore, some member of her own family,
and particularly the venerable Appius Claudius the Blind (Caecus) – for he will feel
less sorrow than anyone else because he will not be able to see her. 34 If he should
appear, this is certainly how he would speak and what he would say: ‘Woman, what
business have you with Caelius, who is a young man and unrelated to you? Why
have you been so friendly with him that you lend him gold, or so hostile that you
are afraid of poison? Have you not seen that your father, have you not heard that
your uncle, your grandfather, your great-grandfather, your great-great-grandfather
and your great-great-great-grandfather were consuls? Finally, did you not know that
you were recently married to Q. Metellus, an illustrious and courageous man, totally
committed to his country, who had only to set foot out of doors to surpass almost all
his fellow citizens in excellence, reputation and rank? When you had married from
a house of the greatest importance into a most illustrious family, why was Caelius so
closely linked with you? Was he a blood relative? A marriage connection? A close
friend of your husband? He was none of these things. What therefore could it have
been except some uncontrollable passion?’
35 As for you, woman (for now it is I and not a fictional person who is address-
ing you), if you plan to prove the truth of what you did, said, asserted, designed
and alleged, you will need to account for and explain the reason for such famili-
arity, such intimacy, such a close friendship. Indeed, the prosecutors are hurling
at us the words debauchery, love-affairs, adultery, Baiae, beach resorts, dinner
parties, revels, singing, music, boat trips, and at the same time tell us that all this
is said with your approval. And since in some kind of mad and reckless frame of
mind you have wanted all these matters to be brought into the forum and the court,
you must either disprove them, and demonstrate them to be untrue, or admit that
neither your accusation nor your evidence is to be believed . . .
47 So, does that well-known neighbourhood not put us on the scent? Does gen-
eral rumour, does Baiae itself tell us nothing? Baiae not only tells us something,
it even resounds with the news that the passions of one woman are so degraded
that she not only does not seek privacy and darkness and such veils for disgrace-
ful deeds, but rejoices in her shameless activities in well-frequented gatherings
and broadest daylight . . . 49 If a woman without a husband opens her house to
the desires of all men and openly conducts herself like a prostitute, if she is in the
habit of taking part in dinner parties with men totally unconnected with her, if she
does this in the city, in the gardens, in those crowds at Baiae, if, finally, she so
behaves that not only her walk, her dress and her companions, not only the ardour
of her glances and the freedom of her speech, but even her embraces, kisses, days
at the beach, sailing trips and dinner parties show her to be not only a prostitute
but one who is wanton and shameless – if a young man should happen to consort
with her, would you, Lucius Herennius, consider him an adulterer or a lover?
Would you think that he wanted to storm her chastity or satisfy his passion?

7.53 [Tibullus] 3.13 (4.7): Sulpicia on her lover

Sulpicia, who was the daughter or granddaughter of Servius Sulpicius Rufus (cos. 51 BC)
and niece of Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus (cos. 31), belonged to the group of poets

331
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
associated with Messalla. Her elaborately constructed poems, addressed to a young man
whom she calls Cerinthus, have been preserved in the collection of Tibullus. As an edu-
cated aristocratic woman she is highly unusual in publishing poetry supposedly relating her
personal emotional experiences.

At last love has come, of a kind which to conceal through modesty

Would be more of a scandal than to bare it to anyone.
Cytherea, won over by my poetic Muses,
Has brought him and placed him in my arms.
5 Venus has fulfilled her promises: let those talk about my joy,
Who, it is said, have none of their own.
I would not choose to entrust anything to sealed tablets,
So that no one could read it before my lover did –
I delight in offending, and to wear a mask for scandal’s sake
10 Bores me: let me declare that I, a worthy woman, am linked with a worthy man.

7.54 CIL I2 2540a, c: A lover’s graffiti

These graffiti were scratched in the same hand on a wall of the smaller theatre at Pompeii,
c. 90–80 BC; (i) may be a quotation from a poem; (iii) is unfinished; ‘da veniam ut veniam’
(give me leave to come) is a clever play on words.

(i) ‘What’s the matter?

After your eyes have forcibly drawn me into the fire . . .
with your copiously flowing cheeks.’
(ii) ‘But tears cannot put out the flame;
look, they burn the face and waste away the heart.’
The composition of Tiburtinus.
(iii) If you know how strong love is, if you know that you are human,
take pity on me, give me leave to come.
May Venus’ flower (be given) to me . . .

7.55 Lucretius On the Nature of the Universe 4.1121–40, 1278–87: The

folly of love
Lucretius (c. 94–c. 55 BC) is here condemning romantic love from the Epicurean stand-
point (to Epicureans, tranquillity was the greatest goal). He derides lovers for turning their
mistresses’ defects into charms in their imagination (1155–70).

1121 Add to this that they consume their strength and perish under the strain;
Add to this that their time is passed at the whim of another.
Meanwhile their wealth slips away and is converted into Babylonian brocades,
Duties are neglected and reputation wavers and sickens.
Fine perfumes and Sicyonian slippers smile on his lady’s feet;
Yes, huge emeralds flashing with green light
Are clasped in gold, and sea-coloured garments are worn away

332
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
With constant use in which they absorb Venus’ perspiration;
The hard-won wealth of his father turns into head-bands and turbans,
1130 Or perhaps into a robe and garments from Alinda and Ceos.
Banquets with magnificent trappings and food, entertainments,
Wine in abundance, perfumes, garlands, wreaths of flowers are got ready –
In vain, since from the middle of the fountain of delights
Rises a taste of bitterness that causes torment among the very flowers,
Either when a guilty conscience happens to sting the lover with the thought
That youth is being spent in sloth and perishing in debauchery,
Or perhaps she has let fly and left rankling a word of doubtful import,
Which fixes in his passionate heart and glows there like fire,
Or because he thinks that she is making eyes and gazing at another man,
1140 While he sees the traces of mockery in her face.

1278 Nor is it due to divine intervention or the arrows of Venus

When a woman deficient in beauty happens to be beloved;
For the woman herself sometimes manages by her own conduct,
By her compliant manners and by keeping herself fresh and neat,
To make it easy for a man to get used to spending his life with her.
Furthermore, it is habit that produces love;
For whatever is struck by frequent blows, however light,
1285 Yields in the long run and gives way.
Do you not see that even drops of water falling on a stone
In the long run wear the stone through?

7.56 Lucilius Satires 17.1.567–73: The idealisation of noble women

The satirist Gaius Lucilius served with Scipio Aemilianus at Numantia (doc. 5.53). His sis-
ter was grandmother of Pompey the Great. Here he parodies epic stereotypes of characteri-
sation; Alcmena was the wife of Amphitryon, prince of Tiryns and leader of the Thebans;
Zeus was enamoured of her and she gave birth to twins, Heracles (Hercules) to Zeus and
Iphicles to Amphitryon. Helen of Troy was, of course, a whore or adulteress because she
ran away with Paris, abandoning her husband and daughter.

Surely you don’t believe that any ‘lovely-locked’, ‘lovely-ankled’ girl

Can’t possibly have her breasts touching her stomach and navel,
Or that Amphitryon’s wife Alcmena couldn’t have been knock-kneed or bowlegged,
And that others, even Helen herself, could not have been – I can’t say it;
See to it yourself and choose any two-syllable word you like –
That a daughter of a noble sire could not have had some distinguishing mark,
A wart, mole, mark, one slightly projecting tooth?

HOMOSEXUALITY
There was no stigma for adult male Romans attached to penetrating both women and young
boys. Cato the Elder fulminates on the prices of young boys after the Third Macedonian

333
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
War (docs 5.57–58) and Catullus writes love poems interchangeably to women and boys
(see poem 99: to Juventius, doc. 7.61). Sulla’s relationship with the female impersonator
Metrobius (docs 11.1, 32) is unusual primarily in that it continued throughout Metrobius’
career, not only while he was a youth. However, there was great shame attached to passive
homosexuality (passive partners should be young slaves or male prostitutes), and Cicero
uses such accusations to tarnish the reputations of Catiline. Homosexuality was particularly
outlawed in the army, and Marius honoured the soldier who killed an officer who attempted
to seduce him: docs 7.43, 59.

7.57 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 6.12.1–7: P. Sulpicius Gallus

Scipio Aemilianus delivered this speech against P. Sulpicius Gallus when Scipio was cen-
sor in 142 BC, as part of the yearly review of the equites. He comments on Gallus’ depila-
tion, mirrors, tunics with sleeves, perfumes, and plucking of eyebrows. Traditional Romans
wore a toga without a tunic or with a sleeveless tunic; Caesar was unusual in wearing a
tunic with fringed wrist-length sleeves: doc. 13.61.

1 For a man to wear tunics coming below the elbow, right up to the wrist and nearly to
the fingers, was considered inappropriate in Rome and all Latium. 2 Our countrymen
called these tunics by the Greek name ‘chiriotae’ (long-sleeved) and considered that
a long and flowing robe was suitable only for women, in that it protected their arms
and legs from sight. 3 Roman men, however, at first wore just the toga without tunics;
later on, they had tight, short tunics ending at the shoulder, which the Greeks call ‘exo-
mides’ (sleeveless). 4 Accustomed to this traditional practice, Publius Africanus, son
of Paullus, a man endowed with all great arts and every excellence, rebuked Publius
Sulpicius Gallus, a man addicted to luxury, with the accusation that, among many
other things, he wore tunics which completely covered his hands. 5 These are Scipio’s
words: ‘For one who daily perfumes himself and dresses in front of a mirror, whose
eyebrows are plucked, who walks around with his beard pulled out and smooth thighs,
who, though a young man, has reclined on the inner side of a couch in a long-sleeved
tunic with a lover, who is not only a wine-lover but a man-lover too, does anyone
doubt that he acts as pathics generally act?’

7.58 Plutarch Life of Cato the Elder 17.1–5: A shameful relationship

T. Quinctius Flamininus conquered Philip of Macedon at Cynoscephalae in 198 BC (cf.
doc. 5.23); his brother Lucius was praetor urbanus in 199 and then Titus’ legate in charge
of the navy (198–194); Lucius became consul in 192, but was expelled from the senate
in the censorship of Cato the Elder and Valerius Flaccus in 184 for the incident described
below. Livy calls the boy Philippus a Carthaginian male prostitute. The outrage is inspired
not by the prostitute’s sex but by the inapposite use of imperium at a banquet while under
the influence of alcohol.

1 Cato named Lucius Valerius Flaccus, his colleague and friend, princeps senatus,
and expelled many others from the senate, including Lucius Quinctius, who had
been consul seven years earlier and, what contributed more to his reputation than
his consulship, was brother of the Titus Flamininus who defeated Philip. 2 The

334
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
reason for his expulsion was as follows: Lucius kept a youth who, ever since his
boyhood, had been Lucius’ favourite, keeping him with him and taking him on
campaigns with greater honour and influence than any of Lucius’ closest friends
and relatives. 3 While he was administering his consular province, at a certain
banquet the lad, as was his custom, reclined beside him and started flattering a
man who was easily led when under the influence of wine, saying he loved him
so much that ‘when there was a gladiatorial show back at Rome, something I had
never seen, I rushed away to join you, though I really desired to see a man killed.’
4 Lucius responded affectionately, ‘Well, don’t lie there distressed with me
over that, for I can put that right.’ And after ordering that one of the men sen-
tenced to death be brought to the banquet and that a lictor with an axe stand beside
him, he asked his beloved again if he wanted to see the man struck dead. When he
said he did, Lucius ordered the man’s head to be cut off.
5 This is the version which most writers narrate, and so Cicero has represented
Cato himself as recounting it in his dialogue On Old Age. But Livy says the man
killed was a Gallic deserter, and that Lucius did not have the man slain by a lic-
tor but did it with his own hand, and that this is the version in a speech of Cato’s.

7.59 Plutarch Life of Marius 14.4–8: Death for seduction

In his campaign against the Cimbri, Marius excused the homicide of his own nephew by
a soldier whom he had propositioned (doc. 7.58). Homosexual relationships were strictly
forbidden in the army, with offenders being clubbed to death (the fustuarium; cf. docs
5.19–20, 7.43).

4 Gaius Lusius, Marius’ nephew, had been assigned an army command under him,
and, while in all other respects he was a man of good repute, he had a weakness for
good-looking boys. 5 He was attracted by one of the young men who served under
him, called Trebonius, and had often unsuccessfully attempted to seduce him; at
length he sent a servant at night to summon Trebonius. 6 The youth, being unable
to disobey a summons, went, but when he was conducted into the tent and found
himself the object of Lusius’ violence he drew his sword and killed him. 7 This
took place in Marius’ absence, but on his return he brought Trebonius to trial. 8
As there were many accusers but no one speaking in his defence, Trebonius boldly
took the stand and recounted what had happened, bringing witnesses to show
that he had frequently refused Lusius’ solicitations and that he had never prosti-
tuted his body to anyone, despite offers of expensive gifts. Marius in admiration
and delight ordered the traditional crown for bravery to be brought and himself
crowned Trebonius with it, declaring that, in a time that was in need of noble
examples, he had performed the noblest deed of all.

7.60 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 49.1–2, 4: Caesar and

Nicomedes
Caesar, while serving as a young man in Asia, was sent to Nicomedes IV of Bithynia in 81
BC to acquire ships for the siege of Mitylene. He was rumoured to have been successful

335
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
because of a homosexual relationship with the elderly king. Dio comments (43.20.4) that
Caesar welcomed all his soldiers’ jokes except for these allusions to Nicomedes. The
charges of passive homosexuality were damaging to Caesar in a way that rumours of his
affairs with married women (doc. 7.45) could never be. The orator and poet Gaius Licinius
Calvus was a close friend of Catullus: doc. 7.34.

1 The only charge that damaged his reputation for virtue was that of his intimacy
with Nicomedes, which was, however, a serious and continuous stain on his char-
acter exposing him to general censure. I say nothing of the notorious verses of
Licinius Calvus:

‘Whatever Bithynia had

and Caesar’s sodomiser.’

I also pass over the attacks of Dolabella and the elder Curio, in which Dolabella
calls him ‘the queen’s rival, inner partner of the royal bed’, and Curio ‘Nicomedes’
brothel and Bithynian bagnio’. 2 I ignore the edicts of Bibulus in which he pub-
lished his colleague as ‘queen of Bithynia, who previously desired a king, and
now a kingdom’ . . . 4 Finally, at Caesar’s Gallic triumph, his soldiers, among
other songs, such as are usually sung in jest as they follow the chariot, declaimed
this one which became notorious:

‘Caesar mastered Gaul, and Nicomedes Caesar:

look, Caesar now celebrates his triumph, who mastered Gaul,
but Nicomedes celebrates no triumph, though he mastered Caesar.’

7.61 Catullus 99: To Juventius

Compare this stanza with Catullus’ poem to Lesbia (doc. 7.47).

I stole a sweet kiss while you played, honey-sweet Juventius,

One sweeter than sweet ambrosia.
But I did not take it unpunished – for more than an hour,
I remember, I hung at the top of the gallows
5 While I justified myself to you, though with all my tears
I couldn’t lessen your anger the tiniest bit;
No sooner was it done than, your lips rinsed,
With plenty of water, you wiped it away with all your fingers
So no contagion from my lips might remain,
10 As though it were the foul spit of a polluted whore.
Worse, you handed me in my misery over to vengeful love
And have not failed to torment me in every way,
So that that sweet kiss was now changed for me from ambrosia
And became more bitter than bitter hellebore.
15 Since you lay down such punishments for my unhappy love,
I’ll never after this steal any kisses again.

336
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
PROSTITUTION
There was no stigma attached to frequenting prostitutes of either sex; indeed, visiting a
prostitute could be seen to divert a male’s sexual drives away from citizen women. Women
prostitutes were supposed to wear a coloured (masculine) toga to distinguish them from
respectable citizen women who wore the stola, but often they wore more spectacular cloth-
ing. According to Lucilius, charges for visiting a prostitute could be minuscule (doc. 7.62),
though some could become wealthy: Sulla’s initial wealth was said to have derived from a
bequest by a prostitute: doc. 11.1.

7.62 Lucilius Satires 9.1.359–60: An old professional

Book 9 of Lucilius’ satires was probably written towards the end of his life; he died
c. 102 BC.

If she’s nothing to look at, and if she was once a prostitute and whore,
A cent (an as) is all it takes and she’s yours.

7.63 Livy History of Rome 39.9.5–7: Hispala Faecenia

For the Bacchanalia, see doc. 3.65. As a woman sui iuris after the death of her patron,
Hispala needed a tutor to perform any legal act, such as making a will (doc. 7.5). As a
reward for their information, the senate passed a decree that both Hispala and Aebutius
should be given 100,000 asses out of the treasury, Aebutius should be exempt from military
service, and Hispala should be given the right to give and alienate property, marry outside
her gens, chose her own tutor, and marry a man of free birth (Livy 39.19.3–6). Marriage of
a freeborn person with a prostitute was otherwise banned.

5 There was a noted prostitute, a freedwoman called Hispala Faecenia, not worthy
of the profession to which she had grown accustomed while just a slave, who
made her living in the same way even after she had been manumitted. 6 She
had commenced a sexual relationship with Aebutius, a young man in the neigh-
bourhood, which was in no way damaging to his property or reputation: this was
because she had loved him and sought him out of her own accord, and, since his
family made quite insufficient provision for him, he was supported through the
generosity of the prostitute. 7 Even more, matters actually reached the point that,
under the influence of their relationship, when she found herself in manu to no one
after her patron’s death, she applied to the tribunes and praetor for a guardian and
made her will, naming Aebutius as her sole heir.

7.64 Plutarch Life of Lucullus 6.2–5: A powerful courtesan

L. Licinius Lucullus was Sulla’s lieutenant; P. Cornelius Cethegus was a popular politician
powerful during the 70s: Cic. Brut. 178. Lucullus (cos. 74 BC) wanted the province of
Cilicia to conduct the war against Mithridates: docs 11.10–11, 12.10.

2 A certain woman called Praecia, one of those renowned for beauty and wanton-
ness, who in other respects was in no way better than a courtesan but who used her

337
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
associates and companions to further the ambitions of her friends, thus adding to her
other attractions the reputation of being a good and effective friend, and acquiring
the greatest influence, was at that time in Rome. 3 And when she won over Cethegus
too, who was then at the peak of his reputation and in control of the city, and gained
him as her lover, political power passed totally into her hands; no public measure was
passed unless Cethegus approved it, and he did nothing except at Praecia’s bidding. 4
So Lucullus won her over by presents and flattery – it was no doubt a great prize for
a woman so arrogant and ostentatious to be seen sharing Lucullus’ ambitions – and
he immediately had Cethegus praising him and soliciting Cilicia for him. 5 But, once
he had obtained this, he no longer needed to appeal to the assistance of Praecia or
Cethegus, but everyone was unanimous in entrusting him with the Mithridatic war,
on the grounds that no one else was better qualified to bring it to an end.

7.65 Pliny Natural History 7.158: The longevity of women

Pliny (7.156–57) notes that M. Perperna lived to 98 years of age and Gorgias to 108, while
M. Valerius Corvus (reputedly cos. 348, 346, 343, 335, 300, 299 BC) reached 100 years.
Sixty-year-olds, while they were no longer able to vote and were freed from public duties,
still retained legal control over their familia.

Among women, Livia, wife of Rutilius, lived more than 97 years, Statilia, a lady
of noble family under the emperor Claudius, 99, Terentia, wife of Cicero, 103,
Clodia, wife of Ofilius, 115, and she also bore 15 children. The mime Lucceia
gave a recitation on the stage at the age of 100. Galeria Coppiola, the actress of
interludes, was brought back to the stage in the consulship of Gaius Poppaeus and
Quintus Sulpicius (AD 9) at the votive games given for the recovery of the god
Augustus in her 104th year; she had been brought out at her first appearance by
Marcus Pomponius, aedile of the plebs, in the consulship of Gaius Marius and
Gnaeus Carbo 91 years before (82 BC), and as an old woman was brought back to
the stage as a curiosity by Pompey the Great at the dedication of his great theatre.

WOMEN AS OWNERS AND CONSUMERS

Aristocratic women possessed jewellery and money in their own right even in the early
Republic. When Rome was threatened by the Gauls in 390 BC, the women of the city,
according to Livy (5.50), offered to make up the ransom sum: they were therefore granted
the right to be honoured by eulogies at their funeral. In 215, taxes were imposed on wealthy
widows to provide for military pay, while the lex Oppia restricted their ornaments and
forbade them to ride in carriages (Livy 34.3–5). In 207, to expiate unfavourable omens and
a lightning strike on the temple of Juno on the Aventine, the augurs declared that married
women had to make an offering to placate the goddess (Livy 27.37.7–10); doc. 7.85.

7.66 ILS 8562: A toilet casket

A large bronze casket (the Ficoroni cista) with an inscribed lid, found in a tomb at Praeneste
(Palestrina), dated to c. 315 BC. The lid is decorated with statues of Dionysus and two

338
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
satyrs and is engraved with athletic scenes taken from the Argonautica of Apollonius
Rhodius. Under one of the legs the name Macolnia is also inscribed.

Dindia Macolnia gave this to her daughter.

Novius Plautius made me at Rome.

7.67 Livy History of Rome 34.2.8–3.1: Women lobby for luxury goods
Following the battle of Cannae, the Oppian law, proposed by the tribune Gaius Oppius in
215 BC, restricted women’s use of luxury items such as jewellery and expensive clothing.
In 195 there was a proposal to repeal this law, and women turned out in force to persuade
the men to vote for its repeal. Cato the Elder is here portrayed as showing his disapproval
of the women’s conduct. As censor in 184 he taxed luxuries, including women’s clothes,
jewellery and vehicles.

8 ‘Indeed, it was not without some embarrassment that I made my way a short
time ago to the forum through a throng of women. If respect for the dignity and
modesty of them as individuals had not held me back, so they should not be seen
to be rebuked by a consul, I would have said: 9 “What kind of behaviour is this,
running around in public and blocking the streets and talking to other women’s
husbands? Could not each of you have asked your own husband the same thing
at home? 10 Are you more persuasive in public than in private, and with other
women’s husbands rather than with your own? And yet, even at home, if modesty
kept matrons within their proper limits, it’s not your place to concern yourselves
about what laws should be passed or repealed here.”
11 ‘Our ancestors allowed no woman to transact business, even private busi-
ness, without a guardian in control, and wanted them to be under the control of
their fathers, brothers and husbands. We, in heaven’s name!, now allow them to
get involved in politics and to mingle with us in the forum and to attend formal
and informal assemblies (comitia and contiones) . . . 14 What they want is com-
plete freedom – or, to speak the truth, total licence! 3.1 And if they win in this,
what will they not attempt?’

7.68 Plautus Pot of Gold 505–22: Early second-century extravagance

Megadorus (a bachelor) is here speaking to his potential father-in-law Euclio, imagining
the extravagances that a rich wife demanded as a normal part of her lifestyle; compare doc.
7.55 for women’s extravagant tastes.

505 Wherever you go nowadays, you see more wagons in front of city homes
Than you do in the country when you go to a farm.
But even this is a fine sight compared to when they come round for their money.
There stands the fuller, the dyer, the goldsmith, the wool weaver;
Salesmen of flounces, lady’s underwear,
510 Veils, in purple dye, in yellow dye,
Muffs, balsam-scented shoes,

339
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
Retailers of linen, shoemakers,
Squatting cobblers, slipper-makers,
Sandal-makers, mallow-dyers,
515 Dealers in breast-bands, and corset-makers alongside them.
Now, you may think you’ve paid them all off: along with more demands come
Three hundred more, who stand like doorguards in your atrium –
weavers, fringe-makers, casket-makers.
520 You bring them in and pay them off.
Now, you think, I’ve paid them all, when in come saffron-dyers
And all sorts of other pests who are always demanding something.

7.69 Cicero Republic 3.17: The lex Voconia

The Voconian law in 169 BC, proposed by the tribune Voconius Saxa, limited women’s
rights of inheritance, preventing men in the highest property class from making daughters
their heirs or from leaving them more than half their fortune: in other words, no woman
could be left more than half an estate by someone in the first census class. Cicero’s Republic
is set as a dialogue between Scipio Aemilianus, Laelius, and some of their friends in c. 129;
it was actually written in 54–51. The daughter of the wealthy Publius Crassus Mucianus
Dives, Licinia, was married to Gaius Gracchus; Mucianus presumably died intestate and
therefore his daughter could inherit as an only child (cf. doc. 8.33).

But if I wished to describe the conceptions of justice, and the principles, customs and
habits which have existed, I could show you not merely differences in all the different
nations, but that there have been a thousand changes in a single city, even in our own
in regard to these matters. For example, our friend Manilius here, being an interpreter
of the law, would give you different advice about the rights of women in regard to
legacies and inheritances from that which he used to give in his youth before the
passing of the Voconian law. In fact that law, passed for men’s advantage, is full of
injustice to women. For why should a woman not have money of her own? Why may
a Vestal Virgin have an heir, while her mother may not? Why, on the other hand, if it
was necessary to limit the amount of property a woman could own, should the daugh-
ter of Publius Crassus, if she were her father’s only child, be permitted by law to have
a hundred million sesterces, while mine is not even allowed three million?

7.70 Polybius Histories 31.26–27: Cultic paraphernalia

Aemilia was the wife of Scipio Africanus and grandmother by adoption of Publius Scipio
Aemilianus, Polybius’ friend. As sister of his natural father, Lucius Aemilius Paullus, she
was also Aemilianus’ aunt; she died in 162 BC. The elder Scipio had died in 183, leaving
his wife and sons as heirs in his will. His daughters did not inherit equally with their mother
and brothers but took 50 talents each into their marriages. The sum of 25 talents paid to the
daughters is described as the second instalment of their dowry; dowries were generally paid
in three instalments over a period of three years.

26.1 The first occasion (on which Scipio Aemilianus displayed generosity in
money matters) was when the mother of his adoptive father died, the sister of

340
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
his own father Lucius (Aemilius) and wife of his grandfather by adoption, the
great Scipio. 2 He inherited from her a large fortune, and his handling of it was
to give the first proof of his principles. 3 For the lady, whose name was Aemilia,
used to display immense magnificence whenever she left her house to take part in
women’s ceremonies, having shared the life and fortune of Scipio (Africanus) at
the height of his success; 4 apart from her own attire and the decorations of her
carriage, all the baskets, cups and other sacrificial vessels were made of silver
or gold and were carried in her train in such illustrious processions, 5 while her
retinue of maids and menservants was proportionately large. 6 Immediately after
Aemilia’s funeral, he gave all this equipment to his mother (Papiria), who had
been separated from Lucius for many years, and whose means were insufficient to
maintain an appearance suitable for her birth. 7 Before this she had stayed away
from these solemn processions, but now, when an important public sacrifice took
place, she drove out in Aemilia’s splendid equipage, and when, in addition, the
muleteers and pair and carriage were the same, 8 the women who saw it were
astonished at Scipio’s kindness and generosity and lifted up their hands, praying
for every blessing on him . . . 27.1 After this he had to pay the daughters of the
great Scipio, the sisters of his adoptive father (the Corneliae), the second half of
their dowries. 2 Their father had agreed to give each of the daughters 50 talents,
3 and their mother had given half of this to their husbands immediately on their
marriage, but left the other half owing when she died. 4 As a result Scipio had to
pay this debt to his father’s sisters. 5 By Roman law the part of the dowry still
owing had to be paid within three years, with personal property being handed
over within ten months according to Roman custom, 6 but Scipio straightaway
instructed his banker to pay each of them in ten months the whole 25 talents.

7.71 Pliny the Elder Natural History 34.11–12: An expensive lampstand

In his discussion of bronzeware, Pliny discourses on the construction and cost of Corinthian
lampstands, which could clearly cost immense sums in the Republic. The funerary inscrip-
tion of the lucky slave hunchback below (Clesippus Geganius) dates to the first half of the
first century BC.

At the sale of such a lampstand, on the instructions of Theon the auctioneer, a

fuller named Clesippus, a hunchback of hideous appearance, was thrown in. It
was bought by Gegania for 50,000 sesterces. She threw a party to display her
purchases, and for the entertainment of her guests she had the man appear with
no clothes on; struck with outrageous passion for him, she admitted him to her
bed, and later made him her heir. He thus became extremely rich and worshipped
the lampstand as a divinity – thus attaching this story to Corinthian lampstands
generally – though his character was vindicated by his erecting a noble tomb to
perpetuate the memory of Gegania’s shame throughout the world.

7.72 ILS 3423: A business-like woman

This inscription on a stone tablet was found at Rome, dated to before 80 BC.

341
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
Publicia, daughter of Lucius, wife of Gnaeus Cornelius son of Aulus, built a tem-
ple and folding-doors for Hercules and had it adorned, and restored an altar sacred
to Hercules. She superintended the performance of all these works out of her own
and her husband’s estate.

7.73 CIL I2 2685: Forewomen of Minturnae

In the early first century BC, ‘forepersons’ of religious colleges at Minturnae, located at the
north-west of the ager Campanus, dedicated 29 slabs to serve as altars (destroyed by fire,
c. 50 BC). A number of these were dedicated by women forepersons (magistrae). Tertia
Domatia is clearly freeborn, unlike the other dedicants of these altars. Each vicus, or ‘quar-
ter’, probably elected annually a college of 12 forepersons for each cult, who may have had
other duties concerned with the maintenance of the relevant crossroads or street-corner or
with the celebration of the Compitalia festival.

In the year of office of . . . Members of the Board of Two. These forewomen pre-
sent this as an offering to Venus: Tertia Domatia, daughter of Spurius; Alfia Flora,
freedwoman of a matron; Cahia Astaphium, freedwoman of a matron; Dosithea,
slave of Numerius Calidius; and others. . . .

7.74 Cicero’s friend Caerellia

In writing to P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus, governor of Asia, in 46 BC, Cicero talks of Caerellia’s
estates, investments and possessions in Asia. He borrowed money from her, which Atticus
thought ‘undignified’ (Att. 12.52.3). Q. Fufius Calenus (cos. 47 BC) used Caerellia – whose
friendship with Cicero must have been widely known – as ammunition against him in 43 in
his defence of Mark Antony. His other vicious jibes included Cicero’s incest with his daugh-
ter, the prostitution of his wife, and his son’s constant inebriation (46.18.6; cf. doc. 14.47) –
which gives a clear idea of the very personal and vitriolic nature of Roman oratory.

(i) Cicero Letters to his Friends 13.72.1–2

1 Regarding the estate, investments and possessions in Asia of my very close friend
Caerellia, I recommended them to your notice as carefully as I could when I was
with you in your garden; and you, in accordance with your usual practice and your
continual, immense services to me, most generously promised that you would do
all that was in your power. I expect that you remember it; I know you generally do.
However, Caerellia’s agents have written that, because of the size of your province
and your multitudinous business, you have had to be reminded over and over again.
2 So I beg you to remember that you told me that you would do everything your
honour permitted with all liberality. Indeed, I think you have a great opportunity of
assisting Caerellia (though it is a matter for you to consider and decide) following
the senate’s decree which was passed about the heirs of C. Vennonius. You will
employ your own wisdom in interpreting that decree. For I know that the authority
of that class has always been of great weight with you. Concerning what still has to
be done, I would like you to believe that, in whatever ways you show kindness to
Caerellia, you will be doing me the greatest possible favour.

342
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
(ii) Dio Roman History 46.18.1–4

1 This is what Cicero, or Cicerculus, or Ciceracius, or Ciceriscus, or Graeculus,

or whatever you like being called, the uneducated, the naked, the perfumed man
(Antony) achieved; 2 and none of it was done by you – the clever, the wise, the
user of much more lamp-oil than wine, the one who lets his clothing drag round
his ankles, not, by heaven, like the dancers do who instruct us in the intricacies of
arguments by their gestures, but just to conceal the ugliness of your legs! 3 Oh no,
it’s not from modesty that you act like this, you who spoke at such length about
Antony’s lifestyle! Who is there who doesn’t notice those delicate mantles you
wear? Who is there who doesn’t smell your grey hair, so very carefully arranged?
Who does not know that you divorced your first wife, who had given you two
children, and married instead in your old age a young girl, just so you could pay
your debts out of her property? 4 And yet you didn’t even hang onto her either, in
order to have the liberty to consort with Caerellia, with whom you had an affair,
though she was as much older than you as the girl you married was younger, and
despite this you still write such letters to her as a babbling jester might write to a
woman of 70 of whom he was enamoured.

7.75 Appian Civil Wars 4.5.31–34: Protest by wealthy women, 42 BC

Hortensia was the daughter of the great orator Q. Hortensius Hortalus, Cicero’s rival in the
courts. In 42 BC the triumvirs Octavian, Antony and Lepidus needed to raise funds for the
civil war against the assassins of Julius Caesar. When they decided to place a tax on Rome’s
1,400 wealthiest women, Hortensia spoke publicly on their behalf.

31 Accordingly the triumvirs who had hoped to acquire enough funds for the
preparations for the war still had a shortfall of 200 million drachmas. 32 They
addressed the people and published a decree relating to 1,400 of the wealthiest
women: these had to have their property valued and contribute to the needs of
the war as much as the triumvirs required from each. It was also laid down that
any of these women who concealed any of their property or made a fictitious
valuation would be fined, and rewards would be given to any informers regarding
this, whether free persons or slaves. The women decided to beg the support of
the triumvirs’ womenfolk. They were not unsuccessful with Caesar’s sister and
Antony’s mother, but when driven away from the door of Fulvia, Antony’s wife,
they took her outrageous treatment badly. They forced their way into the forum,
to the triumvirs’ tribunal, with the people and guards making way for them, and
declared, through Hortensia, whom they had chosen as their spokesperson: ‘As
is appropriate for women of our rank in petitioning you, we had recourse to your
womenfolk; but, after undergoing treatment that was not appropriate from Fulvia,
we have been driven by her to the forum. You have already deprived us of our
fathers, sons, husbands and brothers, whom you have claimed to have wronged
you; if you also take away our property, you downgrade us to a position unbecom-
ing and unworthy of our birth, lifestyle and female nature. If we have wronged
you in some way, as you say our menfolk have, proscribe us as well as them. But
if we women have not declared any of you a public enemy or pulled down your

343
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
house or destroyed your army or led another one against you – if we have not pre-
vented you from obtaining your offices or honours, why do we share the penalties
when we did not participate in the offences?
33 ‘Why should we pay taxes when we have no share at all in the magistracies,
honours, commands or politics over which you struggle with each other with such
dire outcomes? Because it’s wartime, you say? And when have there not been
wars? And when have women ever been taxed – we whose nature exempts us
among all persons? Our mothers on one occasion did rise above their nature, when
you were at great risk over the whole empire and the city itself, during the conflict
with the Carthaginians. At that time they contributed willingly, not from their land
or fields, their dowries or their houses, without which life is impossible for free
women, but only from their personal jewellery at home, and even these were not
valued, were not given up in fear of informers or accusers, were not the result of
compulsion or force, but whatever they themselves wanted to donate. What threat
is now looming over you regarding the empire or country? Let there be war with
the Gauls or Parthians, and we shall not be less anxious than our mothers for the
safety of the state. But may we never contribute to civil wars or assist you against
each other! We did not pay taxes to Caesar or Pompey, and neither Marius nor
Cinna compelled us to – nor even Sulla the tyrannical ruler of this country: while
your claim is that you are restoring the state!’
34 While Hortensia was delivering this speech, the triumvirs were angry that
women should be so bold and hold a public meeting while the men were silent,
that they should inquire into magistrates’ actions and, while the men were on cam-
paign, not even contribute money. They ordered the lictors to drive them away
from the tribunal until cries were raised from the mob outside, at which point the
lictors desisted and the triumvirs stated that they would put the matter off to the
following day. On the next day they reduced the number of women who had to
assess the value of their property from 1,400 to 400, and decreed that all men who
possessed more than 100,000 drachmas, both citizens and strangers, freedmen
and priests, and men of all nationalities, with no exception, under the same fear of
penalties and of similar denouncements, should lend them immediately a fiftieth
of their property and contribute a year’s income as a tax for the war.

7.76 Valerius Maximus On Memorable Deeds 8.3.1–2: Women in court

Valerius cites the cases of three women (including Hortensia: cf. doc. 7.75) who repre-
sented themselves in court. Like Sempronia (doc. 7.44), Carfania (sometimes known as
Carfinia or Afrania) oversteps the conventional line allowed to women.

1 Maesia of Sentinum defended her own case, with the praetor L. Titius in charge
of the court, and in the presence of a great throng of people, carrying out all the
usages and stages of a defence, not only thoroughly but even with spirit, and was
acquitted at the first hearing and almost unanimously. Because under her wom-
an’s guise she possessed a man’s resolve they called her Androgyne. 2 Carfania,
the wife of the senator Licinius Buccio, was quick to engage in law-suits and

344
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
always spoke on her own behalf before the praetor, not because she could not find
advocates but because she was overflowing with effrontery. By constantly plagu-
ing the tribunals with her unprecendented yapping in the forum, she became the
most notorious example of female mud-slinging, to such an extent that the name
Carfania is used as a reproach to taunt women who behave inappropriately. She
lived through until the second consulship of Gaius Caesar which he held with P.
Servilius (48 BC). For such a monstrosity, the date of death rather than that of
birth is the one that should be remembered.

WOMEN AND THE GODS

While, in Greek religion, goddesses tended to have women priests, in Rome goddesses
had male priests: there were male flamines for the goddesses Ceres, Flora, Furrina and
Pomona. This deprived women of religious roles which they might otherwise have played.
Though sacrifices were made in women’s rites (such as at the festival of Fortuna Muliebris:
doc. 7.84), men would have performed these for them, and women had no role in most
sacrifices: the presiding magistrates and priests were male. The exception to this rule was
the Vestal Virgins, who attended various sacrifices and also had an important role in prepar-
ing the sacrificial flour (the mola salsa: see below), but this in effect denied other women
even this supporting role. Their status as Vestals was not as women but as females whose
sexuality was denied (because of the cultural construction of the definition of gender at
Rome and in the ancient world generally). Other women supported the state in times of
crisis through their worship, but in passive ways: taking part in supplicationes (doc. 7.85),
praying to divinities, and making offerings, which could involve the use of splendid cultic
paraphernalia (doc. 7.70).
Women, however, participated in a number of festivals. Most is known about rites con-
cerning women’s role as childbearers and mothers, though little is articulated in the sources
except for what is known about the Lupercalia (doc. 7.78). But women did have festivals
which concerned them, and even rituals from which men were excluded – most explicitly
for the Bona Dea (docs 7.86–87) but also for the Pudicitia (doc. 7.77), Veneralia (doc.
7.81), Matralia (doc. 7.83) and Fortuna Muliebris (doc. 7.84), festivals in which the sources
mention the participation of women but not of men.

WOMEN’S FESTIVALS
7.77 Livy History of Rome 10.23.1–10: The Pudicitia
Livy has the Pudicitia, which celebrated the chastity of Roman women, ‘passing into obliv-
ion’, but Festus in the late second century AD knew of it. L. Volumnius Flamma was consul
in 296 BC (also cos. 307) and proconsul in 295. His wife, Verginia, had clearly been mar-
ried without manus, as she retained her patrician status; cf. doc. 7.10.

1 In that year (295 BC) there were many portents, to avert which the senate
decreed supplications for two days; 2 wine and incense were provided at public
expense; crowds, of both men and women, were to offer prayers. 3 The supplica-
tion was made memorable by a quarrel which arose between matrons in the tem-
ple of Patrician Chastity, which stands in the cattle-market by the round temple
of Hercules. 4 The matrons had excluded from their ceremonies Verginia, Aulus’

345
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
daughter, a patrician girl married to a plebeian, the consul Lucius Volumnius,
because she had married outside her patrician rank. A short altercation followed,
which, as a result of the sex’s hasty temper, blazed up into a passionate dispute,
5 Verginia boasting, with reason, that she had entered the temple of Patrician
Chastity both as a patrician and as a chaste woman, who was the wife of the man
to whom she had been married as a virgin, and that she was ashamed neither of
her husband nor of his honours and achievements.
6 She then followed up her proud speech with a deed which did her credit: in
the Vicus Longus, where she lived, she shut off a part of her house, which was
spacious enough for a shrine of reasonable size, and erected an altar there. She
summoned the plebeian matrons and, after complaining of the insult by the patri-
cian women, said, 7 ‘I dedicate this altar to Plebeian Chastity and exhort you that,
just as the men in this city compete for the prize of courage, 8 you as matrons do
the same with regard to chastity, and strive that this altar may, if possible, be said
to be tended more reverently than that one, and by women who are more virtu-
ous.’ 9 This altar was tended with nearly the same rites as the more ancient one,
so that no woman except one of proven chastity, who had been married to only
one man, should have the right to sacrifice. 10 Later on the cult was cheapened by
polluted participants, not only matrons but women of every status, and eventually
passed into oblivion.

7.78 The Lupercalia (15 February)

The Lupercalia, celebrated on 15 February, was a ceremony concerned both with the
purification of the city and with women’s fertility. It was at the Lupercalia in 44 BC that
Antony as one of the Luperci offered a diadem to Julius Caesar: cf. doc. 13.55; the scene is
immortalised in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 1.

(i) Varro On the Latin Language 6.13

The Lupercalia is so called because the Luperci sacrifice at the Lupercal. When the rex
sacrorum announces the monthly festivals on the Nones of February, he calls this day
‘februatus’: for the Sabines call a purification ‘februm’, and this word is not unknown
in our rites, for a goat hide, with a thong of which young women are flogged at the
Lupercal, the men of old called a ‘februs’, and the Lupercalia was called Februatio
(festival of purification), as I have shown in my Books of Antiquities.

(ii) Plutarch Life of Julius Caesar 61.1–3

1 It was the festival of the Lupercalia, regarding which many writers say that
in olden days it was celebrated by shepherds and also connected in some way
with the Arcadian festival of Lycaean Zeus. 2 Many of the well-born youths and
magistrates run through the city naked, striking those they encounter with rough
thongs to invoke sport and laughter; 3 many noble women deliberately get in their
way and put out their hands, like schoolchildren, for the blows, believing that this
assists the pregnant in childbirth and the childless in conceiving.

346
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
7.79 Ovid Fasti 3.241–58: The Matronalia (1 March)
The Matronalia marked the anniversary of the temple of Juno Lucina. The emphasis of
these rites was on aiding pregnancy, and on this day husbands prayed for their wives and
gave them presents, and the rites of the Salii were also celebrated (doc. 3.13). Here Mars
(Juno’s son) answers a question of Ovid’s. The Matronalia should not be confused with the
Matralia (June 11).

‘Now the field is fertile, now is the time for breeding stock,
Now the bird on the branch prepares a house and home:
It is proper that Latin mothers should celebrate the fertile season,
For in their childbirth they engage in conflict and prayer.
245 Add that, where the Roman king kept watch,
On the hill which now bears the name of Esquiline,
A temple to Juno was founded by Latin married women
At public expense on, if I remember correctly, this very day.
Why should I make a long story of it and weary your mind with various
reasons?
250 What you seek, look – it stands there before your eyes.
My mother loves brides: a crowd of mothers throngs my temple:
So pious a reason particularly becomes us both.’
Bring the goddess flowers: flowering plants
Delight this goddess: wreathe your heads with fresh flowers;
255 Say, ‘You have given us, Lucina, the light of life.’
Say, ‘You are there to help those who pray in childbirth.’
But whoever is pregnant, let her pray with loosened hair,
So the goddess may gently loose her childbirth.

7.80 Varro On the Latin Language 6.14: The Liberalia (17 March)
This festival celebrated Liber Pater, an Italian god of fertility and of wine and a Roman
equivalent to Dionysos. Liber shared Ceres’ games (ludi Ceriales) on 19 March; it was also
on this day that Roman boys who had attained puberty donned the toga virilis (Ovid Fasti
3.771–2).

The Liberalia is so called because on that day, throughout the whole city, old
women sit crowned with wreaths of ivy, as priestesses of Liber, with cakes and a
brazier on which they offer them up on behalf of those who buy them.

7.81 Ovid Fasti 4.133–9, 145–50: The Veneralia (1 April)

The Veneralia honoured Fortuna Virilis (Virile Fortune). Those who ‘do not wear the fillets
and long robe’ are women who are not matrons, i.e., prostitutes; the place of ‘warm water’ is
the baths. Presumably men were not present at the baths when this festival was celebrated.

With due religious observances you worship the goddess, Latin matrons old
and young,
And you, who do not wear the fillets and long robe.

347
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
135 Remove the golden necklaces from the marble neck,
Remove the rich adornments: the goddess must be completely bathed.
Return the golden necklaces to her neck, now dried:
She must now be given other flowers, now the blooming rose.
She herself commands you too to bathe under the green myrtle . . .
145 Now learn why to Fortuna Virilis you offer
Incense in the place which is damp with warm water.
All women remove their coverings when they enter that place
And it sees every blemish of their naked bodies;
Fortuna Virilis undertakes to conceal this and hide it from men
150 And for this service asks only a little incense.

7.82 Ovid Fasti 4.863–72: The Vinalia (23 April)

The Vinalia was celebrated on both 23 April and 19 August. Ovid describes the festival of
23 April, when an offering of new wine was made to Jupiter, and emphasises the role played
by prostitutes. The Praeneste calendar (AD 6–9) notes 24 April as a holiday for prostitutes.
The temple next to the Colline gate, taking its name from the Sicilian hill (Eryx), was the
aedes of Venus Erycina, vowed by L. Porcius Licinus (cos. 184 BC) during wars in Sicily
and opened in 181.

I have spoken of Pales, and now I will speak of the Vinalia;

One day, however, separates the two festivals.
865 Girls of the streets, celebrate the divine majesty of Venus:
Venus is very appropriate for those who earn their wages as prostitutes.
Offer incense and pray for beauty and popularity,
Pray for charm and witty speech,
Give the mistress the wild thyme she loves and her own myrtle
870 And chains of rushes concealed in bunched roses.
It is now the proper time to frequent her temple
Near the Colline gate, which takes its name from the Sicilian hill.

7.83 Ovid Fasti 6.475–80: The Matralia (11 June)

Cf. Varro Lat. Lang. 5.106 (for the crusty golden cakes the women baked in heated earthen-
ware). The Mater Matuta was honoured in her temple in the Forum Boarium at this festival.
There had been a temple on the site, according to tradition, since Servius Tullius, and it was
restored after the siege of Veii.

475 Go, good mothers (the Matralia is your festival),

Offer the Theban goddess her yellow cakes.
Adjoining the bridges and great Circus is a famous
Space, which takes its name from the ox statue there:
Here, on this day, they say Servius dedicated to Mother Matuta
480 A temple with his own sceptre-bearing hands.

348
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
7.84 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 8.39.1, 8.55.3:
Fortuna Muliebris (6 July)
The traditional (but almost certainly fictitious) aetiology of this cult, ‘Fortune of Women’,
is that the successful general Coriolanus, while exiled from Rome, led a Volscian army
against it in 493 (or 488) BC. His wife and mother, accompanied by large numbers of
matrons, persuaded him to lead the army away. A temple was built on the site of the con-
frontation with Coriolanus, 4 miles south of Rome on the Via Latina (cf. doc. 15.22).

39.1 As the danger was now close at hand, their wives threw to the winds the
propriety of staying at home and ran with lamentations to the shrines of the
gods, prostrating themselves before the statues; and every sacred place was filled
with the wailing and supplication of women, especially the temple of Jupiter
Capitolinus . . . (A noble woman, Valeria, persuades the women to supplicate
Coriolanus’ wife and mother to entreat him to make peace. The women succeed
and the senate and people grant them praise and an eternal remembrance.) 55.3
The women deliberated and decided to request a gift which would not cause jeal-
ousy, but to ask the senate for permission to found a temple to the Fortune of
Women (Fortuna Muliebris) on the place where they had made their prayers on
their city’s behalf, and for them to assemble there every year and sacrifice to her
on the day that they had ended the war. The senate and people decreed, however,
that a precinct should be purchased from public monies and dedicated to the god-
dess, and that a temple and altar be built in it, in whatever way the pontiffs might
prescribe, and that sacrifices should be conducted at the public expense, with a
woman commencing the rites, whomever the women themselves should decide
upon as the celebrant.

7.85 Livy History of Rome 27.37.7–15: The supplicatio of 207 BC

The women of Rome are here expiating various prodigies, including the birth of an her-
maphrodite child. This involvement of women in supplicationes was a feature of Roman
history.

7 The pontiffs also decreed that thrice nine virgins should go through the city
singing a hymn. While they were learning the hymn, composed by the poet Livius
(Andronicus), in the temple of Jupiter Stator, the temple of Juno the Queen on the
Aventine was struck by lightning; 8 as the haruspices’ interpretation was that this
portent concerned the matrons and that the goddess should be appeased by a gift,
9 an edict of the curule aediles summoned to the Capitol all matrons who resided
in the city of Rome or within 10 miles of the city, and these chose from among
themselves 25, to whom they should bring a donation from their dowries. 10 From
these donations a golden basin was made as a gift and carried to the Aventine, and
after proper purification the matrons offered a sacrifice.
11 A day was immediately named by the decemvirs for another sacrifice to the
same goddess, the procedure for which was as follows: two white cows were led

349
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
from the temple of Apollo through the Porta Carmentalis into the city; 12 after
them were carried two cypress-wood statues of Juno the Queen; then came 27 vir-
gins, dressed in long robes, singing the hymn to Juno the Queen, 13 which at that
time perhaps seemed praiseworthy to their uncultivated minds, but which now
would seem rough and uncouth, if recited. The group of virgins were followed by
the decemvirs, crowned with garlands of laurel and wearing the toga praetexta. 14
From the gate they came along the Vicus Iugarius into the forum. The procession
stopped in the forum, and the virgins, passing a rope from hand to hand, moved
forwards, accompanying the sound of their voices by beating time with their feet.
15 Then, via the Vicus Tuscus and the Velabrum, through the Forum Boarium,
they continued to the Clivus Publicius and the temple of Juno the Queen. There
the two victims were sacrificed by the decemvirs and the cypress-wood statues
carried into the temple.

THE BONA DEA

Bona Dea was the ‘Good Goddess’. She had two rites, on 1 May and, more importantly,
on 3 December. Men were not permitted to know her real name and her rites were secret.
The December ceremony was held at night in the house of the consul (Cicero in 63 BC) or
the praetor (Julius Caesar in 62). Cicero describes the December sacrifice as ‘ancient and
secret’ and performed by the Vestals ‘on behalf of the Roman people’.

7.86 Plutarch Life of Cicero 19–20: Terentia and the Catilinarian

conspiracy
This incident took place on 4 December 63, the day before the debate in the senate on the
fate of the Catilinarian conspirators (doc. 12.21).

19.4 As it was now evening and the people were gathered waiting, Cicero went
out and told the citizens what he had done and with their escort went to the house
of a friend and neighbour, since his own was occupied by the women who were
celebrating the secret rites of the goddess whom the Romans call ‘Bona Dea’ and
the Greeks ‘Gynaeceia’ (Women’s). 5 Every year a sacrifice is made to her in the
consul’s house by his wife or mother, with the Vestal Virgins present. On entering
the house, Cicero, with only a few people present, deliberated with himself what
he should do with the conspirators . . . 20.1 While Cicero was making up his mind
what to do, a sign was given to the women as they were sacrificing. For the altar,
on which the fire seemed to have totally died down, sent out from the ash and
burnt bark an immense, brilliant flame. 2 The other women were terrified by this,
but the sacred virgins instructed Terentia, Cicero’s wife, to go with all speed to
her husband and tell him to carry out his resolutions for his country’s good, as the
goddess was giving him a great light on his road to safety and glory. 3 So Terentia,
who was generally not of a mild and retiring disposition but an ambitious woman
and, as Cicero himself states, more inclined to share in his political concerns than
to share her domestic concerns with him, told him this and urged him to take
action against the conspirators.

350
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
7.87 Plutarch Life of Julius Caesar 9.1–10.9: Clodius and the
Bona Dea
As Caesar was praetor in 62 BC, the rites of the Bona Dea were held in his house. Clodius’
intrusion was raised in the senate and referred to the Vestals and the pontifices, who decreed
that it was ‘nefas’ (sacrilege); the rites had to be celebrated anew. Clodius was tried for
sacrilege and Cicero disproved his alibi, but the bribed jurors acquitted him. In revenge,
Clodius eventually succeeded in having Cicero banished; for this incident and Clodius’
trial, see docs 12.54–56.

9.1 There were no disturbances in Caesar’s praetorship, although he met with a

disgraceful misfortune in his own household. 2 Publius Clodius was a patrician
by birth, distinguished for both his wealth and his eloquence, but second to none
of the noted profligates of the time in insolence and audacity. 3 He was in love
with Caesar’s wife, Pompeia, and she was not unwilling. But strict watch was
kept on the women’s apartments, and Caesar’s mother, Aurelia, a discreet woman,
kept her eye on her daughter-in-law and made any meeting difficult and risky.
4 The Romans have a goddess whom they call ‘Good’, whom the Greeks call
‘Gynaeceia’ . . . 6 It is not lawful for a man to be present, or even in the house,
while the rites are being celebrated; the woman are said to perform by themselves
rites during their worship which are Orphic in nature.
7 So, when it is time for the festival, the husband, who is either consul or praetor,
and every other male, leaves the house, while the wife takes it over and sets it in
order. 8 The most important ceremonies are celebrated at night, when the all-night
celebrations are mingled with fun and games and with much music, too, as a feature.
10.1 As Pompeia was at that time conducting the festival, Clodius, who had as
yet no beard, and so thought he would pass unnoticed, put on the dress and acces-
sories of a lute-girl and went there in the guise of a young woman. 2 Finding the
door open, he was brought in without any difficulty by the maid, who was in the
know. She ran on to tell Pompeia, but, as there was a long wait, Clodius had not
the patience to remain where he had been left and wandered around in the large
house, trying to avoid the lights, when an attendant of Aurelia’s encountered him
and asked him to play with her as one woman would another. When he refused, she
dragged him forward and asked who he was and where he came from. 3 Clodius
replied that he was waiting for Pompeia’s maid Abra (this was her name) and
was detected by his voice, whereupon the attendant sprang away with a scream
to the lights and the crowds, crying out that she had caught a man. The women
were terrified, and Aurelia put a stop to the rites of the goddess and covered up
the ritual objects, ordering the doors to be closed and going around the house with
torches looking for Clodius. 4 He was found to have taken refuge in the room of
the girl who had let him in, and when they saw who he was the women drove him
out of doors. 5 At once, that same night, the women went and told their husbands,
and in the morning the report was all over the city that Clodius had committed
sacrilege and should be punished for his crimes, not only against those he had
directly offended, but against the city and the gods as well. 6 One of the tribunes
therefore prosecuted Clodius for impiety, and the most powerful senators leagued

351
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
against him, giving evidence about his adultery with his sister, who was mar-
ried to Lucullus, and other dreadful acts of licentiousness. 7 The people opposed
their efforts and defended Clodius and were of great assistance to him with the
jurors, who were terrified and afraid of the mob. 8 Caesar immediately divorced
Pompeia, but when summoned as a witness at the trial said he knew nothing of
the matters with which Clodius was charged. 9 As his statement appeared strange,
the prosecutor asked him, ‘Why then did you divorce your wife?’ ‘Because’, he
replied, ‘I thought that my wife should not even be suspected.’

THE VESTAL VIRGINS

The Vestal Virgins were six women devoted since childhood exclusively to the service
of the goddess Vesta, who presided over the hearth in Roman homes. They served for 30
years, and their main role, besides officiating at various state religious ceremonies, was
to keep alight the sacred fire of Vesta and guard the ‘sacred things’, including the ancient
palladium, the image of Minerva rescued from Troy when the Greeks sacked it, referred to
by Livy as the ‘pledge of Roman imperium’ (26.27.14; doc. 2.29). According to tradition,
the Vestals were established by Numa (docs 3.6, 7.90). Vesta’s festival, the Vestalia, was
celebrated on 9 June. The Vestals participated at various rites and prepared enough mola
salsa for all Rome’s official sacrifices (i.e., they ground the first ears of grain for the season
and baked this with salt to make mola salsa, salted flour).

7.88 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 2.67.1–2:

A Vestal’s life
Dionysius (3.67.2) records that Tarquinius Priscus added two Vestals to the initial four, and
that the number of Vestals up to Dionysius’ own day had remained six.

1 The Vestal Virgins live in the sanctuary of the goddess, which no one who wishes
can be prevented from entering during the day, though it is not lawful for any man
to stay there at night. 2 They were required to remain undefiled by marriage for 30
years, offering sacrifices and performing other religious rites in accordance with
the law. During the first ten years they had to learn these rites, during the second
ten to perform them, and during the remaining ten to teach others. When the period
of 30 years had been completed, there was nothing which prevented those who so
wished from putting aside the headbands and other insignia of their priesthood and
marrying. And some, though only a few, have done so, but the ends of their lives
were unenviable and not at all happy, and in consequence, taking their misfortunes
as ominous, the rest remain virgins in service to the goddess until their deaths, when
another is again appointed by the pontiffs to fill the vacancy.

7.89 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 8.89.3–5: A

Vestal’s death, 481 BC
Cf. Livy 2.42.10–11 for Livy’s account. Describing a similar incident in 471 BC, Dionysios
states that the Vestal was also scourged (9.40.3–4).

352
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
3 In Rome many portentous signs, in the form of unusual voices and visions,
occurred as evidence of divine wrath. 4 The augurs and expounders of religious
matters shared their experiences and proclaimed that some of the gods were wrath-
ful because they were not receiving their customary honours, since their rites were
not being conducted in a pure and holy manner. A great inquiry was then held by
everyone, and eventually the pontiffs received information that one of the virgins
who guarded the sacred fire, whose name was Opimia, had lost her virginity and
was polluting the rites. 5 By tortures and other proofs, the pontiffs discovered that
the information was correct, and they took the headbands from her head and, car-
rying her in procession through the forum, buried her alive inside the city walls.
The two men who were convicted of seducing her were flogged in public and then
immediately executed. After this, the sacrifices and the auguries became favour-
able, as if the gods had remitted their anger against them.

7.90 Plutarch Life of Numa 9.8–10.13: Plutarch on the Vestals

After the Gallic victory at the battle of the Allia, traditionally dated to 390 BC, the Vestals
removed the fire of Vesta and other sacred objects in their care from Rome. These objects
were thought to include the palladium brought from Troy by Aeneas, the Samothracian
images, and two small jars (one open and one sealed).

9.8 The chief of the pontiffs (the pontifex maximus) had the duty of expound-
ing and interpreting or, rather, presiding over sacred ceremonies, not only being
in charge of public rites but overseeing private sacrifices, too, and ensuring that
established custom was not transgressed, as well as giving instructions as to what-
ever was necessary for the worship or propitiation of the gods. 9 He was also the
overseer of the holy virgins, who are called Vestals. 10 To Numa is attributed the
consecration of the Vestal Virgins and the care and worship of the perpetual fire
which they guard, either because he considered the essence of fire to be pure and
uncorrupted, and so entrusted it to chaste and undefiled persons, or because he
saw fire as barren and unfruitful and so analogous to virginity. 11 Yet, wherever
fire is unquenched in Greece, as at Delphi and Athens, not virgins but women past
the age of marriage have care of it . . . 15 Some consider that nothing other than
the perpetual fire is guarded by the holy virgins; others say that certain sacred
objects are kept in concealment by them, which no one else may see: what may be
learnt and told about these things I have written in my Life of Camillus.
10.1 Initially, they say, Gegania and Verenia were consecrated by Numa, and
then Canuleia and Tarpeia; and two others were later added by Servius, making up
the number which has continued to this day . . . 5 He granted them great privileges –
for example, the right to make a will while their father was still alive and the
power to manage their other affairs without a guardian, like mothers of three chil-
dren. 6 When they appear in public, the fasces are carried in front of them, and if
they meet someone being led to execution, he is spared – the Vestal has to swear
that the encounter was involuntary and accidental, not contrived. If anyone passes
underneath the litter on which they are being carried he is put to death. 7 For other

353
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
offences the Vestals’ punishment is flogging, the pontifex maximus carrying it
out, with the offender sometimes naked, in a dark place, with a curtain pulled
between them; 8 but if one has broken her vow of chastity, she is buried alive
near the gate called the Colline; there a little mound of earth lies within the city,
extending for some distance: in the Latin language it is called choma, ‘agger’. 9
A small underground room has been constructed there, with steps leading down
from above. In it is placed a bed with coverings and a lighted lamp and small
portions of the necessities of life, such as bread, water in a bowl, milk and oil, as
though they are absolving themselves from killing by hunger a person consecrated
to the highest religious duties.
10 The offender is placed on a litter, which they throw coverings over and tie
down with cords, so that no cry she makes can be heard, and take her through the
forum. 11 Everyone stands aside in silence and escorts it noiselessly with dreadful
gloom: no other sight is more frightful, and the city observes no more awful day
than this. 12 When the litter has been carried to the spot, the attendants undo the
cords, and then the high priest, uttering certain silent prayers and raising his hands
to the gods before the act, brings her out still covered and places her upon the steps
that lead down to the room. 13 He then averts his face with the other priests; when
she has descended, the ladder is drawn up and the room’s entrance is concealed
with a quantity of earth heaped up over it, so as to make it level with the rest of the
mound. This is the punishment for those who break their vow of virginity.

7.91 Livy History of Rome 8.15.7–8: A Vestal’s punishment

Livy dates this incident to 337 BC. Minucia was not allowed to free her slaves because
slaves could be tortured to give evidence. On her punishment, Ennius wrote, ‘Since no law
ever demanded anything more horrible’ (Annals 474).

In that year the Vestal Minucia, suspected initially because of her dress, which
was more elegant than was fitting, was accused before the pontiffs on the evidence
of a slave and was ordered by their decree to abstain from performing sacrifices
and to retain her slaves in her own power. After her conviction, she was buried
alive near the Colline gate on the right of the paved road in the Polluted Field – a
place named, I believe, for her unchastity.

7.92 Pliny the Elder Natural History 28.12–13: A Vestal’s miraculous

powers
For the devotio rituals of the Decii, see doc. 3.18; for runaway slaves, docs 6.45–47.

12 As an important example of ritual there has survived that used by the Decii,
father and son, to devote themselves; also extant is the Vestal Tuccia’s plea of
innocence when accused of unchastity, when she carried water in a sieve in the
year 609 of the city (145 BC). 13 We believe today that our Vestals are able, with
a prayer, to root runaway slaves to the spot, providing that they have not yet left
the city.

354
 WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY
COINAGE AND THE VESTALS
7.93 Crawford RRC 428.1–2: Condemnation of Vestals in 113 BC
This denarius of 55 or 53 BC was minted by Q. Cassius Longinus, commemorating his
great-grandfather L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla. In 114 BC, the virgin daughter of a Roman
eques was struck dead by a lightning bolt. The omen was interpreted to mean that the
Vestals had broken their vows. Aemilia was condemned but the other two were acquitted by
the pontiffs (the Aemilia is not the same as in doc. 7.94). With L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla
as prosecutor (quaesitor), in 113 the two Vestals previously acquitted, Licinia and Marcia,
were also condemned to death, as well as several equites. The curule seat shown on the coin
is a reference to Ravilla’s official position as quaesitor.

Obverse: Head of the goddess Vesta.

Reverse: Temple of Vesta (which was in the forum). Within the temple of Vesta
there is a curule chair. On the left of the temple, a voting urn, and on the temple’s
right a voting tablet inscribed with the letters A and C, for absolvo (I acquit)
and condemno (I condemn). The coin shows the temple’s circular construction,
as well as a statue, presumably Vesta, on the roof (not to be confused with the
ancient statue within the temple itself).

7.94 Crawford RRC 419.3: The Vestal Virgin Aemilia honoured for
her virtue
This denarius was minted by the moneyer M. Aemilius Lepidus in 61 BC. The reverse
shows the Basilica Aemilia et Fulvia, a two-storey portico constructed in the forum in
179 BC by his ancestor M. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 187) with his fellow censor M. Fulvius
Nobilior. On the obverse is a woman attired as a Vestal Virgin, whom scholars identify as
the Vestal Aemilia, who is reported to have rekindled the fire in the temple of Vesta (which
had gone out) by throwing one of her loveliest garments onto it (Val. Max. 1.1.7).

Obverse: Head of a veiled woman, wearing laurel wreath.

Reverse: Basilica Aemilia and Fulvia, two storied, with legend Aimilia above
building (ignoring the Fulvia); portrait shields are attached to the columns; on the
left the letters REF (refecta, ‘rebuilt’) and on the right SC (‘by decree of the sen-
ate’). The legend M(arcus) Lepidus underneath the building.

7.95 Cicero On his House 109: Home is where the hearth is

The demolition of a house was a symbolic destruction of the offender and all his family.
When Cicero was exiled, his house on the Palatine was destroyed by Clodius by decree and
replaced by a monument to Liberty; Cicero was recalled in 57 BC and made a case before the
pontiffs that the consecration was null and void; his house was then rebuilt (docs 12.60–61).

What is more holy, what more protected by every kind of sanctity than the home
of every individual citizen? There are his altars, his hearths, his household gods,
his sacred rites, observances, rituals: it is a sanctuary so holy in the eyes of all that
it is sacrilege to drag a person from it.

355
 8

Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus

Land and its distribution and redistribution was an issue in late Republican poli-
tics from the time of the Gracchi down to Caesar, with Saturninus, Drusus (the
younger), Sulla and Caesar all concerned with land redistribution (Stockton 1979:
16). It is not an understatement to say that the demise of the Republic began with
the Gracchi, plebeians with impeccable family backgrounds whose ancestors had
been conspicuous in their military service (docs 8.1, 5.56). They attempted to deal
with pressing economic and social problems – and failed. The violence that was
to mark the late Republic (133–44 BC) began in 133, when members of the sen-
ate shattered the concordia of the state by murdering Tiberius Gracchus. It was
acknowledged by Appian – and accepted by modern historians – that the period of
the Gracchi saw the beginning of the decline of the Republic: Tiberius’ tribunate
is the point at which Appian began his Civil Wars, part of his history of Rome
(doc. 8.4).
Scholars agree less on the precise nature of the problems facing Rome which
Tiberius, as tribune in 133, and then his brother Gaius, as tribune in 123 and 122,
sought to overcome and on what their motives were. But the overall aim presented
by the sources for Tiberius is that he wanted to settle Roman citizens on ager pub-
licus (public land) so that they would become eligible for military service (docs
8.6, 9). Whether he did this from pure altruism, to ‘get even’ with the senate, to
pursue gloria and advance his political career, or a combination of these, is up to
the reader to decide. But it is clear that he did not, in proposing his law, deliber-
ately seek to alienate the senate or to destroy its power. However, their obstruction
of the workings of the land commission led him to a decision, the use of funds
from Pergamum, which would interfere in senatorial prerogatives. Events led on
from there to a disastrous conclusion (doc. 8.15).
Roman conquests of the third and second centuries, during which farmers were
often away from their farms serving in the army, combined with the increase in
the number of slaves, had resulted in much of the land of peasant farmers being
concentrated in the hands of the few and being worked by slaves. These were not
yet latifundia – huge farms (such as could be found in Sicily at this time); rather,
the rich tended to own a ‘patchwork’ of smaller estates run as independent units.
To be eligible for military service, citizens had to belong to one of the property

356
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
classes. When they lost their farms, and perhaps the use of ager publicus through
the encroachments of the rich, they were no longer eligible for service in the army.
A property census rating of 11,000 sesterces was necessary for military service;
with small farmers replaced by slaves, it became difficult to raise recruits, and
slaves themselves were a danger (docs 1.20, 8.6). During the tribunate of Tiberius
the slave revolt in Sicily (135–132 BC) was in full swing (doc. 6.48).
Both Appian and Plutarch agree that Tiberius’ main concern was to increase
the number of soldiers by distributing the ager publicus. Rome owned large
amounts of ager publicus, particularly in southern Italy, from confiscations from
communities that had gone over to Hannibal in 216 or soon after (see doc. 4.42).
By 167 a law limited possession of ager publicus to 500 iugera per individual,
but the senators resented this law, and, as with the much earlier fourth-century
Licinio–Sextian law which disallowed private possession of ager publicus (doc.
1.48), it seems to have been largely ignored. Certainly by Tiberius’ time much of
this land was treated as private property, and this was the cause of his conflict with
the rich. But it was when Tiberius proposed that the plebeian assembly legislate
on the bequest of Attalus III’s kingdom of Pergamum to Rome, interfering in the
senate’s traditional prerogatives of foreign affairs and finance, that his opponents
had a basis for blocking his measures, further aggravated by his decision to stand
for a second time as tribune when the opposition to him became clear (doc. 8.15).
The charge made against Tiberius, that he was aiming at kingship, was clearly not
credible in anyone’s eyes but was a deliberate attack on him.
The urban and rural poor alike were interested in Tiberius’ proposed agrarian
law and flocked to the assembly to support it, while the rich, who had much to
lose, opposed it. Tiberius’ tribunate marks the beginning of the trend towards vio-
lence in Republican politics: there had been the occasional imprisonment of con-
suls by tribunes, but no political assassinations. The murder of Tiberius, together
with 300 of his supporters (doc. 8.15), and his brother Gaius, with 3,000 (doc.
8.32), even if these numbers were exaggerated, did not mark a single aberration in
the history of the Republic; rather, it was a signal of what was to come – bloody
proscriptions, civil wars and devastation on a scale unheard of in Italy. The tribu-
nates of the Gracchi did not automatically lead to the destruction of the Republic,
nor can they even be said to have set the process in train. Rather, the Gracchi and
the problems which they sought to overcome, and the ways in which they reacted
to opposition, which provoked the senate to respond with force, exposed funda-
mental flaws in the Roman political apparatus and demonstrated its inability to
deal peacefully with these problems.
While Tiberius started out with several influential supporters in the senate,
including his father-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher (cos. 143), who was princeps
senatus (doc. 8.11), it was the assembly which became his, and Gaius’, mainstay,
though it was not as loyal as might have been expected. Gaius discovered this in
122, when the assembly was won over by Drusus’ proposals to support his oppo-
nents. The Gracchi created a power base independent of the senate and, particu-
larly in Gaius’ case, family connections. Marius and Sulla did not follow in the
footsteps of the Gracchi or appreciate the lesson that the senate was not absolute,

357
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
but they also exposed the same fundamental political problem of who ruled Rome –
senate or people. Nevertheless the Gracchi hardly caused the collapse of the
Republic, and the view that ‘they precipitated the revolution that overthrew the
Republic’ (Scullard GN 38) is simplistic in the extreme. Rome was ‘quiet’ for two
decades after Gaius’ murder, and the forces that brought down the Republic had
origins other than the problems Tiberius and Gaius sought to address.
Tiberius’ younger brother, Gaius, born 154, also had influential friends and
connections. He was married to Licinia, the daughter of P. Licinius Crassus Dives
Mucianus (cos. 131). He served in Numantia with Scipio Aemilianus, his cousin
and brother-in-law, and was elected to serve on Tiberius’ land commission in 133.
He clearly followed the policies of his brother and was a highly accomplished
orator (docs 8.26–27). He was elected tribune for 123, though returned fourth out
of ten, showing that he was not immediately popular, and was re-elected for 122.
His tribunates were to see a vast legislative programme, his first aims being to put
fresh life into his brother’s agrarian reform (docs 8.28–29) and to seek justice –
though limited – against the latter’s murderers (doc. 8.29). His legislation cannot
always be firmly dated to one tribunate or the other, but it generally benefited
either the people or the equites, such as the reforms of the extortion court and tax
collection, both of which benefited the equites (doc. 8.28), and he may have been
concerned not so much to court their support as to show that the people were an
important source of authority: the laws about these two matters emanated from the
people’s assembly and challenged senatorial control of foreign affairs and state
finance. The extortion court ties in with his attacks on the corruption of Roman
officials (docs 8.22–4). His road-building and granary projects (doc. 8.28) prob-
ably also benefited the equites, as well as the people. Like Tiberius, he resorted to
a makeshift bodyguard when his fortunes were reversed and, like Tiberius, died
violently along with his supporters (docs 8.30–33). The success of his legisla-
tion is uncertain, and Appian judged his agrarian law a failure (doc. 8.35), but
the lex agraria of 111 BC conferred ownership of the land on those to whom the
Gracchan land commission had apportioned it (doc. 8.36). Cicero’s verdict on the
Gracchi was negative (doc. 8.37) except when circumstances demanded it (doc.
8.39), while Sallust, who favoured the populares, was supportive and pointed out
that the senate’s use of force endangered the state (doc. 8.40).
Ancient sources: there were several contemporary writers on the Gracchi:
Calpurnius Piso (cos. 133; HRR I2 120–38), C. Fannius (cos. 122 and son-in-law
of Laelius: HRR I2 139–41) and Sempronius Asellio (military tribune in 133; HRR
I2 179–84) all held office in the crucial period, though none of their works survive
intact. Sempronius’ history probably began in 146 and dealt with events at least
down to Drusus’ assassination; apparently L. Cornelius Sisenna’s history was a
continuation of Asellio’s from this point (HRR I2 276–97). Posidonius (c. 135–51:
FGrH 87), an eastern Greek, wrote a world history from 146 BC down to the mid-
80s; it is no longer extant, but his material on the slave revolts was used heavily
by Diodorus (see chapter 6). Both Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus were excellent
orators, and fragments of Gaius’ speeches survive (ORF4 174–98; docs 8.22–24).
Cicero provides valuable references to the Gracchi, and his study of oratory would

358
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
have included them. Of historians proper, Livy, Plutarch and Appian are the most
important, but Livy’s relevant books survive only in the abbreviated form of the
fourth-century AD summaries (the Periochae) of Books 58, 60 and 61. Plutarch’s
Life of Tiberius Gracchus and Life of Gaius Gracchus are invaluable, closely fol-
lowing the Roman annalistic tradition, and his main source is the same as used by
Appian: Books 1.9.35 to 26.113 of Appian’s Civil Wars deals with the Gracchi.
He made use of the hostile account of C. Fannius (one fragment of a speech made
by him survives: doc. 8.28), as well as the political pamphlet which Gaius had
written about his brother. The historical record for the Gracchi is, then, quite
considerable, and Appian and Plutarch are largely reliable witnesses. Diodorus
34/5.24–27 provides judgemental comments of little value. In this chapter, the
sources are taken as an essentially correct view of the period. Modern critics can
and do disagree, but the sources must form the backbone of any historical recon-
struction of this controversial period. The evidence of epigraphy is invaluable:
mainly the surviving boundary stones set up by the agrarian commission, the lex
Acilia, and the lex agraria of 111 BC.

FAMILY BACKGROUND
8.1 Plutarch Life of Tiberius Gracchus 1.1–7: Parents of the Gracchi
Cornelia was the daughter of the great Scipio Africanus, who defeated Hannibal at Zama in
202 BC. The younger Scipio, Scipio Aemilianus, Tiberius’ and Gaius’ brother-in-law, was
responsible for the destruction of Carthage in 146 BC. His marriage to Sempronia, sister of
the Gracchi, was not a success (doc. 8.21).
The father of the Gracchi was Ti. Sempronius Gracchus the Elder, who held two con-
sulships (177 and 163), was censor in 169, and celebrated two triumphs. His uncle, also a
Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, was consul in 215 and 213. The family, though plebeian, was
therefore distinguished. 1: Both Agis IV and Cleomenes were third-century BC Spartan
kings who attempted to increase the number of citizens by land redistribution. 6: A tale of
the elder Tiberius finding two serpents on his bed; whichever he killed first would mean
the death of that spouse; he chose to kill the male. 7: Possibly Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II
(cf. doc. 5.39).

1 Now that I have completed the first part of my account (the Lives of Agis and
Cleomenes), I have to turn to the equally unfortunate story of the Roman pair
Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, whom I have chosen as their parallel. 2 They were
the sons of Tiberius Gracchus, who was renowned more for his personal excel-
lence than for having been censor and twice consul and having celebrated two
triumphs. 3 It was for this reason that he was thought worthy to marry Cornelia,
daughter of that Scipio who conquered Hannibal, after Scipio’s death, even
though they were not friendly and were on different sides in politics . . . 5 Tiberius
died shortly afterwards (c. 150 BC), leaving Cornelia with 12 children by him. 6
Cornelia took charge of both the children and the household and showed herself
to be so discreet, devoted to her children and high-minded that Tiberius was con-
sidered to have made no bad decision in choosing to die instead of such a wife;

359
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
7 for when King Ptolemy asked her to share his crown and marry him she refused.
While a widow she lost all her other children except for a daughter who married
Scipio (Aemilianus) the younger, and two sons, Tiberius and Gaius, concerning
whom this Life is written, whom she brought up so zealously that, although it is
admitted that they were the most naturally gifted of all Romans, their virtues were
thought to be owed more to their education than to nature.

8.2 Valerius Maximus On Memorable Deeds and Sayings 4.4 pref.:

Cornelia
Cornelia’s marriage occurred sometime between 175 and 165. She was the second daughter
of P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus and aunt by adoption of Scipio Aemilianus (who was her
cousin). The date of the Collecta of Pomponius Rufus is not known.

That children are a mother’s greatest adornments we find as follows in Book . . . of

Pomponius Rufus’ anthology: when a Campanian lady was a guest in her house
and showed off her jewellery, the very finest there was at the time, Cornelia, the
mother of the Gracchi, detained her in conversation until her children returned
home from school and then said, ‘These are my jewels’.

8.3 Plutarch Life of Gaius Gracchus 2.2–5, 3.1–2: The two brothers
For Gaius needing a pitch-pipe to guide him while speaking, see doc. 8.27. The dolphins
were presumably furniture ornaments.

2.2 First of all Tiberius was mild and sedate in his facial appearance, glance and
demeanour, while Gaius was eager and vehement, so when they spoke to the peo-
ple Tiberius did so decorously, remaining on the same spot, while Gaius was the
first Roman to walk up and down on the rostra and pull his toga off his shoulder
while he was speaking, just as Cleon the Athenian is said to have been the first
demagogue to pull at his garment and strike his thigh. 3 Gaius’ oratory was awe-
inspiring and passionate to the point of exaggeration, while Tiberius’ was more
pleasant and productive rather of pity in the hearer. His style was pure and accu-
rately cultivated, while Gaius’ was persuasive and glamorous. 4 It was the same
with regard to their way of life and eating habits, for Tiberius’ was inexpensive
and simple, while Gaius’, though moderate and austere when compared with that
of others, was extravagant and epicurean in comparison with that of his brother:
evidence for this is Drusus’ charge that he bought silver dolphins at a cost of
1,250 drachmas a pound. 5 The same distinction was apparent in their characters
as in their oratory, with Tiberius being reasonable and mild and Gaius harsh and
hot-tempered, in consequence being often, against his judgement, carried away by
anger while speaking, when his voice would become high-pitched, and he would
become abusive and confuse his argument. . . .
3.1 These were the differences between them but, with regard to courage in the
face of the enemy, justice towards subjects, diligence in government, and restraint

360
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
in their pleasures, they were indistinguishable. Tiberius was the elder by nine
years; 2 and this meant that their careers were divided by a period of time, which
was an important element in weakening their actions, as they did not come to
prominence together or wield power at the same time, for their power would have
been immense and unsurpassable had both worked together.

8.4 Appian Civil Wars 1.2 (4–5): The emerging conflict

Appian sees the period of the Gracchi as the beginning of violent conflict in the Republic.
Scholars follow him in dating the beginning of the disintegration of the Republic from this
period.

4 And this is the only occurrence of armed conflict that one might find in the
ancient struggles, and this was brought about by an exile (Coriolanus), but the
sword was never brought into the assembly, nor was there any civil killing, until
Tiberius Gracchus proposed laws as tribune. 5 He was the first to lose his life in
internal strife, and with him many others, who were gathered on the Capitol round
the temple, were also slain. Nor did the internal strife come to an end with this
dreadful deed . . .

THE TRIBUNATE OF TIBERIUS, 133 BC

Tiberius Gracchus came to the tribunate after creditable military service and could ordinar-
ily have expected a political career. He served in the Third Punic War as quaestor under
his brother-in-law Scipio Aemilianus, who sacked Carthage in 146 BC. He was quaestor in
Spain in 137 BC and extricated the army of Hostilius Mancinus from disaster by negotiat-
ing a treaty; see docs 8.8, 5.50. En route to Spain, Tiberius had observed the number of
slave-operated farms and decided to distribute the ager publicus among Roman citizens and
increase the population liable for military service.

8.5 Appian Civil Wars 1.7 (26–31): Slaves versus citizens

The Romans had acquired a great deal of land in their conquest of Italy; much of this
became public land, ager publicus, leased out for a tax or toll. But the rich took up the land
and farmed it using slaves, causing the Italian population to decline and the slave popula-
tion to grow. This passage refers to the period of the third and second centuries.

26 As the Romans subdued Italy in war bit by bit, they used to seize a part of the
Italians’ lands and build towns there or to choose colonists of their own to occupy
towns which were already there. 27 Their intention was to use these as garrison
towns, while on each occasion they immediately distributed to the colonists the
cultivated part of the land acquired by conquest, or sold or leased it; as for the
part which was then lying idle because of the war – which tended to be the greater
proportion – as they did not have the time as yet to divide it up, they used to pro-
claim that, in the meantime, those who wished to work it might do so in return
for a tax on the crops every year, a tenth of the grain and a fifth of the fruit. It

361
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
was laid down that those who farmed animals should pay tolls on both the larger
and smaller stock animals. 28 They did all this in order to increase the Italian
population, which they considered very tough, so that they would have home-
grown allies. But the very opposite occurred. 29 For the rich took over most of the
unassigned land and, being confident in time that no one would ever dispossess
them, absorbed small plots adjoining theirs and those of their poor neighbours,
purchasing some through persuasion and taking others by force, and ended up
farming great plains rather than individual properties, using purchased slaves as
farm-workers and herdsmen, as free men might be diverted from farm-work into
the army. In addition, the ownership of slaves brought them great gain from their
abundance of children, who multiplied free from danger because they were not
liable for military service. 30 In this way, powerful men became extremely rich
and slaves as a class multiplied throughout the country, while the Italian popula-
tion dwindled, worn down by poverty, taxes and military service. 31 If they had
any respite from these, they had to spend their time in idleness because the land
was held by the rich, who used slaves as their farm-workers instead of free men.

8.6 Appian Civil Wars 1.8–9 (32–7): Military recruitment

The Licinio–Sextian legislation of 367 (doc. 1.48) attempted to prevent the ager publicus
from coming into private ownership. Either in 367 or after, a provision was enacted that no
one was to hold more than 500 iugera (c. 300 hectares or c. 150 acres). In addition, there
was the recent attempt of Laelius, consul in 140, to reform the abuse of the ager publicus.
Tiberius in 133 attempted to put the ager publicus into the hands of small-scale peas-
ant farmers, drawn from the Roman citizen class, who would become the soliders Rome
needed. There was no food shortage at Rome; it was a question of who was producing food –
slaves and not free citizens.

32 On this account, the people were concerned in case they should no longer have
a good supply of allies from Italy and that their government might be at risk on
account of so great a number of slaves; and, since they could come up with no
solution, 33 as it was neither easy nor at all fair to take away from so many men
so much property that they had held for so long, including their own plantations,
buildings and equipment, they finally and with difficulty passed a law introduced
by the tribunes that nobody should occupy more than 500 iugera of this land or
pasture more than 100 large stock (cattle) or 500 smaller stock (sheep). To enforce
this they determined that there should be a number of free men whose job it was to
keep a watch and report what happened. 34 Having enshrined these measures in a
law, they took an oath over and above it and set penalties for breaking it, believing
that the rest of the land would soon be distributed in small lots among the poor;
but there was no concern for the laws or oaths, and those who seemed to respect
them made the land over dishonestly to their relations, while the majority com-
pletely ignored them, 35 until Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, a distinguished and
most ambitious man, an extremely powerful speaker and well known to everyone
for these reasons, spoke eloquently as tribune about the Italian people and the way
that, though they were very good at warfare and related to the Romans, they were

362
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
slowly declining into penury and depopulation with no hope of a solution. 36 He
criticised the slave body as being of no use for military service and never faithful
to its masters, bringing forward as an example of this the disaster owners in Sicily
had recently suffered at the hands of their slaves, whose numbers had swelled
from agriculture, and the fact that the Romans’ war against them was neither easy
nor short, but long drawn out and full of dangers of all kinds. 37 When he had said
this he proposed the renewal of the law that no one should hold more than the 500
iugera (of public land). But he added to the ancient law that their sons might hold
half that amount; three elected men, changed annually, should divide the remain-
der of the land among the poor.

8.7 Plutarch Tiberius Gracchus 5.1–6, 7.1–7: Tiberius’ motives (1)

Plutarch discusses the effect on Tiberius of the repudiation of his treaty in 137 with the
Numantines. Numantia in Spain withstood six Roman attempts to take it and it was cap-
tured only in 133 by Scipio Aemilianus (docs 5.50–53). Tiberius’ diplomacy saved 20,000
Roman citizens.

5.1 After the war against Carthage, Tiberius was elected quaestor, and it fell to
him to serve in a campaign against Numantia under the consul Gaius (Hostilius)
Mancinus (137 BC), who was not a bad man, but more unfortunate than any other
Roman as a general. 2 Nevertheless, amid unexpected misfortunes and adverse
encounters, not only did Tiberius’ intelligence and courage shine out all the more
brightly but also, which was remarkable, his respect and honour towards his com-
mander, who, under the misfortunes of the campaign, even forgot that he was
general. 3 After being defeated in major battles, Mancinus tried to break camp,
withdrawing the army during the night; the Numantines noticed this and imme-
diately seized the camp, attacking the men as they fled, and killed the rearguard.
They then encircled the whole force and drove them to difficult terrain with no
chance of escape. Mancinus, who had given up hope of forcing his way to safety,
sent heralds to propose a truce and peace terms. 4 The Numantines declared that
they had no confidence in anyone except Tiberius and ordered that he be sent to
them. 5 They came to this decision both because of the young man himself (for
he had an excellent reputation among their troops) and because they remembered
his father Tiberius, who had fought against the Spaniards, and subdued many of
them, but made a peace with the Numantines, which he had always ensured that
the people kept scrupulously and justly. 6 So Tiberius was sent to negotiate with
the enemy, and, after persuading them to accept some terms and accepting oth-
ers himself, he arranged a truce and unarguably saved the lives of 20,000 Roman
citizens, without counting slaves and camp followers. . . .
7.1 When he returned to Rome, the whole transaction was being criticised and
denounced as a terrible disgrace to Rome, although the relatives and friends of
the soldiers, who formed a large part of the people, came running to Tiberius,
blaming the disgrace of what had happened on his commander and declaring that
it was through Tiberius that so many citizens’ lives had been saved. 2 Those, how-
ever, who were unhappy at what had been done urged that they should imitate the

363
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
actions of their forefathers, who had thrown naked to the enemy the very generals
who had been content to be released by the Samnites, and similarly throw out
those who had had a part and share in the treaty, such as the quaestors and military
tribunes, placing on their shoulders the perjury and repudiation of the agreement.
3 It was on this occasion that the people particularly demonstrated their good-
will and affection towards Tiberius. 4 For they voted that the consul should be
handed over to the Numantines stripped and in chains, but spared all the others
for Tiberius’ sake. 5 It appears that Scipio (Aemilianus), at that time the greatest
and most powerful man at Rome, also helped; but nonetheless he was criticised
because he had not saved Mancinus and had not insisted that the treaty, negoti-
ated by his relative and friend Tiberius, should be kept. 6 It seems most likely that
the difference between the two men arose through the ambition of Tiberius and
from the friends and sophists who encouraged him; but this difference led to no
irremediable break. 7 My own view is that Tiberius would never have met with his
misfortunes if Scipio (Aemilianus) Africanus had been at Rome during his politi-
cal career; but he was already at Numantia and waging war there when Tiberius
undertook his programme of proposed reforms.

8.8 Cicero On the Responses of the Soothsayers 43: Cicero’s view

Cicero, like Plutarch, sees the resentment (dolor) of Tiberius as crucial to his decision in
133 to press for reform of the ager publicus. Cicero reflects the senatorial element that
opposed Tiberius, although he had some senatorial support: his law did not aim to ‘wage
war’ on the senate.

Tiberius Gracchus had been involved in concluding a treaty with the Numantines
when he was serving as quaestor to the consul Gaius Mancinus. The unpopular-
ity he gained from this and the inflexibility of the senate in refusing to ratify it
inspired Tiberius with resentment and fear, and these forced that brave and distin-
guished man to break away from the authority of the senate.

8.9 Plutarch Tiberius Gracchus 8.6–10: Tiberius’ motives (2)

Plutarch adduces several other motives for Tiberius. The extent to which Cornelia was
an influence on her sons is unclear. She did persuade Gaius to desist from his attack on
Octavius (doc. 8.29), and there is no reason to assume that she was not ambitious for her
sons (doc. 7.22).

6 As soon as Tiberius became tribune he put his plans straight into action, under
the encouragement, as most report, of Diophanes the orator and Blossius the phi-
losopher. Diophanes was an exile from Mytilene, while Blossius was a native
Italian from Cumae and had been a close friend at Rome of Antipater of Tarsus,
who had honoured him by dedicating to him some of his philosophical treatises.
7 But some also put the blame on his mother Cornelia, since she often reproached
her sons, because the Romans still referred to her as the mother-in-law of Scipio
and not yet as the mother of the Gracchi. 8 Others say that a certain Spurius

364
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
Postumius was responsible. He was the same age as Tiberius and a rival of his
for reputation as an advocate, and, when Tiberius returned from the campaign
and found Postumius had far surpassed him in reputation and influence and was
widely admired, he decided, it seems, to outdo him by undertaking a bold political
programme which would give rise to widespread expectations. 9 But his brother
Gaius has written in a certain pamphlet that, as Tiberius was travelling through
Etruria on his way to Numantia, he observed the depopulated nature of the coun-
try, and that the farmers and herders were imported barbarian slaves, and that it
was then that he first thought of the programme which was to bring countless ills
on the two brothers. 10 But it was the people themselves who most of all kindled
his energy and ambitions, who called on him by means of graffiti on porticoes,
house walls and monuments to recover the public land for the poor.

8.10 Appian Civil Wars 1.10 (38–42): The reaction of the wealthy
The senatorial reaction was reasonable. There had been an understanding that the ager
publicus could be farmed, and Tiberius had made no provision for reimbursement or com-
pensation. But the provision that the wealthy retain 500 iugera, and more depending on
children, was very generous, especially as the lots distributed to the poor were a maximum
of 30 iugera.

38 What particularly upset the wealthy was that they were no longer able to ignore
the law, as they had before, because of the commissioners, nor could they buy the
land from those to whom it was allocated, because Gracchus had foreseen this
and forbidden it to be sold. 39 They banded together in groups and aired their
grievances, accusing the poor of robbing them of their work of many years, their
plantations and houses, while some had paid their neighbours for the land and
would lose their money with the land, while others had ancestral tombs on land
that had been allotted to them in the division of their fathers’ properties; others
had spent their wives’ dowries on their estates or given the land as dowries to their
daughters; some could show debts contracted to moneylenders with their land as
surety, and there was widespread lamentation and anger. 40 On the other hand,
the poor complained in their turn that they had been reduced from comfort to utter
poverty and from there to childlessness, since they were not able to bring up their
children. They enumerated how many campaigns they had served for the acquisi-
tion of this land and were angry at the suggestion that they might be deprived of
their part of the common land, while they abused their opponents for choosing to
use slaves instead of free men, citizens and soldiers, since slaves were always an
untrustworthy and hostile race and for that reason of no use in the army. 41 While
the two sides were making such complaints and mutual recriminations, another
large group of those who lived in the colonies or free towns, or who were in some
way or other concerned with this land and had similar fears, flooded in (to Rome)
and took the part of one side or the other. 42 Taking heart because of their num-
bers, they grew exasperated and kindled numerous conflicts while they waited for
the voting on the law, with one party determined by any means to prevent its being
enacted, the other to have it passed at all costs.

365
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
8.11 Plutarch Tiberius Gracchus 9.1–6: Tiberius’ rhetoric
(ORF 4 F149.) Tiberius relied mainly on the people’s support, though he also had sup-
porters in the senate drawn largely from his family connections. Here he refers to landless
soldiers, who had perhaps lost their farms while on service. P. Licinius Crassus (cos. 131)
was pontifex maximus from 132; Mucius Scaevola was consul in 133.

1 He did not draft the law on his own but followed the advice of the citizens
who were most eminent in merit and reputation, among whom were Crassus the
pontifex maximus, Mucius Scaevola the jurist, who was then consul, and Appius
Claudius, Tiberius’ father-in-law. 2 And it did seem that no law against such
injustice and greed had ever been put in more mild and gentle terms . . . 3 Despite
the restitution being so conciliatory, the people were content to leave the past
alone as long as the injustice would come to an end in the future, but the wealthy
and landowners hated the law out of greed and the law-giver out of rage and con-
tentiousness and tried to turn the people against it on the grounds that Tiberius
was introducing a redistribution of land to overthrow the state and stir up a revo-
lution. 4 They had no success; Tiberius was striving for a policy which was just
and good in itself and employing oratory which would have adorned a less wor-
thy subject. He was formidable and insuperable when, with the people crowding
around the rostra on which he was mounted, he would speak on behalf of the poor:
5 ‘The wild beasts that dwell in Italy have their homes, with each having a lair
and a hiding place, but the men who fight and die on behalf of Italy have a share
of air and light – and nothing else. Without houses or homes they wander aim-
lessly with their children and wives, and their generals deceive them when they
urge the soldiers on the battlefield to drive off the enemy to protect their tombs
and temples; 6 not one of these Romans has a family altar, not one an ancestral
tomb; instead, they fight and die to protect the luxury and wealth of others. They
are called masters of the earth yet have not a single clod of earth that is their own.’

8.12 Cicero Brutus 103–4: Tiberius as public figure

Cicero again sees the invidia (animosity) over the repudiation of the Numantine treaty as
being a major stimulus for Tiberius’ legislation. He is incorrect in stating that Tiberius was
‘put to death by the state itself’ (103); he was murdered by senators who took the law into
their own hands. C. Papirius Carbo (cos. 120) was a member of Tiberius’ land commission.

103 If only Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Carbo’s attitude towards conducting the
affairs of state properly had equalled their genius for speaking well! – Indeed, no
one would have surpassed them in reputation (gloria). Gracchus, as a result of the
tempestuous violence of his tribunate, to which he proceeded enraged with
the ‘honest men’ (the boni) over the animosity aroused by (the repudiation of) the
Numantine treaty, was put to death by the state itself; Carbo, as a result of his
constant irresponsibility in popular politics, saved himself from the condemnation
of a jury only by a death at his own hands. But each was a top-class orator 104 –
and I can state this with our fathers’ memory of their speeches as my evidence;
for we possess speeches of both Carbo and Gracchus in which the language does

366
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
not yet achieve brilliance, but which are to the point and skilful in the extreme.
Through the diligence of his mother Cornelia, Gracchus had been educated from
boyhood and was thoroughly versed in Greek literature. For he had always had
excellent teachers from Greece, one of whom, from his youth, being Diophanes of
Mytilene, who was considered to be the most eloquent speaker in Greece at that
time. But Gracchus’ time for developing and displaying his talent was short-lived.

8.13 Appian Civil Wars 1.11–13 (43–57): Octavius’ deposition

Tiberius’ proposal was to renew the law that no one should hold more than the 500 iugera
of public land, while their children might each hold half that amount, and that a commis-
sion of three men should divide the remaining land among the poor (cf. doc. 8.6). He has
500 iugera and half again for each son, with no limit on the number of sons (or children).
Tiberius took the legislation directly to the comitia tribute, and the opposition of the trib-
une M. Octavius to the agrarian proposal was clearly unexpected. No tribunician veto had
been imposed between 287 and 133 BC, and Octavius, in opposing the clear wishes of the
assembly, went against established practice.

43 Gracchus’ intention in proposing the bill was to effect a plentiful supply not
of money but of men, and, being particularly enthused by the useful nature of the
work, believing that Italy could experience nothing greater or more glorious, he
paid no consideration to the attendant difficulties. 44 When it was the time for
voting, he brought forward many other arguments at length and inquired of them
whether it was not just that the common property should be divided in common
and whether a citizen was not always more a legitimate concern of theirs than a
slave, a soldier more useful than one who had no part in warfare, and a man who
shared in the common property more devoted to the public welfare than one who
did not. 45 Without spending much time on this comparison as being demeaning,
he went straight on to a consideration of their country’s hopes and fears, pointing
out that they held most of their territory through conquest in war and hoped to pos-
sess the remainder of the inhabited world, and that now was the critical moment,
as to whether they would have plenty of men and obtain the rest or lose what
they had to their enemies through weakness and jealousy. 46 After exaggerating
the glory and prosperity of the one and the danger and fear of the other, he told
the wealthy to consider all this and to give this land as a gift, if necessary, from
themselves to those who would bring up children to bring these hopes about. They
should not, by disputing about trifles, overlook the larger picture, especially as
they were getting sufficient compensation for the work they had put in, with each
of them getting, without payment and for all time, undisputed possession of 500
iugera, and also half of this again for each of their children, should they have any.
47 After making a long speech along these lines and stirring up the poor and those
others who were motivated by reason rather than the desire for gain, Gracchus
ordered the clerk to read out the proposed law.
48 Marcus Octavius, however, another tribune, who had been induced by those
in occupation of the lands to interpose his veto – for among the Romans the veto is
always the more powerful – ordered the clerk to be silent. 49 Gracchus thereupon

367
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
severely censured him and adjourned the meeting to the next assembly day. He
stationed beside himself a sufficient guard, as if he were going to force Octavius
against his will, and ordered the clerk with threats to read the bill out to the people.
He began to read, but on Octavius’ forbidding it fell silent. 50 The tribunes began
to abuse each other, and the people were in considerable uproar, when the leading
citizens asked the tribunes to submit the matter under debate to the senate, and
Gracchus seized on the suggestion, as he believed that his law would be accept-
able to all well-disposed people, and hurried to the senate house. 51 But since he
had few supporters there and was insulted by the rich, he ran back to the forum
and said that at the next meeting of the assembly he would put a vote both about
the proposed law and about Octavius’ magistracy, to decide whether a tribune
who acted against the interests of the people should continue to hold office. 52
And this he did; for when Octavius, not at all browbeaten, again interposed his
veto, Gracchus put the vote about him first.
When the first tribe voted to depose Octavius from his magistracy, Gracchus
turned to him and begged him to change his mind. As he would not be persuaded,
he put the vote to the other tribes. 53 There were 35 tribes at that time, and, after the
first 17 angrily concurred with the motion, Gracchus, as the eighteenth, was about
to give the decisive vote, again, in the sight of the people, when he urgently begged
Octavius, whose position was now critical, not to render null and void a work that
was extremely fair and useful to all Italy, nor to overturn the people’s earnest wish,
especially since it was only right for him as tribune to give in to their desires and
not to seek to have his office taken away by the people’s condemnation. 54 After
saying this and calling on the gods to witness that it was not willingly that he was
dishonouring a colleague, as Octavius did not give in, he went on taking the votes.
Octavius immediately became a private citizen and went off unnoticed.
55 Quintus Mummius was elected tribune in his place, and the agrarian law was
passed. The first commissioners elected to allocate the land were Gracchus him-
self, the law’s proposer, his brother of the same name (Gaius) and his father-in-
law Appius Claudius, as the people were still very afraid that the law might not be
put into effect unless Gracchus and his whole family began the work. 56 Gracchus
was highly thought of by the people because of this law and was escorted home as
if he were the founder, not of a single city or race, but of all the nations in Italy.
57 After this the victors returned to their fields, from where they had come for this
purpose, while the losers who remained in the city took it badly, saying that once
Gracchus was a private citizen again he would be sorry that he had insulted the
sacred and inviolable tribunate and had given Italy such an occasion for conflict.

TIBERIUS AND THE SENATE

8.14 Plutarch Tiberius Gracchus 13.2–14.3: Tiberius offends the senate
The senate cannot have been unduly upset at Tiberius’ act in taking agrarian legislation direct
to the comitia tributa, and some senators supported him (doc. 8.11). However, the loss of
so much ager publicus was obviously a blow to many senators, and they attempted to frus-
trate the land commission through allocating it a paltry allowance. Tiberius did encroach

368
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
on senatorial prerogatives when he proposed to make use of the money available from the
bequest of Attalus III of Pergamum (doc. 5.45): this gave rise to violent opposition.

13.2 Tiberius succeeded in carrying all these measures peaceably and without
opposition, and in addition had a replacement tribune elected, not a man from
a distinguished family, but Mucius, a client of his. The wealthy, angered at all
of this and afraid of Tiberius’ increasing power, kept insulting him in the sen-
ate, 3 and when, as was the custom, he requested a tent at the public expense for
his work in dividing up the land, they did not grant it, though others had often
received one for less important duties, and assigned him an expense allowance of
9 obols a day on the proposal of Publius Nasica, who had utterly given himself up
to hatred of Tiberius; for he possessed a very great deal of public land and bitterly
resented being obliged to give it up. 4 This enraged the people still more; and
when a certain friend of Tiberius’ died suddenly, with malignant eruptions appar-
ent all over the corpse, they cried out that he had been poisoned . . . 6 Whereupon,
Tiberius incited the people still further by going into mourning and bringing his
children before the people and begging them to take care of them and of their
mother, as if he had given himself up for lost.
14.1 When Attalus Philometor died and Eudemus of Pergamum brought his
will to Rome, in which the king had named the Roman people as his heir, Tiberius
immediately, to win popularity, proposed a law that the king’s money be given
to those citizens who had been allocated land, to use for equipping and cultivat-
ing their farms. 2 As regarded the cities which were part of Attalus’ kingdom,
Tiberius said that it was not a matter to be decided by the senate, but that he him-
self would propose a motion to the people. 3 By this he gave extreme offence to
the senate, and when Pompeius got up to speak he declared that he was Tiberius’
neighbour and so knew that Eudemus of Pergamum had given him a diadem and
purple robe out of the royal treasure, as the future king of Rome.

8.15 Appian Civil Wars 1.14–17 (58–72): Tiberius’ death

Tiberius sought re-election to the tribunate to safeguard himself, as his enemies were
threatening to prosecute him once his tribunate was over (Plut. Ti. Gracchus 16.1; App.
1.13). This decision to stand again was also an object of attack, and his methods caused all
of the tribunes, with the exception of the replacement for Octavius, to desert him: Tiberius
occupied the Capitol, drove the rich from the assembly, and the tribunes fled. Nasica, the
pontifex maximus, took the matter into his own hands, and Gracchus and his supporters
were bludgeoned to death with bench legs, staves and clubs.

58 It was now summer, and the tribunician elections were at hand; as the day for
voting approached, it was very clear that the rich had been earnestly supporting
the election of those especially hostile to Gracchus. He was afraid as the danger
came closer that he might not be tribune for the following year, and he summoned
the people from the fields to the election. 59 As they were busy with the harvest,
he was compelled by the nearness of the day appointed for voting to have recourse
to the plebeians in the city, and he went round to them all individually asking

369
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
them to elect him tribune for the next year, since he was at risk on their account.
60 When the voting took place, the first two tribes voted for Gracchus, but the
rich objected that it was not legal for the same man to hold the office twice in
succession, and the tribune Rubrius, who had been chosen by lot to preside over
the assembly, was in doubt as to the matter . . . 62 As there was much argument
over this question, and Gracchus was losing, he postponed the election till the
next day, and in total despair dressed himself in black, though still in office, and
for the rest of the day led his son around the forum, introducing him to everyone
and committing him to their care, as if his destruction at the hands of his enemies
was close at hand.
63 On reflection, the poor were seized with great sorrow, both for themselves,
believing that they would no longer be treated equally as citizens under the laws
but would be compelled to work for the rich, and for Gracchus himself, who was
in such fear and suffering on their account, and they all escorted him to his house
that evening with lamentation, bidding him to take courage for the next day. 64
With renewed confidence, Gracchus assembled his supporters before dawn and
told them the signal, should fighting be necessary. He then occupied the temple
on the Capitoline hill, where the voting was to take place, and the middle of the
assembly. 65 Obstructed by the tribunes and the rich, who would not allow the
votes to be taken on this issue, he gave the signal. A sudden shout arose from
those in the know, and violence broke out, with some of Gracchus’ supporters
protecting him like bodyguards, and others girding up their togas, grabbing the
rods and staves in the hands of the lictors, and breaking them into pieces. They
then drove the rich from the assembly 66 with such uproar and wounds that the
tribunes fled from their central position in fear, and the priests closed the temple.
Many ran away in confused flight, spreading false rumours, some that Gracchus
had deposed the other tribunes from their office (this was believed because they
could not be seen), others that he had declared himself tribune for the next year
without an election.
67 While this was going on, the senate met in the temple of Fides. It seems
amazing to me that it did not occur to them at that juncture to appoint a dictator,
though they had often been protected in such dangers by the rule of one man, but
an action which had been so useful in earlier times did not occur to the people,
either then or later. 68 After taking their decisions, they made their way up to the
Capitol. The first, who led the way, was the pontifex maximus, Cornelius Scipio
Nasica; he cried in a loud voice,
‘Those who wish to save their country, follow me!’ . . . 69 When he reached
the temple and advanced on Gracchus’ men, they gave way out of respect for
such a distinguished man, and because they saw the senate accompanying him;
but the senators grabbed the clubs from Gracchus’ men and smashed the benches
and other pieces of equipment which had been provided for the assembly, and
began to strike the Gracchans, pursuing them and driving them over the cliff. 70
In this uproar, many of Gracchus’ men died, including Gracchus himself, who
was pressed up against the temple and slain at the door near the statues of the
kings. All these bodies were thrown at night into the River Tiber. 71 In this way

370
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
Gracchus, son of the Gracchus who was twice consul and of Cornelia, daughter
of the Scipio who had taken its supremacy away from Carthage, was killed on
the Capitol while still in office as tribune, as a result of an excellent proposition
which, however, he pursued too violently. This was the first occasion on which a
heinous crime of this sort took place in the assembly, and similar incidents were
to be encountered on a regular basis from thenceforth. 72 The city was divided on
the issue of Gracchus’ death into grief and delight, with some people lamenting
both for themselves and for him, as well as for the current state of affairs, for they
considered that the state was no longer in existence and that it had been replaced
by force and violence, while the others felt that all their wishes had been granted.

BOUNDARY STONES OF THE GRACCHAN PERIOD

Despite Tiberius’ murder, the activities of the land commission proceeded and the distribu-
tion of land went ahead, with the senate proposing that a new commissioner be chosen in
place of Tiberius (Plut. T. Gracchus 21.1), implying that their opposition was not to his
agrarian legislation. Several boundary stones set up by the commissioners have survived,
from Campania, the territory of the Hirpini, Lucania and Picenum.

8.16 ILS 26: Gracchan boundary stones of 132 BC

A small pillar found between Pisaurum and Fanum, dating to 82/81 BC; the boundary
stones laid by Tiberius’ commission were being replaced.

Marcus Terentius Varro Lucullus, son of Marcus, acting as praetor, 5 by a resolu-

tion of the senate superintended the re-establishment of boundary stones where
Publius Licinius, Appius Claudius and Gaius Gracchus, Board of Three for
adjudging and assigning lands, established them.

8.17 CIL I2 639: Land-surveying boundaries, 131 BC

A pillar marking the corner of a century, found at Atina in Lucania, dated to 131 BC. A
century was a large block of land which was then divided into individual plots.

(On shaft) Gaius Sempronius Gracchus, son of Tiberius; Appius Claudius, son of
Gaius; Publius Licinius, son of Publius; Board of Three for adjudging and assign-
ing lands. Seventh hinge-baulk.

8.18 ILS 25: Land-surveying boundaries, 123 BC

A pillar marking an angle at the boundary of the estate of an established occupier, found at
Rocca San Felice, dated to 123 BC.

(On shaft) Marcus Fulvius Flaccus, son of Marcus; Gaius Sempronius Gracchus,
son of Tiberius; Gaius Papirius Carbo, son of Gaius; Board of Three for adjudging
and assigning lands. (On top) To established occupier; allowed free of charges.

371
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
THE AFTERMATH OF TIBERIUS’ LEGISLATION
8.19 Appian Civil Wars 1.18 (73–7): The land commission continues
Tiberius’ death did not end the matter, and actions against his supporters continued. Nasica,
however, was very unpopular and was sent off to Pergamum to organise the province. The
consuls for 132 (P. Rupilius and P. Popillius Laenas) established a senatorial court, and
some of Tiberius’ supporters were executed, others banished without a trial.

73 After Gracchus was killed and Appius Claudius died, Fulvius Flaccus and
Papirius Carbo were appointed as commissioners in their place, together with the
younger Gracchus, to divide the land. Since those who possessed land neglected
to register it, the commissioners proclaimed that informers should testify against
them. 74 There was soon a huge number of difficult law-suits; for whenever a
field which adjoined this land was sold or divided among the allies, it all had to
be accurately investigated because of the measurement of this field, as to how it
was sold or divided, though not all the owners still had their contracts or allotment
deeds – even those which were found were ambiguous. 75 When the land was
resurveyed, some owners were transferred from orchards and farm-buildings to
bare ground, others from cultivated to uncultivated land or to swamps or marshes,
since the survey had never been done accurately in the beginning, as the land was
won in battle. 76 The original proclamation, that anyone who wished might farm
the unallocated land, had encouraged many to work land adjoining their own and
blur the status of both; the passing of time had also confused everything. 77 And
so the injustice done by the rich, though great, was hard to identify. There was
nothing but a complete resettlement, with everyone being transferred from their
own and settled on other people’s property.

8.20 Macrobius Saturnalia 3.14.6–7: The judiciary law

Scipio Aemilianus made it clear that he disapproved of Tiberius’ actions and thought his
death justified (Plut. T. Gracchus 21.7). Scipio also attacked Tiberius’ judiciary law, giving
the land commissioners powers of adjudication, in a speech to the senate in 129 BC. Scipio
was successful, and the jurisdiction over the land distribution was given to C. Sempronius
Tuditanus (cos. 129) and not the land commissioners.

6 However, we certainly know that the sons and – though it is a dreadful thing
to say – the unmarried daughters of noble families as well regarded the practice
of dancing as one of their accomplishments, our witness being Scipio Africanus
Aemilianus, who states as follows in his speech against the judiciary law of
Tiberius Gracchus: 7 ‘They are taught disreputable feats, and, in the company of
male dancers (cinaeduli) and zither and lute, they go to a school for actors, they
learn to sing songs which our ancestors considered disgraceful in the freeborn –
freeborn girls and boys go, I say, to a dancing school and mix with male danc-
ers. When someone told me this I could not bring myself to believe that men of
noble birth taught their children such things: but when I was taken to the dancing
school, I saw, on my oath, more than 50 boys and girls in that school and among
them – and this more than anything else made me pity the state – a boy wearing

372
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
the amulet of a freeborn child, the son of a candidate for office, a boy not less than
12 years old, dancing with castanets a dance which even a shameless little slave
could not decently perform.’

8.21 Appian Civil Wars 1.19–20 (78–85): The allies, 129 BC

While Scipio Aemilianus did not attempt to interfere in the agrarian legislation, he success-
fully proposed that the land commission not deal with cases of disputes between the com-
missioners and allies, as the allies did not have confidence in the commission. Much of the
ager publicus throughout Italy will have been farmed by Italians. When Scipio was found
dead, suspicions were raised, since he had taken the side of the allies against the activities
of the land commission.

78 The Italians were unable to tolerate this situation, especially the pressures
arising from the law-suits brought against them, and chose Cornelius Scipio, the
destroyer of Carthage, to be their defender against these injustices. 79 As they
had been his eager supporters in his wars, he was reluctant to ignore their request,
and in the senate, while he did not openly criticise Gracchus’ law because of the
people, he spoke against the hardship it caused and proposed that the law-suits
should no longer be adjudicated by the commissioners, since the litigants had no
confidence in them, but be settled by others. 80 As his suggestion seemed reason-
able, the proposal was adopted, and Tuditanus the consul was appointed to judge
the cases. But when he had begun on the task and saw its difficulties, he went off
to fight the Illyrians, making this an excuse for not serving as judge, while the land
commissioners stayed idle, since no one brought them cases for judgement. 81
As a result Scipio became a target for the hatred and anger of the people, because
they saw the man for love of whom and on whose behalf they had often opposed
the nobility and aroused their enmity, and whom they had twice elected consul,
though illegally, now acting in the interests of the Italians in opposition to their
own. 82 When Scipio’s enemies noticed this, they cried out that he was com-
pletely determined to abolish Gracchus’ law, and to this end was going to bring
about widespread slaughter and armed strife.
83 When the people heard this they took fright, until Scipio, after putting a
writing tablet beside him, on which he intended during the night to write the
speech he was going to make to the people, was found dead without a wound –
perhaps the deed of Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, so that Gracchus’ law might
not be abolished, aided and abetted by her daughter Sempronia, who was married
to Scipio in a mutually loveless relationship because she was deformed and child-
less, or perhaps, as some believe, he committed suicide because he saw that he
would not be able to fulfil what he had promised. 84 Some say that slaves under
torture stated that strangers, who were brought through the back door of the house
at night, suffocated him, and that those who knew of it shrank from revealing
it because the people were still angry with him and pleased at his death. 85 So
Scipio died and was not thought worthy of a public funeral, though he had made
great contributions to Rome’s supremacy; in this way present anger outweighs
past gratitude. And this event, important as it was, took place as if an unimportant
incident in the strife brought about by Gracchus.

373
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
THE CAREER OF GAIUS GRACCHUS
Gaius had served in Numantia under Scipio Aemilianus, his cousin and brother-in-law. In
126 he was a supporter of M. Fulvius Flaccus, and he had been on the land commission
from 130 BC. Fulvius proposed awarding the Italians citizenship, which would make them
eligible for possession of the Roman ager publicus; he was elected as consul for 125, but
the senate sent him to protect Massilia against the Salluvii. Gaius served as quaestor in
Sardinia from 125. His desire to avenge his brother encouraged him to stand for the tribu-
nate for 123, ten years after his brother’s tribunate; he held a second in 122. As tribune
Gaius passed numerous laws; his was the most comprehensive legislative programme ever
undertaken by a tribune. He did not want to overthrow the senate or even curtail most of
its powers, though he did act in the interests of the people and subjected the senate to new
controls; much of his legislation remained in force.

8.22 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 15.12.1–4: Gaius’ return, 124 BC

Gaius served in Sardinia as quaestor in 125; he returned to Rome in 124 before his consul
(L. Aurelius Orestes, cos. 126), no successor having been appointed because the nobles
wanted to keep him out of Rome. He defended himself on the charge of leaving his prov-
ince early and was elected tribune for 123. His criticism of the behaviour of Roman gover-
nors is perhaps an indirect attack on Orestes.

1 When Gaius Gracchus returned from Sardinia, he made a speech to the people in
the assembly in the following words: 2 ‘My conduct in my province’, he said, ‘was
such as I thought would be to your benefit, not such as would contribute to my own
ambition. My establishment had no cook-shop or any slave boys of outstanding
appearance, and at any entertainment of mine your sons were treated with fewer
temptations than at military headquarters.’ 3 Later on, he states: ‘My conduct in my
province was such that no one could say with truth that I received an as, or more
than that, as a present, or that anyone was put to any expense on my account. I spent
two years in my province; if any prostitute entered my house or any slave boy was
solicited on my behalf, then consider me the most worthless and iniquitous of man-
kind. Since I conducted myself with such continence towards their slaves, then you
are able to judge on what terms I lived with your sons.’ 4 After an interval he con-
tinues: ‘Accordingly, citizens, when I set out for Rome I brought back empty from
the province the money-belts which I took there full of money. Others have brought
home overflowing with money the amphorae which they had taken out full of wine.’

8.23 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 11.10.2–6: The veniality of politicians

Manius Aquillius (cos. 129), with a commission appointed by the senate, organised the
province of Asia; part of Phrygia was awarded to Mithridates V of Pontus and not to
Nicomedes of Bithynia. Gaius’ comments about bribery were to be reflected in Sallust’s
remarks (docs 9.3, 9.7). Aquillius was prosecuted in the mid-90s for extortion in Asia but
was acquitted despite being guilty.

2 Fellow citizens, if you wish to be advised wisely and honestly, when you consider
the matter carefully you will find that none of us presents himself here without a

374
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
price. All of us who make speeches are after something, and no one appears before
you with any purpose other than to carry something away. 3 I myself, who am advis-
ing you to increase your taxes, by which you will be more easily able to administer
your government and communal interests, do not come forward for free; but I ask
you not for money but for your good opinion and respect. 4 Those who come for-
ward to dissuade you from accepting this law are seeking not respect from you but
money from Nicomedes; those who advise you to accept it, these too are seeking not
your good opinion but a reward and increase in their possessions; those, however,
of the same rank and status who are silent, these are the most grasping, for they take
money from everyone and deceive you all. 5 Because you think that they distance
themselves from such matters, you give them your good opinion; 6 but the embas-
sies from the kings, since they think that they are silent for their sake, present them
with lavish and immense sums of money. In the same way, in the land of Greece, at
a time when a Greek tragic actor was boasting that he had been given a silver talent
for one play, Demades, the most eloquent man of his country, is said to have replied
to him: ‘Does it appear wonderful to you that you have made a talent by speaking?
I received 10 talents from the king for my silence.’ In the same way, these men are
now receiving an immense price for keeping quiet.

8.24 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 10.3.2–5: Gaius on Roman magistrates

This speech may have been delivered in the context of his proposal in 122 to award citizen-
ship to the Italians. But the incident in (5) also shows that his target was the misconduct of
Roman officials in general (cf. doc. 8.23). The three towns mentioned in the first anecdote
are on the Via Latina; Venusia is in Apulia.

2 I recently read the speech of (Gaius) Gracchus On the Promulgation of Laws, in

which he complains with all the passion he can command that Marcus Marius and
other respectable men of the Italian municipalities were unlawfully beaten with
rods by magistrates of the Roman people. 3 These are his words on the subject:
‘Recently a consul came to Teanum Sidicinum (in Campania). His wife said that
she wished to bathe in the men’s baths. The Sidicinian quaestor, Marcus Marius,
was given the job of seeing that those who were washing in the baths were driven
out. The wife reports to her husband that the baths were not handed over to her
quickly enough and that they were not sufficiently clean. On that account a stake
was set up in the forum and Marcus Marius, the most illustrious man in his city,
was led to it. His clothes were removed and he was beaten with rods. The people
of Cales, when they heard this, passed an edict that no one should wash in the
baths when a Roman magistrate was in the town. At Ferentinum our magistrate
ordered the quaestors to be arrested for the same reason: one threw himself from
the wall, the other was taken and beaten with rods.’
5 Gracchus in another place also speaks as follows: ‘I will give you a single
example of the degree of passion and lack of self-control possessed by our young
men. Within these last few years a young man was sent from the province of
Asia on behalf of his governor, not having to that time held a magistracy. He was

375
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
carried in a litter. A ploughman, one of the Venusian peasants, encountered him
and, as a joke, since he was unaware who was being carried, asked whether they
were carrying a corpse. When the young man heard this, he ordered the litter to be
put down and ordered him to be beaten with the straps with which the litter was
tied together until he expired.’

8.25 Cornelius Nepos On the Latin Historians F59: Cornelia’s advice

Cornelia’s letters were preserved after she died; here she writes to her son Gaius. Cornelius
Nepos was a Republican biographer and might have had access to a collection of her let-
ters. The setting is 124 BC, when Gaius was a candidate for his first tribunate.

You will say that it is a noble deed to avenge oneself on enemies. To no one does
this seem finer and more noble than to me, as long as no harm is done to the state.
But, since that is not possible, it will be far better that our enemies should not per-
ish and remain as they are now, rather than that the state be overthrown and perish.
I would swear a solemn oath that, except for those who killed Tiberius
Gracchus, no enemy has given me as much trouble and hardship as you have in
this affair – you who should have taken the part of all those children I used to
have and should have seen to it that I had as little anxiety as possible in my old
age. Whatever you were doing, your main object should have been to please me,
and you should consider it criminal to do anything important against my will,
especially since I have only a short time to live. Can you not do your duty even for
that short time without going against my will and overthrowing the state? Where
will it ultimately end? Will our family ever leave off its madness? Will a limit
ever be put to it? Will we ever stop taking and giving offence? Will we ever feel
great shame at creating uproar and disturbance in the state? Well, if that is not a
possibility, stand for the tribunate when I am dead; feel free to do as you please
when I will not know about it. When I am dead, you will sacrifice to me and call
upon the spirit of your parent. At that time will you not be ashamed to summon
the spirits of those whom you abandoned and deserted when they were alive and
with you? If only heavenly Jupiter would not permit you to continue on this path
or such insanity to enter your mind! And if you carry on, I fear that, through your
own fault, you will have to suffer such hardship through your whole life that you
yourself will not at any time be able to be satisfied with your conduct.

8.26 Cicero Brutus 125–26: Gaius as orator

Cicero here praises Gaius as an orator but is swayed by his views of Gaius’ political
activities.

125 Now, however, there comes a man of outstanding ability, extreme dedication
and education from his boyhood, Gaius Gracchus. Do not imagine, Brutus, that
anyone was ever more fully or more richly qualified for oratory.
I think exactly the same, he replied, and he is almost the only one of our earlier
speakers that I read.

376
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
Yes, I certainly think that you should read him, Brutus. For with his early
death the Roman state and Latin literature incurred a great loss. 126 If only he
had chosen to display as much loyalty to his country as to his brother! How easily
with such talent, if he had lived longer, would he have rivalled the reputation of
his father or grandfather! Indeed, I believe that in eloquence he would have had
no equal. He is lofty in diction, wise in ideas, impressive in his whole style. His
works have not received the final touch; much is begun admirably but, clearly,
has not received the final polish. Indeed, he is an orator to be read by our youth,
Brutus, if anyone is; for he can not only sharpen but nourish their talents.

8.27 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 1.11.16: Gaius’ oratorical devices

In Cicero’s account (De orat. 3.225), the musician stood behind Gaius to modulate his
delivery. Gellius (1.11.10–16), however, believes ‘more reliable authorities’, who say that
the musician was in the audience, his purpose being to restrain Gracchus’ energy as orator.

So this same Gracchus, Catulus, as you can hear from your client Licinius, an edu-
cated man who was Gracchus’ amanuensis, used to have an experienced musician
with an ivory pitch-pipe standing concealed behind him when he was address-
ing the assembly, who could quickly blow a note to rouse him up if lethargic or
restrain him from over-vehemence.

GAIUS’ LEGISLATION
8.28 Appian Civil Wars 1.21–3 (86–101): Gaius’ laws (1)
Appian and Plutarch date the grain, land and military laws to 123. The laws concerning the
equites, law-courts and colonies clearly belong to the second tribunate of 122, as do those
for roads. The citizenship proposal must also belong to 122.
1.21.86 Land legislation: Gaius’ first aim was to re-establish his brother’s land legisla-
tion dividing the ager publicus among Roman citizens. 1.21.89 The grain distribution (the
lex frumentaria): The state bought up large quantities of grain, had granaries built at Rome
for storing it, and offered it for sale at 6⅓ asses for a modius, slightly below the usual
market rate. Gaius’ reorganisation of tax collection in Asia was initiated to pay for this and
his other measures.
1.21.90 Re-election to the tribunate: Gaius was easily elected because of a lack of a
tenth candidate. Fulvius Flaccus, the Gracchan land commissioner and consul of 125, was
also elected in 123 as a tribune for 122. 1.22.91 The extortion law: Belonging to early in the
second tribunate, this dealt with the recovery of money which Roman magistrates illegally
extracted from Latins, allies and foreigners subject to Rome (it is sometimes referred to as
the lex Acilia repetendarum). He gave the equites judicial rights and responsibilities that
had hitherto been the province of the senate.
1.21.86, 23.99–101 The citizenship issue: Flaccus’ failure to enfranchise the allies had
led to the revolt of Fregellae. The Latins were now to be offered full citizenship; the Italians
were offered voting rights but not full citizenship. The election of Lucius Opimius, the
destroyer of Fregellae, as consul for 121, was a signal that there was opposition to this.
1.23.101 M. Livius Drusus was one of the tribunes for 122. He proposed 12 colonies in a
successful attempt to outbid Gaius’ colony proposal. Lex de provinciis consularibus: The

377
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
two provinces to which the consuls were to be assigned were to be decided by the senate
before the election of the consuls themselves; this removed personal considerations from
the allocation of provinces. The province of Asia: This measure arranged for tax collection
in the province of Asia (Attalus of Pergamum’s bequest). The censors would, every five
years, farm out by auction the right to collect taxes in the province.

86 The occupiers of the land still put off its division for a considerable time on all
kinds of pretexts. Some people even proposed that all the Italian allies, who were
offering the most resistance about the land, should be enrolled as Roman citizens,
since in return for this greater favour they would no longer make difficulties about
the land. 87 The Italians welcomed this proposal, since they preferred Roman citi-
zenship to the possession of the fields. Fulvius Flaccus, who was both consul and
land commissioner, supported them in this to the utmost. The senate, however,
was angry at the thought of making their subjects equal citizens with themselves.
88 And so this undertaking was abandoned, and the people, who had been in
hopes of land for so long, lost heart. While they were in this condition, Gaius
Gracchus, who had gained their favour as a land commissioner, stood for the
tribunate – he was the younger brother of Gracchus the law-maker and had stayed
out of politics for some time after his brother’s death; but, as many of the senators
treated him with scorn, he stood for the tribunate. 89 After an electoral triumph,
he immediately started devising plans against the senate, proposing that a monthly
distribution of grain be made to each citizen at the public expense, which was
quite unprecedented. 90 Thus by one political ploy, in which Fulvius Flaccus
co-operated, he quickly won over the people. Straight afterwards he was elected
tribune for the next year as well; for a law permitted the people to choose a tribune
from the body of citizens if there were not enough candidates for the office.
91 In this way Gaius Gracchus was tribune for the second time; already having
the people in his pay, as it were, he now began to win over by a similar political ploy
the so-called equites, who hold the middle status between senate and people. 92 He
transferred the law-courts, whose reputation had been lost because of bribery, from
the senators to the equites, reproaching the former in particular because Aurelius
Cotta, Salinator, and third in the list, Manius Aquillius, who conquered Asia – all
notorious bribe-takers – were acquitted by the judges, although ambassadors sent
to complain about them were still in Rome going around making impassioned
accusations against them. The senate was ashamed of such conduct and gave in to
the law; and the people ratified it. 93 In this way the law-courts were transferred to
the equites from the senate; it is said that, just after the law was passed, Gracchus
stated that he had overthrown the power of the senate completely, and the train
of events made his remark appear more and more significant. 94 For their role in
passing judgement on all Romans and Italians, even on the senators themselves,
to an unlimited degree, in cases which involved property, civil rights and exile,
exalted the equites to the status of being, as it were, their rulers, while it put the
senators on the level of subjects. 95 Since the equites leagued with the tribunes in
elections, and in return got from them whatever they wanted, they were a cause
of great anxiety to the senators; soon it happened that the control of government
was reversed, with the senate retaining only the dignity, while the equites held the

378
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
power. 96 Indeed, they went so far that they not only possessed the power but also
insulted the senators beyond what was right. They started taking bribes, and, when
they had had a taste of the enormous profits, they used them even more wickedly
and immoderately than the senators had done. 97 They set suborned accusers on
the wealthy and completely did away with suits involving bribery, partly by agree-
ment among themselves and partly by force, so that the practice of this kind of
inquiry completely disappeared and the judiciary law gave rise to another long-
standing factional struggle, of no less impact than the earlier ones.
98 Gracchus also constructed lengthy roads throughout Italy and got the sup-
port of a large number of contractors and workers, who were ready to do whatever
he told them. He also proposed the foundation of numerous colonies. 99 He called
on the Latins to demand full citizen rights, as the senate could not decently refuse
them to men of the same race; to the other allies, who were not permitted to vote
in Roman elections, he proposed to give the right to vote, so that he might have
their support too in voting for his laws. 100 The senate was greatly concerned at
this and ordered the consuls to proclaim that: ‘No one who does not have a vote
shall stay in the city or approach within 40 stades of it while the voting on these
proposals is taking place.’ 101 It also persuaded Livius Drusus, another tribune, to
veto Gracchus’ proposed laws without stating his reasons to the people; it was not
necessary that a vetoing tribune give his reasons. They also gave him the oppor-
tunity to conciliate the people by proposing 12 colonies; the people were so very
pleased with this that it despised Gracchus’ proposed laws.

8.29 Plutarch Gaius Gracchus 4.1–6.5: Gaius’ laws (2)

Gaius proposed two laws in 123 BC designed to address his brother’s death: that magis-
trates deposed by the people could not hold office again (aimed at Octavius, which was
withdrawn at Cornelia’s instigation) and that only the Roman people could authorise a
death sentence against a citizen (P. Popillius Laenas as consul in 132, who had presided
over the execution of Tiberius’ supporters, went into self-exile when the law was passed).
5.1: The military law (lex militaris; not mentioned by Appian) attempted to promote army
recruitment.

4.1 After stirring up the people with such rhetoric – and he had a powerful voice
and was a very forceful speaker – he proposed two laws, one stating that if the
people had deposed any magistrate from office he was not allowed to hold office
a second time; the other, that if any magistrate banished a citizen without trial he
could be prosecuted by the people. 2 The first of these laws had the clear object
of disqualifying Marcus Octavius, who had been deposed from the tribunate by
Tiberius, while the second attacked Popillius: for as praetor he had banished
Tiberius’ friends. 3 Popillius did not stand trial and fled from Italy; Gaius him-
self withdrew the first law, stating that he had spared Octavius at his mother
Cornelia’s request. 4 The people were pleased that the motion was withdrawn,
since they honoured Cornelia no less for her sons than for her father, and they
later erected a bronze statue of her with the inscription, ‘Cornelia, mother of the
Gracchi’. . . .

379
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
5.1 Of the laws which he proposed to please the people and undermine the
senate, one concerned the allotment of land, dividing the public land among the
poor; another dealt with the army, laying down that clothing be supplied at public
expense, with nothing being subtracted from soldiers’ pay for this purpose, and no
one younger than 17 years of age being conscripted; 2 another concerned the allies,
giving the Italians voting rights equal to those of citizens; a grain law lowered the
market price for the poor; while, through a jury law, he most severely undermined
the power of the senate. 3 They alone had judged law-suits and, by this, had been
formidable both to the people and to the equites; but Gracchus chose an additional
300 equites to add to the 300 senators, and juries were drawn from these 600. . . .
6.1 When the people not only passed this law but granted him the power to
select the judges from the equites, a kind of kingly power was invested in him,
so that even the senate accepted his advice. His advice was always in favour of
measures which did the senate credit; 2 an example of this is the very fair and
honourable decision concerning the grain sent by Fabius (Q. Fabius Maximus
Allobrogicus, cos. 121), the propraetor, from Spain, when Gracchus persuaded
the senate to sell the grain and return the money to the cities, as well as to censure
Fabius for having made Rome’s rule oppressive and burdensome to her subjects;
this added greatly to his reputation and gained him goodwill in the provinces. 3
He also proposed laws to send out colonies, to construct roads and to establish
granaries, making himself the director and organiser for all these undertakings,
and was never worn out by any of these numerous and weighty projects – rather,
he carried out each one with amazing speed and application, as though it were his
only concern, so that even those who most hated and feared him were thunder-
struck at the way everything was accomplished and brought to completion. 4 The
people were amazed at the mere sight of him when they saw him attended by a
mob of contractors, craftsmen, ambassadors, magistrates, soldiers, scholars – all
of whom he handled with ease, still maintaining his dignity in his courtesy and
giving each his proper consideration. He thus showed up as malicious slanderers
those who called him terrifying or utterly arrogant or violent. 5 In this way he was
more effective as a popular leader when he associated with others and dealt with
business than in his speeches from the rostra.

8.30 Appian Civil Wars 1.24 (102–6): Loss of popular support

Because of Drusus’ legislation in 122 BC, Gaius lost popularity, and he set off to establish
a colony at Carthage (‘Junonia’), which had been destroyed in 146 (doc. 4.63). In 122 he
stood for a third tribunate but was not elected. The Latin citizenship proposal had been
vetoed, and in 121 one of the tribunes, Minucius Rufus, proposed the repeal of the legisla-
tion for Junonia. The (fabricated) omens indicate the aristocracy’s control of religion: see
docs 3.75–76.

102 After the failure of this attempt to win popular favour, Gracchus sailed to
Africa together with Fulvius Flaccus, who, after his consulship, had been chosen
tribune for the same reasons as Gracchus. A colony in Africa had been voted
for on account of its reputation for fertility, and these men had been specifically

380
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
chosen as its founders so the senate might have a brief rest from popular politics in
their absence. 103 They laid out the colony’s city on the spot where Carthage had
once stood, without considering that when Scipio destroyed it he had laid curses
on the site that it should stay sheep pasture for ever more. 104 They assigned
6,000 colonists, instead of the smaller number given in the law, hoping in this way
to gain the support of the people. When they returned to Rome they summoned
the 6,000 from all of Italy. 105 The officials who were still in Africa, laying out
the site of the city, sent word that wolves had torn up and scattered the boundary
markers of Gracchus and Fulvius, and the soothsayers considered the colony ill-
omened. The senate therefore summoned the assembly, in which it was proposed
to repeal the law about this colony; 106 when Gracchus and Fulvius saw they
were failing in this matter as well, they were enraged and declared that the senate
had lied about the wolves. The boldest of the plebs joined them, carrying daggers
on their way to the Capitol, where the assembly about the colony was to be held.

8.31 Gaius Gracchus ORF 4 F47: A plea to the people, 122 BC

This fragment of a speech appears to belong to a period when Gaius felt insecure, presum-
ably late in his second tribunate.

If I had wanted to speak to you and to ask you, as a member of an eminent fam-
ily and one who had lost my brother on your account, and seeing that there is no
descendant of the families of Publius Africanus and Tiberius Gracchus left apart
from myself and my young son, that you would permit me to lead a quiet life unin-
volved in politics for the present, so that my family might not utterly die out but
that some offshoot of my family might survive, I believe you would have granted
my request not unwillingly.

ASSASSINATION AND REPRISALS

8.32 Appian Civil Wars 1.25–6 (107–20): Gaius’ death
The outbreak of violence was sparked off by the use of force on the part of a Gracchan
supporter. Antyllus, in Plut. G. Gracchus 13.3, was an attendant of the consul Opimius, and
Plut. 14.3 has the senate pass the senatus consultum ultimum (cf. doc. 1.70) that Opimius
as consul should ‘save the state’, the first time it was passed. Strangulation was usually
reserved for common criminals.

107 The people had already assembled, and Fulvius was beginning to speak about
the matters in hand, when Gracchus came up to the Capitol accompanied by a
bodyguard of his supporters. 108 Troubled by his conscience over his portentous
plans, he turned aside from the assembly’s meeting-place, went into the portico,
and walked around waiting on what was to happen. 109 A plebeian called Antyllus,
who was making a sacrifice in the portico, saw him in this state of disturbance
and, putting his hand on him, either because he knew or suspected something or
was motivated to speak by some other reason, begged him to spare his country.
110 Gracchus, even more disturbed, and alarmed like a criminal caught in the

381
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
act, looked sharply at him; one of those who accompanied him, although there
had been no signal or order given, supposed merely from Gracchus’ fierceness
towards Antyllus that the time had come, and, thinking that he would do Gracchus
a favour by being the first to act, drew his dagger and killed Antyllus. 111 A cry
went up, the dead body was seen in the middle of the crowd, and everyone rushed
from the temple in fear of a similar fate.
Gracchus went into the assembly wishing to excuse himself from what had
happened, 112 but no one would even listen to him and everyone turned from
him as if he were polluted. He and Flaccus had no idea what to do, as through this
premature act they had lost the opportunity to carry out their wishes, and they hur-
ried to their homes, their supporters with them. The rest of the crowd occupied the
forum after midnight as if in expectation of some disaster. 113 Opimius, the con-
sul who was present in the city, ordered some armed men to gather at the Capitol
at dawn and summoned the senate through heralds, while he waited on what was
to happen in the temple of the Dioscuri in the centre of the city.
114 Matters stood like this when the senate summoned Gracchus and Flaccus
from their homes to the senate house to defend themselves, but they ran out with
their weapons to the Aventine hill, hoping that, if they took it first, the senate
would make some terms with them. 115 As they ran through the city, they offered
the slaves freedom, but none of them listened to them. With the men that they had,
however, they seized the temple of Diana and sent Flaccus’ son Quintus to the
senate, requesting some form of agreement and harmonious co-existence. They
were told to lay down their arms, come to the senate house and state their wishes,
or not to send any more messengers.
116 When they sent Quintus a second time, the consul Opimius arrested him,
since he had been warned he was no longer an ambassador, and sent his armed
men against Gracchus’ supporters.
117 Gracchus fled across the river by the wooden bridge (the Pons Sublicius)
to a grove accompanied by a single slave and, being on the point of arrest, pre-
sented his throat to the slave; 118 Flaccus took refuge in the workshop of an
acquaintance, and as his pursuers did not know the house they threatened to burn
the whole row. The man who had given him shelter shrank from pointing out the
suppliant but told another man to give him away. Flaccus was seized and killed.
119 The heads of Gracchus and Flaccus were taken to Opimius, and he gave those
who brought them the equivalent weight in gold; the plebs plundered their houses
and Opimius arrested their sympathisers, threw them in prison, and ordered them
to be strangled. 120 However, he allowed Quintus, Flaccus’ son, to die as he
chose. He then purified the city from the killings, and the senate ordered a temple
of Concord to be erected in the forum.

8.33 Plutarch Gaius Gracchus 17.5–9: The aftermath

This is apparently the first time a reward was paid for a head; cf. Sulla’s proscriptions (docs
11.19–23). Licinia was the daughter of the wealthy P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus, a
member of the land commission and consul in 131 (cf. doc. 7.69). According to Plutarch,
3,000 died. This might be an exaggeration, but this was a much bloodier incident than the
murder of Tiberius and his supporters.

382
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
17.5 Gaius’ head was brought by Septimulius to Opimius stuck on the point
of his spear, and when it was placed on the scales it weighed 17⅔ pounds, for
Septimulius had acted not only abominably but criminally, having removed the
brain and poured in molten lead. The men who brought in Fulvius’ head – they
were of less importance – got nothing. 6 The bodies of these two and of the oth-
ers who were killed, 3,000 in all, were thrown into the river, and their property
was confiscated by the state; their wives were forbidden to go into mourning, and
Licinia, Gaius’ wife, was deprived of her dowry. 7 The most inhuman treatment
was that of Fulvius’ younger son, who had neither used violence nor been among
those who fought, but whom they had arrested when he came to propose a truce
before the battle, and whom they killed after the fighting was over. 8 But what
annoyed the people more than this or any of the other events was the erection
by Opimius of a temple of Concord; for he appeared to be priding himself and
exultant, and even in some way to be celebrating a triumph over the killing of so
many citizens. 9 As a consequence some people during the night carved this verse
under the inscription on the temple: ‘This temple of Concord was made by an act
of Discord.’
18.1 Opimius was the first person to use dictatorial powers during his consul-
ship and to have 3,000 citizens put to death without a trial, among them Gaius
Gracchus and Fulvius Flaccus, one of whom was an ex-consul and had cele-
brated a triumph and the other the most eminent man of his time in merit and
reputation. Nor did he avoid fraud but, when he was sent as envoy to Jugurtha
the Numidian, took bribes from him (116 BC); 2 and, after being convicted of
the most heinous charge of bribery (109 BC), he grew old in disgrace, hated
and insulted by the people, who were humbled and downcast by these events,
though they soon made clear how much they wanted and missed the Gracchi.
3 For they set up statues of them in a prominent place, and they consecrated the
sites where they were killed and offered them the first fruits of all the seasons,
while many people sacrificed to them on a daily basis and worshipped them as if
they were visiting the gods’ shrines.
19.1 Furthermore Cornelia is said to have borne this further disaster nobly and
magnanimously and to have said regarding the sacred sites where the killings had
taken place that the dead had worthy tombs. 2 She went to live at the place called
Misenum and made no change in her customary way of life. She had many friends
and showed great hospitality to guests, and Greeks and scholars were her constant
visitors, while all the kings received and sent presents to her. 3 She would please
her visitors and friends greatly by recounting tales of the career and lifestyle of
her father (Scipio) Africanus, but what they admired most was when she recalled
without grief or tears the fates and achievements of her sons, relating them to any-
one who asked as if she was speaking of men of olden days. 4 From this some peo-
ple thought that she had lost her mind from old age or the weight of her troubles,
and that she was insensible of her misfortunes, but it was these who were truly
insensible of how much a noble disposition, and good ancestry and upbringing,
can shield men against grief, and of how fate, while it may often defeat virtue’s
attempts to ward off misfortunes, cannot take away the power to bear this with
equanimity.

383
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
8.34 Cicero Brutus 128: Gracchan anti-senatorial reprisals
The Mamilian commission was established by the tribune C. Mamilius Limetanus in 109 to
look into the Jugurthine affair: many senators were accused of taking bribes; for Mamilius,
see doc. 9.7. P. Scipio Nasica (cos. 111) was the son of the Nasica involved in killing
Tiberius. Opimius was acquitted in 120 of killing Gaius but convicted of bribery in 109 by
this commission.

Publius Scipio Nasica’s colleague in his consulship, Lucius Bestia, made a good
beginning to his tribunate, for, through the measure which bears his name, he
recalled Publius Popillius (Laenas), who had been banished by the violence of
Gaius Gracchus and was a keen-witted man and not ineloquent, though the end of
his consulship was a sad one. For, under that hateful Mamilian law, Gaius Galba,
an ex-quaestor and priest, and four ex-consuls, Lucius Bestia (cos. 111), Gaius
Cato (cos. 114), Spurius Albinus (cos. 110) and that most pre-eminent citizen
Lucius Opimius (cos. 121), the killer of Gracchus, who was acquitted by the peo-
ple even though he had made a stand against the people’s wishes, were got rid of
by Gracchan jurors.

FAILURE OF THE GRACCHAN REFORMS

8.35 Appian Civil Wars 1.27 (121–3): Further agrarian legislation
Appian mentions three laws passed after Gaius’ assassination: first, those who had received
land allotments could sell them (probably in 121); second, Thorius’ law that distribution of
the ager publicus was to cease (probably in 111); and, third, rent payable on ager publicus
was abolished. The allotments must have been inalienable under Tiberius’ legislation. The
colony at Carthage continued, the work of the land commission went on until 111 BC, and
nearly all of Gaius’ legislation remained in force.

121 In this way the strife caused by the second Gracchus came to an end. Not
long afterwards, a law was passed which permitted the occupiers to sell the land
under dispute; for even this had been forbidden by the law of the elder Gracchus.
The rich immediately started buying from the poor or forcibly seized the land on a
number of pretexts. 122 So, for the poor, their condition became even worse than
before, until Spurius Thorius, a tribune, introduced a law that the allocation of the
land was no longer to be continued, and that the land would belong to those who
occupied it, who should pay rent for it to the people, and that this money was to
be distributed. This distribution gave some relief to the poor but was of no help in
increasing the population. 123 Gracchus’ law, which was excellent and extremely
useful if it could have been put into practice, was once and for all undermined by
such devices, and shortly afterwards another tribune abolished the rent, and the
people lost absolutely everything.

8.36 CIL I2 585 (selections): The lex agraria, 111 BC

This is the agrarian law introduced by Thorius (doc. 8.35). All the ager publicus, except
the land which the legislation had made exempt (1, 4), which had been allotted or retained
by the possessor up to the limit allowed under the Gracchan legislation, was confirmed as

384
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
private, as were any buildings (7) and the land entered in the censors’ lists as private (8).
Ownership was guaranteed, but the Gracchan limits were to be observed (13–14).

1 . . . tribunes of the plebs duly brought a bill before the plebs and the plebs duly
voted in the forum on the . . . day of . . . ; the . . . tribe voted first; the first to vote
in the name of his tribe was Quintus Fabius, son of Quintus.
Regarding the state land in the country of Italy belonging to the Roman people
in the consulship of Publius Mucius and Lucius Calpurnius (133 BC), not includ-
ing the land which by a clause under the law or plebiscite introduced by Gaius
Sempronius (Gracchus), son of Tiberius, tribune of the plebs, was exempted from
division . . . 2 whatever land or ground out of that land or ground any long-standing
occupier by law or plebiscite took or kept for himself, provided that its size not
be greater than the amount one man was allowed by law or plebiscite to take or
retain for himself.
Regarding the state land in the country of Italy belonging to the Roman people
in the consulship of Publius Mucius and Lucius Calpurnius, not including the land
which by a clause under the law or plebiscite introduced by Gaius Sempronius,
son of Tiberius, tribune of the plebs, was exempted from division . . . 3 whatever
land or ground out of that land or ground a member of the Board of Three has
granted or assigned by law or plebiscite to any Roman citizen selected, provided
that it is not included in that land or ground beyond . . .
4 Regarding the state land in the country of Italy belonging to the Roman
people in the consulship of Publius Mucius and Lucius Calpurnius, not includ-
ing the land which by a clause under the law or plebiscite introduced by Gaius
Sempronius, son of Tiberius, tribune of the plebs, was exempted from division,
whatever land or ground out of that land or ground was granted, given in exchange
or confirmed by a member of the Board of Three to any person who exchanged
public land for private. . . .
7 All land, ground or building which is recorded above . . . not including such
land as has been exempted by a clause above, is to be private . . . , 8 and there is
to be right of purchase and sale of that land, ground or building in the same way
as for other private grounds, land or buildings; and a censor, whoever is in office,
shall cause that land, ground or building, which has been made private by this law,
to be entered in the censor’s lists in the same way as other private lands, grounds
or buildings . . . ; 9 and no one shall so act as to prevent any person to whom under
law or plebiscite that land, ground, building or holding belongs or shall belong
from using, enjoying, holding or possessing that land, ground, building or hold-
ing . . . nor is anyone to bring a motion before the senate in relation to this mat-
ter . . . 10 nor is any person by virtue of a magistracy or imperium to express an
opinion or bring a motion by which any of those to whom under law or plebiscite
any such land, ground, building or holding belongs or shall belong . . . shall be
prevented from using, enjoying, holding or possessing that land, ground, building
or holding, or by which possession shall be taken away against his will or, if he be
deceased, against the will of his heirs . . .
13 Regarding the state land in the country of Italy belonging to the Roman people
in the consulship of Publius Mucius and Lucius Calpurnius, not including the land

385
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
which by a clause under the law or plebiscite introduced by Gaius Sempronius, son
of Tiberius, tribune of the plebs, was exempted from division . . . and not including
that land, which a long-standing occupier took or retained for himself by law or
plebiscite, provided that its size not be greater than the amount one man was allowed
to take or retain for himself, if any person at any time when this law shall be intro-
duced 14 shall have entered into that land for the purpose of cultivation and possess
or hold not more than 30 iugera of that land, that land is to be private.
Any person who shall send to pasture on common pasture land not more than
ten head of larger cattle and any of their young less than a year old . . . or who
shall send to pasture there not more than . . . head of smaller cattle and any of
their young less than a year old, that person shall not owe impost or pasture tax
for those cattle 15 to either people or tax-farmer and shall not be required to make
any return or payment in relation to this matter.

LATER VIEWS OF THE GRACCHI

8.37 Cicero On Duties 2.73–85: Cicero’s views
In this essay dedicated to his son Marcus in 44 BC, Cicero is giving his opinion about agrar-
ian and debt laws and expressing the optimates’ concern about the distribution of public land.

73 A person who holds public office must make it his first duty to see that each
man keeps what belongs to him and that private citizens suffer no loss of property
through an act of government . . . It was for this reason in particular that govern-
ments and states were instituted: so that each man might keep what belonged to
him. For, although men banded together under nature’s guidance, it was in hope
of keeping their possessions safe that they sought the protection of cities. . . . 78
Indeed, men who wish to be populares, and who for that reason either try to bring
in some agrarian reform so that the occupants may be driven out of their residences
or think that money which has been loaned should be made over to the borrowers,
are undermining the foundations of the state, for they are disrupting, firstly, public
harmony (concordia), which cannot exist when money is taken away from some
people and made over to others and, secondly, justice, which is completely done
away with if each man is not allowed to keep what belongs to him . . . 79 How can
it be just that a man who has never had any property should now hold land which
had been occupied for many years or even generations, while the man who had had
it should lose it? 80 It was by reason of this kind of wrongdoing that the Spartans
banished their ephor Lysander and put to death their king Agis, which had never
before happened in Sparta, and from that time on immense conflicts occurred and
tyrants rose up, the optimates were driven out, and the excellently constituted state
fell apart; nor indeed did it fall on its own, but, through the contagious nature of the
evils which started in Sparta and then spread more widely, it overturned the rest of
Greece too. What can we say of our own Gracchi, the sons of that eminent Tiberius
Gracchus and grandsons of Africanus, but that it was strife over agrarian reform
that destroyed them? . . . 85 And so men whose job it is to look after the state must
refrain from that kind of generosity which takes property from some people to give

386
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
it to others, and they should take especial care that each man keeps what belongs to
him through the just administration of the law and courts and that the poorer classes
should not be oppressed because of their humble status, while envy should not pre-
vent the wealthy from holding onto or recovering what belongs to them.

8.38 Cicero In Defence of Sestius 96–7, 103: Cicero on the optimates

In this defence of Sestius (tr. pl. 57), delivered in 56 BC, Cicero divides senators into two
groups.

96 There have always been two groups of men in this state who have been eager
to participate in government and thus to distinguish themselves. Of these groups
one wished to be, and to be thought to be, populares, ‘popular’; the other, opti-
mates, ‘best’. Those who wanted everything they did and said to be agreeable to
the masses were considered populares, but those who so acted that their policies
won the approval of all the best citizens were considered optimates . . . 97 All
are optimates who are neither criminal, nor disgraceful in disposition, nor insane,
nor embarrassed by troubles in their family. It follows, therefore, that these men,
whom you have called a ‘breed’, are honest and of sound mind and have their
domestic circumstances comfortably organised . . .
103 Tiberius Gracchus proposed an agrarian law. The people were pleased: it
looked as if the situation of the poorer classes would be relieved. The optimates,
however, opposed it because they saw that it would give rise to dissension, and they
also thought that, if the wealthy were evicted from land they had long occupied,
the state would be stripped of its champions. Gaius Gracchus proposed a grain law.
The people were delighted, as it provided plenty of food with no need to work. The
‘good men’ fought against it because they thought the masses would be drawn away
from hard work towards idleness, and they saw that the treasury would be drained.

8.39 Cicero On the Agrarian Law 2.10: Cicero praises the Gracchi
Cicero’s speech, as consul in 63, against the Rullan land bill was delivered before the peo-
ple, which accounts for his pro-Gracchan sentiments here. Elsewhere he shows no sympa-
thy for the Gracchi (docs 8.34, 37, 38).

For – I will speak frankly, Romans – I cannot disparage agrarian laws in them-
selves. I recall that those two most distinguished and most gifted men, the greatest
friends of the Roman people, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, settled the plebs on
public land, which had previously been privately owned. I am not one of those
consuls who, like the majority, think it wrong to praise the Gracchi, whose advice,
wisdom and laws, I see, have regulated many aspects of the administration.

8.40 Sallust Jugurthine War 42.1–4: Sallust on the Gracchi

Sallust, a supporter of Marius and a critic of the optimates, provides a positive assessment
of the Gracchi to contrast with Cicero’s views. A triumvir: one of the three men on the land
commission.

387
 TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS
1 So when Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, whose ancestors had done much in the
Punic and other wars to increase Rome’s power, tried to defend the liberty of the
plebs and expose the crimes of the few, the guilty nobility were shocked and opposed
the Gracchi’s proceedings, using now the allies and Latins and now the Roman
equites, whom hope of an alliance had detached from their support of the plebs. First
they butchered Tiberius, and then Gaius a few years later, because he was engag-
ing in the same issues, the one a tribune, the other a triumvir for founding colonies,
along with Marcus Fulvius Flaccus. 2 Certainly the Gracchi’s desire for victory had
led them to behave with insufficient moderation. 3 But a good man should prefer to
be beaten than to defeat injustice by doing wrong. 4 As it was, the nobility used their
victory arbitrarily and killed or banished a number of people, which added more to
their fears during the rest of their lives than to their powers. This is what generally
destroys great states, when each side will do anything possible to overcome the
other and then avenge themselves harshly on their defeated opponents.

8.41 Plutarch Agis and Cleomenes and the Gracchi Compared 1.1–2,
5.4–6: The Gracchi as reformers
This passage comes from Plutarch’s comparison of his life of the Gracchi and that of
Agis IV and Cleomenes III of Sparta, who both attempted to reform Sparta in the face of
domestic crisis.

1.1 Now that this biography is also finished, it remains for me to take a survey of
all the lives in parallel. As for the Gracchi, not even those who totally abuse and
hate them on other grounds have dared to deny that, of all Romans, they were the
best equipped by nature for the practice of virtue and enjoyed an excellent upbring-
ing and education; 2 the natural gifts of Agis and Cleomenes appear to have been
more formidable than theirs, in so far as, though they did not receive correct train-
ing and were brought up in customs and ways of life by which their elders had
long since been corrupted, they made themselves leaders in economy and modera-
tion. . . . 5.4 Those who criticise their characters blame the two Greeks for having
been despotic and aggressive from the beginning and the two Romans for having
naturally been immoderately ambitious, though their enemies had nothing else to
charge them with; in fact, they agree that it was because they were roused by the
conflict with their opponents and by passions not natural to them, as if by blasts of
wind, that they launched the state into such a dangerous crisis. 5 For what could
have been more fair or just than their original proposals – had not the wealthy,
in their attempts to obstruct the law by violence and factionalism, involved both
of them in conflict, Tiberius through fear for his life and Gaius in his attempt to
avenge his brother who had been killed without justice, without a decree of the
senate, and without even the approval of a magistrate? 6 So, from what has been
said, you will perceive the difference between them; but if I am to state my view
of them separately, I should say that Tiberius was the most pre-eminent of them
all in excellence, that Agis as a young man made the fewest mistakes, and that, in
achievements and courage, Gaius was far behind Cleomenes.

388
 9

Marius

Following Gaius Gracchus’ death, the senatorial oligarchy re-established its

influence, until increasing dissatisfaction with bribery, corruption and military
incompetence brought change. One of the tribunes for 120 BC, P. Decius Subulo,
prosecuted Opimius before the assembly for executing Roman citizens without
a trial, which Gaius’ lex Sempronia had prohibited. Opimius argued that he had
carried out the senatorial decree calling upon him as consul to take measures to
defend the state. He was acquitted, and P. Popillius Laenas, who had organised
the witch-hunts of 132, returned from exile (MRR I.524; docs 8.19, 8.29). The
senate’s triumph seemed complete.
The next major phase in Roman politics came with the Jugurthine War. Sallust’s
Jugurthine War 5 sees it as the first time a challenge was made to ‘the arrogance
of the nobility’ and also as the beginning of a struggle which ended with the civil
war between Pompey and Caesar. It was the Jugurthine War, or rather the senate’s
poor handling of this, that gave Marius his chance to run for the consulship.
Marius’ background was that of an equestrian from Arpinum. While he had
not had the benefit of a thorough Greek education (docs 9.1–2), he clearly was
not from an impoverished or obscure family. Arpinum possessed Roman citi-
zenship, and Marius began his adult life with a military career typical of Roman
equites. His military competence stood out, and he was elected to a military
tribunate on the basis of his service in Spain (doc. 9.4), as well as holding the
quaestorship. But his early political career was chequered. His tribunate of 119
was gained with the support of L. Caecilius Metellus (cos. 119), whom Marius
threatened with violence over opposition to his voting law (docs 9.4, 36). Only
with difficulty did he later obtain a praetorship after missing out on an aedile-
ship (see doc. 9.4), though his marriage to Julia connected him with an aristo-
cratic Roman family (doc. 9.5). Sallust overlooks these electoral difficulties in
his presentation of Marius (doc. 9.6).
By 109 Marius was in favour again with the Metelli and accompanied
Q. Caecilius Metellus (cos. 109) to Numidia, clearly on the basis of his mili-
tary skills. The death of the king of Numidia, Micipsa, in 118 had left two sons
(Hiempsal and Adherbal) and their cousin Jugurtha as heirs to the Numidian throne.
Jugurtha had Hiempsal killed and defeated Adherbal, who fled to Rome. Opimius

389
 MARIUS
was sent to divide the kingdom, but Jugurtha continued to attack Adherbal and
ignored the Romans, killing Adherbal and his Italian supporters in 112. Bestia
(cos. 111) and Albinus (cos. 110) were sent out to Numidia, but both were incom-
petent against Jugurtha. Widespread bribery by Jugurtha of senators at Rome was
suspected and clearly did occur. At about the same time, in 113, the army of Gnaeus
Papirius Carbo (cos. 113) was destroyed by the Cimbri. This military incompetence
and the failure to defeat Jugurtha led to widespread dissatisfaction at Rome, and
Mamilius’ law as tribune in 109 BC established a quaestio extraordinaria to deal
with those accused of having been bribed by Jugurtha or who had otherwise aided
him: Opimius, Albinus and Bestia were all convicted (doc. 9.7).
Metellus initially refused to let Marius return from Numidia to Rome in 108
to campaign for the consulship of 107, but Marius gained the support of Italian
businessmen in Africa and the Roman troops, who wrote home supporting his
consular candidacy. Metellus finally allowed him to go (doc. 9.9), and he was
elected, probably because of dissatisfaction with the general performance of the
nobility on the military front, and also because he had promised an end to the war,
claiming that Metellus was protracting hostilities; the support of the equites must
have been crucial (docs 9.7–9). The senate had already reassigned Numidia to
Metellus, but one of the tribunes proposed a bill to grant the command to Marius.
Metellus was furious but was granted a triumph and the title ‘Numidicus’.
Marius wanted more troops than the senate had authorised, so he changed the
recruitment procedure, including members of the capite censi, the landless poor,
in his army (docs 9.10–11). The Gracchi’s concern with military recruitment in
attempting to restore small landholders is relevant here. Marius recruited from
even the poorest, and so created a client army dependent on its general for land at
the end of its period of service.
Sulla acted as Marius’ quaestor in Numidia. They clearly worked well together,
and Sulla was to be Marius’ legate in the German wars. At this stage there was
no animosity between them (doc. 9.12), and it was only in 88 BC that real rivalry
between the two manifested itself. In Numidia as consul, Marius took several
years to defeat Jugurtha and, when he was on the point of doing so, Bocchus, ruler
of Mauretania, surrendered the king to Sulla (docs 9.13, 11.50).
Reforms to the army itself followed with the campaigns against the Germanic
tribes, the Teutones and Cimbri (docs 9.23–6), with Roman fears of these migrat-
ing hordes leading to an unprecedented five consecutive consulships for Marius
(104–100 BC). There had been a series of disasters against the Germans (doc.
9.14) and, with panic in Italy (doc. 9.16), Marius was a logical choice; the generals
who had failed were prosecuted (doc. 9.19). The first years were quiet, and Marius
reformed the army (docs 9.21–2), but great victories were then won against the
Germans in 102 and 101 and Italy was safe (docs 9.23, 9.26, 9.37). Marius had
the support of populares and optimates alike (docs 9.24–5). In 104 he had had the
support of a tribune for 103, L. Appuleius Saturninus, in seeking the consulship.
Saturninus’ tribunate in 103 was not altogether remarkable. In 100 he was tribune
for a second time as a result of the murder of the tribune Nonius, whom Saturninus
replaced. His land legislation, passed for Marius’ veterans during 100, violently

390
 MARIUS
and against the omens, aroused opposition and led to Metellus going into exile. A
grain law is also usually dated to this year (doc. 9.38).
Saturninus was elected for a third tribunate with the impostor L. Equitius, who
claimed to be a son of Tiberius Gracchus. Saturninus, with Glaucia, who was hop-
ing for the consulship, organised the killing of one of the consular candidates for
99, Memmius, to ensure the election of Glaucia, who was praetor in 100 (and so
ineligible for election as he was holding a magistracy and so could not seek elec-
tion to another). The senate acted and an emergency decree was passed, with the
consuls (C. Marius and L. Valerius) empowered to ‘preserve the imperium and
majesty of the Roman people’ (doc. 9.30). Marius as consul presided over the dis-
tribution of weapons. The senate and equites acted together and arms were given
to the plebs. Saturninus and his supporters were besieged on the Capitol, and
the water pipes were cut off until they surrendered. Saturninus and his support-
ers were then held in the senate house, but the crowd broke in and stoned them;
Glaucia was dragged from his house and his neck broken. Saturninus, Glaucia and
Equitius were thus all killed on the first day of the tribunate, 10 December 100.
Marius apparently tried to save their lives but was unable to oppose the angry
mob. His attitude towards Saturninus was unclear, but he had obtained his land
grants for his veterans and as consul clearly felt his interests lay more with the
senate. Plutarch has Marius fall into obscurity for the 90s; this may be an exagger-
ation, but certainly there was little scope for his military talents in this period. He
was involved in the Social War (docs 10.14, 18, 23). One last consulship awaited
him. The command against Mithridates was awarded to Sulla as consul for 88,
but Marius intrigued with the tribune P. Sulpicius Rufus to replace Sulla in the
command (doc. 9.32). Sulla did not accept this, marched on Rome, had Sulpicius
killed and Marius exiled, and left for the East (doc. 9.33). Marius returned to
Rome amid bloodshed (doc. 9.34) and was elected to a final consulship for 86, but
he died after a few days in office, on 13 January.
Any assessment of Marius’ career must reflect not so much on his victory
against Jugurtha – which may well have belonged to Metellus if he had been
allowed to retain his command – but on his five consecutive consulships and the
victories against the Germans for which he was largely responsible. His reforms
of the army were to play a crucial role from 88 to 44 BC, with generals able to
rely on the support of their armies in their struggle for pre-eminence. Sulla was
to reap the first benefits of the dependent relationship between a general and his
client army.
Ancient sources: the main sources are Sallust’s Jugurthine War, which deals
only with Marius’ career in that conflict, and the unsatisfactory Marius of Plutarch.
Sallust’s Jugurthine War (references to this work are abbreviated as BJ, Bellum
Jugurthinum) deals with Marius’ campaigns in Africa. His portrait of Marius and
Sulla in their early political careers is favourable, but he condemned Sulla’s later
career (Marius: BJ 84.2, 86; Sulla: BJ 95–6; docs 9.10, 12). Metellus’ leadership
of the army is reported positively (BJ 45.1–3), but his aristocratic superbia (arro-
gance) – which leads him to treat Marius’ consulship aspirations with scorn – is
also noted (doc. 9.6). Sallust’s treatment of Marius, as the ultimate popularis, is

391
 MARIUS
often seen as extremely favourable (note Marius’ denunciations of the aristocracy:
BJ 85; doc. 9.2), but the portrait is not totally flattering, and Sallust can be critical
(doc. 9.6); Syme, however, overemphasises its negative aspects (1964: 159–4).
Sallust clearly realises the significance of the support of the equites in obtain-
ing for Marius the consulship and command which was absolutely crucial for his
future political career and without which he might have remained a minor politi-
cian (BJ 64.5–6), but he neglects the details of Marius’ early chequered career.
Plutarch Marius, esp. 7–12; Sulla 3–4, 6.1–2, 7–10: for Marius, Plutarch used
the writings of the philosopher Posidonius, who wrote a universal history from
146 down to the 80s; Posidonius was a contemporary and actually spoke to Marius
in his last days (FGrH 87 FF37, 60). Posidonius dealt with the Cimbri (Strabo
7.2.2 = FGrH 87 F31), and Plutarch presumably used him for Marius’ northern
campaigns. Otherwise, Plutarch mentions Sulla, Rufus and Catulus as sources
and probably used Sisenna and Scaurus, none of whom presented a sympathetic
portrait, as well as Sallust. Sulla in his Memoirs denigrated Marius’ achievements,
while other contemporary writers – the princeps senatus M. Aemilius Scaurus
(cos. 115), P. Rutilius Rufus (cos. 105) and Q. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 102) – who
would have been read by both Sallust and Plutarch, were hostile to him, and L.
Cornelius Sisenna’s account of Sulla can hardly have favoured Marius (HRR I2
276–97). Plutarch’s Marius is far from satisfactory as an historical account, not
merely because of its hostility to its subject and its moralising nature but because
it does not attach any significance to Marius’ army reforms, and its lack of under-
standing of the political situation of the time is made clear at Mar. 8.5–9.4, where
Plutarch fails to consider how Marius wrested the war against Jugurtha from
Metellus.
Cicero is generally favourable to Marius (though he calls him ‘omnium
perfidiosissimus’, ‘more untrustworthy than anyone else’: Nat. Deor. 3.80): both
were novi homines, from the same town (Arpinum), and were in fact related. But
Cicero might have had ulterior motives: Marius had been involved in the violent
deaths of Saturninus and Glaucia and their supporters, just as Cicero himself had
put citizens to death without a trial: see Carney 1960. Cicero refers to an account
of Marius’ campaign against the Cimbri written by Archias the poet which won
Marius’ approval (Cic. Arch. 19–20), but the accounts of those hostile to him were
too strong. Licinianus 13–14 is important for Mallius (cos. 105) and the disastrous
defeat by the Cimbri in 105 BC. Appian BC 1.28–32.125–45 (Appian’s Celtica
13, now only fragmentary, presumably dealt with Marius’ campaigns) is quite
brief and a narrative with no interpretative material. For an inscription dealing
with Marius’ career, see doc. 9.35.

MARIUS’ EARLY CAREER

9.1 Plutarch Life of Marius 2.1–2: Marius the man
Plutarch’s Marius is less than satisfactory as a source, and this passage gives a good indication
of the moralising in which it indulges. Like Cato the Elder (doc. 5.61), Marius could of course
speak Greek, but would not use it for important official occasions; cf. doc. 9.2.

392
 MARIUS
1 As for Marius’ appearance, I have seen a stone statue of him at Ravenna in Gaul,
which fits well with the roughness and harshness supposed to have been character-
istic of him. He was naturally brave and warlike, his education having been in the
military rather than the civil sphere, and when in power he was unable to control
his anger. 2 It is said that he never learnt Greek literature and never used the Greek
language on any important occasion, on the grounds that it was ridiculous to study
a literature whose teachers were subjects; and after his second triumph (in 101
BC), when at the consecration of a temple he put on some Greek performances,
he just went into the theatre and sat down before immediately leaving. Plato often
used to say to the philosopher Xenocrates, whose character seemed to have been
rather too uncouth, ‘My dear Xenocrates, sacrifice to the Graces’ – and if anyone
had persuaded Marius to sacrifice to the Greek Graces and Muses he would not
have brought his career, so distinguished in military commands and public magis-
tracies, to an end so unsightly, and would not have run aground upon an extremely
bloodthirsty and cruel old age under the force of his anger, untimely ambition and
uncontrollable arrogance.

9.2 Sallust Jugurthine War 85.31–35: Marius’ self-portrait

Sallust describes Marius after his election to the consulship of 107 BC as encouraging the
people to enlist for the war in Numidia, with much abuse of the nobiles. The speech is
deliberately laconic and unsophisticated, and Marius stresses both his readiness to endure
the same hardships as his troops and the ways in which, as a novus homo, he differs from
the nobility.

31 My words are not carefully chosen; I care little for that. Merit demonstrates
itself sufficiently on its own. It is they (the nobiles) who need skill to cover up
their shameful deeds with rhetoric. 32 Nor have I studied Greek literature; I had
little interest in studying this, as it had not improved the characters of its teach-
ers. 33 But I have learnt the best lessons by far for the good of the state: to smite
the enemy, mount guard, fear nothing except disgrace, suffer heat and cold alike,
sleep on the ground, and endure at the same time lack of food and hard work. 34
With these lessons I shall encourage my soldiers, and I shall not subject them to
short rations while living sumptuously myself or win my glory through their hard
work. 35 This is the profitable way, this is the way for a citizen to lead his fellows.

9.3 Sallust Jugurthine War 8.1–2: Intrigue in Rome, c. 134 BC

Jugurtha, nephew of Micipsa, was sent to Spain by his uncle in 134, became intimate
with Publius Scipio Aemilianus, under whom he served at Numantia (docs 5.52–53), and
employed wholesale bribery to get his own way at Rome (see doc. 9.7). Both the novi
homines and the nobiles, according to Sallust, were out for enrichment.

1 At that time in our army there were a great many new men and nobles to whom
riches meant more than virtue and integrity, who were party intriguers at home,
influential with Rome’s allies, and notorious rather than respected, who fired

393
 MARIUS
Jugurtha’s ambitious spirit by promising that, should king Micipsa die, he alone
would wield power in Numidia, since his merits were pre-eminent, while every-
thing at Rome could be bought for money. 2 When Numantia had been destroyed,
Publius Scipio decided to disband his auxiliary troops and return home. After
making gifts to Jugurtha and commending him highly before the assembled sol-
diers, Scipio took him into his tent and there privately advised him to cultivate the
friendship of the Roman people in general rather than that of individuals and not
to form the habit of offering bribes – it was dangerous to buy from the few what
belonged to the many. If Jugurtha would continue in his good conduct, glory and
a kingdom would come to him of their own accord, but if he acted too hastily his
own money would bring about his downfall.

9.4 Valerius Maximus On Memorable Deeds and Sayings 6.9.14:

Marius’ changing fortunes
Both Marius and Cicero were born in Arpinum in central Italy, Marius probably in 157 BC.
Marius was a novus homo in every sense, and this could account for the difficulty he had in
entering Roman politics: there had not been a novus homo consul since 132 BC (see docs
9.9, 2.39–40). He was of equestrian rank, and very little is known about his early career,
though he served under Scipio Aemilianus at Numantia in Spain. He became quaestor,
perhaps in 121, and stood for election as a plebeian tribune in 119 with the support of
Caecilius Metellus, there being a patron–client relationship between the Metelli and the
Marii. However, his activities as tribune upset his relationship with the Metelli, although
he was connected with them again in the Numidian campaign.

Next comes Gaius Marius, Fortune’s great contest: for with extreme bravery he
stood up to all her blows by his strength both of body and mind. Judged unwor-
thy of the honours of Arpinum, he dared to stand for the quaestorship at Rome.
Then, by his patience under repulses, he rather broke into the senate than entered
it. In his candidature for the tribunate and aedileship too he experienced a similar
electoral disgrace, and as a candidate for the praetorship clung to the last place,
which, however, he won not without danger, for, accused of bribery, he obtained
an acquittal from the jurors with the greatest difficulty. From that Marius, so lowly
at Arpinum, so obscure at Rome, so disdained as a candidate for office, emerged
the Marius who conquered Africa, who drove king Jugurtha before his chariot,
who annihilated the armies of the Teutones and Cimbri, whose two trophies are
seen in the city, whose seven consulships are read in the Fasti, and whose fate it
was to be made consul after exile and to hold a proscription after having been pro-
scribed. What could be more fickle or changeable than his position? If you were
to put him among the wretched, he would be found the most wretched of all, if
among the fortunate, the most fortunate.

9.5 Plutarch Life of Marius 6.3–4: Marriage to Julia

After his praetorship of 115, Marius went to Further Spain as governor. He had almost
certainly enriched himself there both in 134–33 and in 114. Soon after his return he married

394
 MARIUS
Julia (as his second wife), and a son was born in 109 or 108. This marriage connected him
with the Roman aristocracy. Julia was to be the aunt of Julius Caesar, born 100 BC.

3 When he returned to political life he lacked both wealth and rhetorical skill,
which the most prestigious men of that time used in their control of the peo-
ple. 4 His steadfast spirit, persistence in hard work and plain lifestyle gained him
popularity with the citizens, and he approached more closely to power through
his reputation, so he was able to make a brilliant marriage to Julia, from the dis-
tinguished family of the Julii Caesares, who was the aunt of that Caesar who
was later to become the greatest man in Rome and who, to some extent, imitated
Marius because of this family relationship, as I have written in my Life of him.

MARIUS IN AFRICA
9.6 Sallust Jugurthine War 63.1–64.6: Gaius Marius – Sallust’s view
The Caecilii Metelli had held numerous consulships (123, 119, 117, 115, 113, 109) and had
assisted Marius to his tribunate. Q. Caecilius Metellus, as consul in 109 BC, took Marius to
Africa with him. Masinissa, as king of Numidia, had been a loyal ally of Rome. When he
died in 148, Micipsa gained the throne, and on his death in 118 BC bequeathed the kingdom
to his two sons (Hiempsal and Adherbal) and to Jugurtha, his nephew. Hiempsal and
Adherbal refused to recognise Jugurtha, who had Hiempsal assassinated, while Adherbal
fled to Rome. 63.7 The term novus homo (also as homo novus) applied strictly to a consul
from an equestrian family.

63.1 At about the same time it happened that, when Gaius Marius was offering a
sacrifice to the gods at Utica, the haruspex (soothsayer) declared that it portended
a great and wonderful future; accordingly, whatever he had in mind, he should
rely on the gods and carry it out and make trial of his fortune as often as possible,
since everything would turn out successfully. 2 Even before this Marius had been
driven by an intense desire for the consulship, for acquiring which he had all
the qualifications in abundance, except the antiquity of his family: a capacity for
hard work, integrity, great military skill, and a spirit mighty in warfare, temperate
in private life, unaffected by passionate desire for wealth, and covetous only of
glory. 3 He had been born and spent his boyhood at Arpinum, and when he first
reached the age of military service he trained himself in the performance of mili-
tary duties, not in Grecian eloquence or the niceties of city life; engaged thus in
wholesome occupations, his unspoiled character quickly matured. 4 As a result,
when he was a candidate before the people for the rank of military tribune for the
first time, even though the majority did not know him by sight, he was known by
his deeds and elected by all the tribes. 5 Then from that office he won one after
another, always conducting himself in such a way that he seemed worthy of a
higher position. 6 However, although he had shown himself so exceptional a man
up to that point – for later on he was driven headlong by ambition – he still did
not dare attempt the consulship. For even at that time, although the plebs could
bestow the other magistracies, the nobility passed the consulship from hand to

395
 MARIUS
hand among themselves. 7 No ‘new man’ was so distinguished or his achieve-
ments so splendid that he was considered worthy of that honour, and he was
looked on as if he were unclean.
64.1 Therefore, when Marius saw that the words of the soothsayer pointed in
the same direction as that in which his heart’s desire was urging him, he asked
Metellus to grant him leave of absence to stand for office. Although Metellus pos-
sessed in abundance courage, the love of glory and other qualities desired by good
men, he also had a proud, disdainful spirit, a common weakness in the nobility. 2
At first, therefore, he was disturbed by the unusual situation, expressed his amaze-
ment at Marius’ intention, and advised him, as if motivated by friendship, not to
attempt so irregular a proceeding or entertain ideas above his station: all things are
not to be desired by all men, said Metellus, and Marius should be content with his
own lot; and, finally, he should beware of asking from the Roman people some-
thing which they would be justified in refusing.
3 After he had made this and similar comments and Marius’ determination
remained unshaken, he finally replied that, as soon as public business permitted
him, he would do what Marius requested. 4 Later, when Marius often made the
same request, he is said to have replied, ‘Don’t be in such a hurry to go to Rome –
you’ll be old enough to stand for the consulship when my son does.’ The son, at
that point, was serving there on his father’s staff and was about 20 years of age.
This kindled both Marius’ desire for the office to which he aspired and his hatred
towards Metellus. 5 As a result he allowed himself to be motivated by desire and
anger, the worst of all counsellors, abstained from no word or deed that might be
of any use in gaining him popularity, and was less of a disciplinarian than before
with the soldiers under his command in the winter quarters, while in discussing
the war with the businessmen, of whom there was a large community at Utica,
he made simultaneous accusations and boasts: if half the army, he proclaimed,
would be entrusted to him, in a few days he would have Jugurtha in chains; his
commander was deliberately dragging things out because, as a man of vain and
despotic pride, he was too fond of power. 6 All these comments seemed all the
more reliable to his listeners, because their businesses had been ruined by the
lengthy duration of the war and because nothing moves fast enough for eager men.

9.7 Sallust Jugurthine War 40.2–3, 75.4–5: The lex Mamilia

After the murder of Hiempsal, Jugurtha sent envoys to Rome, who bribed senators to
take up his cause but were unable to win over enough senators. Opimius (cos. 121; cf.
docs 8.33–34) was sent out at the head of a commission of ten: as a result of bribery, he
awarded Jugurtha the better half of Numidia. Jugurtha in 112 attacked Adherbal’s capital
Cirta and murdered him along with Italian traders there. L. Calpurnius Bestia (cos. 111)
was sent out with an army, but was bribed by Jugurtha and granted him a lenient peace;
Spurius Postumius (cos. 110) prosecuted the war against Jugurtha, but, when he returned to
Rome to hold elections, his brother Aulus was easily defeated by Jugurtha and the Romans
surrendered and passed under the yoke (BJ 36–9). In 110 Metellus was elected as one of the
two consuls for 109 and was awarded Numidia as his province. G. Mamilius Limetanus (tr.
pl. 109) proposed proceedings against those bribed by Jugurtha; several prominent senators

396
 MARIUS
were successfully prosecuted, including Opimius. 75.4: Gauda: a grandson of Masinissa
with the Roman army; Marius promised him the Numidian throne.

40.2 Measures to oppose the bill (of Mamilius) were taken both by those con-
scious of their guilt and by others afraid of the dangers arising from factional
ill-will, and, since they were unable to resist it openly without admitting their
approval of these and similar actions, they did so secretly through their friends and
especially through men of Latin and Italian allied towns. 3 But the people passed
the bill with incredible eagerness and decisiveness rather out of hatred for the
nobility, against whom these measures were being directed, than out of concern
for the state – so high were party passions running.
75.4 In this way Marius induced Gauda and the Roman equites, both those in
the army and the businessmen, some by his personal influence, but most of them
by the hope of peace, to write to their connections in Rome criticising Metellus’
conduct of the war and demanding Marius as commander. 5 Accordingly many
people canvassed for Marius’ candidature for the consulship in a show of support
that was highly flattering. Moreover, at that time the plebs, with the nobles frus-
trated by the law of Mamilius, were trying to promote novi homines (new men).
Thus everything worked in Marius’ favour.

9.8 Cicero On Duties 3.79: One novus homo on another

Cicero here is talking about the wrongs that stem from overreaching ambition. Generally,
as a fellow townsman from Arpinum and because of family links with the Marii, he is quite
pro-Marius.

Gaius Marius had long lacked the hope of a consulship and had now been
out of office for six years following his praetorship, nor did he seem to have
any chance of even being a candidate for the consulship, when he was sent by
Quintus Metellus, one of our most outstanding men and citizens, whose leg-
ate he was, to Rome. There he accused Metellus before the Roman people of
protracting the war; if they would make him consul, he promised, he would in
a short time deliver Jugurtha alive or dead into the power of the Roman people.
And so he was elected consul, it is true, but he had forsaken good faith and
justice in that, by bringing a false charge, he had subjected one of the best and
most respectable citizens, although he was his legate and on a mission for him,
to the people’s ill-will.

9.9 Sallust Jugurthine War 73.1–7: Marius gets his heart’s desire
Marius was elected to the consulship of 107. 73.1: Bomilcar was executed by Jugurtha for
complicity in an attempt to assassinate him. 73.7: Although many novi homines had held
lesser offices, there had not been a novus homo consul since P. Rupilius in 132; cf. doc.
2.44. Numidia had again been allotted to Metellus by the senate, but the comitia centuriata
elected Marius consul (the support of the equites will have been crucial) and the people
gave him Numidia as his province).

397
 MARIUS
1 When Metellus learned from deserters of the fate of Bomilcar and the discov-
ery of the plot, he again hastened to make all his preparations as if starting a
completely new war. 2 As Marius kept on importuning him about his leave of
absence, he sent him home, thinking that a subordinate who was simultaneously
discontented and at odds with his commander would be of little value. 3 At Rome
as well, the plebs, on hearing the letters which had been sent regarding Metellus
and Marius, readily accepted what was said about both. 4 The commander’s noble
birth, which had previously been counted as an honour, became a source of ill-
will, while in Marius’ case his humble origins added to his popularity. In both
cases, however, factional zeal had more weight than the good or bad qualities of
the men involved. 5 Furthermore, seditious magistrates (tribunes) whipped up the
mob, in every assembly charging Metellus with treason and exaggerating Marius’
virtues. 6 At length the plebs were so inflamed that all the craftsmen and farm-
ers, those whose prosperity and credit depended on the work of their own hands,
left their work to attend Marius, considering their own necessities of life less
important than his success. 7 And so the nobles were beaten, and after many years
the consulship was granted to a novus homo. Afterwards, when the people were
asked by the tribune of the plebs, Titus Manlius Mancinus, in a packed assem-
bly whom they wished to lead the war against Jugurtha, they appointed Marius.
Shortly before this the senate had assigned Numidia to Metellus: their decision
was rendered null and void.

9.10 Sallust Jugurthine War 84.1–2, 86.1–4: The capite censi

For Marius’ later army reforms: docs 9.22–23. The Roman army was made up of soldiers
whose ownership of property was felt to bind them to the interests of the state and its
defence. Livy 1.43 states that Servius Tullius established classes based on property
qualifications (cf. doc. 1.20); the capite censi, who were without property, were exempt
from military service and entered on censors’ lists only regarding their person (caput; cf.
doc. 9.11). Marius now did away with property qualifications entirely and, by enrolling
these, created the beginning of the ‘client army’.

84.1 Marius, as I said above, had been elected consul with the enthusiastic sup-
port of the plebs; while he had already been hostile to the nobles before this point,
after the people assigned him the province of Numidia he threatened them with
persistence and boldness, attacking now individuals, now the entire class, assert-
ing that he had defeated them and taken the consulship as spoils, as well as other
remarks intended to glorify himself and cause them annoyance. 2 Meanwhile he
gave priority to preparations for the war, demanding reinforcements to bring the
legions up to strength, summoning auxiliaries from foreign nations and kings, and
in addition calling up the bravest members of the Latins and allies, most of whom
he knew from military service and a few only by reputation, while by personal
solicitations he also induced veterans who had finished their service to join his
force.
86.1 After Marius had made a speech in these terms and seen that it aroused the
spirits of the plebs, he made haste to load his ships with provisions, money, arms

398
 MARIUS
and other useful items and ordered his legate Aulus Manlius to set sail with these.
2 Meanwhile he himself enrolled soldiers, not, according to ancestral custom, by
property classes but by taking any man who volunteered, mostly the capite censi.
3 Some stated that he did this through lack of good men, others to win popular-
ity, as it was from that class he had gained his status and rank – and to someone
seeking power the poorest man is the most useful, for he is not concerned about
his property, not having any, and considers anything respectable for which he
receives pay. 4 As a result Marius set sail for Africa with a much greater force than
had been authorised and arrived at Utica in a few days. The army was handed over
to him by the legate Publius Rutilius. 5 Metellus had avoided meeting Marius, so
that he might not see what he had been unable to bear even hearing about.

9.11 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 16.10.10–11, 14: Removal of property

qualifications
10 Those of the Roman plebs who were the humblest and poorest, and who reported
no more than 1,500 asses at the census, were called proletarii, while those who were
assessed as having no property at all, or next to none, were termed capite censi,
‘counted by head’, and the lowest rating of the capite censi was 375 asses. 11 But
since property and money were seen as being a hostage or pledge to the state, and
since there was in them a sort of guarantee and basis for patriotism, neither the pro-
letarii nor the capite censi were enlisted as soldiers, unless in an extreme emergency,
because they had little or no property or money . . . 14 Gaius Marius is said to have
been the first man to have enrolled the capite censi, according to some in the war
against the Cimbri at a time of great crisis for the state, or, more probably, as Sallust
says, in the Jugurthine War, an act unheard of before that time.

MARIUS AND SULLA

9.12 Sallust Jugurthine War 95.1–96.3: Sulla enters military life
Despite Marius’ earlier complaints against Metellus, the war against Jugurtha continued
after Marius’ consulship expired, and he continued the war as proconsul. Jugurtha was
captured in 105, and Marius returned to Rome and celebrated his triumph on 1 January 104;
3,007 pounds of gold, 5,775 pounds of uncoined silver and 287,000 drachmas in coins were
said to have been carried in the triumphal procession: Plut. Mar. 12.6. Sulla was chosen by
Marius as his quaestor for 107 BC and would also serve under him in 104 as legate and in
103 as military tribune. For Sulla’s background: see doc. 11.1.

95.1 In the meantime the quaestor Lucius Sulla arrived in camp with a large force
of cavalry, which he had been left behind to raise from Latium and the allies. 2
Since the event has brought that great man to my attention, it seems appropriate
to say a few words about his character and style of life. For I shall not speak else-
where about matters pertaining to Sulla, and Lucius Sisenna, who has given the
best and most careful account of him, does not seem to me to have spoken with
sufficient frankness.

399
 MARIUS
3 Sulla, then, was a noble of patrician descent, but his family was by this point
buried in almost total oblivion because of the worthlessness of his ancestors. He
was well educated alike in Greek and Latin literature and was of great mental
capacity, devoted to pleasure, but more devoted to glory, spending his leisure time
in extravagant living – though his enjoyments never interfered with his duties,
except that he could have behaved more honourably as a husband. He was elo-
quent, clever and good at making friends; his mind was incredibly deep in its abil-
ity to disguise his plans; and he was generous with many things, especially money.
4 He was the most fortunate of all men before the civil war, but his good fortune
was never greater than his assiduous efforts, and many have doubted whether his
courage or good luck were the greater. As to what he did afterwards, I am unsure
whether one should speak of it more with shame or with disgust.
96.1 After Sulla, as I have said above, reached Africa and Marius’ camp with
his cavalry, although he was without training and experience in war, he became in
a short time the most skilful soldier in the whole army. 2 In addition he spoke in a
friendly manner to the soldiers and granted favours to many at their request and to
others of his own accord, though he was unwilling to accept favours himself and
paid them back more promptly than a debt of money. He never asked anyone for
repayment but, rather, worked hard to have as many people as possible in his debt;
3 he would exchange jokes or serious conversation with the humblest and spent
much time with the men at their work, on the march and on guard duty, but in the
meantime he did not try, like those whom corrupt ambition motivates, to harm the
reputation of the consul or any other respectable man. His only concern was to
make sure that no one was before him in counsel or action, and that he surpassed
nearly everyone. Such character and behaviour endeared him in a short time to
Marius and the soldiers.

9.13 Plutarch Life of Marius 10.3–9: Rivalry with Sulla

Plutarch dates the enmity between Marius and Sulla to the incident involving Bocchus,
but the deadly rivalry between the two men was as yet many years away. Sulla negotiated
Jugurtha’s betrayal, but Marius would not – rightly – have seen this as crucial in bringing
the war to a conclusion. For a coin showing Bocchus delivering Jugurtha to Sulla: doc.
11.46. Jugurtha appeared in Marius’ triumph in 104 BC and was killed in the state prison:
doc. 12.22 (the prison).

3 The king of the natives in the interior was Bocchus, Jugurtha’s son-in-law . . . 4
He sent for Lucius Sulla, Marius’ quaestor, who had been useful to Bocchus dur-
ing the campaign. 5 Sulla trusted him and made the journey up country to see him,
but the native changed his mind and regretted his action, deliberating for several
days the options of handing Jugurtha over or detaining Sulla. 6 Finally he carried
out his original betrayal and surrendered Jugurtha alive to Sulla. 7 This was the
first seed of their incurable and savage conflict which came close to destroying
Rome. 8 For there were many who wanted to give the credit to Sulla, out of jeal-
ousy of Marius, while Sulla himself used to wear a signet ring he had had made,
engraved with Jugurtha being surrendered to him by Bocchus. 9 He used this

400
 MARIUS
ring constantly, irritating Marius, who was an ambitious man, disinclined to share
glory with anyone else, and given to quarrels. He was led on by Marius’ enemies,
who attributed the first and greatest achievements of the war to Metellus and its
final stages and conclusion to Sulla, in an attempt to put an end to the people’s
admiration of and total devotion to Marius.

MARIUS AND THE GERMANS

The Romans suffered several defeats at the hands of the Germans in the last decade of
the second century; there was also a particularly spectacular debacle when in 107 the
Tigurini, a group of the Helvetii (Celts), killed Marius’ fellow consul L. Cassius Longinus
in battle and sent the Romans under the yoke. The Germanic defeat of the Romans by the
Cimbri in 105 BC was also catastrophic. Marius was elected to a second consulship to
deal with the German tribes – then to a third, fourth, fifth and sixth. The people awarded
him the command against the Germans, bypassing the senate. Marius spent 104 and 103
in military preparations. In 102 the tribes were active again but divided their forces, and
Marius won his great victory over the Teutones at Aquae Sextiae in Transalpine Gaul,
while in 101 the Cimbri were defeated by the combined armies of Marius and Catulus
at Vercellae in Cisalpine Gaul, north of the Po River. Marius was elected to his sixth
consulship for 100 BC.

9.14 Livy Periochae 65, 67: Disasters in Gaul

Q. Servilius Caepio (cos. 106) had not co-operated with Cn. Mallius Maximus (cos.
105), and at Arausio, now Orange (France), the Romans were disastrously defeated in
105 BC. This propelled Marius to his second consulship, for 104, to deal with the crisis.
In 105 Caepio’s imperium was cancelled; and Longinus’ law in 104 as tribune expelled
from the senate anyone whose imperium had been abrogated (doc. 9.19). C. Norbanus
prosecuted Caepio over the treasure which had been captured at Tolosa in 106 and which
had disappeared (doc. 9.18), and Caepio was convicted over his role in the Arausio disaster.
He went into exile at Smyrna in Asia Minor.
Marius went straight from his triumph to the Capitol, where he had convened a meeting
of the senate, but changed into an ordinary toga when he saw that he was giving offence:
see doc. 9.35. Cn. Manlius is Cn. Mallius Maximus (cos. 105). He, like Caepio, was pros-
ecuted and convicted for his role in the defeat at Arausio.

65 The consul Marcus Junius Silanus (cos. 109) lost a battle against the Cimbri
(108 BC). The senate refused the request of envoys from the Cimbri for a dwell-
ing place and land on which they might settle. The proconsul Marcus Minucius
(cos. 110) fought successfully against the Thracians (109/08). The consul Lucius
Cassius was slaughtered with his army in the territory of the Nitiobroges by the
Tigurine Gauls, who had left that state (107). The soldiers who were left after this
slaughter made a treaty with the enemy that they be released unharmed after giv-
ing up hostages and half of all their possessions . . .
67 Marcus Aurelius Scaurus, a consular legate, was taken prisoner by the
Cimbri when his army was routed; when he was summoned to their council,
he tried to deter them from crossing the Alps to enter Italy, on the grounds that

401
 MARIUS
the Romans could not be defeated, and was killed by Boiorix, a savage youth
(105). The consul Gnaeus Manlius and proconsul Quintus Servilius Caepio
were defeated in battle by these same enemies at Arausio, both their camps were
plundered, and 80,000 soldiers and 40,000 servants and camp-followers were
killed, according to Antias. Caepio, through whose rashness the disaster had
been incurred, was condemned and his property was confiscated by the state, for
the first time since King Tarquin, and his imperium was taken away (104). In the
triumph of Gaius Marius, Jugurtha with his two sons was led before his chariot
and killed in prison (104). Marius came into the senate in his triumphal clothes,
which no one had previously done; because of anxiety about the war against
the Cimbri, his consulship was renewed for several years. The second and third
times he was elected consul in his absence, and he won a fourth consulship by
pretending not to campaign for it.

9.15 Licinianus 13–14: Panic in Italy

Following the catastrophic defeat at the hands of the Cimbri (doc. 9.14), Saturninus
established the court (quaestio) before which Mallius and Caepio were prosecuted.

Gnaeus Mallius was exiled by the people from Rome on the same charge as Caepio
through the bill brought in by Lucius Saturninus (103 BC). The consul Rutilius,
Mallius’ colleague, was left in sole charge of the state. And so, with fear of the
advancing Cimbri shaking the whole country, he made all men of military age take
an oath that they would not leave Italy, and messengers were sent through all Italy’s
coasts and ports to proclaim that no one less than 35 years of age should be taken on
board a ship . . . (105 BC).

9.16 Sallust Jugurthine War 114.1–4: The man of the hour

The defeats of Carbo near Noreia in 113, Silanus in 109, Cassius Longinus in 107, and
Cn. Mallius (here Manlius) Maximus and Caepio in 105 by the Germanic tribes invading
Gaul roused fear at Rome. Marius was elected consul in 104 although in absentia (absent
from Rome), violating the lex Villia annalis (180 BC), with its stipulation of a ten-year
gap between consulships; however, this would pale in comparison with his successive run
of consulships (II–VI, 104–100 BC). The Gauls mentioned in the passage below are the
Cimbri, a Germanic tribe, and the defeat was at Arausio in October 105.

1 At the same time the Gauls inflicted a defeat upon our commanders Quintus
Caepio and Gnaeus Manlius, 2 which made all Italy tremble with fear. The
Romans of the time, and from then even down to our own day, believed that eve-
rything else would fall before their valour, but that a war against the Gauls was a
struggle for survival, not for glory. 3 But when it was announced that the war in
Numidia was over and that Jugurtha was being brought to Rome in chains, Marius
was elected consul in his absence and Gaul was assigned to him as his province.
On the first day of January (104 BC) he held a triumph in great state as consul. At
that time the hope and welfare of the state depended on him.

402
 MARIUS
9.17 Florus Epitome 1.38 (3.1–6): The Germanic tribes seek land
1 The Cimbri, Teutones and Tigurini, refugees from the extremities of Gaul as
the Ocean had inundated their lands, started to look throughout the world for
new places where they could settle, and, 2 being excluded from Gaul and Spain,
migrated into Italy and sent representatives to Silanus’ camp and then to the sen-
ate requesting that the people of Mars grant them some land, as if for payment for
military service, and employ their hands and weapons for any purposes it might
wish. 3 But what land could the Roman people give them when it was on the point
of conflict over agrarian legislation? And so, rebuffed, they began seeking by
force what they had failed to gain by entreaties. 4 Silanus was unable to withstand
the barbarians’ first onslaught, nor Manilius their second, nor Caepio their third:
all were routed and their camps despoiled. 5 Rome would have been finished if
Marius had not belonged to that age. Even he did not dare to meet them at once but
kept his soldiers in camp until the invincible frenzy, which the barbarians possess
instead of courage, had worn off. 6 The barbarians, therefore, withdrew, mocking
our men and advising them – such was their confidence that they would capture
Rome – to give them any message they had for their wives.

9.18 Orosius History 5.15.25: The Tolosa treasure disappears

The outcome of Caepio’s trial over the Tolosa treasure is unknown; he went into exile at
Smyrna after being prosecuted over the Arausio debacle (see doc. 9.14).

The proconsul Caepio captured a Gallic town called Tolosa and removed 100,000
pounds of gold and 110,000 pounds of silver from the temple of Apollo. He sent
this off with guards to Massilia (Marseilles), a city on good terms with the Roman
people, and, after those to whom he had entrusted its protection and conveyance
had been – as some state – secretly killed, he is said to have criminally stolen the
whole of it. This resulted in a large-scale enquiry being held at Rome.

9.19 Asconius Commentaries on Cicero 78, 80: Prosecutions for failure

Longinus (tr. pl. 104 BC) was chiefly targeting Caepio, though his legislation reflects
popular dissatisfaction not just with Caepio but with the general conduct of the wars against
the Gallic and German tribes. Domitius: Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, who was to be consul
in 96. M. Junius Silanus (cos. 109) was acquitted, probably in 104.

78 Lucius Cassius Longinus, son of Lucius, as tribune of the plebs in the consul-
ship of Gaius Marius and Gaius Flavius, carried a number of laws aimed at reduc-
ing the power of the nobles, among which was the one that anyone condemned
by the people or stripped of his office by them should not remain a member of the
senate. This stemmed from his conflict with Quintus Servilius (Caepio), consul
two years earlier, who had been stripped of his office by the people after his fail-
ure against the Cimbri (105 BC).
80 Marcus Silanus had been consul five years before Domitius’ tribunate
and had also failed against the Cimbri (109 BC); on these grounds, Domitius

403
 MARIUS
prosecuted him before the people. The charge against him was that he had con-
ducted his campaign against the Cimbri without the authority of the people, and
that this had been the origin of the disasters which the people had suffered in
the war against them; he also produced a document about this. But Silanus was
acquitted decisively, as only two tribes, Sergia and Quirina, voted for conviction.

9.20 ILS 8887: A rare triumph

Marcus Minucius Rufus (cos. 110) triumphed over the Scordisci and Triballi in 109 as
proconsul in Macedonia; he celebrated a triumph at Rome in 106 BC; this inscription
comes from the pedestal of a statue at Delphi. The Roman military record as a whole in this
period, however, consisted mostly of a series of defeats.

Marcus Minucius Rufus, son of Quintus, imperator. The people of Delphi dedi-
cated (this statue) on account of his valour in defeating the Galli, Scordisti, Bessi
and the rest of the Thracians.

ARMY REFORMS
Marius had not actually reformed the army itself for his Numidian campaign of 107 BC
by abolishing the property qualification. But reforms to the legion took place at about
this time, though not all are necessarily to be attributed to Marius. These improved the
efficiency of the Roman soldier and legion. Many Roman armies had been serving for
long periods, as in Spain, but Marius’ recruitment of the capite censi certainly hastened
the development of standing professional armies in which experience and expertise were
retained from year to year. For the army before Marius, see docs 5.11–21.

9.21 Valerius Maximus On Memorable Deeds and Sayings 2.3.2:

Gladiatorial training
This type of training is not attested elsewhere. However, it is also possible that this was one of
Marius’ reforms which, through hostility to him, was attributed instead to Rutilius (cos. 105).

Practice in handling weapons was given to the soldiers by Gnaeus Mallius’ col-
league as consul, Publius Rutilius (105 BC): for, following the example of no
previous general, he called in gladiatorial instructors from the troop of Gaius
Aurelius Scaurus and implanted in the legions a more skilful technique of avoid-
ing and giving blows, and mingled valour with skill and skill, in turn, with valour
to make the former stronger by the force of the latter and the latter more cautious
by the knowledge of the former.

9.22 Plutarch Life of Marius 13.1–3: Marius’ ‘mules’

When Marius was appointed consul for the second time, for 104 BC, he instituted army
reforms. These included replacing the previous five standards of each legion (boar, eagle,
wolf, horse, minotaur) with a single eagle standard. He may have introduced the cohortal

404
 MARIUS
legion (changing the basic unit of the legion from the maniple to the cohort), though this
may have been a gradual innovation (cf. docs 5.11, 5.15); now each legion consisted of ten
cohorts, a cohort having three maniples each of two centuries, with each century having 80
men. The ‘mules’: that the soldiers carried their own baggage gave greater mobility to the
army with less reliance on the baggage train.

1 During the campaign he kept training the army en route, practising the men in
all kinds of running and long marches, and compelling every man to carry his own
baggage and prepare his own meals, hence the later expression ‘Marius’ mules’
for those who enjoyed hard work and followed orders cheerfully and in silence. 2
However, others think there was a different origin for the expression. They say that,
when Scipio was besieging Numantia and wanted to inspect not only the weapons
and horses but also the mules and wagons to see whether the men were keeping
them in proper condition and ready for action, Marius brought out his horse, which
was beautifully kept, and a mule very different from all the others in condition,
sleekness and strength; 3 the general was so pleased with Marius’ animals, and
so often mentioned them, that those who wanted to make a joke would praise any
persevering, patient and hard-working soldier by calling him one of Marius’ mules.

9.23 Plutarch Life of Marius 15.1–4, 25.2–3: Weapons innovation

The years 104 and then 103, despite the fears of the Roman people, were quiet. Marius
was elected to a fourth consulship for 102 with the nobilis Q. Lutatius Catulus. Prior to the
defeat of the Cimbri in 102, Marius altered the construction of the javelin (pilum), which
now broke and so could not be hurled back by the enemy; if it struck an enemy’s shield, it
would droop downwards, making the shield heavy and useless to the enemy. It was about 2
metres long, had a range of 30 metres, and was thrown in unison at the approaching enemy.
In 102, Marius won a decisive victory over the Ambrones and Teutones in southern
Gaul at Aquae Sextiae (now Aix-en-Provence) and, as consul again in 101, with Catulus
as proconsul, defeated the Cimbri, another Germanic tribe, at Vercellae in Cisalpine Gaul.
Marius shared the triumph (for the victories of 102 and 101) with Catulus.

15.1 When Marius learnt that the enemy was nearby, he swiftly crossed the Alps
and, after constructing a camp by the river Rhone, brought into it abundant provi-
sions so that he should never be forced to give battle to the army’s disadvantage
because of his lack of supplies. 2 He made the transportation of supplies by sea to
the army, which before this had been slow and expensive, easy and swift. 3 For
the mouths of the Rhone, where it met the sea, had been silted up with a great
deal of mud and obstructed with sand and deep clay brought in by the tide, and
this made it difficult, laborious and slow for the transport ships to sail in. 4 As the
troops were at leisure, Marius brought them here and dug a great canal, diverting
a large part of the river into this and bringing it round to a suitable part of the coast
where the river mouth was deep and navigable for large ships, as well as being
smooth and calm for entering the sea. This canal still bears his name today.
25.2 It is said that, in preparation for the battle with the Cimbri, the innova-
tion to the javelin (pilum) was first made by Marius. 3 Previously the shaft was

405
 MARIUS
fastened into the iron head with two nails of iron, but Marius now, leaving one of
the nails where it was, removed the other and put in instead an easily breakable
wooden pin so that when the javelin struck the enemy’s shield it would not stay
upright, but, with the wooden pin broken, would droop from the iron head and
drag the spear downwards, due to the spear’s crooked shape.

MARIUS AND THE OPTIMATES

9.24 Cicero On the Consular Provinces 19: Marius was indispensible
A speech in 56 regarding the allocation of provinces for 54 for the consuls of 55, in
accordance with Gaius Gracchus’ law (doc. 8.28; Pompey and Crassus were to be elected:
doc. 12.72). Cicero is arguing that personal hatreds (i.e., against Caesar) should not
outweigh the needs of the state and argues for the replacement of Gabinius and Piso.

Who ever had more enemies than Gaius Marius? Lucius Crassus and Marcus
Scaurus were antagonistic to him, all the Metelli were his enemies. Yet not only did
they not attempt to have that enemy of theirs recalled from Gaul, but, in view of the
importance of the Gallic war, they assigned him the province as an extraordinary
command.

9.25 Dio Roman History 27 F94.1: The nobility support Marius

According to Dio, Marius in his election to his fifth consulship (101 BC) may have had
senatorial support as well as that of the people.

In the barbarians’ defeat, even though casualties in the battle had been heavy, a few
were saved. Accordingly, Marius, to encourage and reward these at the same time,
sold them all the booty very cheaply so it would not appear as if he had bestowed
favours on any individual. By doing this Marius, although he had previously been
well regarded only by the populace, because he came from that class and had been
brought to power by it, now also won the support of the nobles by whom he had
been hated, so that he was praised equally by everybody and received the consulship
for the following year, to enable him to finish off his campaign, from an enthusiastic
and unanimous electorate.

9.26 Livy Periochae 68: Victories, 102–101 BC

The consul Gaius Marius defended his camp, which was assaulted with the great-
est force by the Teutones and Ambrones. He then destroyed these same enemies in
two battles near Aquae Sextiae, in which it is recorded that 200,000 of the enemy
were killed and 90,000 captured. In his absence, Marius was elected consul for
the fifth time (in 102 for 101). He postponed the triumph offered to him until he
should conquer the Cimbri as well. The Cimbri drove back from the Alps and put
to flight the proconsul Catulus, who was trying to block the Alpine passes and had
left a fort on high ground at the River Atesis garrisoned with a cohort. This cohort,

406
 MARIUS
however, got itself out of difficulty by its own bravery and caught up with the
fleeing proconsul and the army. The Cimbri had now crossed into Italy and were
defeated in battle by the combined armies of the same Catulus and Gaius Marius.
In this battle it is recorded that 140,000 of the enemy were killed and 60,000
captured. Marius was welcomed with the unanimous consent of the whole state,
but instead of the two triumphs which were offered him he was satisfied with one.
The leading men of the state, who for some time had had a grudge against him as
a ‘new man’ elevated to positions of such importance, were now admitting that
the state had been saved by him.

9.27 Cicero In Defence of Balbus 46–49: Marius rewards good service

Lucius Cornelius Balbus, from southern Spain, served with the Romans in the war against
Sertorius (79–72 BC). With Pompey’s support he was granted citizenship in 72, and he
was taken to Spain by Caesar in 61 as his chief engineer. Balbus was prosecuted in 56 for
illegally claiming citizenship, under the lex Papia of 64. Cicero, who was one of Balbus’
advocates (along with Crassus and Pompey), cites Marius as a precedent. Marius had
granted citizenship to two allied cohorts at Vercellae (in 101 BC).

46 Can we therefore submit for your approval, as an authority for a precedent and
for the action which is criticised by you, Gaius Marius? Do you ask for anyone
more venerable, more steadfast, more pre-eminent in courage, wisdom and integ-
rity? Good! He bestowed citizenship upon Marcus Annius Appius of Iguvium,
an extremely courageous man endowed with the highest merits, while he also
bestowed citizenship upon two whole cohorts from Camerinum, although he was
aware that the treaty with the Camertes was one of the most inviolable and just of
all treaties . . . 48 Accordingly, when a few years after this grant of citizenship the
matter of citizenship was intensively investigated under the Licinian and Mucian
law, who was there from the allied states, which had been granted citizenship, who
was brought to trial? Titus Matrinius of Spoletium, from a Latin colony which was
especially strong and illustrious, was the only one of those to whom Gaius Marius
had granted citizenship who had to defend himself. His prosecutor, that eloquent
man Lucius Antistius, did not say that the people of Spoletium had not approved
it . . . , but since the colonies under the Appuleian law had not been founded –
the law which Saturninus had brought in for Gaius Marius, allowing him to cre-
ate three Roman citizens in each colony – he maintained that this grant should
be invalid, as the measure itself had been repealed. 49 That prosecution has no
resemblance to this case; but Gaius Marius possessed such prestige that, without
employing Lucius Crassus, his relative by marriage, a man of amazing eloquence,
he undertook the defence of that case and won it in a few words through the weight
of his own personality. Who could there be, jurors, who would want to deprive
our generals of the power to select the most courageous in war, in the battle-
line and in the army, or our allies and federates of the hope of rewards in the
defence of our state? But, if the countenance of Gaius Marius, if his voice, if the
commanding flash of his eyes, if his recent triumphs, if his bodily presence had

407
 MARIUS
such power, let his prestige, let his achievements, let his memory, let the everlast-
ing name of the bravest and most illustrious hero have the same power now!

SATURNINUS AND THE LAND LAW

9.28 Appian Civil Wars 1.28–31 (126–40): Saturninus’ land law
As tribune in 103, L. Appuleius Saturninus successfully proposed a law to settle Marius’
veterans from the Numidian campaign in Africa. Land for the capite censi serving with
Marius now emerged as an issue and caused great conflict in Saturninus’ second tribunate in
100. Saturninus’ support had been important, according to Plut. Mar. 14.12–13, for Marius
gaining his fourth consulship (102 BC). In 100, in Marius’ sixth consulship, Saturninus as
tribune successfully proposed that Marius’ veterans from the campaigns of 102–101 be
settled in Transalpine Gaul. As with the legislation of 103, many of Marius’ veterans were
from the capite censi and were rewarded with land grants.
Saturninus in 103 or 100 passed the lex Appuleia de maiestate to deal with the crime
of treason, maiestas, against the Roman people. In 100 he passed a grain law which per-
haps restored Gaius Gracchus’ original grain law. The price for grain would be 6⅓ asses a
modius, subsidised as in Gaius’ law by the state, but under Saturninus’ provision it was to be
cheaper by ⅓ a modius. This law was opposed by the quaestor for 100, Q. Servilius Caepio,
who was prosecuted under the lex Appuleia de maiestate but was acquitted and minted
coins ‘For the purchase of wheat by senatorial decree’: doc. 9.38. 126: The Metellus here
is the consul of 109 BC; Glaucia: C. Servilius Glaucia, tribune, perhaps in 101, and praetor
in 100 BC. He proposed and had carried a repetundae law (lex Servilia Glauciae) restoring
the juries of the extortion courts to the equites. 128: Nonius (actually Aulus Nunnius) was
elected tribune but was murdered, and Saturninus took his place. 140: Metellus went into
exile on Rhodes but was allowed to return in 99 BC, against Marius’ wishes (cf. doc. 9.29).

126 The censor, Quintus Caecilius Metellus, tried to demote Glaucia, a senator,
and Appuleius Saturninus, who had already been tribune, for their disgraceful
lifestyles, but did not succeed; for his colleague would not agree. 127 Shortly
afterwards Appuleius, to revenge himself on Metellus, stood for another tribu-
nate, using the opportunity of Glaucia’s being praetor and presiding over the
tribunician elections. Nonius, a man of distinguished birth, who employed blunt
speech against Appuleius and reproached Glaucia severely, was elected tribune.
128 Glaucia and Appuleius, fearing lest he should take revenge on them once he
was tribune, attacked him in an uproar with a mob of men as he was leaving the
assembly and killed him after he had fled into a tavern. As this murder appeared
pitiful and awful, Glaucia’s supporters, before the people had assembled, elected
Appuleius tribune at dawn. 129 In this way the murder of Nonius was hushed up
because of Appuleius’ tribunate, as people were afraid that he might convict them.
Metellus was also banished by them with the help of Gaius Marius, who was
then holding his sixth consulship and was Metellus’ secret enemy. Thus they all
co-operated with each other. 130 Appuleius introduced a law to divide all the
land that the Cimbri, a Celtic race, had seized in what the Romans now call Gaul.
Marius had recently driven them out and made the land which had been theirs
into Roman territory. 131 The law also provided that, if the people should ratify

408
 MARIUS
the law, the senate should swear within five days that it would obey the law, and
that anyone who did not swear should no longer belong to the senate and pay the
people a fine of 20 talents. Their motive was to revenge themselves on whose
who were displeased with it, especially Metellus, who was not going to give in
to the oath because of his high spirit. 132 This then was the proposed law, and
Appuleius appointed the day for voting and sent out men to inform people in the
country, in whom he had special confidence since they had served under Marius.
The people were dissatisfied, however, because the Italians gained more than they
did under the law. . . .
138 Metellus alone did not swear, but persisted fearlessly in his decision.
Appuleius immediately sent his attendant for him and tried to drag him from the
senate house. 139 When the other tribunes defended him, Glaucia and Appuleius
rushed to the country people and told them that the land would not be theirs nor
the law enacted unless Metellus were banished. They proposed a decree of exile
against him and instructed the consuls to proclaim that no one was to share fire,
water or shelter with him; and they appointed a day for the enactment of this
decree. 140 The city people were terribly angry and attended Metellus constantly,
daggers and all. Metellus thanked them and praised them for their determination,
but said he could not allow any danger to happen to the country on his account.
After this statement he left the city, and Appuleius had the decree ratified and
Marius had its contents proclaimed.

9.29 Livy Periochae 69: Marius changes sides

Livy here records the story that Marius won his sixth consulship (for 100 BC) with bribes.
According to Plutarch, Rutilius’ account was that Marius used bribes to secure the election
of Valerius Flaccus as his consular colleague for 100 BC to prevent Metellus being elected
(Plut. Mar. 28.7–8); for Memmius, see doc. 9.30. The slave war referred to here was the
second great uprising in Sicily: cf. doc. 6.49; Manius Aquillius had been consul with
Marius in 101.

Lucius Appuleius Saturninus, who had the support of Gaius Marius, and whose
rival Aulus Nunnius was killed by the soldiers, was elected tribune of the plebs
by violence and conducted his tribunate no less violently than his campaign for
office; after he had passed a land law by violence, he indicted Metellus Numidicus
because he had not sworn to support it. Metellus was defended by the better citi-
zens (the boni), but, to avoid being the occasion for strife, he went into voluntary
exile at Rhodes and there found diversion in hearing and reading distinguished
philosophers. With Metellus gone, Gaius Marius, the man responsible for the civil
strife, who had bought his sixth consulship with money distributed among the
tribes, banned him from fire and water. The same Appuleius Saturninus, tribune
of the plebs, killed Gaius Memmius, a candidate for the consulship, because he
was afraid of him as an opponent of his proceedings. The senate was aroused at
these deeds, and Gaius Marius too, a man of varying and changeable nature whose
policy followed the dictates of fortune, had come over to its side. Saturninus,

409
 MARIUS
together with the praetor Glaucia and other associates in the same madness, was
put down by armed force and killed in a sort of war. Quintus Caecilius Metellus
was brought back from exile to the great applause of the whole state. The procon-
sul Manius Aquillius ended a slave war which had arisen in Sicily.

9.30 Cicero In Defence of Gaius Rabirius 20–21: The senatus

consultum ‘ultimum’
Cicero here gives the terms of the senatus consultum ultimum passed to suppress Saturninus;
cf. doc. 1.60. Cicero is defending, in 63, the senator Rabirius on a charge of treason for the
murder of Saturninus 36 years earlier in a riot. This attack on Rabirius was orchestrated by
Caesar and the populares. Saturninus was elected in 100 to a third tribunate for 99; Glaucia
was seeking the consulship for 99; Marcus Antonius was chosen as one of the consuls.
Glaucia and Memmius were rivals for the second position, and Glaucia and Saturninus had
Memmius beaten to death with clubs in the comitia centuriata (see doc. 9.29). A reaction
set in against Saturninus: he seized the Capitol, with the praetor Glaucia and the quaestor
for 99, Gaius Saufeius. The ex-prisoner Gracchus (i.e., Equitius), who pretended to be Ti.
Gracchus’ son, was elected tribune with Saturninus for 99 and was killed with him on the
first day of his office, 10 December 100.

20 A decree of the senate was passed that the consuls, Gaius Marius and Lucius
Valerius, should summon those tribunes of the plebs and praetors whom they
thought fit and take steps to preserve the imperium and majesty of the Roman
people. They summoned all the tribunes of the plebs except Saturninus and all
the praetors except Glaucia, and they ordered those who desired the safety of
the state to take arms and follow them. Everyone obeyed; weapons from public
buildings and armouries were issued to the Roman people, with Gaius Marius, as
consul, in charge of the distribution. I will, at this point, leave aside other matters,
Labienus, to put a question to you personally. When Saturninus was in armed
occupation of the Capitol, and with him Gaius Glaucia, Gaius Saufeius and even
that ex-prisoner Gracchus (i.e., Equitius) – I will add, since you insist on it, that
Quintus Labienus, your father’s brother, was there too – while in the forum were
Gaius Marius and Lucius Valerius Flaccus, the consuls, and with them the entire
senate – and such a senate as even you are accustomed to praise to help in your
detraction of the senate of today; there was also the equestrian order – and what
equites they were, immortal gods! who in our fathers’ time played a great part in
government, including charge of the entire dignity of the law-courts – who had
taken up arms alongside all men of all classes who believed that their own safety
was tied in with the safety of the state; I ask you again personally, Labienus, what
was Gaius Rabirius to do?
21 When, acting on a decree of the Senate, the consuls had issued a call to arms,
when Marcus Aemilius (Scaurus), the princeps senatus, had armed himself and taken
up his stand in the assembly, who, though he could hardly walk, thought that his
lameness would be no hindrance in pursuit but only in flight, when even Q. Scaevola
(the augur), worn out by old age, dreadfully ill, infirm, crippled and feeble in every
limb, leaned on his spear, displaying both his mental vigour and bodily weakness

410
 MARIUS
and strength of spirit, when Lucius Metellus, Servius Galba, Gaius Serranus, Publius
Rutilius, Gaius Fimbria, Quintus Catulus, and all the other ex-consuls of the time had
taken up arms for the common safety; when all the praetors and everyone of high birth
and military age were hastening to help, such as Gnaeus and Lucius Domitius, Lucius
Crassus, Quintus Mucius, Gaius Claudius, Marcus Drusus; when all the Octavii,
Metelli, Julii, Cassii, Catones, Pompeii . . . and in fact every man of pre-eminence
was with the consuls – what then was Gaius Rabirius to do?

9.31 Appian Civil Wars 1.32–3 (141–46): Sedition, 100 BC

Plut. Mar. 30.4: Saturninus and his supporters were slaughtered as they made their way
down into the forum. Marius’ association with Saturninus tarnished his career, and he did
not stand for the next censorship, although he was expected to do so (Mar. 30.5). Glaucia
was praetor in 100 and so could not legally seek election to the consulship for 99. His
involvement in the murder of Nunnius and senatorial hostility (doc. 9.28) told against him.
143: Saufeius had been elected as quaestor for 99 and entered office on 5 December 100.
Saturninus’ legislation was declared invalid by the senate after his murder.

141 In this way Metellus, a most well-respected man, went into exile, and Appuleius
(Saturninus) was tribune for the third time. One of his colleagues (Equitius), who
was considered to be a runaway slave, claimed that the elder Gracchus was his
father. The mob supported him in the election because they missed Gracchus so
much. 142 When the consular elections came round, Marcus Antonius was indis-
putably elected to one of the consulships, while the other was contested between
Glaucia and Memmius. As Memmius was by far the more illustrious, Glaucia and
Saturninus were anxious about the result and sent some men with clubs to attack
him at the election itself, who struck Memmius in the middle of the assembly and
cut him down in the sight of everyone. 143 The assembly broke up in turmoil, with
neither laws nor law-courts nor any shame remaining; the people were enraged
and on the following day rushed in anger to kill Appuleius. He had, however,
gathered another mob from the country and with Glaucia and Gaius Saufeius,
the quaestor, seized the Capitol. 144 When the senate voted for their destruction,
Marius was vexed but nevertheless reluctantly issued arms to some people; and,
while he was delaying matters, some other people cut off the water which ran to
the temple. Saufeius, dying of thirst, suggested burning the temple, but Glaucia
and Appuleius, in hopes that Marius would assist them, surrendered themselves,
followed by Saufeius. 145 With everybody at once demanding that he put them
to death, Marius locked them up in the senate house as if he intended to deal with
them more legally. The people thought this just a pretext, took the tiles from the
senate house roof, and battered Appuleius and his companions to death, including
a quaestor and a tribune and a praetor, still wearing their official insignia. 146 A
great crowd of others were killed in the sedition, including another tribune, sup-
posedly the son of Gracchus, on his first day as tribune, while freedom, democ-
racy, laws, reputation and magisterial rank were no longer of any use, as even the
tribunate, which had been created to hinder wrongdoers and protect the plebs, and
was sacred and inviolable, was now committing and suffering such outrages.

411
 MARIUS
MARIUS’ LATER CAREER
9.32 Appian Civil Wars 1.55–56 (240–50): The command against
Mithridates
Doc. 11.5 continues this extract from Appian. In 100 Marius had opposed the recall of
Metellus, and he preferred to set sail for Asia rather than see Metellus return. In the Social
War, which broke out in 91, Marius played a limited but important role (doc. 10.18).
Immediately after the Social War, conflict between Marius and Sulla led to the outbreak of
civil war for the first time at Rome. Sulla was elected to a consulship for 88 and was to have
the command against Mithridates, but in 88 Marius manoeuvred to deprive Sulla of the
command. Sulla led his army against Rome and exiled Marius (doc. 11.5). So commenced
the Marius–Sulla civil war.
Publius Sulpicius Rufus (tr. pl. 88) sought to address the problem of the distribution
of the newly enfranchised Latin and Italian citizens in the tribes (see docs 10.17, 21, 26).
His proposal to distribute them among all of the tribes rather than eight aroused fierce
opposition, because the Italians would potentially outnumber the Romans in the people’s
assembly. The law about citizenship was passed, and Marius supported him in return for
the Mithridatic command. The revoking of Sulla’s command (cf. doc. 11.5) led to Sulla’s
march on Rome, after which Sulla had Sulpicius executed and his laws revoked. Sulla
enacted some laws in the tribal assembly, but these were repealed when Marius and Cinna
gained control of the city; these laws foreshadowed some of the reforms Sulla passed as
dictator.

240 Up till now the murders and seditions had remained internal and not wide-
spread; but after this the party leaders attacked each other with great armies
according to the rules of war, and the country was the prize which lay between
them. The beginning and origins of these took place immediately after the Social
War, in the following way. 241 When Mithridates, king of Pontus and other
nations, invaded Bithynia and Phrygia and the part of Asia which neighbours
these, as I recounted in my previous book (Roman History 12), the consul Sulla
was chosen as governor of Asia and commander of the Mithridatic War (he was
still at Rome). 242 Marius, thinking it would be an easy and very profitable war,
wanted the command, and with many promises got the tribune Publius Sulpicius
to work with him to obtain it. He also led the new Italian citizens, who had little
influence in elections, to hope to be distributed among all the tribes, suggesting
nothing openly about the benefits to himself in that he would be able to use them
as loyal adherents in everything. 243 Sulpicius at once introduced a bill for this
purpose; if this were enacted, Marius and Sulpicius would have achieved every-
thing they wanted, since the new citizens would far outnumber the old. 244 The
older citizens, however, saw this and fought with the new citizens with all their
strength. They used clubs and stones against each other, and the evil continually
increased until the consuls, afraid as the day for voting approached, proclaimed
a vacation of several days, as was usual on the occasion of festivals, in order to
delay the voting and the evil . . . (the son of the consul Quintus Pompeius, Sulla’s
son-in-law, is killed by the Sulpicians). 248 Sulla cancelled the vacation and hur-
riedly left for Capua, where his army was, as if to cross from Capua to Asia for
the war against Mithridates, for he was not yet aware of what was being done in

412
 MARIUS
opposition to him. 249 Sulpicius, with the vacation cancelled and Sulla out of the
city, enacted the law, and Marius, for whose sake all this had taken place, was
immediately elected commander of the war against Mithridates instead of Sulla.
250 When Sulla learnt this he resolved that the matter should be decided by war
and summoned his army to an assembly . . .

9.33 Appian Civil Wars 1.60 (269–71): Marius banished from Rome
After Sulla took Rome by force, Marius was banished and barely escaped. Sulpicius was
put to death.

269 This was the first army of citizens to invade Rome as an enemy country. 270
From now on seditions were to be decided only by armies, and there were frequent
attacks on Rome and battles for the walls and all other warlike activities, with no
longer any sense of shame, whether for the laws, institutions or country, to restrain
violence. 271 On this occasion Sulpicius, who still held the office of tribune,
together with Marius, who had been consul six times, and his son Marius, Publius
Cethegus, Junius Brutus, Gnaeus and Quintus Granius, Publius Albinovanus,
Marcus Laetorius and others with them, about 12 in number, were banished from
Rome on the grounds that they had aroused sedition, fought against the consuls,
and proclaimed freedom for slaves to incite them to rebellion, and were voted to
be enemies of the Romans, while anyone who met them was permitted to kill them
with impunity or bring them before the consuls; their goods had been confiscated.

9.34 Plutarch Life of Marius 43.4–8, 44.9, 46.6–9: Marius’

return, 87 BC
Sulla, deprived of his command, fled but returned with six legions and captured Rome
(doc. 11.5). Marius escaped from Rome with difficulty, going to Africa, where many of his
veterans were settled; he returned with Cinna (elected consul for 87) to take revenge after
Sulla had left for Asia Minor.
Cinna agitated for the distribution of the new citizens in all the tribes (he was opposed
by the other consul for 87, Gnaeus Octavius: doc. 10.26); violence erupted, and Octavius
(illegally) deprived Cinna of his consulship. Fleeing to Campania, Cinna won over the
army there and was joined by Sertorius and Cn. Carbo (who was to be consul with Cinna
in 85 and 84 BC), while Marius and his son returned from Africa. The senatorial forces
were led by Octavius (cos. 87), P. Licinus Crassus (cos. 97), Caecilius Metellus Pius (later
to be consul in 80) and Cn. Pompeius Strabo (cos. 89). The senate negotiated with Cinna –
recognising him as consul – and he and Marius entered Rome. Crassus committed suicide
and Octavius was murdered just before Marius entered the city. In the bloodshed that fol-
lowed, both equites and senators were killed. Marius did not live long into his seventh
consulship; the younger Marius was consul in 82 BC.

43.4 The people was summoned into the forum, but before three or four tribes had
given their votes Marius left off the pretence, giving up his sophistic definition
of himself as an exile and entering the city with his bodyguard, a picked band
of slaves who had joined him and whom he called ‘Bardyiae’. 5 These killed

413
 MARIUS
many on his command, many simply at his nod, and finally Ancharius, a senator
and ex-praetor, who met Marius and was not spoken to, was cut down with their
swords in front of him. 6 After this, whenever anyone greeted Marius and was
not addressed or replied to, they took this as a sign to slaughter him immediately
in the street, so that even each of his friends was full of terror and fear whenever
he approached to speak to Marius. 7 When many had been killed, Cinna’s desire
for bloodshed was satiated, but Marius’ rage and thirst for blood kept increasing
day by day, and he removed anyone against whom he had any grudge. 8 Every
road and every city was full of men who were fleeing and men hunting down
those who were escaping or in hiding. . . . 44.9 Despite the headless bodies
thrown into the street and trampled on, there was no pity, only general fear and
terror at the sight. The people found the brutality of the so-called Bardyiae par-
ticularly hard to endure. 10 For they slaughtered householders in their houses,
dishonoured their children and raped their wives, and were unbridled in their
plundering and bloodletting until Cinna and Sertorius’ parties got together and
took action against them when they were asleep in their camp, shooting them all
down with javelins . . .
46.6 Marius died 17 days after becoming consul for the seventh time; and
immediately in Rome there was a great feeling of delight and confidence, in that
they were rid of a savage tyrant. 7 But in a few days they realised that they had
exchanged an old master for a new one in his prime; Marius the son now revealed
such savagery and bitterness in killing the noblest and most respected men . . .
9 Finally (in 82 BC) he was trapped in Praeneste by Sulla and, after many vain
attempts to save his life, when the city was captured and escape impossible, he
killed himself.

9.35 ILS 59: Marius’ career inscription

Marius’ career inscription, now lost, but reconstructed by Mommsen from fragments and
Renaissance transcriptions, was one of the elogia of illustrious Romans erected in the
Forum of Augustus. For the triumphal robe: doc. 9.14.

Gaius Marius, son of Gaius, seven times consul, praetor, tribune of the plebs,
quaestor, augur, military tribune, contrary to the rule concerning the allocation of
provinces waged war against Jugurtha king of Numidia as consul, captured him,
and, when celebrating a triumph in his second consulship, ordered him to be led
before his chariot. He was made consul for the third time in his absence and in
his fourth consulship destroyed an army of the Teutones. In his fifth consulship
he routed the Cimbri. He again celebrated a triumph over these and the Teutones.
In his sixth consulship he freed the state when it was in chaos from the seditions
of a tribune of the plebs and a praetor, who had armed themselves and occupied
the Capitol. At more than 70 years of age, he was expelled from his country by
civil strife and was restored by force and made consul for a seventh time. From
the spoils of the Cimbri and Teutones he built a shrine to Honour and Virtue. In
triumphal robe and patrician shoes he entered the senate.

414
 MARIUS
COINAGE
9.36 Crawford RRC 292.1: Marius’ voting reform as tribune
A denarius (silver) coin dated to 119, 113 or 112, or c. 105 BC.

Obverse: Bust of the goddess Roma.

Reverse: A voting scene in the comitium. A voter on the left-hand side of the coin,
just entering onto the voting bridge (pons), receives a voting tablet (tabella) from
an attendant below, shown behind the pons, while at the end of the bridge another
voter is depositing his voting tablet into a ballot box (cista). A voting tablet is
itself shown in the upper right, perhaps with the traces of the letter ‘P’ signifying
one of the tribes (either Pupinia or Papiria). Two parallel horizontal lines on the
coin probably represent a marked-off voting area. The name of the moneyer, P.
(Licinius) Nerva, appears prominently.

9.37 Crawford RRC 322.1: Triumph over the Germans

A denarius of 102 BC. A priest of the ‘Great Mother’, identified with Cybele, had foretold the
victories over the Germans, and so Cybele’s presence on this coin and in the chariot is taken
as referring to his victories (Plut. Mar. 17.9–11; cf. Diod. 36.13). The Syrian prophetess,
called Martha, accompanied Marius on campaign: Plut. Mar. 17.1–5; cf. doc. 9.6.

Obverse: Bust of the goddess Cybele.

Reverse: The deity Victory in a biga (two-horse chariot).

9.38 Crawford RRC 330.1: Saturninus’ grain bill

A denarius of 100 BC. This coin presumably refers to the grain law of Saturninus, passed in
100 BC. Caepio had opposed the law with violence but apparently saw no difficulty in then
advertising his role in putting it into effect. Struck by L. Calpurnius Piso and Q. Servilius Caepio.

Obverse: Head of Saturn, with the names ‘Piso’ and ‘Caepio’ and the abbreviation
‘Q’, indicating that they are quaestors.
Reverse: Two figures sitting on a bench, facing left; an ear of grain on either side
of the coin, with the inscription ‘AD.FRU.EMV.EX.S.C.’: ‘for the purchase of
grain by decree of the senate.’

415
 10

The Social War

The Social War between Rome and the Italian allies broke out in 91 BC and was
largely over by 89 BC, though resistance to Rome continued (doc. 10.28). The
Italian allies (the socii, hence the name given to the war) desired Roman citizen-
ship and all the various benefits which this conferred. The Romans refused to
enfranchise them, and war broke out. The seriousness of the situation then caused
the Romans to enfranchise the Latins and those Italian allies who had not revolted
(doc. 10.17).
The Romans had over a period of centuries granted Roman citizenship to indi-
viduals in Latin and also allied Italian communities, but there was opposition at
Rome to the enfranchisement of the Latins and a proposal about this had been
rejected by the senate even in the emergencies of the Second Punic War (see doc.
4.40). The issue of citizenship for the allies became important in the last dec-
ades of the second century BC. According to Velleius Paterculus (2.2.2), Tiberius
Gracchus promised citizenship to the whole of Italy: ‘in the consulship of Publius
Mucius Scaevola and Lucius Calpurnius (133 BC), 162 years ago, he split away
from the senatorial party and promised citizenship to all of Italy.’ This is debated,
for it is not mentioned by Plutarch or Appian, and in fact Tiberius did not promise
the allies citizenship but actually exacerbated relations with them. Cicero Rep.
3.41 notes, ‘Tiberius Gracchus kept faith with the citizens but disregarded the
treaty rights of our allies and the Latins.’ This presumably refers to the distribu-
tion of ager publicus to Roman citizens; Scipio Aemilianus therefore stepped in to
defend the allies against the appropriation of ager publicus in their territories (doc.
8.21). Tiberius did not raise the idea of citizenship for the allies, and it probably
was not an issue in 133 BC.
The question of citizenship was first introduced in the 120s. A law was passed
in 126 BC by the tribune M. Junius Pennus to prevent non-citizens from living
in Rome and to expel those already doing so. In 125 BC, the consul M. Fulvius
Flaccus (a friend of Gaius Gracchus and member of the Gracchan agrarian com-
mission) proposed that all Italian communities should receive full franchise or
the right of appeal against Roman magistrates, the ius provocationis, but this was
opposed by the senate (doc. 10.6). The Latin town of Fregellae revolted and was
razed to the ground by Opimius (cf. doc. 8.28). This revolt could be taken as an

416
 THE SOCIAL WAR
indication that there was some desire among the Latin allies for citizenship. But
the fact that only Fregellae rebelled could point to specific local grievances on its
part, and the character of its population had in fact changed and was now more
Oscan, i.e., Italian, in character. The Italians had been allies of Rome for two
centuries and contributed heavily to the success against Hannibal and in Rome’s
extensive wars in the second century BC. A law granting Roman citizenship to
magistrates in Latin colonies might have been passed at about the time of the
revolt of Fregellae as a ‘half-way’ measure.
The next major move in this matter came with Gaius Gracchus: allies of Latin
status were to be given full franchise and other allies were to be raised to Latin
status (this was defeated by the senate through the counter-proposals of the trib-
une Livius Drusus: doc. 8.28). This proposal and Livius Drusus’ counter-colony
measures were largely responsible for Gaius’ loss of support among the body
of Roman citizens (docs 8.28, 30). Some 25 years later, in 100 BC, Saturninus
raised Italian hopes by offering the franchise to a select number of Marius’ allied
veterans, but the law was declared invalid by the senate after his murder. To what
extent Gaius and Saturninus had in mind a Latin and Italian interest in citizen-
ship is unclear, and it may well have been the case that they stimulated hopes for
citizenship. Roman opposition to an extension of citizenship is clear from the lex
Licinia Mucia of 95, which set up a quaestio on all aliens claiming to be citizens
(doc. 10.2).
By 91 BC, however, there was clearly an overwhelming desire among Latins
and Italians for Roman citizenship, and the Social War broke out on this very
issue. The tribunate of the younger Livius Drusus in 91 brought this to the fore-
front of Roman politics (docs 10.4–9). He was – by one of the peculiar twists
of history that sometimes occur – the son of the tribune Livius Drusus who had
opposed Gaius Gracchus in 122 BC. His proposal to give citizenship to the Italians
was part of a broader programme (doc. 10.6) aimed at giving senators a role in the
juries, dominated under Gaius Gracchus’ legislation exclusively by the equites
(doc. 8.28). This proposal may also have been influenced by the unfair conviction
by an equestrian jury of his uncle Rutilius Rufus for extortion in Asia (doc. 10.5).
But Drusus’ citizenship proposal lost him support, and he was assassinated in his
own home (doc. 10.9). The ‘oath’ which the Italians were supposed to have sworn
to Drusus (doc. 10.8) is clearly an invention of the latter’s enemies; it was meant
to create an impression that Drusus was aiming at a huge Italian clientela which
would overshadow the smaller clientela relationships that Romans serving abroad
had established.
Drusus’ murder, like that of the tribunes Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, Fulvius
Flaccus and Saturninus, was a forerunner of the internal violence about to descend
upon Rome with Sulla’s march in 88 (doc. 11.5). Drusus’ attempted reforms and
his association with the leader of the Marsi (Q. Poppaedius Silo: doc. 10.4, cf.
10.7, 10.18) led to a law in the following year (90 BC), successfully proposed by
the tribune Varius, to try anyone suspected of collusion with the allies. When in
91 the allies revolted in frustration, the initial Roman response had been to deny
them citizenship (doc. 10.11). Then, in an acknowledgement of the seriousness of

417
 THE SOCIAL WAR
the situation (freedmen were enrolled as soldiers) and of the fairness of the Italian
demands, citizenship was offered to the Latins and the Italian communities that
had not revolted (doc. 10.17). The rebels who surrendered (and so became dedit-
icii) were enfranchised later, possibly in 87. The allies’ demands could be seen as
fair: ‘every year and in every war they were providing . . . cavalry and infantry’
(doc. 10.13); they fought, as Cicero observed, ‘to be received’ into the Roman
state (doc. 10.14).
After Poppaedius had led an abortive march on Rome (doc. 10.7), actual war
between Rome and the Italian allies broke out in 91. Numerous allied commu-
nities rebelled, particularly the Marsi and the Samnites (docs 10.10–11). The
revolt began at Asculum (doc. 10.10) and quickly spread. The rebels established a
capital city, at Corfinium, renamed Italia, with a constitution along Roman lines,
and minted their own coins (doc. 10.12). They had initial successes against the
Romans, but the Latin allies remained loyal, as did the Etruscans and Umbrians
(doc. 10.17), and Marius, Sulla and Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo served as legates
under the consuls (docs 10.18–20).
As noted, citizenship was extended to the Latins and loyal Italians. The law
enacting this, the lex Julia, was passed in 90 BC (doc. 10.21). The Latin and
Italian communities were enfranchised and their citizens became Roman; their
communities were given the status of municipia and were governed by four
officials, as at Tarentum in southern Italy (doc. 10.22). The Italians’ distribution
among the tribes was not effected immediately: P. Sulpicius Rufus’ attempt to
have them distributed fairly among all 35 tribes was rescinded by Sulla, but by the
censorship of 70 BC some form of distribution had finally taken place and the cen-
sors counted 910,000 Roman citizens (doc. 10.24; MRR II.127). All of Italy south
of the River Po (Cisalpine Gaul was north of the Po) now had Roman citizenship
and became one political unit.
Ancient sources: these are largely the narratives of Appian Civil Wars 1.34–
53.150–231 and Diodorus 37.1–25 (fragments), as well as Velleius Paterculus
2.13–17 and Livy Periochae 70–76. Plutarch deals with Marius and Sulla’s
involvement: Mar. 33, Sulla 6; see also Cato Min. 2; Cic. 3.2 (Cicero saw service
under Sulla in the Social War).

THE RESTRICTION OF ROMAN CITIZENSHIP

10.1 Valerius Maximus On Memorable Deeds and Sayings 3.4.5: An
embarrassing consulship
Perperna was consul in 130 BC; he died in 129 before celebrating a triumph for his victory
over and capture of the pretender to the throne of Pergamum (cf. doc. 5.45). Perperna’s
family was Etruscan, and the fact that he lacked Roman citizenship was discovered only
when his father was named in a list of people whose return was demanded by their native
cities. The Papian law was passed in 65 against the illegal assumption of citizenship:
Valerius here has probably confused the Papian and Pennan laws (126 BC). The Crassian
‘carnage’ refers to the defeat and death of P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus (cos. 131)
in Asia in 130.

418
 THE SOCIAL WAR
No small embarrassment to the consulship is Marcus Perperna, seeing that he
was consul before he was a citizen, though in the conduct of war he was a far
more useful general to the state than Varro: for he captured King Aristonicus and
avenged the Crassian carnage, but, while his life triumphed, his death was con-
demned under the Papian law. For his father had taken on the rights of a Roman
citizen with no justification, and the Sabelli forced him after a trial to return to his
former residence. So Marcus Perperna’s shadowy name, false consulship, misty
command and fleeting triumph resided unlawfully in an alien city.

10.2 Cicero On Duties 3.47: The lex Licinia Mucia, 95 BC

In 126 BC the tribune L. Junius Pennus set up a commission to examine the rights of allies to
be in Rome and to eject those there illegally. He may have been motivated by Fulvius Flaccus’
proposals canvassed in 126 while seeking the consulship of 125 (doc. 8.28). For the lex
Licinia Mucia, passed by the two consuls of 95, Q. Mucius Scaevola and L. Licinius Crassus,
see doc. 9.27, where one of Marius’ grants of citizenship was challenged under this law.

They also do wrong who prohibit foreigners from enjoying the use of a city and
exclude them from it, as Pennus did in our forefathers’ time, and Papius recently.
It is of course right that a non-citizen not be allowed to exercise citizen rights; the
law on this was brought in by those extremely wise consuls Crassus and Scaevola.
However, to prohibit foreigners from enjoying the use of a city is certainly barbarous.

10.3 Asconius Commentaries on Cicero 67–68: The impact

of the lex Licinia Mucia
67 ‘With regard to the lex Licinia Mucia, concerning the reduction of citizen num-
bers, I consider that all are agreed that, although it was passed by two consuls who
were the wisest of all we have known, it was not only ineffective but seriously
harmful for the state.’ Cicero is referring to the orator Lucius Licinius Crassus and
Quintus Mucius Scaevola, the pontifex maximus, orator and jurist. In their con-
sulship, they brought in the law to which Cicero is referring, which restored the
allies to their own states. For 68 the peoples of Italy desperately wanted Roman
citizenship, and because of this a large number of them were passing themselves
off as Roman citizens; accordingly it seemed necessary to pass a law to restore
everyone to the jurisdiction of their own states. But this law so alienated the lead-
ers of the peoples of Italy that it may have been the main cause of the Italian war
which broke out three years later.

MARCUS LIVIUS DRUSUS

Marcus Livius Drusus was tribune in 91 BC. The Marsi of central Italy, who spoke Oscan,
were prominent among the rebels in the Social War, and the Romans called the war after
them (the Marsic War): Diod. 37.1. Drusus attempted to deal with several problems:
senatorial dissatisfaction at the control of the law-courts by the equites was his primary
aim, but also colonies for the landless poor and a grain law presumably concerned with

419
 THE SOCIAL WAR
cheap distribution. Like his father, he was using the tribunate to advance the interests of
the aristocracy. He was the grandfather of Livia Drusilla, wife of Augustus. For Servilius
Caepio, who organised the equites against Drusus, see docs 9.14, 18.

10.4 Plutarch Life of Cato the Younger 2.1–4: Drusus’ Italian friends
Cato the Younger and his siblings, including his older half-brother Caepio, were brought
up in the home of their uncle Livius Drusus, tribune in 91 BC: Cato would have been four
years old in 91. Poppaedius led the Marsi, and his forces ambushed and killed Caepio,
Drusus’ brother-in-law, in 90 BC.

1 While Cato was still a child, the Romans’ allies were trying to acquire Roman citi-
zenship; and one of them, Pompaedius (Poppaedius) Silo, a man of great experience
in war and of the highest reputation, a friend of Drusus, was spending several days
at his house, during which time he came to be friendly with the children. ‘Come’,
he said to them, ‘Ask your uncle to help us in our struggle for citizenship.’ 2 Caepio
agreed with a smile, but, when Cato made no reply and gazed at the strangers with a
stubborn, fierce glare, Pompaedius said to him, ‘And you, young man, what do you
say? Are you not able to join your uncle in helping the strangers like your brother?’
3 When he said nothing, but appeared through his silence and facial expression to
refuse the request, Pompaedius lifted him through a window as if he would let him
go, and ordered him to agree or he would drop him . . . 4 When Cato had put up with
this treatment for some time without fright or fear, Pompaedius put him down, say-
ing quietly to his friends, ‘What a piece of luck for Italy that he is a child! If he were
a man, I do not think we would get a single vote among the people.’

10.5 Livy Periochae 70–71: Drusus makes enemies

70: The ‘largesse’ comprised agrarian laws and grain distribution. Quintus Mucius
Scaevola (not Gaius, as here) (cos. 95 BC) was proconsul of Asia (probably in 94 BC) with
Publius Rutilius Rufus, Drusus’ uncle, as his legate. Rutilius (cos. 105), who had angered
the publicani, was condemned in 92 BC for extortion in a court manned with equites as
jurors (cf. docs 8.28–29).

70 Publius Rutilius, a man of the greatest integrity, was hated by the equestrian
order because, as legate of the proconsul Gaius Mucius, he had protected Asia
against the wrongs of the publicani, and, since the law-courts were in their power,
Rutilius was condemned for extortion and sent into exile (92 BC) . . . The senate
refused to bear the equestrian order’s lack of restraint in running the courts and
began to make every effort to transfer the courts to themselves, with their cause
supported by Marcus Livius Drusus, tribune of the plebs, who roused the plebs
with the ruinous hope of largesse in order to strengthen his position . . .
71 In order to gain greater strength in his attempt to support the senate’s cause,
Marcus Livius Drusus, tribune of the plebs, tried to win over the allies and the
peoples of Italy with the hope of Roman citizenship; with their help he passed
agrarian and corn laws by violence and also brought in a law on the courts, that

420
 THE SOCIAL WAR
control of the courts should be shared equally by the senate and the equestrian
order. But when, at last, it was not possible to give the allies the citizenship they
had been promised, the Italians were furious and began to stir up a revolt. Their
gatherings and conspiracies, and the speeches of their leading men in counsels, are
recorded. Because of these events, Livius Drusus was hated even by the senate as
being responsible for promoting rebellion among the allies, and he was killed in
his own home by a person unknown.

10.6 Appian Civil Wars 1.34.152–35.161: The pro-Italian legislation of

Drusus, 91 BC
To gain support for the jury law, Drusus sought popular support through a law for colonies
in Italy and Sicily, presumably the colonies legislated for in his father’s tribunate (doc.
8.28). This raised the opposition of the allies (doc. 10.9), because the colonies in Italy
would use ager publicus which they held. The promise of citizenship was not enough to
counter the opposition to his colonies. Drusus had his measure passed in the assembly with
violence, but senatorial opposition to the inclusion of equites in the senatorial order and the
enfranchisement of the Italians was led by one of the consuls for 91, L. Marcius Philippus.
He had all of Drusus’ laws annulled by a single decree of the senate as having been passed
despite inauspicious omens.

152 Fulvius Flaccus in his consulship (125 BC) was the first and foremost to arouse
openly in the Italians the desire for Roman citizenship – that they should be partners
in the empire instead of subjects. When he introduced the idea and strongly per-
sisted in it, he was sent off because of this on some military command by the senate.
153 During this, his consulship came to an end, but he later obtained the tribunate
and managed to have as his colleague the younger Gracchus, who helped him to
bring in other measures in the Italians’ favour. 154 When they were both killed, as I
narrated earlier, Italy was aroused even more; for they did not think it right that they
be considered subjects instead of partners, or that Flaccus and Gracchus should have
suffered such misfortunes while working on their behalf.
155 After them the tribune Livius Drusus, a man of most distinguished family,
promised the Italians, at their own request, that he would introduce another law
to grant them citizenship; they especially desired this because, at a stroke, they
would become rulers instead of subjects. 156 In order to gain the people’s sup-
port for this measure he tried to win them over with many colonies in Italy and
Sicily, which had been voted long before but not yet been carried out. 157 He
attempted to reconcile by an impartial law the senate and the equites, who had
serious differences with each other at that time over the law-courts. As he was
unable to transfer the courts back to the senate openly, he devised the following
compromise: 158 as there were now hardly 300 senators on account of the con-
flicts, he introduced a law that an equal number, chosen according to merit, should
be added to their number from the equites, and that the courts of justice should for
the future be made up from the entire body. He added a clause that they should
make investigations into cases of bribery, as accusations of that kind were almost
unknown, because bribery was such a common practice. 159 This was his plan for

421
 THE SOCIAL WAR
a compromise, but it turned out quite the opposite to what he expected. The sena-
tors were furious that so large a number should be added to their body all at once
and be transferred from the equites to the highest rank, considering that it was
not unlikely that they would form their own separate senatorial party and contend
against the former senators more strongly than ever. 160 The equites for their part
suspected that, by this treatment, the law-courts would for the future be trans-
ferred from the equites to the senate on its own, and, as they had acquired a taste
for the immense wealth and power, they did not bear this suspicion without grief.
161 The majority of them, too, were worried and suspicious of each other as to
who seemed the more worthy to be enrolled in the 300; and jealousy towards their
betters infected the remainder. The equites were angry primarily at the charge of
bribery being revived, which they thought they had already firmly and completely
suppressed on their own account.

10.7 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 37.13.1: A pre-emptive strike

planned
Q. Poppaedius Silo (Pompaedius) was dissuaded from this attack on the way to Rome
in 91 BC by Domitius, perhaps Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 96). Presumably the
investigations they feared were connected with the lex Licinia Mucia and the problems
Drusus was having in passing his legislation. This was the Poppaedius who had stayed
with Drusus.

The Marsic leader, Pompaedius, commenced a great and hazardous enterprise.

He assembled 10,000 men from those who feared the investigations and led them
against Rome with swords hidden under their clothes. His intention was to sur-
round the senate with armed men and demand citizenship, or, if he failed, to
destroy Rome’s rule with fire and sword.

10.8 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 37.11.1: The ‘oath’ of the

Italians
This oath, supposedly sworn by Drusus’ Italian supporters, was circulated by his enemy
L. Philippus and was presumably composed to discredit Drusus on the grounds that it
would have given him unrivalled clientela and influence in Italy.

I swear by Jupiter Capitolinus, and Roman Vesta, and Rome’s ancestral god
Mars, and Sun the Founder (i.e., Sol Indigetes), and Earth the benefactress
of animals and plants, and also by the demi-gods who founded Rome and the
heroes who have increased her empire, that the enemy and friend of Drusus shall
be my enemy and friend, and I shall not spare my property, nor the lives of my
children and parents, unless it benefit Drusus and those who swear this oath.
And if I become a citizen by Drusus’ law, I will consider Rome my country and
Drusus my greatest benefactor. And I will transmit this oath to as many of my
countrymen as I can. May all good things come to me if I keep the oath, and the
opposite if I break it.

422
 THE SOCIAL WAR
10.9 Appian Civil Wars 1.36.162–37.165: Drusus’ assassination
The Umbrians and Etruscans were clearly opposed to Drusus’ agrarian legislation, due to
the fact that these communities (most particularly the aristocracies there) had large amounts
of ager publicus they were not willing to trade for citizenship.

162 And so it happened that the senate and equites, despite their differences, were
united in their hatred of Drusus, and only the people were happy with their colonies.
Even the Italians, on whose especial behalf Drusus was devising these measures,
had concerns about the law on colonies, worried that the Roman public land, which
was still undistributed and which they were still farming, some in open violation and
others clandestinely, would immediately be taken away from them, and that they
might also be disturbed in their own lands. 163 The Etruscans and the Umbrians
shared the Italians’ fears, and, when they were, as was believed, summoned to the
city by the consuls to overthrow Drusus, which was their true aim, though the pre-
text was to make their complaints, they opposed the law publicly and remained for
the day of voting. 164 Aware of this, Drusus did not go out much but regularly trans-
acted his business in the poorly lit atrium of his house, when one evening, as he was
sending the crowd away, he suddenly cried out that he was wounded, and fell down
while still saying the words. A shoemaker’s knife was found thrust into his thigh.
165 In this way Drusus too was killed while tribune. The equites, to make his
policy grounds for accusation against their enemies, persuaded Quintus Varius, a
tribune, to introduce a law to prosecute anyone who helped the Italians acquire
citizenship, whether openly or secretly, hoping that they might bring all the sena-
tors under a dreadful accusation and themselves sit in judgement on them, and
with them out of the way be even more powerful in their rule of Rome.

THE SOCIAL WAR

The war, which ran from 91 to 89 BC, with the main confrontation being in 91–90, began in
Asculum. The allies had not been interested in citizenship when Gaius Gracchus had proposed
this, but by 91 a consciousness of its importance may have come about through the activities
of the Gracchan land commission, against which Scipio Aemilianus had defended them in
129. There had also been grants of citizenship to allies, such as Marius’ grant to two cohorts
of Camertes (doc. 9.27), and the aristocracies in allied communities were presumably aware
that Latin aristocrats possessed Roman citizenship. The issue of the ager publicus, revisited
by Drusus in 91, was also a reminder both of Roman dominance of the allies and of the steady
encroachment of Romans on Italian land and Roman expansionism. After the Social War the
allied aristocracies, now that they had acquired citizenship, entered the political life of Rome
in full, surely reflecting the aspirations they had in 91 which drove them to revolt when these
were ignored. The fact that most of the allies would never be able to exercise their voting
rights as citizens effectively at Rome was irrelevant.

10.10 Livy Periochae 72: Secession

The Italian allies who revolted fell into two main groups of peoples: the Marsi and the
Samnites. The rebels as a whole were from central and southern Italy. Servilius was

423
 THE SOCIAL WAR
actually a praetor or propraetor who attempted to threaten the Asculans, and so the revolt
started prematurely.

The commencement of the war was occasioned by the Picentes, when the procon-
sul Quintus Servilius was killed in the town of Asculum along with all the Roman
citizens who were in the town. The Roman people adopted military dress.

10.11 Appian Civil Wars 1.38.169–39.177: Full-scale war

When an Italian embassy to Rome was rebuffed, the last chance for peace was wasted, and
a significant number of allies rebelled.

169 When the Italians learnt of the murder of Drusus and of the pretext for ban-
ishing the others (for supporting the Italians), they considered that they could no
longer endure that those bringing measures on their behalf should suffer in such a
way, and, seeing no other chance of their acquiring the citizenship, they decided
to rebel against the Romans and make war against them with all their power.
170 They sent envoys to each other in secret, formed a league, and exchanged
hostages as a pledge of loyalty. For a considerable time the Romans remained
unaware of this because of their law-suits and internal strife in Rome; when they
did find out, they sent men around to the cities, who knew them well, to discover
secretly what was happening. 171 One of these saw a youth from Asculum being
taken as a hostage to another city and informed Servilius, who was proconsul in
that region. 172 There were, it appears, at that time, magistrates governing parts of
Italy as pro-consuls . . . 173 Servilius hastened to Asculum and delivered a threat-
ening speech to the people who were celebrating a festival, whereupon, supposing
that the plot had been discovered, they killed him. Fonteius, his legate, was also
killed (for this is what they call those of senatorial rank who accompany provin-
cial governors as assistants). 174 With these killed, there was no mercy shown to
any of the other Romans, and the people of Asculum fell on them all and stabbed
them and plundered their belongings.
175 Once the revolt had started, all the peoples bordering Asculum joined in –
the Marsi, Paeligni, Vestini and Marrucini, who were followed by the Picentes,
Frentani, Hirpini, Pompeiani, Venusini, Apulians, Lucanians and Samnites, peo-
ples who had been hostile to Rome in earlier times, and all the other peoples
between the River Liris (now, I think, the Liternus) and the end of the Adriatic,
both maritime and inland. 176 They sent ambassadors to Rome to complain that,
though they had helped the Romans in every way to build up their empire, they
had not thought their helpers worthy of citizenship. The senate sternly replied that,
if they repented of what they had done, they could send envoys, otherwise not.
177 In despair of any other remedy, they went on with their preparations; and, in
addition to the soldiers stationed as garrisons at each city, there was a communal
force amounting to some 100,000 cavalry and infantry. The Romans sent against
them a force of equal size, made up of Roman citizens and of the Italian peoples
who were still their allies.

424
 THE SOCIAL WAR
10.12 Diodorus Siculus Library of History 37.2.4–7: The Italian
constitution
The Italians’ constitution was not a true federalist structure but, rather, a government
modelled on Roman lines for the conduct of the war. One of the allies’ silver coins has
Pompaedius Silo’s name on it, with the reverse showing a sacrificial pig with, on either side,
four warriors swearing an oath over the pig. By minting such coins, the rebels challenged
Rome’s monopoly on the issuing of silver coinage (docs 10.29–31).

4 At war with the Romans were the Samnites, the Asculans, the Lucanians, the
Picentes, the people of Nola, and other cities and nations; their most notable and
largest city was Corfinium, recently established as the Italians’ federal capital,
where they had set up, among all the other things which strengthen a large city
and government, a good-sized forum and a senate house, and abundant supplies
of everything needed for a war, including a large amount of money and a plentiful
supply of provisions. 5 They also set up a joint senate of 500 men, from whom
men worthy to rule the country and able to devise measures for the common safety
would be selected, and they entrusted the management of the war to these, though
they gave the senators full powers to make decisions. They ruled that two consuls
and 12 praetors should be elected every year.
6 The men put into power as consuls were Quintus Pompaedius Silo, a Marsian
by birth and the outstanding man of his nation, and secondly Gaius Aponius
Motylus, of the Samnite race, who was also a man pre-eminent in reputation and
achievements in his nation. They divided the whole of Italy into two parts and
assigned them as consular provinces and districts. 7 To Pompaedius they assigned
the region from what is called Cercola to the Adriatic Sea, the section towards the
west and north, and granted him six praetors; the rest of Italy, that towards
the east and south, they assigned to Gaius Motylus, providing him also with six
praetors. When in this way they had organised their government skilfully, and for
the most part in imitation of the long-standing Roman model, they then devoted
themselves even more earnestly to the war which was to come, after naming their
federal capital Italia (Italica).

BROTHERS-IN-ARMS
10.13 Velleius Paterculus Compendium 2.15.1–2: The Italians’
grievances
Velleius states why the allies deserved citizenship: they fought for a state but had no share
in its citizenship. Even though his ancestors fought on the Roman side (see doc. 10.18), he
recognised that the allied cause was not unjust.

1 One hundred and twenty years ago, in the consulship of Lucius Caesar and
Publius Rutilius (90 BC), the whole of Italy took up arms against the Romans. The
revolt began with the people of Asculum, who had killed the praetor Servilius and
his deputy Fonteius, and was next taken up by the Marsi and made its way into all
districts of Italy. 2 The fate of the Italians was as cruel as their cause was just, for

425
 THE SOCIAL WAR
they were seeking citizenship in the state whose power they were defending by
their arms: every year and in every war they were providing a double number of
men, both of cavalry and of infantry, and yet were not admitted to citizen rights
in the state which, through them, had reached so high a position that it was able to
look down upon men of the same race and blood as foreigners and aliens.

10.14 Cicero Philippics 12.27: The allies’ aims

Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo was consul in 89 BC, and Cicero served under him in 90–89.

I can remember conferences with both the bitterest enemies and the most deeply
rebellious citizens. The consul Gnaeus Pompeius, son of Sextus, held a confer-
ence in my presence, when I was a new recruit in his army, with the Marsian
leader, Publius Vettius Scato, between the two camps. I recall the consul’s brother,
Sextus Pompeius, a learned and wise man, coming to this conference from Rome.
Scato greeted him and asked, ‘How shall I address you?’ ‘As a guest, if I had the
choice’, said Pompeius, ‘but as an enemy by necessity.’ It was a fair conference:
no fear, no underlying suspicion, not even a lot of hatred. For the allies were seek-
ing not to rob us of our state but to be received into it themselves.

10.15 Appian Civil Wars 1.48.207–10: Heroic suicide at Asculum

Vidacilius, Lafrenius and Vettius had defeated Pompeius, but later Sulpicius defeated
Lafrenius, who was killed in the battle; Lafrenius’ troops fled to Asculum (see 10.11).
Vidacilius then went to Asculum’s assistance; the city was besieged by the Romans for
some time, and it fell in November 89 BC, after Vidacilius’ suicide. He must have realised
that the allied cause was lost: App. 1.47.204–6; Vell. 2.21.

207 Asculum was the home town of Vidacilius, and, fearing for its safety, he hur-
ried there, taking eight cohorts. . . . 208 he forced his way into the town through
the middle of the enemy with what forces he could get and reproached the citizens
for their cowardice and disobedience. 209 As he gave up hope that the town could
be saved, he killed all his enemies, who had been in conflict with him and who
through jealousy had recently prevented the people from carrying out his orders;
he then built a pyre in the temple, placed a couch on the fire, and held a feast with
his friends. At the height of the drinking he swallowed poison and, throwing him-
self onto the pyre, told his friends to set light to it. 210 So perished Vidacilius, a
man who was proud to die for his country.

10.16 CIL I2 848, 857–61, 875, 877: Inscriptions found on sling-shots

Lead sling-shots found at Corropoli (848) and Asculum, dated to 90–89 BC. Pompeius
is Pompeius Strabo, sent to besiege Asculum in 91 BC. In 860 there is a pun on pica
(magpie) and Picentes; woodpecker, picus (the bird connected with Picenum) may have
been intended. In 877, the allusion is perhaps to the Samnite bull, stamped on Samnite
coins struck; for inscribed sling-shots at Perusia in 41–40, see doc. 14.31.

426
 THE SOCIAL WAR
848 (a) The Italians (b) Titus Lafrenius, praetor.
857 Hit Pompeius!
858 Bring safety for Pompeius (right to left).
859 For the Asculans!
860 Hit a magpie!
861 Runaways, you are doomed!
875 Evil’s coming to you, evil one!
877 (a) Swallow the bull and go to hell! (b) But you’ll vomit up the lot!

10.17 Appian Civil Wars 1.49.211–15: The senate learns to compromise

Umbria and Etruria, hearing of the scale of the revolt, were on the brink of joining. Rome
found itself so short of troops that it enrolled freedmen, which it had not done even in the
worst days after Cannae (but see doc. 6.1). The Roman reliance on its allies for infantry and
cavalry is made clear here (see doc. 10.13).

211 While these events were taking place on the Adriatic side of Italy, the inhabit-
ants of Etruria and Umbria and other neighbouring peoples on the other side of
Rome heard of them and were all roused to revolt. 212 The senate was afraid that
they might be surrounded by war and unable to protect themselves and garrisoned
the coast from Cumae to the city with freedmen, who were then for the first time
enrolled in the army because of the lack of troops. They also decreed that those of
the Italians who had kept to their alliance should become citizens, which they practi-
cally all desired more than anything. 213 They sent the news round the Etruscans,
who gladly accepted the citizenship. By this gift, the senate made the faithful more
faithful, made sure of those who were indecisive, and undermined those at war
through the hope of similar treatment. 214 The Romans did not enrol these new citi-
zens in the 35 existing tribes, in case they outvoted the old citizens in the elections,
but enrolled them in ten new tribes, which voted last. 215 So it often happened that
their vote was useless, since a majority was obtained from the 35 tribes that voted
first. Either this was not noticed initially or the Italians were pleased even with this,
but when it was observed later it caused another political conflict.

10.18 Velleius Paterculus Compendium 2.15.3–16.4: The bitter

outcomes of the conflict
Velleius stresses the roles of three Roman commanders: Pompeius, Sulla and Marius.
Marius’ role in the Social War was initially much more limited than might have been
expected; he had not recovered from the Saturninus affair and, despite the loss of two
Roman consuls and the seriousness of the situation, Rome did not at first rely on him.
He served as legate under P. Rutilius Lupus (cos. 90 BC). When Rutilius was killed, after
having neglected Marius’ advice, the senate appointed Marius and Q. Servilius Caepio to
the command; when Caepio was killed in an ambush, Marius was given full command of
the consul’s army. Sulla and Marius then together in a battle defeated the Marsi.
C. Papius Mutilus and Q. Poppaedius Silo were chosen as the two consuls of the
new confederacy. Mutilus was defeated by L. Julius Caesar (cos. 90) and by Sulla in 89.

427
 THE SOCIAL WAR
Poppaedius in 89 BC defeated and killed one of the consuls of that year, L. Porcius Cato.
However, Cn. Pompeius Strabo defeated him, after which he abandoned Corfinium. In 88
he was defeated and killed by Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius. The Marsi were a spent force,
and the war was more or less over.

15.3 The war wiped out more than 300,000 of the youth of Italy. The most distin-
guished Roman commanders in the war were Gnaeus Pompeius, father of Pompey
the Great, Gaius Marius, whom I have already mentioned, Lucius Sulla, who had
held the praetorship in the previous year, and Quintus Metellus, son of Metellus
Numidicus . . . 16.1 The most celebrated Italian leaders were Silo Popaedius, Herius
Asinius, Insteius Cato, Gaius Pontidius, Telesinus Pontius, Marius Egnatius and
Papius Mutilus. 2 Nor should I, through modesty, deprive my own family of glory,
especially when I am recording the truth, for much is due to the memory of my great-
grandfather, Minatius Magius of Aeculanum, grandson of Decius Magius, leader of
the Campanians, a man of great renown and loyalty, who showed such loyalty to
the Romans in this war that, with a legion which he had himself enlisted among the
Hirpini, he took Herculaneum along with Titus Didius, besieged Pompeii with Lucius
Sulla, and occupied Compsa. 3 Others have recorded his services, but the longest and
clearest account is that of Quintus Hortensius in his Annals. The Roman people made
full repayment for his loyalty by a grant of citizenship to him and by making his sons
praetors at a time when they elected only six. 4 So changeable and savage was the
fortune of the Italian war that in two successive years two Roman consuls, Rutilius
(Publius Rutilius Lupus, cos. 90) and then Cato Porcius (Lucius Porcius Cato, cos.
89), were killed by the enemy, the armies of the Roman people were routed in many
places, and the Romans were compelled to adopt military dress and retain it for a long
time. The Italians chose Corfinium as their capital and named it Italica. Then gradually
the strength of the Romans was augmented by admitting to citizenship those who had
not taken up arms or who had been quick to lay them down again, and Pompeius, Sulla
and Marius restored the wavering and sinking power of the Roman people.

THE EMERGENCE OF L. CORNELIUS SULLA

10.19 Livy Periochae 75: Sulla’s victories, 89 BC
Sulla’s victories against the allies ensured him a consulship when he stood in 89 for 88
BC. Q. Pompeius Rufus (not to be confused with Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo (cos. 89 BC),
who was the father of Pompey the Great) was also awarded a consulship for 88. Pompeius
Rufus’ son married Sulla’s daughter. The Romans’ success was due primarily to the superior
generalship of Pompeius Strabo and Sulla and to the fact that the Latins and many Italian
communities remained loyal and supplied Rome with troops.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla, as legate, defeated the Samnites in battle and stormed two
of their camps. Gnaeus Pompeius received the surrender of the Vestini . . . Lucius
Sulla overcame the Hirpini, routed the Samnites in several battles and received
the surrender of several peoples. After achievements rarely equalled by anyone
else before becoming consul, Sulla set out for Rome to stand for the consulship.

428
 THE SOCIAL WAR
10.20 Velleius Paterculus Compendium 2.17.1–3: Sulla receives his
rewards, 88 BC
For Sulla’s praetorship, see doc. 11.2.

1 With the Italian war ended for the most part, except for the remnants of revolt
which continued at Nola, the Romans, who were exhausted, agreed to grant citi-
zenship to the conquered and humiliated rather than giving it to them as a whole at
a time when their own strength was still unimpaired. 2 Quintus Pompeius (Rufus)
and Lucius Cornelius Sulla entered upon the consulship, Sulla being a man who,
up to the end of his victory, cannot be sufficiently praised and who, after his vic-
tory, cannot be adequately censured. He was born from a noble family, the sixth
in descent from Cornelius Rufinus, who had been one of the famous leaders in the
war against Pyrrhus, and, as his family’s splendour had waned, for a long time he
behaved as if he had no thought of standing for the consulship. 3 Then, after his
praetorship, when he had gained renown in the Italian war, as he had earlier in his
Gallic command under Marius in which he routed the most pre-eminent leaders
of the enemy, he stood for the consulship, encouraged by his success, and was
elected by the vote of almost all the citizens. But he did not achieve this honour
until his forty-ninth year.

CITIZENSHIP FOR THE ITALIANS

The lex Julia of October 90 BC offered full citizenship to all Latins and to the allied
communities (not individuals) that had not revolted, as well as to those who had surrendered
(the dediticii) or who were willing to do so within a given time. The allied communities
that continued fighting were finally enfranchised in 87 BC. By the end of 89 most of the
Italians had surrendered, but not the Samnites, Lucanians and Nola. The Samnites still
fighting in 87 refused citizenship. The enfranchisement of all the communities south of the
Po River in Italy led to the Romanisation of the peninsula; Italy north of the Po received
Roman citizenship and was incorporated into Italy by 42 BC. Latin soon became the
accepted language, and, although many communities retained their ethnic identity in the
short term, within two generations Italy was Roman. Although censors (L. Julius Caesar
and P. Licinius Crassus) were appointed in 89, progress in registering the new citizens was
initially slow, though the census of 70–69 recorded some 900,000 citizens.

10.21 Cicero In Defence of Balbus 21: Rome makes the offer

Citizenship was awarded to communities as a whole: citizens belonged to a particular
municipium but were also citizens of Rome. The aristocracies of these communities, if
they visited Rome, could vote in the comitia centuriata, where voting took place according
to wealth classification, and could stand for magistracies. As Greek colonies, both Heraclea
and Naples had considerable Greek populations.

Finally came the Julian law, by which citizenship was given to allies and Latins,
laying down that communities that had not ratified the offer should not have the
citizenship. As a consequence, there was a serious dispute among the citizens of

429
 THE SOCIAL WAR
Heraclea and Naples, since a large proportion of the people in those two cities
preferred to keep the freedom enjoyed under their treaty of alliance rather than
Roman citizenship.

10.22 ILS 6086: A constitution for Tarentum (after 90 BC)

Following the grant of Roman citizenship by the lex Julia in 90 BC to the Italians not
in arms (doc. 10.21), the municipium of Tarentum was granted this constitution (though
this may not have taken place immediately: spelling and style suggest a later date). It was
engraved on a bronze tablet found at Tarentum. Curiae survived in Italian towns as voting
units; the Board of Four consisted of the duoviri (Board of Two) and two aediles.

Ninth table of the law:

. . . nor shall he be allowed to be . . . nor shall anyone steal by fraud or misap-
propriate any money, public, sacred or concerned with religion, belonging to that
municipium, nor act in such a way whereby any of the above might ensue; nor
shall he with evil intent lessen funds through mishandling public accounts or pub-
lic fraud. Whoever should act thus shall be fined four times the amount involved
5 and be condemned to pay that sum to the municipium, and the demand and
exaction of that sum shall be the responsibility of whoever shall be at that time a
magistrate in the municipium.
The Board of Four, including the aediles, who shall be the first to serve under
this law, whoever of them shall have come to Tarentum, shall, within the next 20
days after his first coming to Tarentum after the passing of this law, take steps to
stand as surety for himself and present bondsmen and their estates (as sureties)
to the Board of Four, 10 sufficient that any money, whether public, sacred or
concerned with religion, belonging to that municipium, which should come into
his hands during his term of office, shall be properly secured to the municipium
of Tarentum, and he shall give an account of that matter in whatever way the
senate shall decide. And that member of the Board of Four to whom surety shall
be given shall accept it and shall have it recorded in the public records (tabulae);
and whoever shall hold a public assembly (comitia) to propose for election the
members of the Board of Two and aediles, 15 he shall, before a majority of the
curiae shall return any of those who are seeking office at that assembly, accept
bondsmen from the candidates sufficient that any money, whether public, sacred
or concerned with religion, belonging to that municipium, which should come
into their hands during his term of office, shall be properly secured to the muni-
cipium of Tarentum, and he shall give an account of that matter 20 in whatever
way the senate shall decide, and he shall have it recorded in the public records.
With regard to those to whom public business in the municipium shall be given
by a vote of the senate, or who shall have performed public business, and who
shall have paid or exacted public money, he to whom that business shall have
been given, or who has performed public business, or paid or exacted public
money, shall give and present in good faith an account of that matter to the
senate within the next ten days 25 following the decision of the senate of the
municipium.

430
 THE SOCIAL WAR
Anyone who is or shall be a decurion (member of the senate) of the municipium
of Tarentum, or shall have voted in the senate in the municipium of Tarentum,
shall possess in good faith in the town of Tarentum or within the boundaries of
that municipium a house (aedificium), which shall be roofed with not fewer than
1,500 tiles. Whoever of the above who does not possess such a house of his own,
30 or who shall have bought a house or received one by formal purchase in such
a way that he would fraudulently evade this law, shall be condemned to pay the
municipium of Tarentum money amounting to 5,000 sesterces for each year of
the offence.
No one in the town which belongs to that municipium shall take the roof off
a house or demolish or destroy one, unless he is going to restore it to a state no
worse (than before) or unless by a vote of the senate. If anyone acts in opposition
to this, he shall be condemned to pay the municipium 35 money equal in value
to that of the house, and anyone who wishes may bring an action for the payment
of that sum. The magistrate who exacts the sum shall pay one-half into the public
treasury and spend one-half on the games which he will put on publicly during
his term of office, or if he wishes to spend the money on a public monument to
himself he shall be permitted, and shall be permitted to do so at no liability (to
penalty) to himself.
If any member of the Board of Four, whether a member of the Board of Two or
an aedile, shall be minded publicly, for the sake of the municipium, 40 to make, lay,
alter, build or pave within those boundaries belonging to that municipium, he shall
be permitted to do so, provided that it shall be done without injury (to any person).
Anyone who does not owe money to the municipium of Tarentum, and who
is a citizen of the municipium and has not in the six years previous to his wish to
leave (the municipium) been a member of the Board of Two or aedile, who wishes
to leave the municipium of Tarentum, shall be permitted to do so at no liability (to
penalty) to himself. . . .

10.23 ILS 8888: Spanish horsemen given citizenship

Through the lex Julia, Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo (cos. 89 BC) here grants citizenship
to Spanish horsemen ‘for valour’; the date is 17 November of either 90 or 89, while at
Asculum. This inscription was found on fragments of a bronze tablet at Rome and
demonstrates that individual commanders could award citizenship for service in the field
(cf. doc. 9.27). A turma (squadron of horse) was one-tenth of an ala: first 30 and then 32
men. The Salluitan squadron was from Salduba, Spain (Iberia); from their names, some of
the Iberians were clearly partly Romanised already. Along with their names are those of 60
members of Pompeius Strabo’s consilium (advisory council), including his son Pompey,
Lepidus (cos. 78) and Catiline.

(a) GNAEUS POMPEIUS, SON OF SEXTUS, IMPERATOR, ON ACCOUNT

OF THEIR VALOUR, made Spanish horsemen Roman citizens in camp at
Asculum on 17 November according to the lex Julia. At the council (consil-
ium) were . . . Lucius Gellius, son of Lucius, of the Tromentine tribe, Gnaeus
Octavius, son of Quintus . . . (there follows the names of some 60 staff officers).

431
 THE SOCIAL WAR
(b) THE SALLUITAN SQUADRON
(col. 1) (col. 2)
Sanibelser, son of Adingibas Ilerdans
Illurtibas, son of Bilustibas Ootacilius, son of Suisetarten
Estopeles, son of Ordennas Gnaeus Cornelius, son of Nesille
Tersinno, son of Austinco Publius Fabius, son of Enasagin
( . . . others . . . ) Begensians
Turtumelis, son of Atanscer
Segiensians
Sosinaden, son of Sosinasa
( . . . others . . . )

(col. 4) Gnaeus Pompeius, son of Sextus, imperator, in camp at Asculum, pre-

sented the Salluitan squadron on account of their valour with a helmet horn, plate,
collar, armlet, chest-plates, and a double ration of corn.

10.24 Cicero In Defence of Archias 6–7: The lex Plautia

Papiria, 89 BC
M. Plautius Silvanus and C. Papirius Carbo as tribunes in 89 BC passed the lex Plautia
Papiria. This gave citizenship to any individual who belonged to an Italian city which
had a treaty with Rome, who was permanently resident in Italy, and who reported himself
to a praetor within 60 days of the passing of the law. It benefited those who belonged to
communities which received citizenship under the lex Julia but who themselves were not
living in their communities of origin when the law was passed. The poet Archias, a protégé
of the Luculli, was attacked as a non-citizen by the Pompeians and defended by Cicero in
62. Metellus Pius was praetor in 89.

6 After a long period of time, after going to Sicily with Marcus Lucullus and
returning with him from that province, Archias went to Heraclea; this city had
been granted full civic privileges by the terms of its treaty with Rome, and Archias
wanted to be enrolled among its citizens. His own merits would have sufficiently
recommended him, even without the prestige and influence there of Lucullus, and
his request was granted by the people. 7 Roman citizenship was granted by the
law of Silvanus and Carbo, which extended citizenship to ‘all who have been reg-
istered in allied communities, if they were resident in Italy at the time of the pass-
ing of this law, and if they have reported themselves to the praetor within sixty
days.’ Archias had resided at Rome for many years, and had reported himself to
the praetor Quintus Metellus, his great friend.

10.25 CIL I2 588: Sailors discharged with honour, 78 BC

A decree of the senate in 78 BC, concerning Asclepiades of Clazomenae, Polystratus of
Carystus and Meniscus of Miletus in Asia Minor, on a bilingual tablet of bronze found at
Rome (Latin and Greek). The three Greek naval captains from Asia Minor and Euboea

432
 THE SOCIAL WAR
had loyally served the Republic and now were honourably discharged. The ‘Italian War’ is
presumably the Social War (or possibly Sulla’s war in Italy of 83–82). Various privileges
are granted to the men, ensuring that they suffer no material loss because of their absence,
but not the right to vote.

In the consulship of Quintus Lutatius Catulus, son of Quintus, and Marcus Aemilius
Lepidus, son of Quintus, grandson of Marcus, and the urban praetorship and prae-
torship ‘for aliens’ of Lucius Cornelius Sisenna (i.e., he was praetor urbanus and
praetor peregrinus), son of . . . in the month of May.
Quintus Lutatius Catulus, son of Quintus, consul, consulted the senate in the
meeting-place (the curia) on 22 May. Present as witnesses were Lucius Faberius,
son of Lucius, of the Sergian tribe, Gaius . . . son of Lucius, of the Poblilian tribe,
Quintus Petillius, son of Titus, of the Sergian tribe.
With regard to the matter on which Quintus Lutatius, son of Quintus, con-
sul, reported, that Asclepiades, son of Philinus, of Clazomenae, Polystratus, son
of Polyarces, of Carystus, and Meniscus, son of Irenaeus, of Miletus, who had
been known as Meniscus son of Thargelius, served on our ships as captains at the
beginning of the Italic war, that they served our state valiantly and loyally, and
that he wished them to be discharged to their homes by senatorial decree, should
it seem right to the senate that such honour be accorded them in return for their
successful campaigns and valiant deeds on behalf of our state: on this matter the
senators resolved the following:
That Asclepiades, son of Philinus, of Clazomenae, Polystratus, son of Polyarces,
of Carystus, and Meniscus, son of Irenaeus, of Miletus, who had been known as
Meniscus son of Thargelius, be called upright men and our friends; that the senate
and Roman people considered that they had served our state valiantly and loyally;
on account of which the senate resolved that they, their children, and their descend-
ants be free and exempt from all things (i.e., dues) in their own countries; that, if
any taxes have been exacted from their properties after they had left in the service
of our state, that these be returned and restored to them, and, if any fields, houses
or property of theirs have been sold after they left their homes in the service of our
state, that all of these be restored in their entirety; and, if any deadline has expired
after they left their homes in the service of our state, that that fact should not injure
them, and that for that reason they should be owed no less, and that they shall be
permitted no less to claim and exact such a debt, and they may have, possess and
enjoy any inheritances which have come to them or their children; . . .
That any judgements which have been made against them in their absence after
they had left their homes shall be rendered void and judgements be made afresh in
their entirety by decree of the senate. If their states publicly owe any moneys, they
shall not be required to contribute towards these moneys. If any of our magistrates
lease out Asia and Euboea, or impose tax on Asia or Euboea, they shall take care
that these men shall not be required to pay anything. Also the consuls Quintus
Lutatius and Marcus Aemilius, either or both as they should see fit, shall take
care that they be entered in the official list of friends; and that they be permitted

433
 THE SOCIAL WAR
to erect a bronze tablet to Friendship on the Capitol and make a sacrifice; and that
they instruct the city quaestor to send a gift according to official regulations and
to make arrangements for their quarters and entertainment (as for foreign ambas-
sadors). And that, if they should wish to send ambassadors about their affairs to
the senate or to come as ambassadors, they, their children and their descendants
shall be permitted to send ambassadors or come themselves. And that the consuls
Quintus Lutatius and Marcus Aemilius, either or both as they should see fit, shall
send a letter to our magistrates who hold the provinces of Asia and Macedonia,
and to their magistrates that the senate wishes and thinks right, that these things
be done in such as way as seems to them advantageous to our state and to their
own dignity. Passed.

10.26 Velleius Paterculus Compendium 2.20.2–3: Pro-Italian

legislation, 88 BC
For P. Sulpicius Rufus, tribune in 88 BC, and his pro-Italian and pro-Marian legislation,
see doc. 9.32. His proposal to distribute Italians among all the tribes caused riots from
the existing citizens. The consul Cinna was driven out in 87 for the same reasons. The
Italian rebels who did surrender (i.e., became dediticii) probably gained citizenship in 87
or perhaps 84, but some held out until 80 BC (see doc. 10.28).

2 Cinna was no more restrained than Marius or Sulpicius. Though the citizenship
had been given to Italy in such a way that the new citizens were to be distributed
among eight tribes so that their power and numbers might not weaken the posi-
tion of the old citizens and the beneficiaries should not receive more power than
the benefactors, Cinna promised to distribute them among all the tribes. For this
purpose he had brought together into the city a vast crowd from all over Italy.
3 Because of this he was driven out by the strength of his colleague (Gnaeus
Octavius) and the optimates and set out for Campania, while his consulship was
taken away by the authority of the senate, and Lucius Cornelius Merula, the
flamen dialis, was appointed in his place.

10.27 Licinianus 20–21: Cinna courts the Italians, 87 BC

Cinna and Marius took Rome in 87 BC and were proclaimed consuls for 86. Q. Caecilius
Metellus Pius was attempting to crush the Samnite resistance; he recognised Cinna as
consul but, as a result of the Marian takeover, went into exile in Africa.

Legates were sent by Metellus to consult the senate about the attitude of the
Samnites, who were refusing to make peace unless they and all deserters were
granted citizenship and their property returned. The senate refused . . . when
Cinna learnt of this through Flavius Fimbria he acceded to all their requests
and added them to his troops . . . Citizenship was granted to all who had sur-
rendered who had promised many thousands of soldiers, but who sent scarcely
16 cohorts.

434
 THE SOCIAL WAR
10.28 Velleius Paterculus Compendium 2.27.1–3: Italian resistance,
82 BC
Most of the fighting in the Social War was over by 87 BC, and the Roman war against
Mithridates proceeded despite the remnants of Italian opposition. When Cinna marched
against Rome in 87 BC, the consuls recalled Q. Caecilius Metellus from fighting the
Samnites: he would not agree to the Samnites’ demands, but Cinna and Marius did.
Sulla, on his return from the East in 82, recognised the grants of citizenship to the Italian
communities, but the Samnites held out, and a great battle was fought outside Rome at the
Colline gate. This defeat of the Samnite opposition to Rome in 82 BC was not the last, and
the Samnites held out at Nola until 80 BC.

1 In the consulship of Carbo and Marius (the Younger), 109 years ago, Pontius
Telesinus, a Samnite leader, who was brave in spirit and deeds and who deeply
loathed the very name of Rome, collected about 40,000 of the bravest and most
unyielding youth who still retained arms, and on 1 November fought with Sulla
near the Colline gate a battle which was so critical as to bring both Sulla and the
city into the greatest danger. 2 Rome had not faced a greater danger when the
camp of Hannibal was visible within the third milestone than on this day, when
Telesinus flew around the ranks of his army exclaiming that ‘The Romans’ last
day is at hand!’ and shouting that the city should be overthrown and destroyed,
adding that, ‘The wolves who stole Italian liberty will never disappear until the
woods in which they are accustomed to take refuge are cut down!’ 3 It was only
after the first hour of the night that the Roman army was able to take breath and
the enemy withdrew. On the next day Telesinus was found half-dead, with the
expression rather of a conqueror than a dying man. His head was cut off and Sulla
ordered it to be fixed on a spear and carried around Praeneste.

COINAGE IN THE SOCIAL WAR

No Roman coins specifically address the Social War. Coins of the allies were sometimes
modelled on Roman coins, as in the case of the oath scenes, and have themes relating to
the war. The allies minted on the Roman denarius standard and paid their soldiers in it. The
allies’ coins had Latin legends as well as Oscan, the language of the southern belligerents.

10.29 Grueber II.323–324.10, 327, 329: Allied soldiers swear an oath

A denarius on which the allied soldiers swear an oath to the cause of allied liberty (the number
eight could indicate the number of groups engaged in war against the Romans when the coin
was minted or simply be used to fill up the coin; some coins with a similar scene have two,
four or six soldiers). The coins discussed in docs 10.29–30 are representative of the allied
Social War coinage generally. Grueber II.329 has the name of the allied general Q. Silo (Q.
Poppaedius Silo: docs 10.4, 10.7, 10.18) on the reverse, under the oath-taking scene.

Obverse: Head of the goddess Italia with wreath, facing left, with legend ‘Italia’
on right rim of coin.

435
 THE SOCIAL WAR
Reverse: Eight warriors, four on either side of a pig which is held by an attendant;
the eight warriors point their swords at the pig; behind the attendant, a standard.

10.30 Grueber II.327.19–329.30: Italian warrior and bull

A denarius depicting a bull, which stands for Italia and the allied cause: see coin at doc.
10.31.

Obverse: Head of the goddess Italia.

Reverse: A standing warrior, with spear and sword, and a reclining bull. The war-
rior’s left foot is set upon a Roman standard.

10.31 Grueber II.327.18: The Italian bull gores the Roman wolf
A denarius depicting the god Bacchus, who was identified with the Italian deity Liber Pater.

Obverse: Head of the god Bacchus.

Reverse: A bull tramples a wolf, goring it with a horn; underneath, an Oscan
inscription: Vitelliu (Italia).

436
 11

Lucius Cornelius Sulla ‘Felix’

Sulla first became prominent when he served with Marius in Africa in 107–105
(as quaestor in 107, then as proquaestor) and, specifically, when he arranged for
the surrender of Jugurtha by Bocchus in 105 (docs 9.13, 11.50); his career until
then had been unremarkable. His background was obscure and his family had not
been prominent for some generations, though details concerning his poverty are
probably exaggerated to highlight his subsequent rise to the position of Rome’s
most powerful man (docs 9.12, 11.1). He next worked with Marius in the northern
campaigns in 104–103 (see Plut. Sull. 4, where the account of opposition between
the two at this stage is clearly a later invention of Sulla’s which Plutarch found
in Sulla’s Memoirs) and was obviously trusted by Marius on the strength of his
African credentials. In fact it was only the issue of who was to hold the command
against the king of Pontus, Mithridates, that led to the struggle between them,
unless Plutarch’s story about Marius’ anger directed against Sulla on the occasion
of King Bocchus’ erection of a statue group showing Jugurtha being surrendered
by Bocchus to Sulla is to be accepted (Plut. Mar. 32.4–6, Sull. 6.1–2). Little is
known of Sulla’s career in the 90s (doc. 11.2), but he was praetor in 93, and in 92
he was in Cilicia pro consule and returned to Rome in time for the breaking out of
the Social War, in which he played a prominent role in Campania and Samnium
(docs 10.18–20). His election to the consulship for 88 BC would have been on the
strength of these military successes. The consulship brought with it the province
of Asia and command against Mithridates, who was expanding his kingdom into
Asia Minor, where at his instigation 80,000 Italians were massacred (doc. 11.4).
At this point events took a turn that had serious ramifications – the agitation of the
tribune Sulpicius to have the newly enfranchised Italians distributed among all the
tribes. In return for Marius’ support for his enfranchisement proposal, Sulpicius
then had legislation passed that the command against Mithridates be transferred to
Marius, who saw the war against Mithridates as ‘an easy and very profitable’ one
(doc. 9.32). But so too did Sulla, who had left to join his army at Capua and who
clearly saw this command as a crucial stage in his career. Marius obviously had
not thought through the consequences of his attempt to take the command against
Mithridates. After all, Marius had done the same to Metellus, depriving him of his
command, and actually with Metellus in the field of operations (doc. 9.10).

437
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
In 88 BC, much depended on Sulla. He decided – rightly or wrongly – that he
was not going to be deprived of his command, and that the way to do this was
to march upon Rome. His officers had some scruples, but his soldiers (and his
fellow consul) did not: the war promised plunder, and they were worried Marius
would use troops other than themselves (doc. 11.5). This march on Rome and its
capture by a magistrate with imperium was extraordinary. The murder of a trib-
une, Sulpicius, and the mob violence that followed were in themselves disastrous
but not unprecedented (as in the cases of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, Drusus
and Saturninus). Sulla introduced some political reforms and then set off for the
East. Cinna, consul in 87, was driven from Rome by his fellow consul Octavius,
deprived of office, and declared an enemy. Cinna decided not to accept this but
raised an army; he was joined by Marius, who, after initial fighting, had fled the
city at Sulla’s entry. With others, he had been declared a public enemy, to be
killed with impunity (doc. 9.33). Marius fought his way into the city, and the vio-
lence now rose to an exceptional level as he settled old scores; he was elected for a
seventh consulship for 86 (with Cinna, consul for the second time in 86, and again
in 85 and 84) but died within a few days of taking office. There was now peace at
Rome. But Sulla, despite being declared a hostis (and technically therefore with-
out imperium), had gone to his province and commenced war against Mithridates.
He was able to return to Rome in 83, having arranged a peace treaty after decisive
victories at Chaeronea and Orchomenus in Greece (docs 11.7–10).
Cinna (cos. 87–84 BC) had remarkable influence at Rome, but little is known
of his policies. Significantly, the enfranchised Italians seem to have been finally
distributed among all the tribes. When Valerius Flaccus was elected as consul in
86 BC to replace Marius and was sent out to Asia Minor (see doc. 11.7), he took
an offer to Sulla that if he would submit to the senate he would cease to be a public
enemy. Whether this was a senatorial initiative or simply a Cinnan one is unclear.
Sulla dealt first with Mithridates, then with Fimbria, who as legate led a mutiny
against Flaccus, in which the latter was killed, and took over his army (doc. 11.8;
there are two individuals called L. Valerius Flaccus in this period: one took over
Marius’ consulship in 86 and was killed by Fimbria in Asia Minor, the other was
the princeps senatus who led the senate in a policy of reconciliation towards Sulla
and had been Marius’ colleague in his sixth consulship of 100). Sulla, possibly
in late 85, wrote to the senate reminding them both of his past victories and his
present successes against Mithridates and of the fact that those exiled by Cinna
had fled to him, and saying that he was returning to Rome to take vengeance
(doc. 11.13). The princeps senatus (L. Valerius Flaccus) successfully proposed
the sending of emissaries to Sulla, and the senate ordered Cinna and Carbo (con-
suls for 85) to stop recruiting an army until he replied. Cinna and Carbo, how-
ever, declared themselves consuls again for 84, and Cinna raised an army against
Sulla, but was murdered by his own troops; Carbo continued to oppose Sulla (doc.
11.12; App. BC 1.77).
Sulla returned to Italy. The consuls for 83 BC, C. Norbanus and L. Cornelius
Scipio, were overcome, and many desertions took place to the Sullan camp; civil
war broke out. The optimates largely supported Sulla and joined him, among them

438
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
Crassus and Pompey (docs 11.14–15). The younger Marius and the Samnites held
out but were dealt with at Praeneste (doc. 9.34) and at the battle of the Colline gate
(doc. 10.28). Sulla now turned his attention to Rome and his enemies, and there
occurred the infamous proscriptions, in which hundreds – perhaps thousands –
perished in addition to the thousands who had lost their lives in the civil war (docs
11.19–23). Sulla’s reform programme of 88 was revived, with special attention
being paid to strengthening the senate and disempowering the tribunate, which had
challenged optimate control (docs 11.26–38). Sulla voluntarily laid down his dicta-
torship sometime in 80 BC, when he held his second consulship. With his death in
79 some ill-feeling was expressed about his reforms; though they survived his death,
changes weakened their effect, and in 70 Crassus and Pompey, who had benefited
under him, restored the tribunate (doc. 12.4). But his judicial and administrative
reforms remained in force (docs 11.39–40). Pompey first emerges at this point as
an important figure, as he raised (as a private citizen: privatus) three legions for
Sulla and was then sent to deal with the Marians in Africa and Sicily. He managed
to extract the concession of a triumph from Sulla and ensured, against the wishes of
Lepidus, that Sulla had a state funeral (docs 11.17–18, 44), but his political stance
changed in the 70s. Opinions concerning Sulla vary as to the extent to which his dic-
tatorship and actions as dictator were constitutional. What is clear is that he showed
what was possible for a promagistrate invested with imperium and an army: this
army returned with Sulla to Italy to do his bidding; ‘his army was devoted to him,
well trained and immense, and elated by its successes’ (App. BC 1.76.347). In addi-
tion, for the first time, there had been a major civil war at Rome, as opposed to the
civil dissensions and bloodshed centred around the tribunate.
Ancient sources: Appian 1.55–106.240–443 provides the basic narrative
framework, and, as for other periods such as that of the Gracchi, is crucial given
the loss of Livy, which survives for this period only in the form of summaries
(Periochae). Livy Periochae 77–90 preserves a chronological framework and
important, though brief, details of the dictator’s constitutional reforms. Sulla
is in fact presented as preferring peace to civil war (doc. 11.14). Livy is decid-
edly anti-Marian; his criticisms of Sulla come with the capture of Rome and
the proscriptions. Plutarch’s Sulla is unfortunately, but not surprisingly, almost
totally lacking in detail about Sulla’s constitutional reforms, but for details of the
Mithridatic Wars, the overall narrative and various other points he is important.
Other Lives provide details: Marius 10, 26, 35, 41, 45; Pompey 5–16; Crassus 6;
Caesar 1. Plutarch made use of Sulla’s Memoirs; despite clear criticism of Sulla’s
proscriptions, his account, with its hostile portrait of Sulpicius Rufus (Sull. 8)
and Cinna and Carbo (Sull. 22.1), must owe something to Sulla’s own narrative.
Cicero Pro Roscio Amerino (esp. 2–3, 6, 125–6), delivered in Sulla’s lifetime, is
an important source dealing with the proscriptions, but he was careful not to attack
Sulla himself, arguing that abuses such as the confiscation of the elder Roscius’
property were not countenanced by Sulla. Cicero in several works condemns the
confiscation of the property of the proscribed but is less concerned with the pro-
scriptions themselves, for he too, in 63 BC, put men to death without a trial; see
especially Dowling 2000: 306–13.

439
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
Sulla himself wrote his Memoirs (Commentarii: HRR I2 195–204), which were
edited by L. Licinius Lucullus (cos. 74). Lucullus was the only officer, as quaestor
in Sulla’s army, to support his march on Rome in 88 (MRR II.52n.5 with Appian
253: doc. 11.5). The memoirs have not survived, but Plutarch refers to them, and
his sources and those of Appian will have made use of them. In these memoirs,
Sulla denigrated Marius’ achievements against the Cimbri, attributing the victory
to himself (see also docs 9.23, 26). He emphasised his own virtus (courage) as a
general and his felicitas, the good fortune bestowed upon him by the gods. Also
important was the history (Historiae) written by L. Cornelius Sisenna (praetor 78)
and used by Appian and Livy. Sisenna’s account focused on the Social War and
Sullan period (see HRR I2 276–97), and his history probably commenced where
that of Sempronius Asellio ended; Sallust seems then to have started his writing
from the end of Sisenna’s history. Sallust refers to Sisenna’s work and appears to
criticise Sisenna for not being critical enough of Sulla (BJ 95), whom he presents
as possessing the various qualities of a good soldier in the Jugurthine War but
as a cruel and tyrannical dictator; for Sallust, his dictatorship is the beginning
of the final collapse of the Republic, which, for him, had begun with the sack of
Carthage in 146 BC: Sall. Cat. 5, BJ 95–6 (doc. 9.12), Hist. 1.34–53. In addition,
there are Licinianus and the fragments of Diodorus 38–39.

SULLA’S EARLY CAREER

11.1 Plutarch Life of Sulla 1.1–2.8: Sulla as a young man
Cf. Sallust’s description: doc. 9.12. Sulla’s consular ancestor was P. Cornelius Rufinus,
who had been consul twice (290, 277 BC) and dictator; this was the height of the family’s
fortunes until the arrival of Sulla himself. For statues of Sulla, see docs 11.31, 11.48. Sulla
when he died was still in love with Metrobius the actor (doc. 11.39; cf. docs 7.57–61).

1.1 Lucius Cornelius Sulla came of a patrician or, as one might say, noble fam-
ily. It is said that one of his ancestors, Rufinus, held the consulship, though his
disgrace is better known than his holding this honour. For it was discovered that
he had obtained more than 10 pounds of silver plate, which was against the law,
and for this reason he was expelled from the senate. 2 After him the family con-
tinued in its lowly position and Sulla’s own family was poor. . . . 7 This is what is
recorded of Sulla’s fortunes in his youth. 2.1 What his personal appearance was
like can be seen from his statues, but his facial complexion made the terribly sharp
and dominating blueness of his eyes even more formidable, 2 for the pale skin was
blotched here and there with angry patches of red; it was because of this, it is said,
that he got his name describing his skin, and one of those insulting him at Athens
made up a mocking verse which went: ‘Sulla is a mulberry sprinkled with barley.’
3 It is not out of place to use this kind of evidence for Sulla, whom they say
was by nature a lover of jokes, as a result of which, while he was still young and
unknown, he used to spend his time living dissolutely with actors and comedians
4 and, when he held supreme power, collected around him the most outrageous
personages of stage and theatre, with whom he would drink and crack jokes all

440
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
day, so that he appeared to be acting in a manner very ill-suited to his age and low-
ered the reputation of his magistracy by dismissing those who wanted his atten-
tion . . . 6 He was in love with Metrobius, an actor, while he was still young, and
remained so. 7 Another experience of his was when he began by falling in love
with a well-off prostitute called Nicopolis, who, as she got used to his society and
to the charm he had as a youth, ended up falling in love with him and left him as
her heir at her death. 8 He also inherited from his stepmother, who loved him as
though he were her own son; and from these legacies he was moderately well-off.

11.2 Plutarch Life of Sulla 5.1–4: Sulla’s political career

Sulla’s political career actually took a long time to develop. He did not become consul
until he was 48 or 49 years of age, and on the strength of his Social War victories (not ‘suo
anno’). He had been unsuccessful in standing for the praetorship in 98 BC, but through
bribery succeeded in becoming praetor urbanus in 93, not having held the aedileship. In
92 he was in Cilicia pro consule (with the military powers of consul). On his return the
incident over Bocchus’ dedication of statues supposedly occurred (see doc. 10.18). Sulla
was then involved in the Social War.

1 Sulla, thinking that his reputation in war should serve him well in politics, left
the army and went straight into public life, but when he stood as a candidate for the
praetorship he was proved wrong. 2 He assigns the reason for this to the plebs; for
he says that they knew of his friendship with Bocchus and looked forward, if he
served as aedile before becoming praetor, to some splendid hunts and wild animal
combats from Libya, and so they appointed other candidates as praetors to force him
to become aedile. 3 It appears, however, from later events that Sulla is not giving
the real reason for his failure. 4 For in the next year he achieved the praetorship after
winning over the people, partly by flattery and partly also by money.

MITHRIDATES VI OF PONTUS
Mithridates VI (also spelt as Mithradates) was king of Pontus (120–63 BC) and an enemy
of Rome for the 40 years before his death. After murdering his mother and brother,
Mithridates effected the conquest of the Crimea and northern shore of the Black Sea, and
while Rome was engaged in the Social War conquered Cappadocia and Bithynia. In Asia,
he conquered the Greek cities and massacred the Italian residents (doc. 11.4). Greece, in
particular Athens, came over to him. Defeated but not destroyed by Sulla, who was anxious
to return home upon Cinna’s death in 84, Mithridates engaged the Romans in a further two
wars, being finally dealt with by Pompey.

11.3 Appian Mithridatic Wars 20–1 (76–81): Mithridates

Mithridates and Tigranes, king of Armenia, had divided Cappadocia between them, but
the senate sent Sulla to put Ariobarzanes I on the throne. In 91 BC Mithridates conquered
Bithynia, driving out Nicomedes IV, who had previously been an ally of Rome, while
Tigranes drove Ariobarzanes out of Cappadocia. Manius Aquillius (cos. 101, with Marius)
restored Nicomedes and Ariobarzanes in 90 BC and Mithridates and Tigranes withdrew.

441
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
Aquillius had Nicomedes attack Mithridates, who unsuccessfully protested; Mithridates
retaliated by deposing Ariobarzanes (again), sparking off the First Mithridatic War (89–85)
and capturing and killing Aquillius.

76 After having conquered the whole kingdom of Nicomedes by this one assault,
Mithridates took it over and organised the cities. He then invaded Phrygia and
stayed at the inn where Alexander had lodged, thinking it a good omen that
Mithridates should be quartered where once Alexander had stayed. 77 He then
overran the rest of Phrygia, as well as Mysia and the areas of Asia which the
Romans had recently acquired, sending his officers to the neighbouring prov-
inces and subjugating Lycia, Pamphylia and the country as far as Ionia . . . 80
Shortly afterwards he captured Manius Aquillius, who was primarily respon-
sible for this embassy and the war, and led him around bound on a donkey,
proclaiming to all who saw him that he was Manius and, as a criticism of
the Roman’s taking of bribes, finally poured molten gold down his mouth at
Pergamum. 81 He appointed satraps over the different peoples and proceeded
to Magnesia, Ephesus and Mitylene, all of which gladly welcomed him, while
the Ephesians destroyed their Roman statues, for which they were punished not
long afterwards.

11.4 Appian Mithridatic Wars 22–3 (85–7, 91–2): The First

Mithridatic War
Mithridates’ conquest of the Greek cities of Asia Minor and his invasion of Greece points to
great ambition and perhaps the desire to create a Hellenistic-style kingdom. 80,000 Italians
were supposedly killed in Asia Minor in 88. The Greek cities were ready to go over to
Mithridates because of the tax-collecting activities of the publicani.

85 The conflict in Rome delayed Sulla for some time, as I have written in my
Civil Wars; in the meantime Mithridates built a large number of ships to attack
Rhodes and wrote in secret to all satraps and city governors that, on the thirtieth
day, they should all attack the Romans and Italians in their towns, the men, their
women and children and their freedmen of Italian birth, kill them and throw out
their bodies unburied, and share their possessions with King Mithridates. 86
He proclaimed punishment to anyone who buried them or concealed them and
rewards to informers and those who killed anyone in hiding, as well as freedom
to slaves who did this to their masters and remission of half their debt to debtors
who did this to their creditors. 87 These orders Mithridates sent in secret to all
the cities at the same time . . .
91 These were the dreadful fates met by the Italians and Romans in Asia, men,
children and women all together, and their freedmen and slaves who were of
Italian blood. From this it was extremely clear that the actions of the inhabitants
of Asia were motivated not only by fear of Mithridates but also by hatred of the
Romans. 92 But they paid a double penalty, at the hands of Mithridates himself,
who not long afterwards broke his word and ill-treated them, and later at the hands
of Cornelius Sulla.

442
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
THE ORIGINS OF THE CIVIL WAR
11.5 Appian Civil Wars 1.57–59 (250–53, 258–68): The command
against Mithridates
This passage follows on from doc. 9.32. Sulla fled from Rome to Nola, where his army
was preparing to cross to Asia for the war against Mithridates; he then proceeded to march
on Rome, the first Roman to do so. His senior officers deserted him (his quaestor and
relative L. Licinius Lucullus was the only exception), though he was joined by the other
consul, Q. Pompeius Rufus. With six legions he quickly overcame Marius and Sulpicius;
Sulpicius’ measures were annulled because they had been passed by violence, and he was
murdered; Marius fled. Support for Sulla’s actions in the city was non-existent: he had done
the unthinkable by marching on Rome itself.
Sulla then introduced several reforms. The Italians were no longer distributed among all
the tribes, no proposal was to go before the people before it had been to the senate, voting
was not to be by tribes but by centuries in the comitia centuriata, so giving voting power –
as Appian noted – to the wealthy and conservatives, and 300 men were enrolled in the sen-
ate as its numbers had become depleted. This legislation was all annulled when Sulla left
Rome but foreshadowed that when he was dictator. Cinna was elected as consul for 87;
Marius returned in an orgy of revenge after Sulla had gone to the East (doc. 9.34); Sulla
(but not yet his army) was voted a public enemy, a hostis.

250 When Sulla learnt this, he resolved that the matter should be decided by war
and summoned his army to an assembly. The army was eager for the campaign
against Mithridates because it would be profitable, and they thought that Marius
would enlist for it other soldiers than themselves. 251 Sulla spoke of the way he
had been insulted by Sulpicius and Marius, and, without clearly alluding to any-
thing else (for he did not as yet dare to mention this kind of war), he urged them to
be ready to carry out his orders. 252 They understood what he meant, and, as they
were afraid on their own account in case they should lose the chance to go on the
campaign, they laid bare Sulla’s intention and told him to lead them to Rome with
all confidence. 253 Sulla was delighted and took six legions there straightaway.
All his senior officers, however, except one quaestor, fled to the city, because they
could not undertake to lead an army against their country; envoys who met him on
the road asked him why he was marching with armed forces against his country.
His reply was: ‘To liberate her from her tyrants.’ . . .
258 Marius and Sulpicius went to meet them (Sulla and Pompeius Rufus, the
consuls) near the Esquiline forum with as many men as they had been able to
arm. 259 And here a battle took place between the enemies, the first in Rome no
longer under a factional banner but unambiguously under trumpets and standards
according to the rules of war; to such a degree of evil had the irresponsibility of
factionalism now progressed . . . 261 Sulla called for fresh troops from his camp
and sent others around by the Suburran road to outflank the enemy in the rear. 262
The Marians fought feebly against the new arrivals and, fearing that they might be
surrounded, summoned the other citizens who were still fighting from their houses
and proclaimed freedom to the slaves if they would share their dangers. 263 When
no one came forward they despaired and fled at once from the city, along with the
nobles who had co-operated with them. . . .

443
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
265 At dawn Sulla and Pompeius summoned the people to an assembly and
lamented over the government’s having so long been in the hands of demagogues,
stating that what they had done had been out of necessity. 266 They proposed that
nothing should be brought before the people which had not already been discussed
by the senate, as had been done in earlier times but long since abandoned, and that
voting should be not by tribes but by centuries, as King Tullius had laid down,
thinking that through these two measures, with no law being brought before the
people until it had gone to the senate and voting not being in the hands of the
poor and audacious but rather in those of the wealthy and prudent, no opportunity
would be given for sedition to arise. 267 They diminished the power of the trib-
unes in many other ways, as it had become extremely tyrannical, and enrolled all
at once 300 of the best citizens into the senate, which had been reduced to a very
small number and become despised for that reason. 268 All the measures enacted
by Sulpicius after the vacation from business had been proclaimed by the consuls
were cancelled as not legal.

SULLA AND MITHRIDATES

Sulla arrived in Greece in 87 BC with five legions. Mithridates’ general Archelaus had taken
most of central Greece. Sulla marched to Athens, which he besieged but mercifully spared
in 86 BC. He defeated Archelaus in two battles in Greece, at Chaeronea and Orchomenus.
In 84 he went to Asia Minor and, in order to return to Rome now that Cinna was dead (84
BC), made peace with Mithridates.

11.6 CIL I2 712: Dedication to Sulla, 87 BC

On the pedestal of a statue at Delos, dated to 87 BC. The collegia are presumably business
corporations, perhaps connected with the slave trade, of which Delos was an important
centre (cf. doc. 6.13) before it was sacked in 88 BC by one of Mithridates’ generals.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla, son of Lucius, proconsul. From the money which the col-
legia contributed by general subscription.

11.7 Livy Periochae 81–83: Sulla’s victories in Greece

Lucius Valerius Flaccus replaced Marius as consul upon the latter’s death in 86. He
was given Asia as his province and the command against Mithridates, but was killed
by his legate Gaius Flavius Fimbria in 85. Fimbria played a major role in dealing with
Mithridates, winning several battles and, finally, a great victory over four generals at the
River Rhyndacus. His success might have continued, but Sulla, hearing of Cinna’s murder
in 84, was eager for a peace.

81 Lucius Sulla besieged Athens (87 BC), which Archelaus, Mithridates’ com-
mander, had occupied, and captured it after great difficulty (86 BC), leaving the
town its liberty and property. Magnesia, the only city in Asia which had remained
loyal, was defended against Mithridates with the greatest courage . . . 82 (86 BC)

444
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
Sulla defeated in battle the king’s forces, which had seized Macedonia and
entered Thessaly, with 100,000 of the enemy killed and their camp captured as
well. When the war then recommenced, he again routed and destroyed the king’s
army. Archelaus surrendered himself and the royal fleet to Sulla. Lucius Valerius
Flaccus, the consul, Cinna’s colleague, was sent to replace Sulla, but, hated by his
army because of his greed, he was killed by his own legate Gaius Fimbria, a man
of the utmost daring, and his command transferred to Fimbria. The storming of
cities in Asia by Mithridates and the brutal plundering of the province . . . is also
narrated. 83 Flavius Fimbria routed in battle several of Mithridates’ commanders
and captured the city of Pergamum, all but capturing the king during the siege. He
stormed the city of Ilium, which was waiting to hand itself over to Sulla, destroyed
it, and recovered a large part of Asia . . . After crossing to Asia, Sulla made peace
with Mithridates on condition that he evacuate the following provinces – Asia,
Bithynia and Cappadocia. Fimbria was abandoned by his army, which crossed to
Sulla; he stabbed himself and offered his throat to his slave, telling him to kill him.

11.8 Plutarch Life of Sulla 22.8–25.5: Peace terms with Mithridates

After his successes against Archelaus in Greece, Sulla concluded the ‘Peace of Dardanus’
with Mithridates. He then attacked Fimbria, whom he clearly saw as a rival and an enemy,
arguing that Flaccus’ army, which Fimbria had taken over, was intended to be used against
him.

22.8 After this Archelaus (Mithridates’ general) knelt down and begged Sulla
to put an end to the war and to make peace with Mithridates. 9 Sulla granted his
request, and the terms were that Mithridates was to give up Asia and Paphlagonia,
restore Bithynia to Nicomedes and Cappadocia to Ariobarzanes, pay the Romans
2,000 talents, and give them 70 bronze-armoured ships together with their equip-
ment; 10 Sulla was to guarantee to Mithridates the rest of his empire and have him
voted an ally of Rome. (Mithridates tries to renege on the terms, but is concerned
about Fimbria, who after killing Flaccus marches against him) . . .
24.7 Sulla realised that his soldiers were aggrieved at the cessation of hostilities
(for they considered it dreadful that they should see this most hostile of kings, who
had had 150,000 Romans in Asia massacred on the same day, sailing away with the
wealth and spoils of Asia, which he had continuously plundered and taxed for four
years). He defended himself to them by saying that, if Fimbria and Mithridates
had joined forces, he could not possibly have fought them together. . . . 25.1 He
set out from there against Fimbria, who was encamped near Thyateira, and, after
making camp nearby, started encircling his camp with a ditch. 2 But Fimbria’s
soldiers came out from their camp unarmed, welcomed Sulla’s men, and willingly
helped them out with their work. 3 Fimbria saw them changing sides and, fearing
that Sulla would not be open to reconciliation, committed suicide in his camp. 4
Sulla now imposed on Asia as a whole a penalty of 20,000 talents, while he ruined
private families by the brutal behaviour and arrogance of the troops quartered on
them. 5 Orders were given that every host should give his lodger 4 tetradrachms a
day and should provide an evening meal for him and as many friends as he liked to

445
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
invite, while an officer should receive 50 drachmas a day and two suits of clothes,
one to wear at home and one to wear to the forum.

11.9 Appian Mithridatic Wars 61–63 (250–52, 259–61): Sulla punishes

the province
The misery of the Greek cities which had led most of them to welcome Mithridates now
returned with Sulla’s arrangements for the province.

250 After having settled Asia, Sulla granted freedom to the Ilians, Chians, Lycians,
Rhodians, Magnesians and some others, either rewarding them for their allegiance
or compensating for what they had suffered from their goodwill towards him, and
inscribed them as friends of the Romans, sending his army around to all the rest.
251 He also proclaimed that slaves, to whom Mithridates had given freedom,
were to return immediately to their masters. As many disobeyed, and some cities
revolted, there were numerous massacres of both free men and slaves on vari-
ous excuses, the walls of many towns were razed, they were plundered and their
inhabitants enslaved. . . . 252 After this a proclamation was circulated that the
high-ranking citizens from each city were to meet Sulla at Ephesus on a stated day.
When they had assembled, he addressed them from the platform as follows: . . .
259 ‘To spare even now the Greek race, name and reputation throughout Asia,
and for the sake of the good name which is so dear to the Romans, I will impose
on you only five years’ of taxes to be paid immediately, together with whatever the
war has cost me and anything else to be spent in restoring the province. 260 I will
assign these to each of you city by city and will lay down the deadline for payments,
and those who do not keep to this I will punish as enemies.’ After this speech, Sulla
divided up the fine between the envoys and sent men for the money. 261 The cities
were desperate and borrowed at high rates of interest, mortgaging to the lenders
their theatres, gymnasia, walls, harbours and every piece of public property under
pressure from the soldiers, who urged them on with insults. In this way the money
was collected and brought to Sulla, and Asia had nothing but misery.

11.10 Plutarch Life of Lucullus 4.1, 20.1–6: The taxation of Asia

In 84 BC, as proquaestor, Lucullus was responsible for carrying out Sulla’s measures. As
consul in 74 he acquired the command against Mithridates and, once in Asia, attempted
to ameliorate Sulla’s impositions. Plutarch (Luc. 23.1) records that the cities celebrated
festivals called Lucullea to honour him. However, his organisation of Asia provoked
hostility from those at Rome who had lost financially in the process, and he was eventually
superseded by Pompey (docs 12.10–11).

4.1 After peace had been made, Mithridates sailed away into the Black Sea, and
Sulla fined Asia 20,000 talents, commissioning Lucullus to collect this money
and coin it, and it seemed to the cities to be some abatement of Sulla’s harshness
when Lucullus showed himself not only honest and just but even mild in his per-
formance of so heavy and disagreeable a duty . . .

446
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
20.1 Lucullus now turned his attention to the cities in Asia, in order that, while
he was at leisure from warfare, he might contribute in some way to justice and law,
from a long lack of which unspeakable and incredible misfortunes gripped the prov-
ince, which was ravaged and enslaved by the tax-gatherers and moneylenders, with
families forced to sell their handsome sons and virgin daughters, and cities their
votive offerings, pictures and sacred statues. 2 At last men had to surrender to their
creditors and become their slaves, but what preceded this was far worse – tortures
of rope, barriers and horses, of standing under the open sky in the heat of summer,
and in winter being thrust into mud or ice – so that slavery seemed in contrast to be
a removal of burdens and peace. 3 Such were the evils which Lucullus found in the
cities, and in a short time he freed the oppressed from them all.
First he ordered that the rate of interest (per month) should be reckoned at 1
per cent and no more; second, he cut off any interest that exceeded the principal;
third, and most important of all, he laid down that the lender should receive no
more than the fourth part of his debtor’s income, and any lender who added inter-
est to principal lost the lot. As a result, in less than four years all debts were paid
off and the properties restored to their owners free of encumbrances. 4 This public
debt arose from the 20,000 talents which Sulla had fined Asia; twice the amount
had been paid back to the moneylenders, by whose reckoning of the interest the
debt amounted to 120,000 talents. 5 These men consequently made an outcry
against Lucullus at Rome as to the terrible hardships they had suffered and bribed
some of the tribunes to work against him, as they were men of great influence
who had many politicians under obligations to them. 6 Lucullus, however, was
not only beloved by the peoples whom he had well treated, but other provinces
also longed to have him, and congratulated those who were lucky enough to have
such a governor.

11.11 CIL I2 714: Lucullus in Asia

This inscription on two fragments of a statue pedestal was found at Delos, presumably
dedicated by grateful businessmen.

Lucius Licinius Lucullus, son of Lucius, proquaestor. Set up by the Athenian

people, men from Italy, and Greek businessmen on the island.

EVENTS IN ROME
11.12 Livy Periochae 83–84: Waiting for Sulla, 85–84 BC
There was clearly a party in the senate that favoured an accommodation with Sulla; their
spokesman was L. Valerius Flaccus, princeps senatus since 86 BC. He was later to be
instrumental in the appointment of Sulla as dictator and was made his master of horse
(magister equitum). Cn. Papirius Carbo (cos. 85, 84) had less authority in the senate and less
overall power than the more ruthless Cinna, but, along with the consuls for 83, L. Cornelius
Scipio Asiaticus and Gaius Norbanus, he rallied opposition to Sulla. The provision that all
armies be disbanded was aimed against Sulla, whose power resided solely with his troops.
However, many joined Sulla on his return because he represented the optimates, while

447
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
the Marians were connected with the populares and the tribunician violence of Sulpicius.
Pompey, Crassus, Q. Metellus Pius and, perhaps, Cicero were among those that joined
Sulla.
The right to vote granted to new citizens referred to here (84) may mean that enfran-
chisement of the Italians was finally put into place, or that the new citizens were finally
distributed throughout all 35 tribes.

83 When Lucius Cinna and Gnaeus Papirius Carbo, who had made themselves con-
suls for a two-year period, were preparing for war against Sulla, it was brought
about by Lucius Valerius Flaccus, the princeps senatus, who made a speech in the
senate, and by the others who were desirous of concord, that envoys be sent to Sulla
to discuss peace. Cinna was killed (84 BC) by his own army when he was trying to
force it to embark to fight Sulla against its will. Carbo remained as sole consul . . .
84 Sulla replied to the envoys who had been sent by the senate that he would
place himself in the power of the senate if the citizens, who had taken refuge with
him after being driven out by Cinna, were reinstated. Although this condition
seemed just to the senate, Carbo and his party prevented it from taking effect, as
they thought war would be of more service to them. The same Carbo wished to
demand hostages from all the towns and colonies in Italy, to compel their loyalty
against Sulla, but this was prevented by a unanimous decision of the senate. By
decree of the senate, the right to vote was granted to new citizens. Quintus Metellus
Pius, who had taken the side of the optimates, started stirring up war in Africa but
was beaten by the praetor Gaius Fabius (84 BC), and a decree of the senate that all
armies everywhere should be disbanded was passed owing to the party of Carbo and
the Marians. Freedmen were distributed through the 35 tribes. It also contains the
preparations for the war which was being aroused against Sulla.

11.13 Appian Civil Wars 1.76–77, 79 (347–48, 350–51, 363): Sulla

invades Italy, 83 BC
Sulla’s decision to march on Italy was determined partly by the murder of Cinna by his
troops in 84; Cinna had dominated Roman politics since 87. In his letter to the senate,
Sulla stressed his military achievements. The exiles who returned with him to Italy were
displayed to great effect in his triumph, calling upon him as ‘saviour’ and ‘father’: Plut.
Sull. 34.1–2.

347 Sulla now hurried on his return to deal with his enemies, having quickly put an
end to the war with Mithridates, as I related earlier. In less than three years he had
killed 160,000 men, recovered Greece, Macedonia, Ionia, Asia and many other
nations for the Romans that Mithridates had seized, taken the king’s fleet away
from him, and, from such a great area, restricted him just to his ancestral kingdom.
He returned with an army which was well disposed to him, well trained, immense,
and inspired by his successes. 348 He commanded a vast number of ships, money
and equipment suited to all contingencies, and was an object of fear to his ene-
mies: indeed, Carbo and Cinna were so afraid of him that they sent throughout
Italy to gather money, troops and supplies . . . 350 Sulla wrote spiritedly to the

448
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
senate, relating what he had achieved in Libya against Jugurtha the Numidian
while still a quaestor, and against the Cimbri as a legate, and as praetor in Cilicia,
and as consul, boasting of his recent achievements against Mithridates and listing
for them the many nations whom he had recovered en masse from Mithridates
for the Romans. He particularly stressed that those who had been banished from
Rome by Cinna had fled to him and that he had received them in their desperate
condition and assisted them in their misfortunes. 351 In return for this, he said, his
enemies had declared him a public enemy and razed his house and killed off his
friends, and his wife and children had with difficulty escaped to him . . .
363 Bringing with him five legions of troops from Italy and 6,000 cavalry, together
with other troops from the Peloponnese and Macedon, altogether some 40,000 men,
Sulla sailed from the Piraeus to Patrae and from Patrae on to Brundisium in 1,600
ships. The Brundisians received him without a fight, in return for which he later
gave them exemption from taxation, which the town still enjoys.

SULLA’S SUPPORTERS
11.14 Livy Periochae 85: Sulla’s return welcomed
Clearly Sulla with his five legions was in a superior military position to the ‘Marians’
(a convenient term for the supporters of Marius, Cinna and then Carbo and the younger
Marius). From Brundisium Sulla marched to Campania, where he defeated the consuls of
83; in 82 Carbo and the younger Marius recruited in Etruria and Cisalpine Gaul.

Sulla crossed to Italy with his army and sent envoys to discuss peace terms. When
these were treated with violence by the consul Gaius Norbanus, he conquered
this same Norbanus in battle. And when he was about to assault the camp of the
other consul, Lucius Scipio, with whom he had done everything possible to come
to terms, but unsuccessfully, the consul’s entire army, invited by soldiers sent
by Sulla, carried their standards over to Sulla. Although Scipio might have been
killed, he was released. Gnaeus Pompey (the Great: cos. 70, 55, 52), son of that
Gnaeus Pompeius (Strabo: cos. 89) who had taken Asculum, enlisted an army of
volunteers and came with three legions to Sulla, to whom all the nobles were mak-
ing their way, and as a result of this migration to his camp Rome was deserted.

11.15 Appian Civil Wars 1.80 (365–68): The young Pompey

Pompey recruited three entire legions as a private citizen. His father fought against Cinna
and Marius, though he was negotiating with Cinna when his own death intervened.
Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (praetor in 89), who had defeated Poppaedius in the Social
War, had gone to Africa but joined Sulla on his return to Italy. He was rewarded with a
consulship for 80 and the position of pontifex maximus. Crassus joined Sulla with an army
of 2,500 raised in Spain, where he had been in hiding from the Marians.

365 Caecilius Metellus Pius met him . . . and spontaneously offered himself as
an ally along with the force he had with him, being still a proconsul – for those
who have been selected for this rank retain it until they return to Rome. 366 After

449
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
Metellus came Gnaeus Pompey, who not long after was called Magnus (‘the Great’),
the son of that Pompeius (Strabo) who had been killed by lightning and who was
not considered to have been a friend of Sulla’s, but the son removed this suspicion,
arriving with a legion which he had collected in Picenum on the basis of his father’s
reputation, which was still high there. 367 Shortly afterwards he raised two more
legions and became the most useful of all Sulla’s lieutenants; consequently, though
he was still very young, Sulla treated him with honour, and he was the only man,
they say, that Sulla rose to greet when he approached. 368 When the war was nearly
over Sulla sent him to Libya to drive out Carbo’s supporters and replace Hiempsal
on his throne, as he had been overthrown by the Numidians.

11.16 Livy Periochae 86–88: The Marian last stand, 82 BC

In 82, Sulla and the younger Marius fought at Sacriportus, near Praeneste, to which the
latter retreated after a heavy defeat (doc. 9.34). In a series of battles in 82, Metellus, Pompey
and Crassus, along with Sulla, crushed Carbo and Norbanus. The final battle occurred on
1 November 82 BC at the Colline gate, outside Rome, where Sulla and Crassus clashed
with the Marian allies, the Samnites and the Lucanians (doc. 10.27); the Samnites and
Lucanians not killed in battle were later massacred. The younger Marius at Praeneste killed
himself, and the siege of that city by Q. Lucretius Afella ended with a massacre of the
inhabitants. The Marians were pursued into Sicily and Africa by Pompey.

86 Gaius Marius, son of Gaius Marius, though not yet 20 years old, was made
consul unconstitutionally . . . Sulla made terms with the peoples of Italy to pre-
vent them being afraid of him as a threat to their citizenship and recently granted
right to vote . . . The praetor Lucius Damasippus, on the decision of Gaius Marius
the consul, assembled the senate and slaughtered all the nobles in Rome. Among
their number was Quintus Mucius Scaevola, the pontifex maximus, who was
killed as he fled in the forecourt of the temple of Vesta . . .
87 Sulla besieged Gaius Marius, whose army he had routed and destroyed at
Sacriportus, in the town of Praeneste, and recovered Rome from the hands of
his enemies. When Marius tried to break out, Sulla drove him back . . . 88 Sulla
slaughtered Carbo’s army at Clusium, Faventia and Fidentia and drove him out
of Italy; he fought it out with the Samnites, who alone of the Italian peoples had
not yet put down their arms, near the city of Rome in front of the Colline gate . . .

11.17 Plutarch Life of Pompey 13.1–9: Pompey wants his quid pro quo
In 82 the young Pompey was given a senatorial grant of extraordinary propraetorian imperium
and six legions by Sulla and sent first to Sicily and then in 81 to Africa, where he defeated and
killed Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (Cinna’s son-in-law). Sulla then requested that Pompey
dismiss five of his six legions and return to Rome as a private citizen, but Pompey declined;
with his legions camped outside Rome, he gained a triumph from Sulla and an unwilling
senate (cf. doc. 11.18). Sulla called him Magnus (‘the Great’), perhaps ironically.

1 When he returned to Utica (81 BC), Pompey received letters from Sulla order-
ing him to discharge all the rest of his troops and remain there with one legion to

450
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
await his successor. 2 At this Pompey was aggrieved and upset, but hid his feel-
ings, while his army was openly indignant, and, when he requested them to return
to Italy before him, they shouted out against Sulla and declared that they would
never desert him and refused to allow him to trust the tyrant. 3 Pompey first tried
to calm the men down and comfort them, but, as he was unable to convince them,
he came down from the platform and went away to his tent in tears, while they
seized him and set him on the platform again; 4 this took up a great part of the
day, with the soldiers telling him to remain and stay in command, and Pompey
asking them to obey orders and not mutiny, until, after they continued to harangue
him and shout, he swore that he would kill himself if they forced him, and in this
way, with reluctance, they put a stop to it. 5 The first report that Sulla had was that
Pompey had revolted . . . 6 but when he learnt the truth of the matter and saw eve-
ryone rushing out to welcome Pompey and show their goodwill by escorting him
to Rome, he sought to go one better: 7 he went out to meet him and, after greeting
him in the warmest manner possible, addressed him in a loud voice as ‘Magnus’
and told everybody else there to do the same; ‘Magnus’ means great. 8 Others
say that Pompey was first given this title by the whole army in Africa, but that it
gained strength and force when Sulla confirmed it. 9 Pompey himself was the last
person to use it, and only a long time afterwards, when he was sent to Spain as a
proconsul against Sertorius (77 BC), did he begin to sign himself in his letters and
decrees as ‘Pompeius Magnus’; for it was no longer likely to cause jealousy and
had become a matter of course.

11.18 Licinianus 31: The young Pompey’s triumph, 81 BC

Pompey had not been a praetor or a consul and so could not technically hold a triumph;
Sulla gave ground, not simply because of Pompey’s assistance, but also because a marriage
alliance was arranged between them, with Pompey divorcing his wife to marry Sulla’s
stepdaughter Aemilia, already married and pregnant (leading to the sorry saga related at
Plut. Pomp. 9). So Pompey, at the age of 24 (Livy Per. 89), still an eques, celebrated a
triumph on 12 March 81 for his successes in Africa.

At the age of 25, while still a Roman eques, which was totally unprecedented,
Pompey as propraetor celebrated a triumph from Africa, on 12 March. On this
day, it is said, the Roman people saw elephants in his triumph. But when he
entered the city the triumphal gate was smaller than the four elephants yoked to
his chariot, although he made the attempt twice.

SULLA’S PROSCRIPTIONS
Widespread proscriptions followed Sulla’s gaining control of Rome: those whose names
were on the proscription lists could be put to death, with no judicial procedure involved
(doc. 11.20). The victims were senators and equites who had supported the Marians and
opposed Sulla. Their property was confiscated, leading to numerous abuses, in which
Sulla’s associates added names to the lists of the proscribed in order to gain their property.
The sons and grandsons of the proscribed could not hold political office until Caesar as
dictator allowed this (docs 11.22, 13.56).

451
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
11.19 Livy Periochae 88: Sulla’s brutality
Marius’ ashes were disinterred and scattered into the Anio River (Pliny Nat. Hist. 7.187).
Marcus Marius Gratidianus, twice praetor, son of a sister of Marius, was killed by Catiline,
his brother-in-law, at the tomb of Quintus Lutatius Catulus, whom Gratidianus had
prosecuted, leading Catulus to commit suicide. The Villa Publica was the rendezvous for
military recruits in the Campus Martius. The survivors from the battle of the Colline gate
were gathered there; Plut. Sull. 30.3–4, 32.1 has 6,000 plus 12,000 Praenestians killed.

With the state restored, Sulla polluted a most glorious victory by cruelty such as
no man had ever shown before. He slaughtered 8,000 men, who had surrendered,
in the Villa Publica; he set up a proscription list and filled the city and all Italy
with slaughter, and among these killings ordered all the people of Praeneste, who
were unarmed, to be cut down and had Marius (Marcus Marius Gratidianus), a
man of senatorial rank, killed after having his legs and arms broken, his ears cut
off and his eyes gouged out.

11.20 Appian Civil Wars 1.95–96 (440–48): Sulla’s ‘iron fist’

Carbo (cos. 82) was executed, Norbanus (cos. 83) committed suicide, and their supporters,
both in Rome and in the Italian communities, were all punished with death. 442: The
estimates of the proscribed vary. Appian gives ‘some 40 senators and 1,600 equites’, with
the names of further senators added to these; Plutarch (doc. 11.21) has 80 individuals
proscribed, with two further lists of 220 names; Orosius (doc. 11.23) puts the figure as high
as 9,000. 448: Sulla’s violence was also visited on the Italians, and land confiscated from
them was awarded to his veterans.

440 Pompey was sent to Libya against Carbo and to Sicily against Carbo’s friends
there; 441 Sulla himself summoned the Romans to an assembly and made a speech
boasting about his achievements and making a number of menacing statements
to inspire terror, ending up by saying that he would bring about some changes
beneficial to the people if they would obey him, but that he would spare none
of his enemies, and that he would deal with them with the utmost severity and
take vengeance with all his might on praetors, quaestors, military tribunes and
anybody else who had co-operated with his enemies, after the day on which the
consul Scipio did not adhere to the agreements made with him. 442 After saying
this, he immediately published a proscription list of some 40 senators and 1,600
equites. He was apparently the first man to draw up a list of those whom he pun-
ished with death, to offer prizes to killers and rewards to informers, and to lay
down punishments for those who hid the proscribed. 443 Not long afterwards he
added the names of other senators to these. Some of these were captured unawares
and killed where they were caught, in their houses, the streets, or shrines; some
were borne through mid-air to Sulla and thrown at his feet; others were dragged
and trampled on, with all the observers so terrified that they were unable to utter a
word against these injustices. 444 Exile was the fate of some and confiscation of
their possessions that of others. Investigators searched everywhere for those who
had escaped from the city, and whomever they caught they killed.

452
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
445 There was also much slaughter, banishment and confiscation among the
Italians who had obeyed Carbo or Norbanus or Marius or any of their subordi-
nates. 446 There were vicious judgements against them throughout all Italy and
various charges – of taking command, of army service, of contributing money
or other services, even of giving counsel against Sulla. Hospitality, friendship,
lending money – for both borrower and lender – were all crimes, and one might
be arrested for willingness to help someone or even for being his companion on a
journey. These accusations targeted particularly the rich. 447 When accusations
against an individual failed, Sulla took vengeance on cities and punished these
instead, destroying citadels, razing walls, imposing general fines, or crushing the
people with severe taxes; 448 and among most of them he settled his ex-troops to
hold Italy by means of garrisons, while he took away their land and houses and
shared them among his men, by which he made the latter well disposed to him
even after he was dead; as these could not possess their holdings securely unless
Sulla’s measures were secure, they fought on his behalf even after he had died.

11.21 Plutarch Life of Sulla 31.1–9: The proscription lists

The proscription lists had been preceded by butchery on a scale unprecedented at Rome,
even during Marius’ bloody return. Those who aided the proscribed also risked death.

1 Sulla now devoted himself to butchery, and the city was filled with murders without
number or limit. Many people with whom Sulla had no concerns were killed out of
private enmity, which Sulla permitted as a favour to his supporters, 2 until one of the
young men, Gaius (Caecilius) Metellus, ventured in the senate to ask Sulla what end
there would be to these evils . . . 3 Sulla replied that he did not know yet whom he
would spare, and Metellus answered, ‘Then tell us whom you intend to punish.’ Sulla
said that he would do this. 4 Some say this last speech was made not by Metellus but
by one of Sulla’s associates called Fufidius. 5 Sulla at once published a list condemn-
ing 80 men, without consulting any of the magistrates; everybody was indignant, but
the next day but one he proscribed another 220, and on the third day again no fewer.
6 He made a speech to the people on the subject and told them that he had proscribed
as many men as he could remember, but that he would proscribe later any who had
now slipped his mind . . . 8 What seemed most unjust of all, Sulla deprived the sons
and grandsons of the proscribed of their civil rights and confiscated all their property.
9 The lists were published not only in Rome but in every city of Italy.

11.22 Velleius Paterculus Compendium of Roman History 2.28.4: The

‘sins of the fathers’
Nor was his ferocity directed only towards those who had borne arms against him
but towards many of the innocent. Furthermore, the goods of the proscribed were
sold, and their children were not only deprived of their fathers’ property but also
prohibited from the right of standing for magistracies, and, at one and the same
time, the greatest injustice of all, the sons of senators had both to bear the burdens
of their rank and lose its privileges.

453
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
11.23 Orosius History 5.21.1–5: ‘Butchery was unrestrained’
1 Shortly after Sulla had entered Rome as conqueror, he violated religion and
good faith by killing 3,000 unarmed and unsuspecting men who had surrendered
through intermediaries. After this, an immense number of people were also killed –
I will not say of innocent men, but even some of Sulla’s own supporters – who
are reported to have numbered more than 9,000. Murders took place unrestrained
throughout the city, with assassins roaming far and wide motivated by anger or
plunder. 2 With everyone openly murmuring what each individually feared for
himself, Q. Catulus at last asked Sulla openly, ‘Whom are we going to live with
if we kill armed men in war and unarmed men in peace?’ 3 Sulla then, at the
suggestion of the first centurion L. Fursidius, was the first to bring in his infa-
mous proscription list. The first proscription was of 80 people, who included four
ex-consuls, Carbo, Marius, Norbanus and Scipio, and with them Sertorius, the
greatest cause of fear at that time. 4 A second was then brought out with 500 names –
Lollius was reading this, quite unconcerned and aware of no wrongdoing, when he
suddenly came upon his own name, and while he was making in agitation for the
forum, his head covered, he was murdered. 5 But confidence and an end to wick-
edness was not provided even by these lists, for some were murdered after being
proscribed, while others were proscribed after they had been murdered.

11.24 Plutarch Life of Cicero 3.4–6: Making a quick profit

Many enriched themselves through the proscriptions. Crassus in particular benefited from
acquiring at low prices the property of the proscribed (Plut. Crass. 6.8). Sextius Roscius of
Ameria in southern Umbria was murdered, and, in order to acquire the property cheaply,
two of his relatives in conjunction with Chrysogonus had his name included among the
proscribed. Cicero defended the son, Sextus Roscius (pro Sexto Roscio Amerino); cf. doc.
2.56.

4 At this time Chrysogonus, Sulla’s freedman, put up for auction the estate of a
man who, so it was said, had been on one of Sulla’s proscription lists and been
killed. Chrysogonus bought it himself for 2,000 drachmas. 5 At this Roscius,
the son and heir of the deceased, was indignant and made it known that the real
value of the estate was 250 talents. Sulla was furious at being found out and, after
Chrysogonus fabricated a case, charged Roscius with parricide. No lawyer could
be found to defend him, but everyone kept clear, fearing Sulla’s severity . . . 6
Cicero undertook the defence of Roscius and succeeded to everyone’s admiration,
but as he was afraid of Sulla he went overseas to Greece (79–77 BC), after spread-
ing the word that it was for the sake of his health.

11.25 Cicero In Defence of Sextus Roscius 21: Cicero defies Sulla’s

freedman
Although the proscription was no longer mentioned, and even those who were
previously afraid returned, believing that they were now out of danger, the name

454
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
of Sextus Roscius (the father), a very great supporter of the nobility, was entered
on the proscription lists; the purchaser was Chrysogonus; three estates, perhaps
the most notable, were given to Capito (Titus Roscius Capito) as his own prop-
erty, which he still possesses to this day; as for the rest of the property, this Titus
Roscius, as he says himself, seized it in Chrysogonus’ name. This property, worth
6,000,000 sesterces, was purchased for 2,000 sesterces. All this, I am sure, jurors,
was done without Sulla’s knowledge.

DICTATORSHIP AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORMS

When Sulla entered Rome in 82 his imperium technically lapsed (from the point of view of
his opponents it had lapsed when he was declared a hostis by Cinna). The senate proceeded
to confirm all his acts as consul (88 BC) and proconsul (87–82 BC) and voted him an
equestrian statue to be erected before the rostra. This was the first occasion such an honour
had been voted. As both the consuls for 82 had been proscribed and were dead (Carbo and
the younger Marius at his own hand), Sulla ordered the senate to appoint an interrex, and it
chose the princeps senatus, L. Valerius Flaccus (cos. 100). Flaccus introduced the lex Valeria
to the comitia, which elected Sulla dictator ‘to make laws and reform the constitution’.
Sulla now had supreme authority unchecked by any veto and with no fixed term (doc.
11.26); although there was an election, Plutarch was correct to write that Sulla ‘appointed
himself dictator’ (doc. 11.27). He had Flaccus appointed his master of horse (magister
equitum). As dictator he carried out various reforms (docs 11.27–29, 31), extended the
pomerium of Rome, and carried out a modest building programme in Rome and Italy.

11.26 Appian Civil Wars 1.98–99 (456–62): Unlimited dictatorship

459: It was actually 120 years since the last dictatorship. 462: Appian states that the
dictatorship of Sulla was ‘unlimited’ compared to the previous short dictatorships of fixed
periods, but Appian (459) also indicates, as did events, that Sulla (unlike Julius Caesar) did
not seek a lifelong dictatorship.

456 Sulla became de facto king, or tyrant, not through election but by power
and force, but, as he needed the pretence of being elected, he contrived this as
follows . . . 457 If by some chance there should not be a consul, an interrex was
appointed to hold a consular election. 458 Sulla made use of this custom. As
there were no consuls, since Carbo had died in Sicily and Marius (the Younger)
at Praeneste, he went out of the city and ordered the senate to choose an interrex.
459 They selected Valerius Flaccus, expecting that he would soon hold a consu-
lar election; but Sulla wrote to Flaccus instructing him to present his view to the
people that Sulla considered it expedient that, for the present, there be in the city
the position which they call the dictatorship, a custom which had ceased for 400
years; he ordered them that their appointee should not rule for a fixed period but
until he should have stabilised the city and Italy and the whole government, which
had been shaken by seditions and wars. 460 That his intention in this proposal
referred to Sulla himself was not at all doubtful; and Sulla did not hide it, reveal-
ing at the end of his letter that, in his own opinion, he could be particularly useful
to the city in that role.

455
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
461 This was Sulla’s message, and, while the Romans were unwilling, they
were no longer electing people according to law and considered that this action
was no longer within their power, so in the general confusion they welcomed the
charade of an election as a show and pretence of freedom, and they elected Sulla
to be their tyrant and master for as long as he chose. 462 In earlier days the rule
of dictators had been autocratic but limited to a short period of time; now for the
first time it became unlimited and so a complete tyranny. However, they added
for the sake of appearances the condition that they appointed him dictator to enact
whatever laws he might think fit and to restore the constitution.

11.27 Plutarch Life of Sulla 33.1–2: Sulla’s powers

1 He appointed himself dictator, reviving this type of magistracy after 120 years. 2
He was voted immunity for all his past actions and, for the future, the power of life
and death, confiscation, founding colonies or cities, sacking cities, and the making
and deposing of kings as he chose.

11.28 Livy Periochae 89: Sulla’s ‘reforms’

Fasces: It was customary for dictators to have 24 fasces carried by 24 attendants (lictors)
before them. Tribunes: see docs 11.30, 32. Senate: Sulla first brought the senate up to its
traditional number of 300 members by enrolling those with distinguished military service.
To increase the size of the senate further – to 600 members – he drew upon the equites, who
could provide men of sufficient wealth to join this body. Priesthoods: Sulla increased the
numbers of priests, augurs and officials in charge of the Sibylline Books to 15.

Sulla was made dictator and appeared in public with 24 fasces, which had never
happened before. He strengthened the constitution of the state by new laws, weak-
ened the power of the tribunes of the plebs, and took from them all power of intro-
ducing legislation. He added to the colleges of pontiffs and augurs so there were
15 members in each college; he recruited the senate from the equestrian order;
he took away from the sons of the proscribed the right to stand for magistracies,
and he sold off their goods, of which he seized the largest part for himself. The
proceeds were 350,000,000 sesterces.

11.29 Velleius Paterculus Compendium of Roman History 2.32.3: The

law-courts
With the senate increased to 600 members, the juries could be transferred to that body and
adequately manned by it; Gaius Gracchus had given the equites sole control of the courts,
but in the most recent law concerning the juries, the lex Plautia iudiciaria of 89, all classes
of citizens were eligible. Sulla now granted the senate a monopoly of jury membership. In
addition, Sulla reorganised the law-courts (quaestiones); there were to be seven quaestiones:
murder and poisoning, extortion, peculation, assault, treason, electoral bribery and forgery.

The right of acting as jurors, which Gaius Gracchus had taken from the senate and
given to the equites, Sulla gave back to the senate.

456
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
11.30 Appian Civil Wars 1.100 (465–70): Power returned to the senate
465: The election of consuls for 81 BC was part of Sulla’s overall plan to restore the
constitution and establish normality. 466: This refers to the cursus honorum, a strict
progression of office, from quaestor to praetor to consul, which had held since the lex Villia
Annalis of 180 BC and which was now reinforced by Sulla. Age criteria were also put in
place (e.g., 42 years for the consulship). Sulla himself had been consul in 88 and was to be
elected again for 80, laying down the dictatorship in 81. He therefore broke the provisions
of his own law requiring a ten-year lapse before holding the same office for a second time.
467: For the tribunate, see also docs 11.29, 11.32. The tribunate lost its legislative char-
acter, and the tribunician power of veto was taken away or severely restricted. 469: The
enfranchisement of the ‘youngest and the strongest’ of the slaves perhaps points to the
intended use of these freedmen as intimidators in the voting process and as voters. They
and the 12,000 Sullan veterans who had received land and money were formidable sup-
port for Sulla. 470 (cf. 448: doc. 11.20) According to Appian, Sulla distributed land to 23
legions in order to provide him with support throughout Italy.

465 However, in a pretence of maintaining the country’s constitution, he allowed

them to appoint consuls, and Marcus Tullius (Decula) and (Gnaeus) Cornelius
Dolabella were elected (for 81 BC); but, like a king, Sulla was dictator over the
consuls; for 24 axes were carried in front of him, the same number carried before
the kings of olden days, and he also had a large bodyguard. 466 He repealed laws
and added others; and he forbade anyone to become praetor before he had been
quaestor, and to be consul before he had been praetor, and he prohibited anyone
from holding the same office for a second time until ten years had passed. 467 He
reduced the power of the tribunes to such an extent that it seemed to be insignificant
and passed a law preventing a tribune from going on to hold any other office – for
which reason all those of reputation or family who used to seek the office avoided it
for the future . . . 468 To the senate itself, which had been greatly reduced in num-
ber by the seditions and wars, he added about 300 of the best equites, allowing the
tribes to vote on each of them. 469 He freed more than 10,000 slaves of proscribed
persons, choosing the youngest and the strongest, made them Roman citizens, and
added them to the people, calling them Cornelii after himself, thus ensuring that he
could make use of 10,000 of the plebeians who were ready to carry out his orders.
470 With the intention of doing the same throughout Italy, he distributed to the 23
legions who had served under him a large amount of land in the different commu-
nities, as I have already related, some of which was still unallocated, and some of
which he took away from the communities as a penalty.

11.31 ILS 881: Dedication by freedmen

This dedication dates to 82–79 BC and is inscribed on a pedestal, presumably surmounted
with a statue of Sulla. Seven Latin inscriptions survive for Sulla from Italy, probably part
of statue bases honouring him.

To Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, dictator, son of Lucius, from his freedmen
(leiberteini).

457
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
11.32 Cicero On the Laws 3.20–22: Sulla and the tribunate
Cicero’s brother Quintus is speaking here (Marcus follows with a more balanced view).
The repeal of Sulla’s laws concerning the tribunate began in 75 and was completed by
Pompey as consul in 70 (docs 12.4–5). Cicero here refers to the tribunes’ continued right
of protecting plebeians and their property, the ius auxilii. For Clodius, see docs 12.54–56.

20 Indeed, was it not the overthrow of Gaius Gracchus and the daggers, which he
himself said had been cast into the forum so that citizens could use them to stab
each other, that totally altered the stability of the state? Why should I go on to
mention Saturninus, Sulpicius and the rest, whom the state was unable to remove
without a sword? . . . 22 And what ruin and destruction did he (Clodius) bring
about, ruin such as could have been brought about only by the frenzy of a foul
beast without reason or hope inflamed by the frenzy of a mob! Consequently, I
greatly approve of Sulla’s laws on this subject, which removed from the tribunes
of the plebs the power of doing wrong through their legislation but left them their
right of assistance (ius auxilii). And as for our friend Pompey, though in all other
matters I always praise him in the highest possible terms, I am silent about the
power of the tribunes; for I should not criticise him and am unable to praise him.

LEGISLATION
From Appian it is clear that Sulla had a comprehensive legislative programme (doc. 11.30).
The increase in the number of senators, the diminution in the powers of the tribunes, the
transfer of the courts to the senate, and the enforcement of the lex Villia Annalis clearly
strengthened the position of the senate while weakening the popularist element. In addition,
Sulla abolished the position of princeps senatus, presumably so that no individual senator
had undue influence.

11.33 Crawford Statutes 14: The quaestors

Sulla increased the number of quaestors to 20, with the quaestorship giving direct entry
into the senate. This is a fragment of Sulla’s quaestorship law of 81 BC on a bronze tablet
which was to be set up on a wall by the temple of Saturn, the storehouse of state records.
This fragment makes arrangements for the appointment and employment of extra viatores
(messengers, or official summoners) and praecones (heralds) to assist the elected quaestors.
These viatores and praecones held their posts for annual terms.

Lucius Cornelius, son of Lucius, dictator . . . duly proposed to the people, and the
people duly resolved in the forum . . . on the day of . . . tribe voted first; for his
tribe the first to vote was . . .
Eighth tabula of the law: Concerning the Twenty Quaestors. . . .
7 The consuls now in office shall, before the first day of next December, select
from those who are Roman citizens one viator (messenger) who shall attend as
messenger in that group which is or will be 10 required to attend on the quaestors
at the treasury on and after the fifth day of next December. And the same consuls
shall, before the first day of next December, select from those who are Roman

458
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
citizens one praeco (crier) who shall attend as crier in that group which is or will
be required to attend on the quaestors at the treasury on and after the fifth day of
next December. . . .
32 And they shall select all those messengers and criers whom they shall con-
sider to be worthy of that rank. For whichever group each messenger shall have
been selected in this way, 35 he is to be a messenger in that group just as others
in that group are to be messengers. And for whichever group each crier shall have
been selected in this way, he is to be a crier in that group just as others in that
group are to be criers. And law and statute in all matters are to apply to those mes-
sengers and to a quaestor concerning those messengers, 40 just as if those mes-
sengers had been formerly selected for or substituted as one of three messengers
for that group, for which group any of them shall have been selected as messenger
under this law. And law and statute in all matters are to apply to those criers and
to a quaestor concerning those criers, just as if those criers 45 had been formerly
selected for or substituted as one of three criers for that group, for which group
any of them shall have been selected as crier under this law.
Whichever of the quaestors shall be obliged by law or plebiscite to select or
substitute messengers, those quaestors 50 shall select or substitute four messen-
gers according to the law and statute by which those now in office have selected
or substituted three messengers; and whichever of the quaestors shall be obliged
by law or plebiscite to select or substitute criers, those quaestors shall select or
substitute four criers according to the law and statute 55 by which those now in
office have selected or substituted three criers . . .

11.34 Crawford Statutes 50: Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficiis

One of Sulla’s seven law-courts was that for ‘murder and poisoning’. This law remained in
force as the statute for murder (except for parricide) into the principate.

1 The praetor or judge of the investigation, to whom the investigation concerning

murderers shall have fallen by lot, in respect of what has or shall have occurred
in the city of Rome or within one mile, with those jurors who shall have fallen by
lot to him according to this statute, is to make investigation concerning the capital
crime of that person who has been or shall have been armed with a weapon for the
purpose of killing a man or perpetrating a theft, or has or shall have killed a man,
or by whose malice aforethought that has been or shall have been done.
5 The praetor or judge of the investigation . . . with those jurors who shall have
fallen to him by lot according to this statute is to make investigation concerning
the capital crime of that person who, for the purpose of killing a man, has or shall
have prepared or has or shall have sold or has or shall have bought or has or shall
have had or has or shall have administered a poisonous drug.
6 The praetor or judge of the investigation . . . is to make investigation con-
cerning the capital crime of the person who has or shall have been military tribune
in the first four legions . . . , quaestor, tribune of the plebs . . . , or has or shall have
given his opinion in the senate, whoever of them has or shall have conspired, or

459
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
has or shall have combined, or has or shall have plotted, . . . or has or shall have
given false witness with malice aforethought, . . . in order that someone might be
condemned on a capital charge in a public court.

11.35 RDGE 18, lines 1–22, 49–131: Autonomy for Stratonicea, 81 BC

This is a decree of the senate, proposed by Sulla as dictator, renewing an earlier grant
of autonomy to the city of Stratonicea, recognising the arrangements Sulla had made
concerning the city when he was in the East; it had supported the Romans in the Mithridatic
War. The people of Stratonicea had asked permission to dedicate to the senate a golden
crown worth 200 talents.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix (Epaphroditus), son of Lucius, dictator, to the mag-
istrates, council and people of Stratonicea, greetings; we are aware that you,
through your ancestors, have always done your duty towards our empire and that
on every occasion you have sincerely preserved your loyalty to us; and that in the
war against Mithridates you were the first of those in Asia to oppose him, and
for that reason most eagerly took upon yourselves many dangers of all kinds on
behalf of our state . . . 10 both public and private, on account of your friendship,
goodwill and gratitude towards us, and on the occasion of the war sent envoys to
the other cities of Asia and to the cities of Greece . . .
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, dictator, to the magistrates, council and people of
Stratonicea, greetings. I have handed over to your envoys the following resolution
by the senate: Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, son of Lucius, dictator, consulted the
senate on 27 March 20 in the comitium; Gaius Fannius son of Gaius . . . Gaius
Fundanius son of Gaius . . . were present at the writing (of the decree) . . .
49 . . . And Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, dictator, decreed . . . that they make
use of the same laws and customs as they did before, and that whatever decrees
they made because of the war which they declared against King Mithridates,
that all these remain in force; that they keep possession of Pedasus, Themessus,
Ceramus, and the lands, villages, harbours and revenues of the cities which the
commander Lucius Cornelius Sulla assigned and granted them as a mark of their
excellence; that the shrine of Hecate, most manifest and greatest goddess, which
has long been revered . . . and the precinct be inviolate; 60 that, regarding what
they lost in the war, the senate give instructions to the magistrate setting out for
Asia to give care and attention to ensuring that their actual property be restored to
them, that they recover their prisoners of war, and that concerning everything else
they receive their due; and that any envoys who come to Rome from Stratonicea
be granted by the magistrates audience with the senate out of turn.
Concerning this matter it was resolved (by the senate) as follows: it was resolved
to reply in a friendly manner in their presence to the envoys of Stratonicea in the
senate, to renew goodwill, friendship and alliance with them, and 70 to address
the envoys as good and honourable men and our friends and allies from a good
and honourable people, our friend and ally. And concerning the matters on which
the envoys and Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, dictator, spoke, that it was well
known to the Romans from the letters sent by the governors of Asia and Greece

460
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
and by the legates who had been in those provinces that the Stratoniceans had
always consistently preserved their friendship, loyalty and goodwill towards the
Roman people in time of war and peace, 80 and had always taken care to pro-
tect with enthusiasm the interests of the Roman people with soldiers, grain, and
great expenditures . . . (and) because of their high sense of honour had waged war
alongside them and had most bravely opposed the generals and armies of King
Mithridates on behalf of the cities of Asia and Greece.
Concerning these matters it was decreed as follows: that the senate is pleased to
remember good and just men and to provide that Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, 90
dictator, should instruct the proquaestor to give them gifts of hospitality according
to the ordinance; and that they should make use of the same laws and customs as
they did before; and that whatever laws and decrees they passed because of this war
against Mithridates, that all these remain in force for them; and that whatever states,
revenues, lands, villages and harbours the commander Lucius Cornelius Sulla
assigned and granted them in consultation with his council as a mark of their excel-
lence, they be permitted to keep possession of these; and that the Roman people . . . ;
100 and that Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, dictator, if he wishes, take note of the
states, villages, lands and harbours which he as commander assigned to Stratonicea,
and allocate the tax which each is to pay to Stratonicea; and, if he so allocates, that
he send letters to those states which he assigned to Stratonicea, for them to pay a tax
of so much to Stratonicea; 110 and that those who may at any time be governors of
the provinces of Asia and Greece see to it and ensure that these things are carried
out in this way: that the shrine of Hecate be inviolate; that whatever proconsul may
govern the province of Asia take note of the properties the Stratoniceans are miss-
ing, who seized these, and who are in possession of them, so that he may ensure that
these are given back and restored; that they are able to recover their prisoners of war,
and that in all other 120 matters they receive their due, as he considers most in keep-
ing with the interests of the state and with his own good faith. Resolved.
And with regard to the crown sent to the senate by the people, that the people
be permitted to dedicate it wherever Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, dictator, con-
siders it appropriate and that, if they wish, they be allowed to offer sacrifice on the
Capitol. And to the envoys who come from Stratonicea 130 to Rome that they be
granted by the magistrates audience with the senate out of turn. Resolved.

11.36 RDGE 23 lines 5–69: Tax exemption for sanctuaries

A dispute arose between the sanctuary of Amphiaraus, a healing deity, at Oropus (north of
Athens) and tax-collectors (publicani) in 73 BC. It was claimed that Sulla had exempted
the sanctuary from taxation. The case was investigated by the consuls for 73, M. Terentius
Varro Lucullus and G. Cassius Longinus, with a board of 16 senators, who confirmed the
tax exemption. The tax-farmers had suggested that Amphiaraus was not a god (technically
he was a hero, a demi-god) and therefore not exempt from taxation.

5 October 14 in the Basilica Porcia. Present on our council were . . . (16 names).
Concerning the matters on which Hermodorus, son of Olympichus, priest of
Amphiaraus, who was previously named ally by the senate, and Alexidemus, son

461
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
of Theodorus, and Demaenetus, son of Theoteles, envoys of the Oropians, spoke:
that since in the law on tax-farming those 20 lands were exempted which Lucius
Sulla granted for the sake of preserving the sacred precincts of the immortal gods,
and that these revenues which are under dispute were assigned by Lucius Sulla
to the god Amphiaraus, so that no revenue should be paid to the tax-farmer for
these lands. And concerning the matters on which Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus
spoke on behalf of the tax-farmers, that in the law on tax-farming those lands
were exempted which Lucius Sulla granted for the sake of preserving the sacred
precincts of the immortal gods, but that Amphiaraus, to whom these lands are said
to have been granted, is not a god, so that the tax-farmers should be permitted to
collect taxes on these lands.
On the advice of our council we declared our resolve: we shall lay before the
senate our findings, 30 which we have recorded also in the minutes: ‘Concerning
the territory of Oropus, about which there was a dispute with the tax-farmers, this
had been exempted by the law on tax-farming, so that the tax-farmer may not
collect taxes on it. We investigated in accordance with the decree of the senate.
‘In the law on tax-farming it appears to have been exempted as follows:
“excluding those, which in accordance with a decree of the senate, a commander
or commanders of ours, for the sake of honouring the immortal gods and preserv-
ing sacred precincts, granted and left them to enjoy, and excluding those which
the commander Lucius Cornelius Sulla on the advice of his council, for the sake
of the 40 immortal gods and the preservation of sacred precincts, granted to them
to enjoy, which same the senate ratified and which was not subsequently made
invalid by a decree of the senate.”
‘Lucius Cornelius Sulla appears to have made this decision on the advice of his
council: “For the sake of repaying a vow I assign to the sanctuary of Amphiaraus
land extending 1,000 feet in every direction, so that this land too may be invio-
lable.” Similarly for the god Amphiaraus he seems to have consecrated all the
revenues of the city, the territory and the harbours of the Oropians to the games
and sacrifices which the Oropians perform for the god Amphiaraus, and likewise
also to all those which they may perform in the future for the victory and empire
of the Roman people, 50 with the exception of the lands of Hermodorus, son of
Olympichus, priest of Amphiaraus, who has remained a consistent friend of the
Roman people.
‘Concerning this matter a decree of the senate appears to have been passed in
the consulship of Lucius Sulla Felix and Quintus Metellus Pius (80 BC), which
decree the senate worded as follows: “Whatever Lucius Cornelius Sulla on the
advice of his council assigned or granted to the god Amphiaraus and to his sanctu-
ary, these same the senate considered to have been given and granted to this god.”
‘In (Sulla’s) council were present the same people as in the first record of
deliberations, fourteenth page.’ The following decree of the senate was passed: 60
October 16 in the comitium. Present at the writing were (3 names) . . . Concerning
the matters which the consuls Marcus Lucullus and Gaius Cassius investigated
and reported that they had investigated concerning the territory of Oropus and the
tax-farmers, that the territory of the Oropians appeared to have been exempted by

462
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
the law on tax-farming, and that it did not seem right that the tax-farmers should
collect taxes on it, it was so decreed, as they deemed best in keeping with the
interests of the state and with their own good faith.

11.37 Sumptuary legislation, 81 BC

(i) Gellius Attic Nights 2.24.11
There had been previous sumptuary legislation in 161 and c. 143 prescribing the amounts
that could be spent per day or on a dinner: cf. docs 5.59, 2.22–24, 13.56.

Afterwards, Lucius Sulla as dictator, at a time when these laws were consigned to
forgetfulness through dust and old age, and numerous people with ample patrimonies
were squandering and dissipating both family and fortune into whirlpools of dinners
and banquets, brought a law before the people in which it was stated that, on the
Kalends, Ides and Nones, on days of games and on certain solemn festivals, it was
proper and legal to spend 300 sesterces on a dinner but on other days no more than 30.

(ii) Macrobius Saturnalia 3.17.11–12

11 These laws were followed by the Cornelian law, another sumptuary law,
which was brought in by Cornelius Sulla as dictator, which did not restrict the
magnificence of banquets or set a limit on gourmandising, but it lowered the
prices of things. Ye gods! What foods they were, the choice and almost unheard
of kinds of delicacies! What fish and titbits it names and yet lays down cheaper
prices for them! I would venture to say that the cheapening of foodstuffs encour-
aged people into the preparation of an abundance of dishes and allowed even the
less well-off to cater to their gluttony. 12 I will say clearly what I think. A person,
at whose banquet such dishes are served up seems to me to be extravagant and
prodigal beyond all others, even if they cost him nothing. And so it is clear that
this age of ours is much more disposed to practise complete self-control in this
matter, since most of the delicacies included in the Sullan law as being generally
well known, none of us knows even by name.

11.38 RDGE 49: Privileges for actors

In the winter of 85/4 BC Sulla had billeted troops in the towns which had supported
Mithridates and imposed an indemnity of 20,000 talents (docs 11.9–10). The actors’ guild
in the region appealed, and Sulla confirmed a pre-existing agreement exempting them from
such obligations. In 81 Sulla allowed the actors to erect a marble stele recording this. A
citharist is a harp player.

With good fortune!

A Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, son of Lucius, dictator, to the magistrates,
council and people of Cos, greetings; to the citharist Alexander of Laodicea, a
good and honourable man and our friend, envoy of the joint association of the

463
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
theatrical artists of Ionia and the Hellespont and the theatrical artists of Dionysus
our Leader, I have granted permission to erect a stele in your most prominent
place 10 on which will be inscribed the privileges I have given to the artists; as,
following his embassy to Rome, the senate passed a decree approving of this, I
therefore wish you to ensure that a most prominent place be provided, where the
stele concerning the artists may be erected. I attach below copies of my letter (to
the artists) and of the decree of the senate.
B . . . together with the goodwill you bear us, I therefore wish you to know
that, on my council’s advice, I have proclaimed my decision that you shall keep
whatever privileges, offices and exemptions from public service our senate, con-
suls and proconsuls have given and granted you as a mark of honour to Dionysus,
the Muses and your association; and that, just as before, you shall be exempt from
all public service and military service, 10 you shall not pay any tax or contribu-
tion, you shall not be troubled by anyone for supplies or lodging, and you shall not
be forced to have anyone billeted on you . . .

SULLA IN RETIREMENT
It is not known exactly when Sulla laid down his dictatorship; presumably he held it down
to the moment of his retirement in 79 BC – that is, he remained dictator during his term as
consul in 80, retiring into private life in 79 BC. In that year, he allowed the consular elections
for 78 to run their course to the extent that he permitted the election of Lepidus as consul.

11.39 Plutarch Life of Sulla 36.1–4: Sulla’s love life

Valeria made a pass at Sulla at an exhibition of gladiators, and they soon married: Sull.
35.5–11. Sulla had divorced his previous wife, Metella, when she became fatally ill, so that
his house would not become polluted (he was augur), but he gave her a magnificent funeral,
despite his own sumptuary legislation (Sull. 35.2–4). For Roscius, see docs 6.6, 29.

1 Nevertheless, even though he had Valeria at home, he still associated with

women who were actresses or cithara-players and with musicians from the theatre,
who used to lie drinking on couches all day long. 2 Those who were at this time
most influential with him were Roscius the comedian, Sorex the leading comic
actor, and Metrobius the female impersonator, who was now past his prime, but
Sulla throughout everything insisted that he was in love with him. 3 By living in
this way he aggravated a disease which had not originally been serious, and for
a long time he was not aware that he had ulcers in the intestines, which resulted
in the whole flesh being corrupted and turning into worms, so that, although a
number of people spent day and night removing them, it was nothing compared
with the way they multiplied: all his clothing, baths, washing water and food were
overrun with that flux and corruption, so greatly did it keep breaking out. 4 To
counter it, he frequently immersed himself in water to wash off and cleanse his
body. But it was of no benefit: the transformation quickly overcame him, and the
immensity of their number prevented all attempts at purgation.

464
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
SULLA’S ABDICATION, 79 BC
11.40 Appian Civil Wars 1.103–4 (478, 480–83, 487–89): Why
abdicate?
Sulla held the consulship for 80 BC with Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius. Having passed
numerous laws and reorganised the courts, he must have felt that he had carried out what
he had been appointed as dictator to achieve: he had ‘stabilised the city and Italy and the
whole government’ (doc. 11.26), and the holding of consular elections emphasised the
return to normality. Sulla clearly felt confident in his 10,000 freedmen and his veterans,
while there were many senators who owed their rank to him. Caesar was to comment that
Sulla did not know his political ‘ABC’ (Suet. Jul. 77), but Sulla may not have considered
a perpetual dictatorship.

478 The following year (80 BC) Sulla, although dictator, consented to become
consul for the second time with Metellus Pius to provide a pretence and facade
of democratic government . . . 480 The next year (79 BC) the people, to flatter
Sulla, chose him again as consul, but he refused it and appointed Servilius (Vatia)
Isauricus and (Appius) Claudius Pulcher and of his own accord willingly laid
down supreme power, although no one was troubling him. 481 This act of Sulla’s
seems amazing to me, that he should have been the first and only person up to that
time to lay down such immense power with no one compelling him to do so, not
to sons (like Ptolemy in Egypt and Ariobarzanes in Cappadocia and Seleucus in
Syria) but to the very people who were the subjects of his tyranny; 482 and it is
incredible that, after recklessly forcing his way to power, once he was in posses-
sion of it he should have laid it down. It is also strange beyond everything that he
was not afraid, though in this war more than 100,000 young men had died and of
his enemies he had removed 90 senators, 15 consuls and 2,600 equites, including
those who were banished; 483 the property of these men had been confiscated
and the bodies of many thrown out without burial, yet Sulla, worried neither by
those at home nor by the banished, nor by the cities whose citadels, walls, land,
houses, money and privileges he had done away with, proclaimed himself a pri-
vate citizen . . .
487 In my view Sulla – in every respect the same strong and powerful man –
set his heart on becoming a tyrant when a private citizen and a private citizen
when a tyrant, and after that on spending his time in rural isolation. 488 For he
went off to his own estate at Cumae in Italy and there occupied himself in solitude
with the sea and hunting, not because he wanted to avoid private life in Rome, nor
because he was too frail to do what he wished – 489 he was still at a robust time
of life and sound in health, and throughout Italy there were 120,000 men who had
recently served under him and had received large grants of money and plenty of
land from him, while in the city there were 10,000 Cornelii, besides the rest of
his party, devoted to him and still formidable to everyone else, all of whom relied
on Sulla for their immunity for the acts they had committed in co-operation with
him. But my view is that, tired of war, tired of power and tired of Rome, he fell in
love with the countryside.

465
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
11.41 CIL I2 2646: Dedication to his sister
On the fragment of an architrave found at Verona.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla, son of Lucius, built this in the name of his sister Cornelia.

LATER VIEWS OF SULLA

11.42 Pliny Natural History 7.137–38: Pliny the Elder’s view
The temple of Jupiter Capitolinus which had burnt down in 83 was rebuilt and dedicated in
69 BC by Q. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 78). Despite the survival of Sulla’s Memoirs, the fact
that many of his political reforms were overturned and his initial rule so bloody ensured
that his actions aroused many criticisms.

137 The only person to have assumed the surname ‘Fortunate’ is Lucius Sulla, who
actually won the title by shedding the blood of fellow citizens and making war on
his native country. And what proofs of good fortune inspired him? Was it his ability
to proscribe and slaughter so many thousands of his fellow citizens? What a corrupt
interpretation of the word! How unfortunate he was to be in the future! Were they
then at their deaths not more fortunate, whom today we pity, while there is no one
who does not hate Sulla? 138 Come now, was not the end of his life more cruel than
the calamity of all the proscribed, when his body ate itself away and gave birth to its
own torments? Although he kept up a good pretence, and although we believe from
that last dream, when he was almost on the point of death, that he alone was able
to conquer hatred by glory, nevertheless he admitted that his happiness was lacking
one thing – that he had not dedicated the Capitol.

11.43 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 5.77.4–6:

Dionysius on Sulla’s dictatorship
Dionysius is discussing the first dictatorship at Rome, that of Titus Larcius Flavus (cf. doc.
1.14); Spurius Cassius was his master of horse. The sentiments are very much like those of
Pliny; Sallust, too, criticises Sulla for bringing everything to a bad end and demoralising
the army (Cat. 11.4–6).

4 But in our fathers’ time, a full 400 years after Titus Larcius’ dictatorship, the
institution was discredited and became hateful to all men under Lucius Cornelius
Sulla, the first and only dictator who exercised his power as dictator cruelly and
severely; as a result the Romans then noticed for the first time that of which they
had previously been unaware, that the rule of a dictator is a tyranny. 5 For Sulla
made up the senate from just about anybody, reduced the power of the tribunate
to the minimum, depopulated whole cities, abolished some kingdoms and created
others, and committed many other arbitrary actions which it would be a lengthy
task to recount; and of the citizens, besides those who died in battle, he killed not
fewer than 40,000 after they had surrendered to him, and some of these after first
torturing them. 6 Whether all these acts of his were necessary or beneficial to the
state it is not now the time to inquire; what I have tried to show is that, on their
account, the name of dictator was loathed and appeared terrible.

466
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
11.44 Plutarch Life of Sulla 38.6: Sulla on himself
Sulla died in 78, at the relatively young age of only 60. Lepidus (cos. 78), with some
support, wanted to deprive Sulla of funeral honours, but he received a sumptuous state
funeral.

His monument is in the Campus Martius; it is said that the inscription on it is one
that he wrote for himself. The purport of it is that none of his friends had outdone
him in doing good and none of his enemies in doing harm.

COINAGE, 87–81 BC
Sulla’s name appeared on four issues of coins (Crawford RRC 359, 367, 368, 381). While
there are some difficulties of interpretation, they were clearly meant to serve Sulla’s
propaganda purposes, as on the coins appear Roma, Venus, the palm branch of victory, the
triumphal chariot, trophies, and symbols of Sulla’s position as augur.

11.45 Crawford RRC 351.1: Cinna and grain distribution

A denarius, 86 BC. This coin probably refers to a free distribution of grain.

Obverse: Bust of Ceres, goddess of agricultural growth.

Reverse: Ear of wheat. Two male figures sitting on a bench (subsellium), facing
right, with an ear of grain on the far right.

11.46 Crawford RRC 367: Sulla triumphant

This coin is an aureus (gold coin) of c. 82 BC. It hails Sulla as imperator, and the following coin
(doc. 11.47) has him as imperator for a second time. This type forms the bulk of Sulla’s coinage.

Obverse: Bust of the goddess Roma.

Reverse: Sulla, wearing toga, in triumphal quadriga (four-horse chariot), facing
right; Victory flies above him, facing left, and carrying a victory wreath; inscrip-
tion: L. Sulla Imperator. Sulla carries in his right hand a laurel branch (Grueber,
Sydenham CRR) or a caduceus, herald’s staff (Crawford RRC); a laurel branch of
victory is the best interpretation. He holds the reins in his left hand.

11.47 Crawford RRC 359.1: Sulla and Venus

An aureus of c. 84–83 BC, minted by Sulla outside Italy. The jug and lituus refer to Sulla’s
role as augur. Which two acclamations as imperator are being referred to is debated: as the
Colline gate battle involved a victory over citizens, a coin representing two major events of
his career, Cilicia and his victory over Mithridates, is to be preferred.

Obverse: Head of the goddess Venus, with diadem, facing right, with standing
Cupid (holding a palm branch, the sign of victory) facing left; inscription: Sulla.

467
 LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
Reverse: Jug and lituus (augur’s staff; the jug and lituus were symbols of the augu-
rate), with a trophy on either side; inscription: Imperator iterum (a second time).

11.48 Crawford RRC 381: Sulla’s equestrian statue

An aureus of c. 80 BC.

Obverse: Bust of the goddess Roma.

Reverse: Equestrian statue of Sulla, facing left, right hand raised; inscription: L.
Sull(a) Feli(x) Dic(tator).

11.49 Crawford RRC 381: Establishment of Sulla’s colonies (?)

A denarius of 81 BC. This coin is sometimes taken to be related to Sulla’s military colonies.

Obverse: Bust of the goddess Ceres.

Reverse: Ploughman, holding a staff, with pair of oxen, facing left.

11.50 Crawford RRC 426.1: The coinage of Sulla’s son

Sulla’s son Faustus Cornelius Sulla issued silver denarii c. 60 BC (perhaps in 63 BC)
commemorating the surrender of Jugurtha by Bocchus to Sulla. The coin may represent the
signet ring which Sulla had cut to commemorate the occasion (doc. 9.13).

Obverse: Bust of the goddess Diana wearing diadem.

Reverse: Sulla seated, facing left; Bocchus kneels before him, handing an olive
branch (vertical) to Sulla. Jugurtha, facing left and with his hands bound, kneels
behind the seated Sulla.

468
 12

The Collapse of the Republic

Pompey’s career to 78 BC had been extraordinary, for he thrived under Sulla.

Though he disregarded Sulla’s constitution both in Sulla’s lifetime and after his
death, he was nevertheless the defender of the Sullan senate against both Lepidus
and then Sertorius: when Sulla died Pompey had ensured he had a magnificent
funeral (doc. 11.44). Cicero in the 70s was pursuing his oratorical training and
gaining increasing experience in the law-courts (doc. 2.67), while Caesar, who
was to be quaestor in 69, avoided embroilment with Lepidus (doc. 12.2), whose
insurrection almost immediately followed Sulla’s death in 78 BC. As consul for
that year, Lepidus may have desired to emulate Sulla and seize control of the
state. In 79 Pompey had not opposed the election of Lepidus as consul, although
Sulla apparently objected to his candidature (doc. 11.39). Lepidus’ revolt was put
down by Catulus (cos. 78) with Pompey’s involvement (doc. 12.2). Pompey then
refused to disband his army and was granted imperium to go to Spain in 77 to help
Caecilius Metellus Pius (cos. 80) against Sertorius; after initial setbacks, and lack
of support from Rome, Pompey sent a letter to the senate in 75 BC requesting
reinforcements (doc. 12.3). Following Sertorius’ assassination by Perperna, who
had brought remnants of Lepidus’ army to join Sertorius, Pompey defeated and
killed Perperna and organised Spain into provinces. The senate’s ability to deal
with the revolts of Lepidus and Sertorius (and Spartacus’ slave revolt) indicates
the success of Sulla’s constitutional reform: the senate as a united body opposed
both men, and successfully.
Pompey was recalled by the senate in 71 to assist Crassus in suppressing
Spartacus’ uprising (doc. 6.50) and was awarded a triumph. With Crassus, he then
stood successfully for the consulship of 70: Pompey had at this stage held no other
civic magistracies. The two apparently disagreed at the beginning of their consul-
ship, but they did restore tribunician powers, reform the law-courts, and organise
the census of Roman citizens to be taken (docs 12.4–7). The last time a tribune
and the popular assembly had conferred a military command was in 88 BC in the
case of Sulpicius Rufus, who transferred Sulla’s command against Mithridates to
Marius (doc. 9.32). Pompey benefited directly from the restoration of the tribu-
nate through the lex Gabinia (67) and then the lex Manilia (66). These commands
gave him imperium on an unrivalled scale; despite the senate’s opposition to the

469
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
lex Gabinia, Pompey received a three-year command and in fact was to deal with
the pirates infesting the Mediterranean in a few months (docs 12.8–9). In 66,
through the lex Manilia, he was awarded Lucullus’ command in the East against
Mithridates, where Lucullus had had some spectacular success: the campaign
had, however, dragged on, Clodius Pulcher had encouraged Lucullus’ troops to
mutiny, and the publicani were unhappy with Lucullus’ favourable treatment of
the provincials (docs 11.10, 12.10). Cicero spoke in favour of Pompey receiv-
ing the command, and Lucullus, deprived of his command, as a result became
Pompey’s implacable enemy. Pompey defeated Mithridates in the same year and
spent until 62 reorganising the East (docs 12.11–12).
In Pompey’s absence, Cicero had held the praetorship in 66 and reached
the consulship in 63. In this year the Catilinarian conspiracy broke out; despite
Cicero’s palpable desire to emphasise the enormity of Catiline’s threat to the state,
it does seem in fact to have been a serious threat (docs 12.14–23). Cicero, with
the authority of the senate, put five of the chief conspirators to death: Caesar had
spoken against this in the senate, but Cato the Younger had successfully urged
their execution. As the conspirators were Roman citizens, they should have been
tried, and Cicero would pay dearly for this with exile in 58–57 BC. In 62 BC, the
scandal of Clodius’ profanation of the rites of the Bona Dea occurred: he was put
on trial, and Cicero disproved his alibi, incurring Clodius’ political enmity as a
result (docs 7.87, 12.38, 48, 56).
Pompey had enjoyed great successes in the East (docs 12.28–31), and his
return was viewed with apprehension, but he disbanded his troops when he landed
at Brundisium in 62 BC. There was tension between him and Cicero, who felt
slighted that Pompey was not effusive enough over Cicero’s role in squashing
Catiline (docs 12.32–34). Pompey’s victories were duly celebrated in his (third)
triumph in 61 (docs 12.29, 2.60). He sought ratification for his reorganisation in
the East and land for his veterans. But he had miscalculated: the senate obstructed
both measures (doc. 12.36). Another issue developed: the equites had bid too
much for their contract to collect taxes and wanted the contract renegotiated;
Crassus supported them in this. The senate, led principally by Cato, refused. The
proposal that equites be liable to prosecution for accepting bribes in judicial cases
also caused friction between senate and equites (doc. 12.35). These two issues
played a role in the next major development at Rome, with far-reaching conse-
quences – the events of the consulship of Caesar (59 BC). Caesar had used mas-
sive bribery to gain election as pontifex maximus in 63 BC against more senior
senatorial contenders (doc. 3.22), as praetor-elect for 62 he had opposed in 63 the
execution of Catiline’s chief supporters (doc. 12.21), and in 61 BC he had been
successful as governor in Further Spain, where he had earned a triumph which he
planned to celebrate on his return to Rome in 60. He requested that he be allowed
to stand in absentia (a magistrate with imperium could not enter the pomerium of
the city, and he had to retain his imperium in order to celebrate his triumph); on
Cato’s urging the senate refused to grant this permission (doc. 12.39).
The election of Caesar as consul brought three men – Caesar, Crassus and
Pompey – together in what is often known as ‘the First Triumvirate’; the initiative

470
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
came from Caesar, the most junior of the three. Cicero was offered a close rela-
tionship with them but, true to his republican ideals, refused (doc. 12.40), as he
later did a place on Caesar’s land commission (doc. 12.46). He would also in 58
turn down a position on Caesar’s staff in Gaul which might have saved him from
exile. Pompey married Caesar’s daughter Julia to cement the alliance (docs 12.41,
45). During his consulship Caesar effected the ratification of Pompey’s Eastern
settlements (acta) and land for his veterans, while the publicani received relief
from their contract (docs 12.43–45). He was able to act unopposed: Caesar’s fel-
low consul was M. Calpurnius Bibulus, Cato’s son-in-law, who with Cato opposed
Caesar’s agricultural legislation. Violence in the forum led to Bibulus spending
the remainder of the year in his house proclaiming unfavourable omens; he was
inactive to the extent that jokes apparently circulated about the ‘Consulship of
Julius and Caesar’ (doc. 12.43).
Fearing that Caesar might achieve the consulship, the senate had assigned the
‘woods and pastures’ as the consular provinces for the consuls of 59 (doc. 12.43).
Caesar therefore ensured that he was awarded the governorship of the two Gauls
and Illyricum (north-east of the Adriatic) for five years. Opposition to the tri-
umvirate grew in 59, led largely by the younger Curio, who, however, was to
be tribune of the plebs in 50 BC and, as such, a chief supporter of Caesar (docs
12.50–52, 13.14–16). Cicero complained about ‘certain political matters’ in 59
(doc. 12.48), and in his opinion this led to the adoption of Clodius by a plebeian;
Clodius was duly elected to the tribunate for 58 and carried out an extensive legis-
lative programme; he also attacked Cicero, who went into exile (docs 12.54–56),
arranged for Cato to go on an official mission to Cyprus (docs 12.57–59) and
began attacks on Pompey, who as a consequence then supported the moves for
Cicero’s recall. Cicero describes his triumphant return to Italy and Rome (docs
12.60–62), where he proposed that Pompey be given powers to deal with the
city’s grain crisis (docs 12.63–65). Caesar had meanwhile been busy conquering,
pillaging and massacring in Gaul (docs 12.66–68), gaining enormous amounts of
wealth with which to pursue his political aims at Rome. Cicero was soon speaking
with his customary freedom, attacking Caesar in the hope of separating him from
Pompey. This, along with growing antagonism between Crassus and Pompey,
resulted in a realliance of the triumvirs, with Caesar meeting Crassus at Ravenna
and then Pompey at Luca in April 56 (docs 12.69–72). It was agreed that Crassus
and Pompey should share the consulship again for 55 and be granted five-year
provincial commands to follow, while Caesar’s command in Gaul would also be
extended for another five years. Cicero was ‘brought to heel’ and, as part of his
‘palinode’ in 56 opposed the proposal to deprive Caesar of his command (doc.
12.73), while he was also forced to defend old enemies at the behest of the trium-
virs (doc. 12.77). This rapprochement was undercut by the death of Julia in child-
birth (Pompey turned down another marriage alliance with Caesar) and Crassus’
death in Parthia (docs 12.79–84). Caesar meanwhile continued amassing wealth
from his conquests in Gaul and Britain (docs 12.85–91). In his absence, ongoing
factional violence in Rome between Clodius and Milo was to set the stage for
Pompey’s sole consulship in 52, his acceptance by the optimates and the outbreak

471
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
of civil war, which it could be argued was brought about by senators whose main
aim was Caesar’s downfall. Tacitus (doc. 12.1) associates Pompey with Marius
and Sulla as individuals who were part of the process of the transformation from
political liberty to the ‘sole dominion’ of Augustus. Like the other four major pro-
tagonists in this period, Pompey was to meet a violent death: Crassus was killed in
battle, Pompey was murdered, Cato committed suicide, Caesar was assassinated
and Cicero was proscribed.
Ancient sources (for 78–44 BC): for this period, on account of the writings
of Cicero and Caesar, there is a degree of contemporary information unrivalled
for any other period in Roman history. In addition, the biographies of Plutarch
and the histories written in the imperial age are important, as they provide the
overall chronological framework within which Cicero’s more detailed informa-
tion can be placed. Caesar’s Gallic War is an account of his campaigns in Gaul; it
is in seven books with an eighth by Hirtius continuing the account. Caesar’s Civil
War provides his perspective on events: needless to say, this is hardly objective.
Caesar presents himself and his actions in the way he wants these to be viewed and
interpreted. However, along with Cicero’s letters, Caesar’s Civil War provides a
personal and contemporary perspective on the conflict. The Alexandrian War,
Spanish War and African War dealing with these campaigns are not by Caesar,
but they provide detailed accounts, starting with Caesar’s arrival in Alexandria in
48 BC and concluding with his return to Rome in 45 BC. Cicero delivered vari-
ous speeches in this period, not all of which survive; there are 57 speeches in all
for the period 81 to 43 BC: those delivered by his opponents are no longer extant.
He could clearly be tendentious, and he cannot be accepted as giving the ‘whole
truth and nothing but the truth’. There is also the commentary of Asconius on
five of these speeches. Particularly important is his commentary on Cicero’s Milo
(doc. 13.1), which shows that Cicero, in defending Milo on the charge of kill-
ing Clodius, was not being completely accurate. Cicero’s correspondence is also
crucial. He wrote letters to his close friend Atticus (Att.), to his brother Quintus
(Quint.), to Brutus, and to others (Fam.), and among the collection of letters to
friends are some written to him. Some 912 letters survive. These letters, usually
dated, provide detailed information about the unfolding of events, though many
contain contemporary allusions which are difficult to understand.
Another contemporary source is Sallust. He wrote two important historical
monographs, one concerning the war against Jugurtha (see chapter 9) and the
other concerning the conspiracy of Catiline (docs 12.14–16, 19–23). In addition,
his Historiae (Histories) dealt with the period from 78 BC (perhaps continuing the
history of Sisenna, but Sulla’s death in that year marked a logical place to begin).
The last dated fragment (in Book 5) refers to 67 BC, but Sallust’s intention must
have been to continue his account beyond that date. An important fragment is
Pompey’s dispatch from Spain to the senate (doc. 12.3). As in his two historical
monographs, there is an overriding emphasis on attacking the nobiles and empha-
sising the decline of Rome.
Lucan (AD 39–65) wrote the Pharsalia (De bello civili), a poetic epic
which commences with Caesar crossing the Rubicon and ends with Caesar in

472
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
Alexandria (48–47 BC) but is unfinished. He almost certainly drew on Livy’s
lost books for this period. There are also the historians of the imperial period.
None of Livy’s works on this period survive, but they are summarised in
Periochae 90–116. Velleius Paterculus in Book 2.29–58 deals with the period
in a brief but important continuous chronological treatment; there is a reason-
ably long section on Caesar (2.41–59). Appian Civil Wars 1.107–21, 2.1–117 is
also very important in presenting a chronological framework. As in other parts
of his Civil Wars he uses sources now lost. For Lucullus’ and Pompey’s cam-
paigns against Mithridates, his Mithridatica 67–121 is vital. Dio, books 36–44,
also covers this period, and there are various biographies. The beginning of
Suetonius’ biography of Caesar, the Divus Julius, is lost and in its current state
the Life commences in Caesar’s sixteenth year. His approach, after sketching
the details of Caesar’s life, is (as in the other biographies) to develop themes
rather than to use a chronological approach. He is certainly interested in the
personal characteristics of his subject, but the account is reliable. Plutarch wrote
several biographies of the individuals involved: Antony, Brutus, Caesar, Cato
the Younger, Cicero, Crassus, Lucullus, Pompey and Sertorius. The number of
relevant biographies indicates the importance of the period. They are of mixed
quality and offer the author’s usual moral observations. But he drew heavily on
lost historians, and in many of the Lives there is a wealth of detail about indi-
vidual historical events (such as the account of Cato in Africa). In the Lives of
those involved in the events of 52–44 BC, however, there is a frustrating lack of
detail concerning the main events.

THE AFTERMATH OF SULLA

12.1 Tacitus Histories 2.38: Tacitus on Republican history
Tacitus alludes to the tribunes Ti. and G. Gracchus, Saturninus and Drusus. Otho was hailed
emperor by the praetorians in AD 69 but committed suicide when his troops were defeated;
Vitellius was proclaimed emperor by his troops in 69; his forces were defeated by those of
Vespasian and he was killed by the mob in December 69.

The old lust for power, long ingrained in mankind, came to maturity and erupted
as the empire became great; for equality was easily maintained while Rome’s
power was moderate. But when, with the conquest of the world and the destruc-
tion of rival cities or kings, there was the freedom to desire the secure enjoyment
of wealth, the struggles between senators and people first blazed up. At one time
the tribunes stirred up trouble, at another the consuls were in control, and the city
and forum saw the first attempts at civil war; then Gaius Marius, from the lowest
ranks of the plebs, and Lucius Sulla, the most ruthless of the nobles, conquered
liberty by arms and turned it into tyranny. After them came Gnaeus Pompey,
who was no better, though cleverer at concealing his aims, and from then there
was no other aim but autocracy. Legions of Roman citizens did not shrink from
fighting at Pharsalus or Philippi, and it was even less likely that the armies of Otho
and Vitellius would have made or abandoned war of their own accord: the same

473
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
divine wrath, the same human madness, the same criminal purposes drove them
to conflict.

12.2 Appian Civil Wars 1.107.501–4: Lepidus’ revolt, 78–77 BC

M. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 78) had supported Sulla and benefited financially from the
proscriptions; though Sulla (according to Plutarch) did not support him as a consular
candidate (doc. 11.39), he was elected. Lepidus’ measures undermined Sulla’s settlement:
exiles were to be recalled, confiscated land was to be returned to its original owners, and
grain distributions resumed. An uprising broke out in Etruria on Sulla’s death, and Lepidus
and the other consul of 78, Q. Lutatius Catulus, were authorised to suppress it; Lepidus
decided to support the rebels. The senate nevertheless assigned him Transalpine Gaul for
77. When the senate recalled him to Rome to hold the consular elections, he marched on
the city in 77 and demanded both a second consulship and the restoration of tribunician
powers; when the tribunes had asked this of the consuls in 78, Lepidus had refused. Caesar,
though invited, did not join the revolt. A senatus consultum ultimum (SCU) was passed
on the motion of L. Marcius Philippus (cos. 91), and Pompey was appointed to support
Catulus in squashing the revolt. Lepidus retreated to Etruria and then to Sardinia, where he
died. The remnants of his army, under Perperna (M. Perperna Veiento), joined Sertorius in
Spain. Lepidus’ legate M. Junius Brutus (the father of Brutus, Caesar’s assassin), was killed
by Pompey after he had surrendered.

501 This was the end of Sulla, and as soon as the consuls returned from the funeral
they began engaging in a heated quarrel, while the citizens started to side with one
or the other. Lepidus, who wanted the support of the Italians, stated that he would
return the land taken from them by Sulla. 502 As the senate was afraid of both
parties, it made them take an oath that they would not resort to war. When Lepidus
was assigned Transalpine Gaul by lot, he did not return to the assembly because in
the following year he would be free from his oath not to make war on the Sullans,
as it was considered that the oath was binding only during the year of office. 503
As his plans did not escape observation, he was summoned by the senate, and as
he well knew the reasons for the summons he came with his entire army, with the
intention of bringing it into the city with him. When this was prevented he ordered
his men to take up arms, and Catulus on the other side did the same. 504 A battle
took place not far from the Campus Martius in which Lepidus was beaten, and
with no further attempt at resistance he sailed off to Sardinia, where he died of a
consumption. His army gradually melted away, with the greater part of it taken by
Perperna to Sertorius in Spain.

12.3 Sallust Histories 2.98: Pompey’s letter and the senate, 75 BC

Quintus Sertorius (c. 126–73 BC) served against the Cimbri under Q. Servilius Caepio
and Marius and as military tribune under T. Didius in Spain from 97 to 93. As quaestor
in 90 he saw service in the Social War, and in either 89 or 88 he stood for the tribunate;
however, as Sulla effectively prevented his election, he turned to Cinna. As praetor (in
83) he was allotted Roman Spain, where he went when it was clear that Sulla would be
victorious.

474
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
Initially driven out of Spain by the proconsul C. Annius, Sertorius returned at the invi-
tation of the Lusitanians in 80; by 77 he controlled most of Roman Spain, where he set
up a Roman-style senate and government. The consuls of 77 declined to go to Spain, and
Pompey, who had again refused to disband his army, was sent with proconsular imperium
to assist Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (cos. 80) against Sertorius and Perperna. After various
successes by the Roman generals, Sertorius counter-attacked, in 75 cutting off their sup-
plies. Pompey, still an eques, wrote the following letter to the senate for reinforcements.
In 72 Perperna assassinated Sertorius (doc. 12.4) and in the same year was defeated and
executed by Pompey. Val. Max. 6.2.8: Helvius Mancia described Pompey as adulescentu-
lus carnifex (youthful butcher) on account of his murders of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus,
M. Brutus, Cn. Carbo and Perperna.

1 ‘If I had undertaken such hardships and dangers in a war against you, my
country and my country’s gods – and frequently from my early youth the most
abominable enemies have been routed under my leadership and your safety
assured – you could have taken no worse measures against me in my absence than
you are doing at present, Fathers of the Senate, for, after dispatching me, despite
my youth, to a most savage war, you have destroyed me, together with an excel-
lent army, as far as you could, by starvation, the most wretched of all deaths. 2 Is
it with such expectations that the Roman people sends its sons to war? Are these
the rewards for wounds and blood so often shed on the state’s behalf? Wearied
by writing letters and sending legates I have exhausted all my own resources and
even my hopes, and in the meantime you have given me barely a year’s expenses
over a three-year period. 3 By the immortal gods! Do you think I can perform the
function of a treasury or maintain an army without provisions and pay?
4 ‘I admit that I entered this war with more zeal than prudence, for within 40
days of receiving the mere title of general from you I had raised and prepared
an army and driven the enemy, who were already at the throat of Italy, from the
Alps into Spain; through those mountains I opened up another route than that
of Hannibal, and one more convenient for us. 5 I recovered Gaul, the Pyrenees,
Lacetania and the Indigetes, and withstood with newly enrolled soldiers and far
inferior numbers the first attack of the conqueror Sertorius, and spent the winter
in camp surrounded by the most savage enemy, not in the towns or in pursuit of
my own popularity.
6 ‘Why, then, should I enumerate the battles or winter campaigns, the towns
destroyed or recovered? Actions speak louder than words: the capture of the ene-
my’s camp at Sucro, the battle at the River Turia, and the destruction of the enemy
leader Gaius Herennius, together with his army and the city of Valentia, are known
to you well enough; in return for which, grateful senators, you have given me want
and hunger. As a result, the condition of my army and the enemy’s is the same; for
neither is given pay, 7 and both can march as victor into Italy. 8 I warn you of this
and beg you to give it your attention, rather than compelling me to take care of the
army’s necessities in a private capacity. 9 Whatever of Hither Spain is not held
by the enemy has been ravaged either by ourselves or by Sertorius to the point of
utter devastation except for the coastal cities, so that it is actually an expense and
burden on us; last year Gaul provided Metellus’ army with pay and provisions,

475
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
and now it can scarcely keep itself because of a bad harvest; I have exhausted not
only my property but even my credit. 10 You are all that is left – unless you come to
our aid, the army, albeit against my will and with advance warning on my part, will
cross over into Italy, and with it all the war in Spain.’
This letter was read in the senate at the beginning of the following year (74
BC). But the consuls distributed between themselves the provinces decreed by
the senate, Cotta taking Hither Gaul and Octavius Cilicia. Then the next consuls
(for 74 BC), Lucius Lucullus and Marcus Cotta, greatly disturbed by Pompey’s
letters and messages, both for the sake of the state and because if the army was
led into Italy they would have neither glory or status, provided him with money
and reinforcements by every means possible, with the nobility especially exert-
ing themselves, the majority of whom were already giving him their support and
backing up their words with deeds.

THE CONSULSHIP OF 70 BC
Pompey returned to Italy in 71 BC at the request of the senate to assist in crushing the revolt
of Spartacus, who had defeated the two consuls of 72 (L. Gellius Publicola and Cn. Cornelius
Lentulus Clodianus), both separately and then with their armies combined. Crassus was
appointed proconsul against Spartacus and in six months in 72–71 BC defeated the slave
rebels. Pompey returned in time to kill 5,000 fugitives from Crassus’ last engagement against
the slaves and wrote to the senate that he (Pompey) had finished the war (see doc. 6.50).
Crassus nevertheless asked for Pompey to stand for the consulship with him, and the two men
kept their armies under arms outside Rome, awaiting their triumph (Pompey for his victory in
Spain) and ovatio (Crassus), and were elected to the consulship in absentia.
Restoration of tribunician powers: Sulla had stripped the tribunate of its powers (doc.
11.30). Lepidus had proposed to restore these in 78 BC (doc. 12.2), and in the 70s there had
been various other attempts opposed by the senate, such as that of L. Licinius Macer in 73
(apparently with Pompey’s support). In 75 BC, the prohibition from holding further office
after the tribunate was removed. The full restoration of the tribunate came with Pompey
and Crassus in 70 BC, which was an important qualification of the Sullan constitution. That
same year, however, Pompey failed to gain land for the veterans who had served with him
in Spain, and neither Pompey nor Crassus took up a provincial command.

12.4 Livy Periochae 96–97: The events of 72–70 BC

96 (72 BC) The praetor, Quintus Arrius, killed Crixus, leader of the runaways,
along with 20,000 men. The consul Gnaeus Lentulus lost a battle to Spartacus. The
consul Lucius Gellius and the praetor Quintus Arrius were defeated in battle by
the same man. Sertorius was murdered at a banquet by Marcus Perperna, Manius
Antonius and other conspirators, in his eighth year as leader, a great commander
and more often than not the victor over two generals, Pompey and Metellus, but
towards the end cruel and spendthrift. The command of his faction was transferred
to Marcus (Perperna), whom Gnaeus Pompey conquered, captured and killed;
Pompey recovered Spain in about the tenth year after the war had started. The
proconsul Gaius Cassius and praetor Gnaeus Manlius lost a battle to Spartacus,
and the war was entrusted to the praetor Marcus Crassus.

476
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
97 (72–70 BC) The praetor Marcus Crassus first won a battle against part of the
runaways, composed of Gauls and Germans, with 35,000 of the enemy’s soldiers
killed, including their leaders Castus and Gannicus. He then fought the matter
out with Spartacus, who was killed with 60,000 of his men. The praetor Marcus
Antonius undertook a campaign with little success against the Cretans and closed
it with his death. The proconsul Marcus Lucullus subdued the Thracians. Lucius
Lucullus won a battle against Mithridates in Pontus, with more than 60,000 of the
enemy’s soldiers killed. Marcus Crassus and Gnaeus Pompey were made consuls
(Pompey by senatorial decree, while a Roman eques and before he had held the
quaestorship) and restored the power of the tribunes. The courts were also trans-
ferred by the praetor Marcus Aurelius Cotta to the Roman equites. Mithridates
was forced by the hopelessness of his circumstances to take refuge with Tigranes,
king of Armenia.

12.5 Appian Civil Wars 1.121.560–61: ‘Neither praetor nor quaestor’

The senate passed a law to exempt Pompey from the Sullan lex annalis, the provisions of
which prescribed that the quaestorship and praetorship be held prior to the consulship, with
a minimum age (42 years) for election to the consulship (doc 11.30).

560 Crassus accomplished this (the defeat of Spartacus) in six months, and as a
result was immediately at loggerheads with Pompey over which of them deserved
the greatest prestige. He did not disband his army, for neither had Pompey. Both
were candidates for the consulship, but, while Crassus had held the praetorship
in accordance with Sulla’s legislation, Pompey had held neither praetorship nor
quaestorship and was only 34 years old. He had, however, promised the tribunes
that he would restore their magistracy to much of its traditional power. 561 Once
elected consuls, they still did not disband their armies, keeping them close to the
city. Each made an excuse: Pompey that he was waiting for the return of Metellus
for his Spanish triumph, Crassus that Pompey should be the first to do so.

12.6 Cicero Against Verres 1.37–40: Reform of the law-courts, 70 BC

Sulla had handed the courts over to the senators, overturning Gaius Gracchus’ reform (docs
11.29, 8.28). Lucius Aurelius Cotta (brother of the Cottas who were consuls in 75 and 74
BC), as praetor in 70 BC, introduced a law (the lex Aurelia) to give membership of the
juries to three groups: the senators, the equites and the tribuni aerarii (‘treasury officials’),
who belonged to the same census qualification as the equites. Pompey’s role in the reform
as consul-elect is not attested.

37 I shall not only remind you, but deal with, corroborating every detail, the entire
account of judicial wickedness and corruption which has occurred during the ten
years since the courts have been transferred to the senate. 38 The Roman people
will learn from me, jurors, how it was that, for nearly 50 successive years, while
the equestrian order made the decisions in the courts, not even the slightest suspi-
cion of receiving money as a bribe fell upon a single Roman eques when acting as

477
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
a juror; how it was that, when the courts were transferred to the senatorial order
and the power of the people over you as individuals had been removed, Quintus
Calidius declared, after his conviction, that someone of praetorian rank should not
in all fairness be convicted for less than 3,000,000 sesterces; how it was that, when
Publius Septimius, the senator, was convicted, with Quintus Hortensius as prae-
tor in charge of the extortion court, the penalty was specifically calculated with
regard to the fact that he had taken a bribe when acting as juror; 39 how it was that,
in the cases of the senators Gaius Herennius and Gaius Popilius, who were both
convicted of embezzlement, and in that of Marcus Atilius, who was convicted of
treason, it was clearly established that they had taken bribes as jurors; how it was
that senators were found, when Gaius Verres as city praetor was appointing jurors,
who would vote against a defendant, whom they were convicting, without know-
ing anything about the case; how it was that a senator was found who, when acting
as juror, in the same case took money from the defendant to bribe the other jurors
and from the prosecutor to convict the defendant. 40 And now, in what terms can
I bewail that humiliating and calamitous blot on the whole order, the fact that in
this country, when the senatorial order served in the courts, the voting tablets of
jurors under oath were marked with different colours? I promise you that I shall
deal with all these facts with diligence and severity.

12.7 Enrolment of the Italians as Roman citizens

After the enfranchisement of the Italians nearly one million Roman citizens were registered
in 70 BC. The censors, Gnaeus Lentulus and Lucius Gellius, were the first elected since 86
BC. Cicero, in delivering his oration against Verres, notes that the census coincided with
elections and ludi (games).

(i) Livy Periochae 98

The censors, Gnaeus Lentulus and Lucius Gellius, conducted a harsh censor-
ship, with 64 members removed from the senate. When they closed the lustrum,
900,000 citizens were registered.

(ii) Cicero Against Verres 1.54

I will not allow the case to be decided only when this concourse from all over
Italy, which has gathered from all parts at one and the same time for the elections,
games and census, shall have left Rome.

POMPEY’S EXTRAORDINARY COMMANDS

12.8 Cicero On the Command of Gnaeus Pompey 52–53: The lex
Gabinia, 67 BC
Aulus Gabinius (tr. pl. 67, cos. 58) legislated that the consul M’. Acilius Glabrio be given
command over Bithynia and Pontus and part of Lucullus’ army, signalling the beginning

478
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
of the end of the latter’s Eastern command. He also proposed the lex Gabinia, which gave
Pompey extensive control of the Roman Mediterranean world to deal with the pirates who
threatened Rome’s commerce and food supply. Previous commands against the pirates
had been held by M. Antonius (cos. 99) in 101 and 100 and by his son as praetor in 74
BC (cf. doc. 12.4). Cicero here, in speaking in 66 BC on the proposal to grant Pompey the
command against Mithridates, refers to the lex Gabinia and Hortensius’ opposition to it.

52 So what does Hortensius say? That if supreme command is to be bestowed on

one man, Pompey is the best choice by far, but that supreme command should
not be granted to one man. That argument is now out of date, proved wrong far
more by events than by words. For it was you yourself, Quintus Hortensius, who,
to the very best of your abilities and with your unique eloquence, gave a lengthy,
authoritative and brilliant speech in the senate against that courageous man Aulus
Gabinius, after he had proposed a measure concerning the appointment of a single
commander against the pirates, while from this very spot you likewise made a
lengthy speech against the same proposal.
53 Well, by the immortal gods, if your judgement had had more weight with
the Roman people than their own safety and their real interests, would we today
possess this our present glory and worldwide empire? Or did you think our empire
existed at a time when envoys, quaestors and praetors of the Roman people were
being taken prisoner, when we were prevented from private and public communi-
cation with all our provinces, when all seas were so closed to us that we were even
unable to engage in either private or public business overseas?

12.9 Plutarch Life of Pompey 25.1–26.4: A piratical command, 67 BC

Pompey had taken no command after his consulship of 70, presumably awaiting another
opportunity for military service. Gabinius initially proposed the appointment of a consular
without mentioning Pompey, to whom the people (opposing the wishes of the senate) turned
when the law was passed, granting him greater forces than the law had proposed: imperium
for three years over the Mediterranean and 400 stades inland (50 miles or 80 kilometres),
500 ships (200 were originally proposed), and 15 legates who had been praetors and were
now invested with propraetorian imperium. The whole campaign lasted three months (‘in
40 days he had expelled them from the entire sea’: Livy Per. 99).

25.1 The pirates’ power had spread throughout the whole of our Mediterranean
Sea, rendering it unnavigable and impassable to all trade. 2 It was this which pri-
marily induced the Romans, who were suffering from a shortage of food supplies
and anticipating a great scarcity, to send Pompey out to clear the sea of pirates. 3
Gabinius, one of Pompey’s intimate friends, proposed a law giving him not com-
mand of the sea, but complete autocracy and unlimited power over all men. 4 The
law gave him command over the sea up to the pillars of Hercules (Gibraltar) and
over all the mainland up to 400 stades from the sea. 5 Not many places within the
Roman world were outside these limits, and the greatest nations and most power-
ful kings were included within them. 6 In addition, he was given power to select
15 legates from the senate to be assigned specific tasks, to take as much money

479
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
from the treasury and taxation officials as he wished, and to command 200 ships,
with full authority over the number and levying of soldiers and crews of rowers.
7 When these provisions were read out, the people received them with great
enthusiasm, though the most important and influential members of the senate
thought this undefined and limitless power too great for envy but still something
to be feared. 8 They therefore opposed the law, except for Caesar; he supported
the law, not in the least because of any concern he felt for Pompey, but because
from the beginning he was trying to gain the favour of the people and win their
support. 9 All the rest violently attacked Pompey, and when one of the consuls
(Gaius Calpurnius Piso) told him that if he wanted to be a second Romulus he
would not escape Romulus’ fate, he only narrowly escaped being torn to pieces.
10 When (Quintus Lutatius) Catulus came forward to speak against the law, the
people respected him enough to keep quiet for a time, but when after speaking at
length in generous praise of Pompey he advised them to spare such a man and not
to keep on exposing him to continuous dangers and wars and asked, ‘Whom else
will you have, if you lose him?’, with one voice they all shouted out, ‘You!’ 11 So
Catulus, as he couldn’t convince them, retired, and when Roscius came forward
to speak no one would listen to him . . . 26.1 When Pompey heard that the law had
been passed, he entered the city by night, to avoid the envy that would be caused
by the people rushing to meet him. 2 He appeared at daybreak and conducted a
sacrifice; and at an assembly held for him he arranged that he was given many
other powers besides those already voted, almost doubling his forces. 3 Five hun-
dred ships were manned for him, and 120,000 infantry and 500 cavalry raised.
Twenty-four men who had held commands or served as praetor were chosen by
him from the senate, and he was also given two quaestors. 4 The fact that the price
of foodstuffs fell straightaway allowed the people in their delight to say that the
very name of Pompey had put an end to the war.

12.10 Plutarch Life of Lucullus 28.7–9: Victory in the East, 69 BC

The Second Mithridatic War (83–81 BC) was fought by L. Licinius Murena, who was
defeated by Mithridates. The Third Mithridatic War (73–66) was more serious, prosecuted
at first by L. Licinius Lucullus (cos. 74) and then by Pompey. Lucullus in 73 drove
Mithridates out of Asia and Bithynia and invaded Pontus, driving Mithridates from there
in 72; in 71 he organised tax relief in Asia (doc. 11.10). In 69 BC he scored a spectacular
success against Tigranes II of Armenia, Mithridates’ son-in-law (100,000 enemy infantry
and most of the cavalry perished; the Romans lost five men), and sacked Armenia’s capital,
Tigranocerta. Lucullus’ army, however, encouraged by Publius Clodius Pulcher, his
brother-in-law, mutinied in Armenia in the winter of 68–67, and at Rome he was accused
of lengthening the war for his own gloria. The lex Manilia of 66 BC replaced him with
Pompey, and Lucullus did not celebrate his triumph until 63 (doc. 2.34); he opposed the
ratification of Pompey’s Eastern acta (doc. 12.28).

7 It is said that over 100,000 of Tigranes’ infantry were killed and only a few of
all his cavalry escaped. Only 100 of the Romans were wounded, and five were
killed. 8 Antiochus the philosopher mentions this battle in his treatise Concerning

480
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
Gods and says that the sun never beheld such a battle as this. And Strabo, another
philosopher, in his Historical Commentaries, says that the Romans themselves
were ashamed and laughed at one another for needing arms against such slaves.
Livy has also stated that the Romans had never been so numerically inferior when
they faced an enemy; for the victors were hardly even a twentieth part of the con-
quered, but less. 9 The Roman generals who were most skilful and experienced
in war praised Lucullus for this in particular, that he outgeneralled two kings
who were most pre-eminent and powerful by two very opposite tactics, speed and
slowness. For he used up Mithridates, who was at the height of his power, by long
delays; but crushed Tigranes by his speed, being one of the few generals ever to
use delay for success and boldness for safety.

12.11 Plutarch Life of Pompey 30.1–2: Pompey and Mithridates

Manilius, as tribune for 66 BC, proposed that command of the war against Mithridates be
given to Pompey, with the provinces of Cilicia, Bithynia and Pontus, plus the imperium he
had already been granted under the lex Gabinia. There was opposition from Hortensius and
Catulus, but supporters of the law included four consulars.
Pompey quickly defeated Mithridates and received the submission of Tigranes in 66;
he campaigned in the Caucasus region in 66–65 and annexed Syria in 64 and Judaea in
63. Mithridates committed suicide in 63. Pompey organised Bithynia-Pontus as a prov-
ince; Syria (including Judaea) became a province, and that of Cilicia was enlarged. Several
client kingdoms liable to pay tribute to Rome were created, including Armenia, Galatia,
Palestine, Cappadocia and Commagene (doc. 12.29, cf. doc. 2.60).

1 When it was reported at Rome that the war against the pirates was over and
that Pompey, being at leisure, was visiting the Eastern cities, one of the tribunes,
Manlius (Manilius), proposed a law that Pompey should be given all the territory
and forces under the command of Lucullus, with the addition of Bithynia as well,
which was under the command of Glabrio, to make war on the kings Mithridates
and Tigranes, keeping also the naval forces and command of the sea he had origi-
nally been granted. 2 This meant that the entire Roman empire was placed in the
hands of one man, for the only provinces which could be thought to be outside
his control by the earlier law – Phrygia, Lycaonia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Cilicia,
Upper Colchis and Armenia – were now added to it, along with the armies and
troops which Lucullus had used in his conquest of Mithridates and Tigranes.

12.12 Cicero On the Command of Gnaeus Pompey 27–28: The lex

Manilia, 66 BC
Cicero as praetor in 66 BC was enthusiastic in this speech on the appointment of Pompey
(they had served together in the Social War: doc. 10.14). This passage sums up Pompey’s
career and makes clear that, at this stage, Cicero was a supporter of his.

27 If only, Quirites, you had so large a supply of brave and honest men as to make
this a difficult decision of yours regarding who, in your view, should be put in

481
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
total authority over such important matters and so great a war! But, as the case
stands, as Gnaeus Pompey is unique as one whose merit has surpassed not only
the glory of the men of today but even the memory of olden days, what consid-
eration is there that could make anyone hesitate at this point? 28 For my point of
view is that a very great commander must have these four qualities – knowledge
of warfare, courage, reputation and luck. Who, therefore, has there ever been or
ought to have been more knowledgeable than Pompey here? – who left school
and boyhood studies for his father’s army and the study of warfare in a danger-
ous campaign with the fiercest of enemies; who, in his earliest youth, served in
the army of a very great commander, while at the approach of manhood he was
himself the commander of a huge army; who has engaged more often with the
nation’s enemy than any other man has disputed with his own, who has fought
more wars than others have read of, who has held more offices than other men
have longed for; whose youth was instructed in the knowledge of warfare not by
the teachings of others but by his own commands, not by defeats but by victories,
not by campaigns but by triumphs? To sum up, what kind of warfare can there be
in which the fate of his country has not exercised his talents? The Civil, African,
Transalpine, Spanish, Slave and Naval wars, various and dissimilar types of wars
and of opponents, not only waged by himself without aid but even carried through
to a successful conclusion, make it clear that there is nothing in the military sphere
which is outside Pompey’s experience.

THE CATILINARIAN CONSPIRACY, 63 BC

The main issue of 63 BC, the year of Cicero’s consulship, was the conspiracy of Catiline.
Cicero as quaestor in Sicily in 75 BC had organised for grain to be sent to Rome to alleviate
a shortage, but he made his mark chiefly in his prosecution of Verres after the latter’s
corruption in Sicily. In 66, as praetor, Cicero defended Manilius in a case of extortion.
With Catiline and C. Antonius Hibrida he was a candidate in 64 for the consulship of 63;
Sallust (doc. 2.44) suggests that Catiline’s candidature benefited Cicero, who was elected
with Antonius. Catiline, praetor in 68 BC, had been propraetor in Africa in 67–66 BC. His
extortion there was such that his candidature for a consulship for 65 was denied on those
grounds, and he could not stand for 64 as he was awaiting trial; the senators on the jury
voted for conviction, the equites for acquittal: he was acquitted. Catiline finally stood in 64
for the consulship for 63 BC.
Failing to gain the consulship for a second time in 63 (for 62), Catiline’s conspiracy
emerged as a threat to the state; his main supporters were Lentulus, Cethegus, Statilius
and Gabinius (not the tr. pl. 67), who, with Caeparius, were to be executed by Cicero.
P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura (cos. 71) had been expelled by the senate in 70 but was elected
praetor again for 63. Fulvia, through Q. Curius, made known the details of Catiline’s plot
and a senatus consultum ultimum was passed when news arrived that Catiline’s forces
planned to march on Rome (doc. 12.17). Nevertheless, on 8 November 63 Catiline attended
the senate, where Cicero delivered the In Catilinam I against him; Catiline fled, leaving in
Rome his fellow conspirators, who planned to assassinate Cicero while Catiline organised
his army in Etruria.
At the beginning of 63 P. Servilius Rullus as tribune proposed a land law to establish a
commission of ten men for five years to settle colonies in Italy and the provinces (primarily for

482
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
Pompey’s veterans), with the land purchased with public money. Cicero successfully opposed
the bill; agrarian legislation continued to arouse conservative opposition (doc. 12.13).

12.13 Cicero On the Agrarian Law 1.21–23: Cicero on agrarian

legislation
This speech was delivered to the senate on the first day of Cicero’s consulship (1 January)
against the tribune Rullus, who had proposed to sell all state lands (with some exceptions)
to purchase land for distribution in Italy. Those ‘feared more than Rullus’ are Crassus and
Caesar. For Cicero’s speech on this occasion, cf. doc. 2.45.

21 I am speaking now of the danger to our safety and freedom. 22 For what in
the state, or in your independence and prestige, do you think will be left for you
untouched once Rullus – and those whom you fear far more than Rullus – with his
band of needy and rascally settlers, with all his forces, with all his silver and gold,
has occupied Capua and the surrounding cities? Such plans, conscript fathers, I
will vehemently and fiercely resist, nor shall I, while I am consul, permit men to
bring forward the designs they have long been formulating against the state. 23
You were greatly in error, Rullus, you and some of your colleagues, when you
hoped that, by opposing a consul who was popular in real truth, not just in show,
you could make yourself look popular in overthrowing the government.

12.14 Sallust Conspiracy of Catiline 5.1–8: Sallust’s view of Catiline

Unsavoury details of Catiline’s early career are also sketched at 15.1–2. In 73 Catiline was
acquitted of involvement with the Vestal Virgin Fabia, half-sister of Cicero’s wife, Terentia,
and in 64 BC he was charged with the murder of those proscribed by Sulla but acquitted.
He promised the abolition of debts, proscription of the rich and, for his supporters, offices,
priesthoods and plunder.

1 Lucius Catiline was of noble birth and possessed great vigour of both mind
and body but an evil and depraved nature. 2 From his youth he delighted in
civil wars, murder, robbery and political strife, and in these he spent his early
manhood. 3 His body was able to endure hunger, cold and want of sleep to
an incredible degree. 4 His mind was daring, crafty, untrustworthy, capable of
any pretence or dissimulation, covetous of other men’s property, prodigal with
his own, violent in its passions; he possessed more than enough eloquence but
insufficient wisdom. 5 His insatiable mind always desired things which were
excessive, incredible, out of his reach. 6 After the dictatorship of Lucius Sulla,
he had been seized with the overpowering desire to take over the government,
with little consideration of the means by which he should achieve it, provided
that he acquire sovereignty on his own account. 7 His headstrong spirit was
tormented more and more every day by poverty and by the consciousness of
guilt, both of which he had aggravated by those practices I mentioned earlier. 8
He was further incited by the corruption of a society troubled by two great and
opposing evils, extravagance and avarice.

483
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
12.15 Sallust Conspiracy of Catiline 23.1–4: Fulvia as informant
Fulvia’s role may not have been as significant as Sallust suggests, but clearly the optimates
saw Cicero’s candidature as more acceptable than Catiline’s: see doc. 2.44.

1 Among the conspirators was Quintus Curius, a man not of low birth but steeped in
disgrace and crime, whom the censors had expelled from the senate because of his
immorality. 2 This man was just as reckless as he was untrustworthy; he could neither
keep quiet about what he had heard nor even hide his own heinous deeds; he was
absolutely heedless as to what he said or did. 3 He was engaged in an intrigue of long-
standing with Fulvia, a well-born woman, and when he started to fall out of favour
with her, because poverty forced him to be less generous, he quickly started boast-
ing and promising her ‘seas and mountains’ and occasionally threatening her with
a weapon unless she submitted to him, and generally behaved more savagely than
before. 4 Fulvia, however, when she learned the reason for Curius’ arrogance, had no
intention of covering up such danger to the state, but without mentioning her source
recounted to a number of people what she had heard about Catiline’s conspiracy.

12.16 Sallust Conspiracy of Catiline 26.1–27.2: Catiline’s plans

According to Sallust, Catiline’s failure in the consular elections in 64 BC led him to plot
his revolution in detail, but he also stood in 63 for the consulship of 62. Sulla’s veterans
were motivated to support Catiline by the hope of plunder and booty. They had clearly not
made good soldier settlers. Antonius had been granted Cisalpine Gaul as his province, but
Cicero allowed him to take Macedonia, a more attractive option, and declined a province
for himself (26.4).

26.1 After these preparations, Catiline nonetheless stood for the consulship for
the next year (62 BC), hoping that, should he be elected, he could easily do what
he liked with Antonius. In the meantime he was not idle but kept working on all
kinds of plots against Cicero, 2 who, however, was not lacking in the guile and
astuteness to evade them. 3 For at the very start of his consulship, by numerous
promises made through Fulvia, Cicero had persuaded Quintus Curius, whom I
mentioned a short while ago, to lay bare Catiline’s plots to him. 4 He had also per-
suaded his colleague Antonius not to harbour designs against the state by agree-
ing to let him have his province, and he had secretly stationed around himself
bodyguards of friends and clients. 5 When election day came, and Catiline was
successful neither in his candidature nor in the plots he had made against the
consuls in the Campus Martius, he decided on war and resorting to extreme meas-
ures, since his undercover attempts had met with failure and dishonour. 27.1 He
therefore dispatched Gaius Manlius to Faesulae and that area of Etruria, a certain
Septimius of Camerinum to the Picene district, Gaius Julius to Apulia, and others
to any other places he believed might suit his purpose. 2 In the meantime he was
busy with many plans at once: laying traps for the consul, preparing to set fires,
stationing armed men in strategic places, and himself went armed, ordering the
others to do the same, and urging them to be always alert and ready.

484
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
12.17 Cicero In Defence of Murena 52–53: Cicero threatened
In September 63 BC, on Cicero’s motion, the consular elections were postponed, when
Cicero accused Catiline of a plot against the state. When D. Junius Silanus and L. Licinius
Murena were elected on the next day Catiline equipped armed followers throughout Italy.
Cicero informed the senate on October 21 that Manlius was to march on Rome on October
27, and on 22 October an SCU was passed. An attempt to assassinate Cicero was foiled
on 6 November, and on 8 November Cicero made the first of his four speeches against
Catiline. Catiline left Rome that night, joining Manlius in Etruria. Murena, consul-elect
for 62, had been accused of bribery by Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (cos. 51) and M. Porcius Cato
(tribune-elect). Cicero is arguing that, if Murena were to be convicted, Catiline would be
elected in his place.

52 Impelled by his actions, and by the awareness that Catiline was bringing men
who were already members of the conspiracy into the Campus Martius armed with
swords, I entered the Campus with an unshakeable bodyguard of the very bravest
men and wearing that broad and conspicuous breastplate, not so it should protect
me – for I was aware that Catiline generally aimed not at the side or the stomach
but at the head and neck – but so that all the ‘honest men’ should notice it and,
when they saw their consul in such a fearful danger, rush to his aid and defence, as
indeed they did. And so, Servius, when they thought that you were rather lethargic
in your candidature and saw Catiline inflamed with hope and desire, all those who
wanted to eject this pest from the state at once went over to Murena. 53 Indeed,
a great change of support can happen suddenly at consular elections, particularly
when the trend is towards a respectable man who is distinguished in his candida-
ture by numerous other advantages.

12.18 Cicero Against Catiline 2.7–9: Cicero’s portrait of Catiline

This speech was delivered before the people on 9 November, after Catiline had left Rome,
and demonstrates the latitude of expression allowed orators (cf. doc. 7.76). Compare the
characterisation of Catiline’s followers at Sall. Cat. 14.1–7.

7 Of what imaginable or conceivable wickedness and criminality has he not been

the instigator? In all of Italy can any poisoner, gladiator, robber, assassin, par-
ricide, forger of wills, cheat, glutton, spendthrift, adulterer, woman of notoriety,
corrupter of youth, corrupted youth or desperate character be found who does not
admit that they have lived on the most intimate terms with Catiline? What mur-
der has been committed through all these years without his involvement? What
abominable act of lechery has been accomplished, if not through his agency? 8
Who, indeed, has ever presented such great allurements for young men as this
fellow? He has made love to some of them in the most disgusting fashion, while
he has most disgracefully allowed others to make love to him, promising some
the satisfaction of their wanton passions, others the murder of their parents – and
in this he not only encouraged them but even gave them a hand. And now how
swiftly he has assembled an immense number of desperate men, not only from the

485
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
city but also from the country! There was no one overwhelmed by debt, whether
from Rome or any corner of the whole of Italy, that he did not admit into this
incredible league of crime. 9 And note his various interests in a wide range of
activities: there is no one in a gladiatorial school a little too inclined towards
crime who does not claim he is Catiline’s intimate friend, no one on the stage too
inconsequential or good-for-nothing who does not affirm that he has been almost
his sworn companion. . . .
10 And if these comrades of his will go after him, if these dissolute swarms of
desperate men will leave the city, how happy we shall be, how fortunate the state,
how illustrious the praise for my consulship! For the wanton behaviour of these
men is no longer moderate – their temerity has become inhuman and unendurable!
They think of nothing but murder, arson and robbery. They have squandered their
patrimonies, they have mortgaged their properties; their money has run out long
ago, and now their credit is beginning to fail – and yet the wanton tastes they had
in abundance still remain. If they, in their drinking and gambling, desired only
revels and prostitutes, they would indeed be hopeless cases, but we could at least
put up with them; but who can bear that idle fellows should be setting an ambush
for the bravest of men, idiots for the prudent, drunkards for the sober, the somno-
lent for the watchful? These, I tell you, reclining at their banquets, embracing their
prostitutes, drowsy with wine, stuffed with food, garlanded with wreathes, smoth-
ered with unguents and weakened by vice, belch forth in their talk the slaughter of
good men and the conflagration of the city!

12.19 Sallust Conspiracy of Catiline 43.1–2, 44.1–3: The Allobroges

The Allobroges of Transalpine Gaul, oppressed by their governor and Roman moneylenders,
had sent ambassadors to Rome. Lentulus, in charge of the conspiracy at Rome, attempted to
draw them in. Initially tempted, the Allobroges decided that the rewards of informing the
senate would be more beneficial. They passed the information on to Q. Fabius Sanga, their
patron at Rome, who informed Cicero.

43.1 At Rome, Lentulus and the others who were leading the conspiracy, who had
organised what seemed to them a huge body of troops, had arranged that, when
Catiline reached the locality of Faesulae with his army, the tribune Lucius Bestia
should call a public meeting (contio) and, by vilifying the actions of Cicero, throw
the blame for a catastrophic war on that best of consuls; that was to act as the sig-
nal for the rest of the large body of conspirators each to carry out his own duties
on the following night. 2 Their responsibilities are said to have been divided up in
this way: Statilius and Gabinius with a large gang were to start fires at 12 strategic
sites in the city, while the resulting confusion would make it easier to gain access
to the consul and the others against whom their conspiracy was directed; Cethegus
was to station himself outside Cicero’s door and use violence against him, while
others were assigned their own targets; the sons of various families, mostly of the
nobility, were to kill their fathers; lastly, taking advantage of the disorder caused
by the slaughter and arson, they were all to rush to join Catiline . . . 44.1 The

486
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
Allobroges, on Cicero’s instructions, were introduced to the others by Gabinius.
They demanded that Lentulus, Cethegus, Statilius and Cassius too give them an
oath, which they would send sealed to their countrymen, as otherwise they would
be reluctant to be drawn into so grave an affair. 2 The others gave it without suspi-
cion, though Cassius promised to come to Gaul himself soon and left Rome before
the envoys. 3 Lentulus sent a certain Titus Volturcius from Croton with them, so
that before they proceeded homewards the Allobroges might confirm the alliance
by exchanging pledges with Catiline.

12.20 Sallust Conspiracy of Catiline 49.1–4: An attack on Caesar

Cicero made arrangements for the conspirators to be arrested at the Mulvian bridge in the
early hours of 3 December. On that day, Cicero delivered his Against Catilinam III before
the people. In the senate on 4 December, Crassus was implicated in the plot by one of the
conspirators, but on the motion of Cicero the senate voted that the information was false.
Enemies of Caesar, such as Catulus (cf. doc. 3.22), tried to implicate him as well.

1 At the same time Quintus Catulus (cos. 78) and Gaius Piso (cos. 67) tried in vain,
by entreaties, influence and bribes, to persuade Cicero to have a false accusation
brought against Gaius (Julius) Caesar either through the Allobroges or through
some other witness. 2 For both were bitter personal enemies of Caesar; Piso, when
on trial for extortion, had been charged by him with unjustly executing a man
from Transpadane Gaul, while Catulus’ hatred arose out of his candidature for the
pontificate, because he had reached a ripe old age and attained the highest offices
but was beaten by Caesar, who was still a young man. 3 Moreover, it seemed an
opportune time as Caesar, through his pre-eminent generosity in private life and
lavish entertainments in office, was heavily in debt. 4 But they were unable to
incite the consul to so monstrous a crime . . .

12.21 Sallust Conspiracy of Catiline 51.43: Caesar on the conspirators

Cicero was unsure how to deal with the conspirators, and Plutarch has Cicero’s wife,
Terentia, bringing him news of a good omen that decided him (doc. 7.86). The senate on
5 December voted that the conspirators were guilty of treason. The consul-elect, Junius
Silanus, argued that they should be executed, as did subsequent speakers, but he changed
his mind after Caesar, as praetor-elect, argued for confiscating their property and sentencing
them to life-long imprisonment in Italian cities; Cato then successfully argued for their
execution, emerging as a leader of the optimates on this issue. On Cato’s motion, Cicero
was acclaimed pater patriae, Father of his Country.

‘Am I then advising that the prisoners be allowed to leave and augment Catiline’s
army? Certainly not! My view is this, that their properties should be confiscated
and that they should be kept imprisoned in the strongest municipia, and that no
one in future should refer the matter to the senate or bring it before the people;
should anyone act against this, they should be considered by the senate as conspir-
ing against the state and public safety.’

487
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
12.22 Sallust Conspiracy of Catiline 55.2–6: The public prison (carcer)
On the night of 5 December the principal conspirators met their deaths. Cicero announced
to the crowd in the forum, ‘They have lived’ (Plut. Cic. 22.4). The prison (Rome’s only
public one) was located on the west side of the comitium; it was of stone and had two levels,
one underground, of 7 metres diameter, reached only through an opening in the ceiling. It
was a place of execution, primarily for non-citizens; defeated enemy leaders would be
incarcerated here after being paraded in a triumph and then were usually strangled.

2 Cicero himself, after setting guards, led Lentulus to the prison; the praetors
did the same for the others. 3 In the prison there is a place which is called the
Tullianum, when you have gone up a little way towards the left, about 12 feet
below ground. 4 Walls enclose it on all sides and it has a vaulted stone roof: its
neglected condition, darkness and stench make it hideous and terrifying to behold.
5 After Lentulus was let down into this place, the executioners carried out their
orders and strangled him with a noose. 6 Thus that patrician, from the illustri-
ous family of the Cornelii, who had held consular authority at Rome, met an end
befitting his character and actions. Cethegus, Statilius, Gabinius and Caeparius
suffered the same punishment.

12.23 Sallust Conspiracy of Catiline 60.7–61.9: Catiline’s stand

News of the execution of the conspirators led many in Catiline’s force to desert. He
attempted to escape with the remainder, by forced marches, to Cisalpine Gaul, but Q.
Caecilius Metellus Celer (proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul in 62) blocked his escape with three
legions. On the approach of C. Antonius, Catiline decided to meet him in battle.

60.7 When Catiline saw his troops routed and that he was left with just a few men,
he rushed, mindful of his family and former rank, into the thickest of the enemy
and was pierced through and through as he fought. 61.1 Once the battle was over,
you could clearly perceive the audacity and resolution possessed by Catiline’s
army. 2 For almost every man covered with his lifeless body the position he had
taken when alive at the start of the fighting. 3 True, a few in the centre, whom the
praetorian cohort had dispersed, were lying a little way away from the rest, but
all their wounds were in front. 4 Catiline, indeed, was found far in advance of his
men among the corpses of his enemies, still breathing slightly and retaining on
his face the ferocity of spirit he had possessed in his lifetime. 5 Finally, out of the
entire army, no free-born citizen was captured either during the battle or in flight;
6 all of them put the same value on their own lives as on those of the enemy. 7
The army of the Roman people had won a victory that was neither a cause for
rejoicing nor bloodless. All the best fighting men had either fallen in battle or had
come away with serious wounds. 8 Indeed, many, who had left the camp to view
the battlefield or to look for booty, when they turned over the enemy’s corpses,
found now a friend, now a guest, now a relative; similarly some recognised their
personal enemies. 9 And so the entire army was moved with joy and sorrow,
mourning and rejoicing.

488
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
CICERO AND HIS TIMES
12.24 Pliny Natural History 7.116–17: Pliny’s view of Cicero
Pliny is here reviewing Romans of intellectual eminence, such as Ennius, Vergil and Varro.
L. Roscius Otho in 67 (as tr. pl.) reserved 14 rows in the theatre for the equites; this was
always unpopular and in 63 led to rioting.

116 But on what grounds could I be silent about you, Marcus Tullius? By what
distinctive mark can I make known your supreme eminence? By what, in prefer-
ence to the most abundant testimony of the decree of that whole nation, selecting
out of your whole life just the achievements of your consulship? 117 Your oratory
induced the tribes to reject the agrarian law – their own livelihood; your persua-
sion induced them to excuse Roscius, the proposer of the law about the theatre,
and to endure with equanimity being marked out by a distinction of seats; your
plea made the children of the proscribed ashamed of standing for office; your
genius turned Catiline to flight; you proscribed Mark Antony. Hail, you who were
the first to be titled Father of your Country (pater patriae), first winner of a civil-
ian triumph and crown of honour for oratory, and parent of eloquence and of Latin
letters, and – as your former enemy, the dictator Caesar, wrote of you – winner of
a laurel crown greater than that of any triumph, since it is much more important
to have advanced the frontiers of the Roman mind than those of Rome’s empire.

12.25 Macrobius Saturnalia 2.1.10–13, 3.2, 3.5: Cicero’s human side

Vatinius (tr. pl. in 59) was elected consul with Q. Fufius Calenus in September 47 for the
remainder of that year. For Cicero’s biting wit, see also doc. 13.54.

1.10 First I would like to remind you of two very eloquent men of olden times, the
comic poet Plautus and the orator Tullius (Cicero), who were both outstanding in
the wittiness of their jokes . . . 12 What Cicero could do in this way is well known
to anyone who has taken the trouble to read the collection his freedman (Tiro)
made of his patron’s jokes, which some ascribe to Cicero himself. Similarly, who
does not know that his enemies used to call him that ‘consular buffoon’? – as
Vatinius actually does in his own speech. 13 Indeed, would it not take too long, I
would remind you of the cases in which, in his defence of the most guilty clients,
he won victory by a joke; for example, when he was defending Lucius Flaccus,
accused of extortion, and got him off clearly proved charges through an opportune
witticism . . .
3.2 When Marcus Cicero was dining with Damasippus, who produced a medi-
ocre wine with the words ‘Try this Falernian – it’s 40 years old’, Cicero replied,
‘It carries its age well.’ . . . 5 The consulship of Vatinius, which lasted only a few
days, gave Cicero plenty of opportunities for exercising his sense of humour in
some widely publicised sayings: ‘A great portent has occurred in Vatinius’ term
of office’, he said, ‘because in his consulship there has been neither winter, spring,
summer nor autumn.’ And when Vatinius asked him why it had been too much

489
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
trouble for Cicero to visit him when he was ill, he replied, ‘I intended to come
when you were consul, but night overtook me.’ However, Cicero was thought to
have been getting his revenge here, recalling the retort made by Vatinius to his
boast that he had returned from exile carried in triumph on the shoulders of the
people: ‘Then where did you get those varicose veins?’

12.26 Cicero On Divination 1.20–21: Cicero ‘On his consulship’

Prophecies of disaster made in 65 were supposedly fulfilled during Cicero’s consulship;
here Quintus quotes his brother’s poem On My Consulship to prove the value of divination
(the Muse Urania is speaking).

Then who, perusing the records and volumes of the diviners’ art,
Failed to bring to light the mournful prophecies written by the Etruscans?
All seers uttered warnings to beware the destruction and ruin
Plotted against the nation by men of aristocratic birth
Or proclaimed the overthrow of law in continual prophecies,
And ordered that the temples of the gods and city
Be snatched from the flames and frightful butchery and slaughter be feared;
And these would be fixed and resolved by inexorable destiny
Unless first, high on a column, with handsome form,
A sacred statue of Jupiter faced to the east;
Then would the people and revered senate be able to discern
Hidden plans, if, turned to the rising sun,
It should behold from its station the seats of the senators and people.
This statue was long postponed with many delays
Till with you as consul it was placed at last in its lofty position,
And just at the moment of time fixed and predicted
Jupiter exhibited his sceptre on his elevated column
And the destruction prepared for our fatherland by flame and sword
Was revealed to senate and people by Allobrogian voices.

12.27 Cornelius Nepos Life of Atticus 1.1–2.6, 4.3–5.2, 6.1–7.3:

Titus Pomponius Atticus
Atticus, banker, editor and patron of literature, was a lifelong friend of Cicero and other
statesmen. He remained an equestrian, never accepting a magistracy or political position,
but was hugely influential because of the sums of money he loaned to individual politicians
and municipalities and as business manager to luminaries such as Cicero, Hortensius and
Cato. Cicero’s On Friendship was dedicated to him, and he wrote a book on Cicero’s
consulship (now lost). Born in 109, he died in 32, deliberately starving himself to death in
a terminal illness. His sister was wife to Quintus Cicero, his daughter wife of Agrippa. For
his long-term friendship with both Augustus and Mark Antony, see doc. 14.38.

1.1 Titus Pomponius Atticus, who was descended from the earliest Roman fami-
lies, always maintained the equestrian rank he had inherited from his ancestors.

490
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
2 His father was committed to business and, for those times, rich, as well as espe-
cially devoted to literature. Because of his own love of letters, he educated his
son in all the areas of study in which the young should be engaged. 3 The boy,
moreover, possessed, in addition to an aptitude for learning, an extremely attrac-
tive enunciation and mode of speaking, so that he not only learnt his tasks quickly
but also declaimed them superbly. Consequently in childhood he was pre-eminent
among his peers and outshone them more noticeably than his aristocratic fellow
students were able to accept with unconcern. 4 He therefore inspired them all by
his own application, among whom were Lucius Torquatus, Gaius Marius the son,
and Marcus Cicero, and with all of these he formed so great an intimacy that no
one was ever dearer to them than he.
2.1 His father died early. While a youth, because of his relationship by mar-
riage with Publius Sulpicius, who was killed while tribune of the plebs (88 BC),
he was himself liable to the same danger, for Anicia, Pomponius’ cousin, had mar-
ried Servius, Sulpicius’ brother. 2 After Sulpicius was killed, however, as he saw
that the state was in dissension as a result of Cinna’s rebellion, and that no oppor-
tunity would be given him of living in accordance with his rank without offending
one faction or the other – since the views of the citizens were polarised, with some
supporting Sulla’s party and the others Cinna’s – he considered it an ideal time for
pursuing his studious tastes and betook himself to Athens. Nonetheless, he did aid
the young Marius from his funds when he was proclaimed a public enemy, and
facilitated his flight with money. 3 So that his living out of Rome should not have
any detrimental impact on his property, he transferred a large part of his fortune
to Athens. He lived there in such a way that he endeared himself greatly to all the
Athenians, and rightly so, 4 as, apart from the favours he could perform for them,
which were considerable even when he was still a youth, he often used his funds
to relieve their impoverishment. As an instance, when the state needed to raise
money to cover a debt, and they could not do so on reasonable terms, he always
stepped in and in such a way that he never charged them inequitable interest and
did not let them remain in debt beyond the agreed time. 5 Both of these were to
their benefit, as he did not permit their debt to grow old out of leniency or grow
through the accumulation of interest. 6 He added to this service by yet another
liberal gesture, for he made a distribution of grain to all of them, giving everyone
6 modii of wheat, which is equal to the measure at Athens called a medimnus. . . .
4.3 While residing here for many years, he gave his property as much care
and attention as was the duty of a conscientious paterfamilias and spent all the
rest of his time either on literature or on the Athenians’ public business, while
nonetheless neglecting services at Rome for his friends – 4 for he always used
to come to Rome when they were candidates for magistracies and was present
for any important undertaking. To Cicero, for example, in all his dangers he
demonstrated exceptional loyalty, and when on his journey into exile gave him
250,000 sesterces. 5 When calm once again prevailed at Rome, he returned there,
I believe, when Lucius Cotta and Lucius Torquatus were consuls (65 BC), and
when he departed from Athens the entire citizen body of Athenians escorted him
(to the ship), showing by their tears the grief at losing him for the future. 5.1

491
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
His mother’s brother was Quintus Caecilius, a Roman eques and a close friend
of Lucius Lucullus, a wealthy man but hard to get on with. Atticus handled his
abrasive temper so well that, although no one else could bear him, he retained his
goodwill without offending him right up to extreme old age. By such behaviour
he reaped the fruits of his dutifulness. 2 Caecilius at his death adopted him by will
and made him his heir to three-quarters of his estate, and he received from this
inheritance around 10 million sesterces. . . .
6.1 In public life he so behaved as always to be and to be considered one of
the optimates faction, though he did not commit himself to the turbulence of civil
disturbances, as he thought that those who gave themselves up to them had no
more control over themselves than people tossed by the sea’s waves. 2 He did not
look for magistracies, although they were open to him through either his influ-
ence or his prestige, because they could not be canvassed for in the traditional
manner or won without breaking the law because of the inordinate distribution
of bribes, or conducted for the good of the state without hazard, at a time when
public moral values were so perverted. 3 He never went to a public auction. He
never acted as a surety or contractor of taxes. He never brought an action against
anyone either in his own name or in conjunction with someone else, never went to
law about his own property, and never presided over a court of law. 4 He accepted
the prefectures offered him by a number of consuls and praetors on condition that
he did not accompany anyone to his province, being satisfied with the honour and
scorning the opportunity to increase his property; he even refused to go to Asia
with Quintus Cicero (61 BC), although he could have held the position of his
deputy – he did not think it appropriate that after refusing to hold a praetorship
he should become a praetor’s attendant. 5 In this decision he was consulting not
only his reputation but also his peace of mind, as he thus avoided all suspicion of
misconduct. Consequently his services were more appreciated by everyone, since
they saw that they stemmed from genuine courtesy rather than from fear or hope.

POMPEY’S RETURN FROM THE EAST

In 63 BC, the tribunes proposed various honours for Pompey as conqueror of the East, and
Cicero organised a vote of thanksgiving. In January 62, Nepos as tribune proposed that
Pompey should both be recalled to deal with Catiline and his army and be allowed to stand for
the consulship in absentia. Cato as tribune opposed both measures, while Caesar as praetor
supported them; violence broke out, the senate passed an SCU and Nepos fled to Pompey.
In 62 Clodius apparently violated the rites of the Bona Dea on 3 December, and Caesar,
in whose house the rites had been conducted as praetor, divorced his wife, Pompeia (see
doc. 7.87). Clodius was acquitted, but Cicero had disproved his alibi, and Clodius became
his inveterate enemy. Caesar then left for Further Spain, his propraetorian province for 61.
Towards the end of 62 BC, Pompey, after a public dispatch (doc. 12.32), arrived in Italy;
he celebrated his triumph in 61 (doc. 12.29) and disbanded his army. He needed ratification
of his Eastern acta, as well as land for his veterans (doc. 12.36). He met with considerable
opposition from the senate, especially from one of the consuls for 60, Metellus Celer. By
the end of 60, Pompey had failed to achieve both aims and the stage was set for his co-
operation with Caesar.

492
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
12.28 Velleius Paterculus Compendium of Roman History 2.40.4–5:
Pompey’s golden crown
T. Ampius Balbus and T. Labienus were tribunes in 63 BC; Caesar supported these honours,
Cato opposed them. Both Lucullus (cos. 74) and Metellus Creticus (cos. 69) had reason to
feel that Pompey had robbed them of their ‘gloria’.

4 In Gnaeus Pompey’s absence, Titus Ampius and Titus Labienus, tribunes of the
plebs, proposed a law that Pompey should be allowed, at the Circus games, to wear a
golden crown and the full dress of triumphators and, at the theatre, the toga praetexta
and the golden crown. But he did not venture on this privilege more than once, and
this indeed was too often. For Fortune raised this man to the summit by such great
leaps, triumphing first over Africa, then over Europe, and then over Asia, and the
divisions of the world became so many monuments of his victory. Greatness never
lacks jealousy. 5 Both Lucullus and Metellus Creticus, who remembered the affront
he had received – indeed his complaint was not unjust, for Pompey had robbed him
of the captive generals who were to adorn his triumph – opposed him, along with a
section of the optimates, who tried to prevent Pompey’s promises to the cities and
the rewards for good service to him being carried out according to his wishes.

12.29 Pliny Natural History 7.96–99: Pompey’s victories

Pompey in Pliny’s view was equal not only to Alexander but even (nearly) to Hercules.
Pompey’s triumph lasted for two days, 28–29 September 61 BC; cf. doc. 2.60 for Pompey’s
immense clientela.

96 Well then, after the recovery of Sicily, he first, as one of Sulla’s supporters,
rose up as the state’s champion, and, after the subjugation of the whole of Africa
and its reduction to Roman domination, and with the title Magnus acquired as one
of the spoils, though an equestrian – a thing which no one had ever done before –
rode in a triumphal chariot and immediately afterwards crossed over to the West,
and after erecting trophies in the Pyrenees added to his victories the subjection to
Roman domination of 876 towns, from the Alps to the borders of Further Spain,
and, with greater magnanimity, refrained from mentioning Sertorius. After extin-
guishing the civil war which was on the point of stirring up all our foreign rela-
tions, he again led triumphal chariots into Rome as an equestrian, having twice
been imperator before serving as a common soldier. 97 Following this, he was
sent to every sea and then to the East and brought back unending titles for his
country, in the manner of those who conquer in the sacred contests (i.e., panhel-
lenic games) – for these are not crowned themselves but crown their country;
accordingly he bestowed these honours on the city in the shrine of Minerva that he
dedicated from the proceeds of the spoils: Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, imperator,
after ending a 30 years’ war, scattering, routing, killing and receiving the surren-
der of 12,183,000 persons, sinking or capturing 846 ships, receiving the surrender
of 1,538 towns and forts, and subduing the lands from the Maeotians to the Red
Sea, duly fulfils his vow to Minerva.

493
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
98 This is his summary of his deeds in the East. The announcement of the tri-
umph which he held on 28 September in the consulship of Marcus Piso and Marcus
Messalla (61 BC) was as follows. After liberating the sea coast from pirates and
restoring the command of the sea to the Roman people, he celebrated a triumph
over Asia, Pontus, Armenia, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Syria, the Scythians,
Jews and Albanians, Iberia, the island of Crete, the Basternae, and in addition to
these over King Mithridates and Tigranes. 99 The greatest achievement in these
glorious exploits was (as he himself said in the assembly when he was speaking of
his successes) to have found Asia the remotest of the provinces and to have made
her a central possession of his country. If, on the other side, anyone wants to sur-
vey in a similar fashion the achievements of Caesar, who showed himself greater
than Pompey, he would truly have to enumerate the whole world, which, it will be
agreed, would be a task without end.

12.30 Diodorus Library of History 40.4: Pompey’s dedication to

Minerva
Pompey had his achievements in Asia inscribed and set up as a dedication; a copy
of the inscription follows: Pompey the Great, son of Gnaeus, Imperator, liberated
the coastline of the inhabited world and the islands this side of Ocean from the war
against the pirates, having also saved from siege the kingdom of Ariobazanes (king
of Cappadocia), Galatia and the lands and provinces beyond it, Asia, and Bithynia;
he protected Paphlagonia and Pontus, Armenia and (Scythian) Achaea, as well as
Iberia, Colchis, Mesopotamia, Sophene and Gordyene; he subdued Darius, king of
the Medes, Artoles, king of the Iberians, Aristobulus, king of the Jews, Aretas, king
of the Nabataean Arabs, Syria bordering on Cilicia, Judaea, Arabia, the province of
Cyrene, the Achaeans, the Iozugi, the Soani, the Heniochi, all the other tribes along
the coastline between Colchis and the Maeotic Sea, with their kings, nine in number,
and all the nations dwelling between the Pontic and the Red Seas; he extended the
frontiers of the empire to the limits of the earth; and protected, and in some cases
increased, the revenues of the Roman people. After confiscating the statues and the
other images of the gods, as well as the other valuables taken from the enemy, he has
dedicated to the goddess 12,060 pieces of gold and 307 talents of silver.

12.31 Pompey honoured in the Greek East (67–62)

(i) ILS 9459 (from Miletopolis, Asia Minor)

The people honour Gnaeus Pompeius, son of Gnaeus, the Great, imperator for the
third time, saviour and 5 benefactor of the people and of all Asia, guardian of land
and sea, because of his excellence and goodwill towards them.

(ii) SIG3 751 (from Mytilene)

The people honour their saviour and founder Gnaeus Pompeius, son of Gnaeus,
the Great, imperator for the third time, who 5 destroyed those who had seized the

494
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
inhabited world by his wars on both land and sea. Dorotheus, son of Hegesandros,
of Olynthos made this.

CICERO AND POMPEY

12.32 Cicero Letters to his Friends 5.7: A letter to
Pompey, April 62 BC
Pompey’s reply to Cicero’s letter informing him of his role in suppressing Catiline’s
conspiracy did not mention Cicero’s actions, and Cicero here shows his disappointment; he
is tactful, however, as he clearly desires to be politically close to Pompey. Cicero’s ‘own
great goodwill’ was manifested in his support for the lex Manilia, with its retrospective
approval of the lex Gabinia, and in moving as consul a ten-day supplicatio for Pompey on
the news of Mithridates’ death and another on receipt of Pompey’s dispatch.

1 From Marcus Tullius Cicero, son of Marcus, to Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, son
of Gnaeus, Imperator, greetings. I hope all is well with you and your army, as it is
with me. I received immeasurable pleasure, like everyone else, from your public
dispatch; for you display such a hope of peace as I, relying on you alone, have
always been promising everyone. But I must tell you that your letter dealt a severe
blow to your old enemies, now your new friends, who despond, cast down from
their high hopes. 2 Although the letter you sent to me displays only slight indica-
tion of your regard for me, I must tell you that it was most welcome to me anyway.
For in nothing do I generally take such pleasure as in the consciousness of my
services to others; if these do not receive a mutual response, I am quite content
that the balance of the service lies with me. I do not doubt that, if my own great
goodwill towards you has not sufficiently attached you to me, the public interest
will unite and bind us together.
3 So that you are not unaware of what I missed in your letter, I will write
plainly, just as is demanded both by my character and by our friendship. My
achievements were such that I expected some congratulatory comment in your
letter for the sake of both our close relationship and the commonwealth; I sup-
pose that you left it out for fear of giving anyone offence. But I must tell you that
what I did for the country’s safety is approved by the judgement and testimony of
the whole world; when you arrive back, you will recognise that I acted with such
policy and magnanimity as to make you well content to have me as your political
ally and friend, a not much lesser Laelius to a much greater Africanus.

12.33 Cicero On Duties 1.77–78: Cicero compares himself and Pompey

Writing in 44 BC, Cicero quotes from his poem on his consulship, praising himself by
quoting Pompey’s opinion of him.

77 The truth, however, is in the verse which, I am told, the dishonest and envious
attack: ‘Arms, yield to the toga, victory laurels, to civic praise.’ Not to mention
other examples, did not arms yield to the toga when I was piloting the state? For
never was the state in more serious danger or greater peace. So, as a result of my

495
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
advice and diligence, the weapons, of their own accord, fell suddenly from the
hands of the most desperate citizens. What achievement in war was ever so great?
What triumph can be compared to it? 78 For I may boast to you, son Marcus, as to
you belong the inheritance of this glory and the necessity of imitating my deeds.
Indeed it was to me that Gnaeus Pompey, a man overwhelmed with praises for his
exploits in war, paid this compliment in the hearing of many when he said that his
third triumph would have been won in vain, unless by my services to the state he
were to have somewhere to celebrate it.

12.34 Cicero Letters to Atticus 1.13.4: Relations cool, January 61 BC

The ‘dear friend’ is Pompey. Cicero’s opinion will have been motivated largely by Pompey’s
tardiness in praising Cicero’s role in the suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy.

Your dear friend (do you know whom I’m talking about? The person about whom
you wrote to me that he began to praise once he no longer dared to find fault)
declares his great regard, his esteem, his affection for me, with praise on the sur-
face, though underneath, but still visible, lies his jealousy. Without courtesy, sin-
cerity, political influence, integrity, courage or plain speaking – but I’ll write in
more detail at another time, as I don’t yet know enough on the subject and I dare
not entrust a letter on such important matters to any sort of unknown chap.

12.35 Cicero Letters to Atticus 1.17.8–9: The equites and

their tax contract
Cicero is writing in December 61 BC. In 62, after the Catilinarian conspiracy, in which
the equites and senators had united against Catiline, Cicero developed his concept of the
concordia ordinum (‘concord of the orders’). In 61, two issues affected this, as Cicero
describes – dispute over the law-courts and the tax contract in Asia. The request of the
equites, championed by Crassus (censor in 65), who had overbid on the tax contract in
Asia, was in Cicero’s estimation simply ‘disgraceful’.

8 We are living in a commonwealth which is feeble, unhappy and unstable. I

suppose you have heard that our friends, the equites, have almost broken with
the senate; for a start, they took great exception to the pronouncement under sen-
atorial decree of a bill authorising investigation in the case of jurors who had
taken bribes. While this was being voted on, I happened to be away, and, realising
that the equestrian order was very annoyed, though they said nothing publicly,
I criticised the senate using, as I felt, the whole weight of my reputation, giving
an extremely authoritative and eloquent speech in a rather disreputable cause. 9
Now, here come further pretensions of the equites, which are almost unendur-
able! – and I have not only borne with these but even given them my support.
Those who bought the taxes of Asia from the censors complained in the senate
that they had been induced by their cupidity to make too high a bid; they asked
that their contract be cancelled. I was their chief supporter, or rather first but one,
for it was Crassus who urged them to make this bold demand. The whole thing

496
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
is invidious – the demand is disgraceful, a confession of reckless conduct! There
was terrible risk that, if they were made no concessions, they would openly break
with the senate. Here, again, it was I in particular who came to their assistance
and ensured that they found the senate fully attended and feeling generous, and on
the Kalends of December and the following day I spoke at length about the dig-
nity and concord of the orders (concordia ordinum). The business has still not yet
been settled, but the senate’s wishes are obvious. The only one who spoke against
it was Metellus, the consul-elect; our hero Cato was going to speak but lost his
chance as the day was not long enough.

THE EVENTS OF 60 BC
12.36 Dio Roman History 37.49.1–50.6: Pompey’s setbacks, 60 BC
Pompey on his return to Italy divorced his wife, Mucia, and proposed marriage to the
elder of Cato’s nieces and the hand of the younger for his son. Cato rejected this proposal.
Unfortunately, Mucia was half-sister to Metellus Celer, who, with L. Afranius, was to be
one of the consuls for 60. Afranius, a novus homo from Picenum, had been a legate of
Pompey’s in Spain. Pompey wanted land for his veterans and employed the tribune L.
Flavius to secure this. Ager publicus was to be used as well as land purchased with the
Eastern revenues and was to be made available to veterans and other citizens in order to
win their support. Metellus opposed the measure, and it had gone ‘quite cold’ by mid-60
(doc. 12.38). Metellus’ opposition was such that he was dragged off to prison by Flavius,
but was released when he summoned the senate there. At the end of 60, Pompey’s veterans
were without land and his acta in the East unratified.

49.1 Pompey arrived in Italy at this time and had Lucius Afranius and Metellus
Celer appointed consuls (for 60 BC), hoping vainly that through them he would
be able to achieve all that he wanted. 2 He particularly wanted some land to be
granted to his soldiers and all his settlements to be ratified, but at the time he failed
to achieve either of these. For the optimates, who even before this had not been
on good terms with him, prevented a vote being taken; 3 and, as for the consuls
themselves, Afranius (who knew more about dancing than about business) was
of no assistance at all, and Metellus, angry that Pompey had divorced his sis-
ter, although he had children by her, opposed him violently in everything . . . 5
And since Pompey had annulled some of Lucullus’ acts, Lucullus demanded
that an investigation be made in the senate into the acts of both of them, so it
could ratify whichever ones they approved of. 50.1 Cato and Metellus and all
the others of the same mind strongly supported him. Accordingly, when the
tribune (Lucius Flavius) who was proposing that land be granted to Pompey’s
men added to this measure the proposal that land be granted to all the citizens
as well, so that they would more readily vote for this and ratify Pompey’s acts,
Metellus met every point with such opposition that, when the tribune had him
thrown into prison, he then desired the senate to assemble there . . . 5 So, when
Pompey could effect nothing because of Metellus and the others, he said they
were jealous of him and that he would reveal this to the people, but, as he was

497
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
afraid that they too might fail him and cause him greater shame, he withdrew his
demands. 6 In this way he realised that he possessed no real power, but just the
name and envy arising from his former authority, while in reality he received
no profit from this and repented of having dismissed his legions and having put
himself in his enemies’ power.

12.37 Cicero Letters to Atticus 1.19.4–7: Cicero’s stance, 60 BC

Flavius’ agrarian legislation, discussed here by Cicero (15 March 60), who supported it
while ensuring occupiers of the land were not disadvantaged, was thwarted by the consul
Metellus Celer and other optimates. Herennius’ attempts to transfer Clodius to the plebs
were vetoed by the other tribunes.

4 Affairs in the city are as follows. The agrarian law is being enthusiastically pushed
by the tribune Flavius, with Pompey’s support, though there is nothing ‘popular’
about it but the proposer. From this law, with the approval of an assembly, I tried to
remove everything that disadvantaged private interests; I wanted to remove from its
control such land as was state land in the consulship of Publius Mucius and Lucius
Calpurnius (133 BC), confirm the holdings of Sulla’s settlers, and leave the people
of Volaterra and Arretinum, whose land was confiscated but not allocated, in pos-
session of their land; I did not reject one motion, that the land should be bought out
of the money from abroad received from the new taxes over a five-year period. The
entire proposal for land distribution is being opposed by the senate, which suspects
that some new power for Pompey is sought: in truth, he has set his heart on the bill
being passed. To the great gratitude of all those who are to receive the land, I am
ensuring that the possessions of all private owners be confirmed; after all, this is my
army, as you are well aware, the well-to-do. However, for the people and Pompey I
am meeting their wishes (as I also wish to do) through purchase, which, if carefully
organised, I believe could drain off the dregs of the city and repopulate Italy’s deso-
lation. But the whole affair has gone cold with the interposition of war. Metellus is
certainly a good consul and a good friend of mine. The other one (L. Afranius) is
such a nonentity that he doesn’t know what he’s purchased.
5 That is all about politics, unless you think it relates to politics that a certain
Herennius, a tribune and tribesman of yours, and a totally worthless and needy
chap, has begun making regular attempts to have Publius Clodius transferred to
the plebs. He gets a lot of vetoes. That is all, I believe, about the commonwealth.
6 However, since the great Nones of December (5 December 63 BC), when I
reached extraordinary and undying glory, joined with the ill-will and hostility of
many, I have not ceased to involve myself in politics with that same greatness of
mind, or to maintain the prestige I then won and undertook; but when I afterwards
noted the light-mindedness and weakness of the courts, through Clodius’ acquit-
tal, and then saw how easily our friends, the tax-farmers, were separated from
the senate, although not estranged from myself, and moreover how some wealthy
men, I mean the fish-lovers (piscinarii), friends of yours, were not able to hide
their jealousy of me, I thought I should look for greater resources and more stable
protection. 7 And so, I drew Pompey, who had kept quiet for too long about my

498
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
achievements, into choosing to give me in the senate, not once but on a number of
occasions and at length, the credit for saving our empire and the world. That was
not of such importance to me (for my achievements are neither so unknown as
to need witnesses nor so doubtful as to need praise) as to the state, as there were
some scoundrels who considered that some disagreement out of all this discord
might arise between Pompey and myself. I have united myself with him in so
close a relationship that both of us can feel safer as individuals and politically
stronger by our alliance.

12.38 Cicero Letters to Atticus 2.1.6–8: Cicero approaches

Pompey and Caesar
Cicero is writing in June 60 BC. The agrarian law is that of Flavius (tr. pl. 60). While
senators were covered by provisions concerning judicial bribery, the equites were exempt
from these, and Cato proposed a law in the senate to investigate jurors who had taken
bribes; it was strongly opposed by the equites and dropped. Cato also opposed the equites’
demand for tax relief. In 60 Caesar achieved successes in Further Spain, and Cicero hoped
that he could influence Caesar, just as he felt he could influence Pompey, who had finally
acknowledged Cicero’s achievements of 63 (doc. 12.37).

6 You mention the agrarian law – it seems to have gone quite cold. And in a gentle
sort of fashion you criticise me for my friendly relations with Pompey, though I
wouldn’t want you to think that I have become allied with him for my own pro-
tection; but circumstances were so constituted that any disagreement that arose
between us would inevitably have occasioned major conflicts in the state. If I have
in this way foreseen and taken measures against this, it is not that I have departed
from my constitutionalist policy, but that he is now more constitutionally minded
and has relaxed somewhat from his attempts to win popular favour. As for my
achievements, which many had tried to stir him up to attack, you should be aware
that he commends them far more flatteringly than his own, proclaiming that he
served the state well, but that I saved it. I do not know how much his doing this
is of benefit to me, but it is certainly advantageous for the state. And what if I can
even make Caesar, who is certainly at the moment sailing with a favourable wind,
more constitutionally minded? 7 Would that harm the state so much? Even if no
one bore me any ill-will, if everyone was well disposed to me, as would be reason-
able, nonetheless medicines for healing the corrupt parts of the state ought to be
tried instead of cutting them out. But now, when the equites, whom I stationed on
the Capitoline slope with you as their standard-bearer and chief, have abandoned
the senate, with our leaders thinking that they’ve reached the summit of human
fortune if they have bearded mullet in their fishponds which will swim up to their
hands, and neglecting all other business, don’t you think that I have done enough
good if I succeed in stopping those who have the power from wanting to do harm?
8 Regarding our friend Cato, you do not feel for him more warmly than I do, but
despite all his principles and integrity he is sometimes a nuisance politically; he
voices his opinion as if he were in Plato’s Republic, not in the sewers of Romulus’
city. What can be more proper than that any juror who takes a bribe be brought

499
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
to trial? Cato brought this motion and the senate agreed: the equites declare war
on the senate house – not on me, for I disagreed. What could be more shameless
than tax-farmers reneging on their contract? Yet the loss was worth incurring to
keep the order on our side. Cato opposed and carried his point. And so, a consul is
confined in prison, and one riot follows another, while not one of those who used
to back me or the consuls who succeeded me in the defence of the state is of any
assistance. ‘So then’, you ask, ‘shall we keep these as mercenaries?’ Why not, if
we are unable to do so in any other way? Or should we act as the servants of our
freedmen and even our slaves? But, as you would say, enough serious talk.

12.39 Appian Civil Wars 2.8.26–30: Caesar loses his triumph

When Caesar returned to Rome in mid-60 BC, Pompey’s agrarian law was more or
less dead, his acta had not been ratified, and his friendship with Cicero had brought no
dividends. The senate, particularly Cato, had been hostile to Pompey, and Cato took the
lead in opposing Caesar’s request to stand for the consulship in absentia in order to hold
his triumph. Caesar therefore had to disband his army and forego the triumph in order to
stand for the consulship.

26 After being selected as praetor for Spain, Caesar was detained in Rome by
his creditors, as he owed much more than he was able to pay off because of his
expenses connected with holding office. He was reported to have said that he
needed 25,000,000 sesterces in order to have nothing. 27 However, he settled with
those who were importuning him, as far as he could, and went to Spain, where
he paid no attention to administering the cities, arbitrating on legal cases and all
other matters of that kind, as he thought these of no use in furthering his plans, but
raised an army and attacked the remainder of the Spanish tribes one after another,
until he had made the entire country of Spain pay tribute to the Romans. He also
sent a large amount of money to Rome to the public treasury. 28 As a result, the
senate granted him a triumph, and he made arrangements outside the walls for a
magnificent triumphal procession during the days in which candidates for the con-
sulship were being invited to stand and had to be present in person – anyone who
entered the city was not allowed to leave again to celebrate his triumph. 29 He was
extremely eager to attain the magistracy, and, as his procession was not yet ready,
he sent to the senate requesting that he be allowed to work through his friends
and stand in his absence, knowing that it was illegal but that it had been done by
others. 30 Cato spoke in opposition and spent the final day for the presentation of
candidates in making speeches. Caesar, therefore, ignored his triumph, presented
himself as a candidate and waited for the election.

12.40 Cicero Letters to Atticus 2.3.3–4: Caesar sounds out Cicero,

December 60 BC
Cicero had supported Pompey’s agrarian law but opposed Caesar’s (also to provide land for
Pompey’s veterans). The quotation is from Cicero’s poem on his consulship; ‘one omen is
best’: Hector in Homer Iliad 12.243.

500
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
3 The matter needs careful consideration. Either I strongly oppose the agrarian
law, which will involve something of a struggle, though a praiseworthy one, or
I keep quiet, which is almost the same as leaving for Solonium or Antium, or I
even give it my assistance, as they say Caesar unhesitatingly expects me to do.
Cornelius, Balbus I mean, came to visit me, Caesar’s friend. He declared that
Caesar will follow my advice and Pompey’s in everything and will work to unite
Crassus and Pompey. 4 This would mean my intimate association with Pompey,
and even with Caesar, should I wish, reconciliation with my enemies, peace with
the populace, relaxation in my old age. But I’m affected by that conclusion of
mine in Book Three:

‘Meanwhile the paths, which from your earliest youth

And which as consul, with courage and spirit, you sought,
Keep to these and increase your prestige and good men’s praise.’

Calliope herself dictated this to me in that book in which there are many aristo-
cratic sentiments, so I do not think I ought to hesitate; may I always feel: ‘one
omen best – to fight for your country.’

THE FIRST TRIUMVIRATE

Pompey still needed ratification of his Eastern acta and land for the veterans of his
campaigns, Crassus wanted financial relief for the equites, and Caesar needed the
consulship followed by a lucrative province. Caesar played the key role in bringing
Crassus and Pompey together in this relationship, now known as the ‘First Triumvirate’,
to pursue various ends. Overtures were made to Cicero but he would not join them. This
association allowed the three men involved to achieve their political ends. The association
lasted until Julia, Caesar’s daughter, died in 54 and Crassus was killed in Parthia in 53.
Pompey and Caesar remained on good terms, but Pompey’s political position shifted, and
his appointment with the optimates’ blessing as sole consul in 52 marks the beginning of
the real change in his relationship with Caesar.

12.41 Velleius Paterculus Compendium of Roman History 2.44.1–3:

The ‘First Triumvirate’
Modern scholars have referred to this alliance as the ‘First Triumvirate’, but this is not an
ancient term: Cic. Att. 2.13.2 refers to a regnum (kingship), Velleius uses the term societas
(partnership), and Livy Per. 103, speaks of a conspiratio (secret agreement). Cicero refers
to Pompey’s marriage to Julia as recent in a letter of May 59 (Att. 2.17.1).

1 It was in Caesar’s consulship that the partnership in political control between

him and Gnaeus Pompey and Marcus Crassus was formed which was to be so
destructive to the city, to the world and, no less, at different periods, to the men
themselves. Pompey’s reason for supporting this plan was 2 so that his settlements
in the overseas provinces, which, as I have said already, many were opposing,
should finally be ratified by Caesar as consul; Caesar’s was because he realised

501
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
that, in making this concession to Pompey’s prestige, he would increase his own
and, by putting onto Pompey the ill-will arising from their joint political con-
trol, he would strengthen his own power; Crassus’ was so that he might achieve,
through the influence of Pompey and the power of Caesar, the pre-eminent place
which he had not been able to reach on his own. 3 In addition, a marriage connec-
tion was made between Caesar and Pompey, in that Gnaeus Magnus married Julia,
Gaius Caesar’s daughter.

12.42 Plutarch Life of Crassus 7.1–4: Relations between Crassus and

Pompey
Crassus and Pompey had held a joint consulship in 70 BC (docs 12.4–5). Though they
were not on the best of terms, their various needs would be met by their association with
Caesar.

1 Crassus was annoyed by Pompey’s success in his campaigns, by the fact that he
celebrated a triumph before becoming a senator, and by his being called Magnus,
which means ‘Great’, by his fellow citizens. When on one occasion someone said,
‘Pompey the Great is coming’, Crassus laughed and asked ‘As great as what?’ 2
Accordingly he gave up all attempts to equal Pompey in military achievements
and threw himself into politics, and through his hard work, advocacy in the courts,
loans of money and his help in canvassing and supporting candidates for office he
obtained influence and prestige rivalling that won by Pompey from his many great
military expeditions. 3 They both had their own special position: when Pompey
was away he had the greater reputation and influence in the city on account of his
campaigns, but when he was at home he was often less important than Crassus
because, owing to the arrogance and pretence of his way of life, he would avoid
crowds, retire from the forum and assist only a few of those who asked him, and
then with no great eagerness, so as to retain his influence the more unimpaired for
use on his own behalf. 4 Crassus, on the other hand, was continually ready to be
of use, never aloof or difficult to get hold of, and was always actively involved in
whatever was going on, and so, by his kindness to everyone, gained the advantage
over Pompey with his haughty reserve. Both men, it is said, were similarly gifted
with dignity of appearance, persuasiveness of speech and grace of countenance.

CAESAR’S CONSULSHIP
Caesar’s consulship was marked by a legislative programme ‘more fitting for a radical
tribune than a consul’ (doc. 12.45). He carried through the wishes of Pompey and Crassus
and then his own agenda: a military command in the West, proposed by the tribune
P. Vatinius. Cicero refused to accept Caesar’s overtures and did not support his land
legislation or accept any of his invitations to official posts (doc. 12.46, 12.56). His opposition
seems to have been a decisive factor in the adoption of Clodius as a plebeian, which paved
the way for the latter’s tribunate of 58 and Cicero’s exile (docs 12.54–56). The triumvirate
became unpopular throughout the course of the year (docs 12.50–52), with Curio prominent
among the critics, and Cicero complains about the general loss of liberty (doc. 12.51).

502
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
12.43 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 19.2–20.2: ‘The consulship of
Julius and Caesar’
The senate, fearing that another military command would increase Caesar’s popularity,
assigned as provinces to the consuls of 59 the ‘woods and pastures’. Bibulus’ opposition
to Caesar took the form of obnuntiatio (declaration of unfavourable omens) at meetings
of the assembly: cf. doc. 3.75. Caesar did not allow this to interfere with his legislative
programme, and Bibulus’ consulship was therefore ineffective, his main achievement
being to postpone the consular elections for 58.

19.2 Caesar was therefore made consul with Bibulus. For the same reason, the
optimates took care that the provinces assigned the consuls-elect would be of the
most trivial importance; that is, woods and pastures . . . 20.1 After taking office,
Caesar’s first enactment was that the daily proceedings of both the senate and the
people should be collected and published. He also revived an ancient custom that,
in the months when he did not have the fasces, a state officer should walk in front
of him while the lictors followed behind. He proposed an agrarian bill and used
force to drive his colleague from the forum when he pronounced that the omens
were unfavourable, and, when his colleague made a complaint in the senate on
the following day, no one could be found who was bold enough to bring a motion
or express their opinion about such a disruption, although decrees had often been
passed regarding lighter disturbances. Bibulus was driven to such a degree of des-
peration that, until the end of his magistracy, he stayed at home, merely issuing
edicts that the omens were unfavourable. 2 From that time on, Caesar handled all
matters of state on his own and on his own judgement, so that some humorists,
when they were acting as witnesses to documents, wrote as a joke not ‘done in the
consulship of Caesar and Bibulus’ but ‘in the consulship of Julius and Caesar’,
putting the same man down twice by name and surname, while the following
verses were soon widely circulated:

‘A deed took place recently, not in Bibulus’ year but Caesar’s –

For I don’t remember anything happening in Bibulus’ consulship!’

12.44 Dio Roman History 38.1.1–7, 7.4–6: Caesar’s agrarian legislation

Caesar as consul passed land legislation, though the tribune Flavius had failed to do so the
previous year. He established a committee of 20, which Cicero refused to join (doc. 12.46).
Caesar left the state property in Campania out of his initial legislation, but in May the
ager Campanus was added to the legislation for distribution to 20,000 citizens. 7.4: Caesar
finally dealt with the request of the equites in 61 BC for a reduction in the price contracted
for the taxes for Asia Minor, organising this through the assembly. Pompey’s Eastern acta
were also ratified in the assembly.

1.1 The next year Caesar wanted to grant favours to the whole people in order
to make them even more firmly attached to his side. As he also wished to appear
to be supporting the optimates, to avoid incurring their enmity he told them fre-
quently that he would not propose any measure that was not in their interests; 2

503
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
indeed, he framed a law about the land, which he wished to distribute to the whole
populace, in such a way that not the slightest fault could be found with it, though
he pretended that he would not introduce it if they did not wish for it. No one was
able to criticise him in any way over this law, for the swollen city mob, 3 which
was primarily responsible for the constant disturbances, would be channelled into
work and agriculture, and most of Italy, which was now desolate, would be recol-
onised, so that not only those who had endured the hardships of campaign but all
the others too would have sufficient means to live on, while this would involve no
expense for the city or loss to the optimates, many of whom would acquire both
dignity and office. 4 He wished to allocate all the public land except for Campania
(which he advised them to keep separate as state property because of its excel-
lence) and told them to purchase the rest, not from anyone who was unwilling nor
for a price desired by the land commissioners, but firstly from those willing to sell
and secondly for the same price as that assessed in the tax registers. 5 He stated
that they had a large amount of surplus money from the booty taken by Pompey
and from the tributes and taxes recently established, and that they should, in so
far as it had been acquired through the dangers faced by citizens, spend it on these
same persons. 6 In addition, he proposed that there should be not just a few land
commissioners, so as to appear like an oligarchy, nor should they be people who
had to give an account of their conduct in office, which might displease someone,
but firstly that there should be 20, so the honour should be shared, and secondly
that they should be the most suitable men, except for himself. 7 For he insisted on
this at the beginning, so he might not be thought to be proposing a measure to his
own advantage; he himself was satisfied, so he said, with planning and proposing
the measure, though he was clearly doing a favour to Pompey, Crassus and the
rest. . . .
7.4 In this way Caesar won the support of the populace, while he gained that
of the equites by releasing them from one-third of the taxes for which they had
contracted; they were responsible for all tax collection and, though they had often
asked the senate for some satisfaction, had not been successful because Cato and
others opposed it. 5 When Caesar had won over this class, encountering no pro-
tests, he first ratified all Pompey’s settlements, with no opposition from Lucullus
or anyone else, and then enacted many other measures without resistance. 6 Not
even Cato objected, although, when he was praetor a little while later, he would
never mention the title of Caesar’s laws, because they were called ‘Julian’; for,
although he followed them in allocating the courts, he most ridiculously con-
cealed their name.

12.45 Plutarch Life of Julius Caesar 14.1–13: Caesar’s

methods as consul
When Caesar’s land legislation (the lex Julia agraria) was opposed in the senate, he took
it to the comitia tributa. Bibulus (with the assistance of three tribunes) unsuccessfully
opposed it. The legislation was passed with violence, while Cato was almost hauled off
to prison. On the next day Bibulus attempted to have the law annulled in the senate, but

504
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
it would not act. He then kept to his house, observing the omens for the remainder of his
consulship and declaring them unfavourable, so that technically the assembly could not
meet (the obnuntiatio) and Caesar’s legislative activities were therefore invalid.

1 So Caesar, supported and defended by the friendship of Crassus and Pompey,

put himself forward for the consulship; 2 once he was triumphantly elected with
Calpurnius Bibulus and had entered upon his office, he immediately proposed
laws more fitting for a radical tribune than a consul, bringing forward measures
for the allocation and distribution of land. 3 When the respectable elements in
the senate opposed him, this gave him just the pretext he needed and, protesting
loudly that he was being driven to the assembly against his will, and forced by
the insolence and intransigence of the senate to pay court to it, he hurried there. 4
After placing Crassus on one side of himself and Pompey on the other, he asked
them if they approved of his laws. When they declared that they did, he called on
them to assist him against those who were threatening to oppose him with swords.
5 They promised to do this, and Pompey added that he would meet swords with
a sword and shield too. 6 The nobility were irritated by this rash and childish
speech, unworthy of his own dignity and unsuited to the respect due to the senate,
but the people were delighted.
7 Caesar went on to obtain an even greater claim to Pompey’s influence, as
he had a daughter, Julia, engaged to Servilius Caepio, whom he now engaged to
Pompey, saying that he would give Servilius Pompey’s daughter, though she too
was not unengaged, but had been promised to Faustus, son of Sulla. 8 And shortly
afterwards Caesar married Calpurnia, Piso’s daughter, and had Piso made consul
for the following year, at which Cato protested violently, crying out that it was
unendurable to have the government prostituted by marriage alliances and men
promoting each other to provinces, armies and offices by the means of women.
9 As Caesar’s colleague Bibulus achieved nothing in his efforts to obstruct
Caesar’s laws and was often in danger, with Cato, of being killed in the forum,
he shut himself up at home for the rest of his term. 10 Straight after his marriage,
Pompey filled the forum with armed men and assisted the people in ratifying the
legislation and granting Caesar Gaul on both sides of the Alps for five years,
along with Illyricum and four legions. 11 When Cato tried to speak against these
measures, Caesar had him led off to prison, imagining that he would appeal to the
tribunes; 12 but when he walked off without a word and Caesar saw that not only
were the nobles displeased, but that the people out of respect for Cato’s excellent
qualities were following him in silence with downcast faces, he secretly asked one
of the tribunes to have him released. 13 Of the rest of the senators, only a very few
used to attend Caesar’s meetings in the senate; the rest showed their disapproval
by staying away.

12.46 Cicero On the Consular Provinces 40–41: Cicero rebuffs Caesar

There was to be a board of 20 on the land commission (doc. 12.44), which Cicero was
invited to join. He here refers to a Board of Five, presumably a sub-committee of the 20.

505
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
He had refused to join the triumvirate in December 60 (doc. 12.40) and now refused to join
the Five, considering that it was this refusal that aroused Caesar’s hostility towards him.
Cicero also refused the position of Caesar’s legate in Gaul and, in April 59, the offer of an
ambassadorship to Egypt.

40 I think it relevant here, to prevent my being frequently interrupted by some

people or condemned in the thoughts of those who are silent, to explain briefly
the nature of my relations with Caesar. In the first place I will make no mention
of that time when we were all young men and were very intimate with him –
myself, my brother and my cousin Gaius Varro. After I became deeply involved
in politics, my opinions differed from his, but, despite our differences, we still
remained united by friendship. 41 As consul he brought in measures in which
he wanted me to participate; while I did not approve of these, I had, however, to
feel pleased with his opinion of me. He asked me to be one of the Commission of
Five; he wanted me to be one of the three consulars most closely allied to himself;
he offered me any ambassadorial role I wished, with whatever privileges I might
choose. I rejected all these offers, not because I was ungrateful, but because I
remained true to my own convictions.

12.47 Cicero Letters to Atticus 2.16.2: Cicero on Caesar’s consulship

This letter dates to late April or early May 59 BC. The three tribunes who opposed Caesar’s
land legislation were entitled to veto it but did not have the chance to do so because of
the violent nature of the assembly. Pompey refused to comment on the issue; Cicero’s
quotation is from a play by Sophocles.

I have absolutely no idea what our friend Gnaeus (Pompey) is planning at the
moment,

‘For he no longer blows on little pipes,

But with wild gusts without a mouthband’

since it’s been possible to bring him even to these lengths. Until now he has
quibbled, saying that he approves of Caesar’s laws but that Caesar himself has to
be responsible for his own actions; that he was in favour of the agrarian bill, but
whether vetoes were possible or not was in no way his concern; that he was in
favour of finally settling the case of the Alexandrian king, but whether Bibulus
had been observing the sky was not for him to inquire into; regarding the tax-
farmers, he had wanted to do that order a favour, but wasn’t able to foretell what
might happen if Bibulus went down to the forum on that occasion.

12.48 Cicero On his House 41: ‘Certain political matters’

Publius Clodius Pulcher had been quaestor in Sicily in 61–60 BC. His transfer to the
plebeians from the patrician class in 60, so he could stand for the tribunate, proposed by
the tribune C. Herennius, had been vetoed by other tribunes and opposed by his brother-
in-law Metellus Celer as consul (doc. 12.37). Cicero claimed that it was something which

506
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
he himself had said in his defence of his colleague Antonius Hibrida (cos. 63), who was
being prosecuted for extortion as proconsul in Macedonia (62–61 BC), that led Caesar to
engineer the adoption of Clodius. Cicero later complained that the transfer was illegal (and
hence Clodius’ legislation was invalid: doc. 12.49).

It was perhaps at the sixth hour of the day that, in a case in which I was defending
Gaius Antonius, my colleague, I made a complaint about certain political matters
which seemed to me to impact on my poor client’s case. Scoundrels reported this
to certain worthy gentlemen in terms very different from those I had actually used.
At the ninth hour of that very same day your adoption occurred.

12.49 Cicero In Defence of Sestius 15–16: ‘This loathsome and

monstrous beast’
Caesar and Pompey presided over the adoption as a means of silencing Cicero, who
immediately retired to his country estates. Cicero here claims that Pompey bound Clodius
not to harm Cicero’s interests, but he later stated that Pompey ‘showed more concern for
restoring me (from exile) than for keeping me here’ (doc. 13.35).

15 Gnaeus Pompey, a most illustrious man and one who had been extremely
friendly to me at a time when many people were showing me hostility, had bound
Clodius by every kind of pledge, agreement and sacred oath not to act against
me in any way during his tribunate . . . 16 This loathsome and monstrous beast,
though bound by the auspices, tied down by ancestral custom, fettered by sacred
law, was suddenly freed by a consul through a law in the comitia curiata, either,
as I believe, because he was prevailed on by entreaties or, as many people consid-
ered, because he was angry with me, but certainly unaware of and not foreseeing
the great crimes and evils which were hanging over our heads.

12.50 Cicero Letters to Atticus 2.15.1–2: ‘Publius is our only hope’

This letter dates to c. 28 April 59 BC. Bibulus delayed the elections for the consulship of 58
in an attempt to undermine the triumvirate, but two associates of the triumvirs were to be
finally elected in October: Gabinius (who had proposed the lex Gabinia) and L. Calpurnius
Piso Caesoninus (Caesar’s father-in-law). Publius is Clodius. Cicero earlier in April had
met on the Appian Way Gaius Scribonius Curio (Curio the Younger), who told him that
Clodius was standing for the tribunate as the enemy of Caesar, and Cicero was hopeful that
this would change the current political situation.

1 One thing I can’t understand is how a scheme can be devised to provide enough
land without anyone objecting. 2 Bibulus has shown great nobility of mind in
delaying the (consular) elections, but what does it achieve except an expression
of his personal opinion without any solution for the state’s problems? No doubt
about it, Publius is our only hope. Alright, let him become tribune, if for no other
reason than to bring you back from Epirus more quickly. I don’t see how you
could bear to miss him, especially if he wants to pick a quarrel with me. But

507
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
if anything of that kind happens, I’m sure you will fly back. Even if it doesn’t,
whether he wrecks or revitalises the state, I anticipate a splendid show, as long as
I can watch it with you sitting beside me!

12.51 Cicero Letters to Atticus 2.18.1: Curio and ‘our masters’

Here in June 59 Cicero laments the servitude of the times with the ‘triumvirate’ in place
(cf. doc. 12.52). Curio the Younger was the son of the consul of 76; despite his opposition
to the triumvirs in 59, in 50 he became Caesar’s man.

We are mastered on all sides, and no longer object to being in servitude, but fear
death and exile as worse evils, though they are much less serious. This is the pre-
sent state of affairs, lamented by one universal groan but alleviated by no one’s
actions or words. The aim of our masters, I suspect, is to leave nothing for anyone
else to bestow. The only one to speak or oppose them openly is young Curio.
He gets great rounds of applause, a most prestigious amount of greetings in the
forum, and a multitude of other signs of goodwill from the ‘honest’ men.

12.52 Cicero Letters to Atticus 2.19.2–3: The unpopularity of the

triumvirate
In July 59 Pompey was at Capua, possibly overseeing the distribution of the ager Campanus.
The ringmaster (dominus) at the gladiatorial show is unknown, perhaps Gabinius as a
candidate for the consulship for 58. The Roscian law passed in 67 reserved the first 14
rows of seats in the theatre for the equites (cf. doc. 12.2–4). The grain law could be the
lex Terentia Cassia (73 BC), dealing with the price of grain from Sicily. The threatened
rescindments would punish the equites and the plebs; for the quotation from Ennius on
Fabius Maximus ‘Cunctator’, see doc. 4.34.

2 You should be aware that there has never been anything so infamous, humiliat-
ing and uniformly hateful to all types, classes and ages of men as this current state
of affairs – more, I assure you, than I wished, let alone what I expected. Those
‘popular’ politicians have now taught even mild-tempered people to hiss. Bibulus
is in heaven, I don’t know why, but he is praised as though ‘one man alone by
his delays restored for us the state (Ennius)’. My very dear Pompey has brought
about his own ruin, which is a great grief to me. They hold no one by goodwill;
I am afraid that they may find it necessary to employ fear. For my part, however,
I neither fight with their party on account of my friendship with him nor assent
to it, or I should be condemning all that I did earlier. I take a middle path. 3 The
feeling of the people has been evident at the great theatre and shows. For, at the
gladiators, both the ringmaster and his friends were greeted with hissing, and
at the Games of Apollo (ludi Apollinares) the tragic actor Diphilus impudently
attacked our dear Pompey: ‘To our misery you are Great’ – he had to encore this
numerous times. ‘The time will come when you will deeply rue that same manli-
ness’ – he spoke that to the applause of the entire theatre, and the rest the same.
Actually these verses are such as to seem to have been written for the occasion by
an enemy of Pompey. ‘If neither laws nor customs can compel’ and the rest were

508
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
recited to immense noise and shouting. When Caesar arrived, applause died. The
younger Curio followed him and got the kind of applause that Pompey used to
receive in the time when all was well with the state. Caesar took it badly. A letter
is said to be flying to Pompey at Capua. They are at loggerheads with the equites,
who stood up to applaud Curio, they are at war with everyone; they threaten the
Roscian law, even the grain law. Matters are certainly in a bad way. I would actu-
ally have preferred their undertaking to pass in silence, but I fear that that may
not be possible. People won’t endure it, though it seems it must be endured. But
now there is just one universal cry, though united by hatred rather than the ability
to oppose them.

12.53 Cicero Letters to Atticus 2.24.2–3: The Vettius affair

Written probably in August 59, and certainly before the consular elections in October.
L. Vettius in 62 had accused Caesar of complicity in the Catilinarian conspiracy. In 59
Vettius confessed before the senate that he was plotting to kill Pompey and that the younger
Curio was associated with him in the plot. He was incarcerated and died in prison, strangled
or poisoned, according to the sources, on the orders of the very men who put him up to the
incident. Caesar was able to exploit the affair to strengthen his relationship with Pompey
and keep him apart from the optimates.

2 That chap Vettius, my old informer, clearly promised Caesar that he would find
a way to bring the younger Curio under suspicion of some crime. So he wormed
his way into the young man’s friendship and became a close associate of his, as
events make clear. He finally brought things to the point where he told him that he
had decided with the help of his slaves to make an attack on Pompey and kill him.
Curio carried this information to his father, and he to Pompey. 3 The affair was
brought to the senate’s attention. When Vettius was brought in, he denied that he
had ever been friendly with Curio, at least not for a long time; he then requested a
public guarantee of safety. This was shouted down. Nevertheless he related that a
band of young men existed, with Curio as leader, which initially included Paulus,
Caepio (that is Brutus) and Lentulus, the flamen’s son, his father being aware of
this; later on Gaius Septimius, Bibulus’ clerk, had brought Vettius a dagger from
Bibulus. This was totally laughed down – as though Vettius could not have had
a dagger unless the consul gave him one! His story was all the more disbelieved,
because on the 13th Bibulus himself had informed Pompey to watch out for a plot,
for which Pompey had thanked him. When the younger Curio was brought in,
he replied to Vettius’ statements, and Vettius was particularly criticised for stat-
ing that the plan of the young men had been to attack Pompey during Gabinius’
gladiatorial show in the forum, and that Paullus was one of the leaders, as it was
well known that he was then in Macedonia. A senatorial decree was passed that
Vettius, since he had admitted to having a weapon, should be put in chains and
any person who let him go would be acting against the interests of the state. The
general view is that the original idea was for Vettius to have been arrested in the
forum with his dagger, together with his slaves with their weapons, and that he
would then have asked to turn informer. And that’s what would have happened if
the Curios had not taken the affair to Pompey beforehand.

509
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
CLODIUS AND CICERO
In assisting Clodius’ transfer to the plebs, Pompey and Caesar must have realised that he
would stand for the tribunate (cf. docs 12.49–50). But it appears that they did not want him
to stand for 58 BC. In April, Clodius was promised an embassy to Egypt (it actually went
to someone else) and offered another to Tigranes (possibly to have him out of Rome for the
tribunician elections in July). He did not take it up and did not receive a place on the agrarian
commission of 20. Cicero in April sees Pompey and Caesar as keeping Clodius’ tribunate
in reserve for the time when it will suit them and hears hints from Curio that there might
be a falling out among the triumvirs and their associates. However, there was no substantial
rift between Pompey, Caesar and Clodius at this stage. Clodius supported the legislation
of Vatinius as tribune in 59 arranging the special five-year command for Caesar (App. BC
2.14.53), but this law, though early in the year, cannot be precisely dated. He was elected as
tribune for 58 and was to pursue an extensive legislative programme. Clodius was in no way
a puppet or agent of the triumvirs: he was independent from the beginning of his tribunate and
by its end had attacked and alienated Pompey and, to a lesser extent, Caesar.

12.54 Dio Roman History 38.12.5–13.1, 13.6: Clodius

as tribune
Clodius’ legislation was introduced on 1 January 58 BC and became law on 4 January.
Sulla had abolished Gaius Gracchus’ grain law, and the lex Terentia Cassia of 73 BC had
revived it in some form; Cicero emphasises the cost of Clodius’ law to the treasury. Many
of the guilds, collegia, were abolished in 64 by the senate; they could play an important
role in elections. Censors had the right to revise the roll of senators and to expel members;
Clodius’ law meant that the senator involved had to be present, allowing the senator the
right of defending himself (clearly designed to seek senatorial support). Gabinius and Piso
had become consuls for 58, and both supported Clodius: Gabinius was given command of
Cilicia (later changed to Syria) and Piso of Macedonia. Clodius also abolished the taking
of the auspices for assemblies, permitting assemblies to meet on dies fasti (see doc. 3.30),
obviously in reaction to Bibulus’ activities in 59.

12.5 Cicero irritated numerous people with his speeches, and those whom he
helped were not so much won over to his side as those who were injured were
alienated . . . 6 he also made himself some very bitter enemies by always try-
ing to get the better of even the most powerful men and by always employing
an uncontrolled and excessive freedom of speech towards everyone alike in his
pursuit of a reputation for intellect and eloquence above anyone else’s, even in
preference to being thought a worthy citizen. 7 As a result of this, and because he
was the greatest boaster alive and considered no one his equal, but in speeches and
life alike despised everyone and thought no one on the same footing as himself,
he was a trial and a burden to others and was accordingly envied and hated even
by those who were otherwise in sympathy with him. 13.1 So Clodius hoped that
he could soon deal with him if he first won over the senate, equites and people,
and straightaway started distributing free grain (for now Gabinius and Piso had
become consuls he introduced a bill for its being handed out to the poor) and
revived the associations called collegia in Latin, which had existed in ancient
times but been disbanded for some time; he also forbade the censors to remove

510
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
anyone from any order or censure anyone without his being tried and convicted
before both censors . . . 6 Clodius also, afraid that if he indicted Cicero some peo-
ple might use this method of postponing or delaying the trial, introduced a meas-
ure that none of the magistrates might observe signs from the heavens on days on
which the people had to vote on anything.

12.55 Dio Roman History 38.17.1–6: Cicero leaves town

After Clodius had passed his legislation, he turned on Cicero, who had preferred to stay
in Rome rather than join Caesar’s staff, and had a law passed forbidding fire and water to
anyone who had put citizens to death without a trial. Cicero therefore went into voluntary
exile, and Clodius immediately passed a law which both mentioned Cicero explicitly by
name and forbade any further discussion of the matter. Cicero’s house was demolished, and
a shrine to Libertas (Liberty) was erected on the site by Clodius.

1 However, Caesar (who was outside the walls, as he had already taken charge of
his army, so Clodius assembled the populace there to allow him to arbitrate on the
proposal) condemned the illegality of the actions taken regarding Lentulus 2 but
did not approve the proposed punishment; he stated that everyone knew what he
had thought about events at the time (for he had voted to spare their lives), but it
was not appropriate for such a retrospective law to be drawn up now. 3 This was
Caesar’s view, and Crassus gave some support to Cicero through his son but sided
himself with the populace. Pompey kept promising Cicero help but, by making
various excuses at different times and deliberately leaving town on frequent trips,
did nothing to assist him. 4 When Cicero perceived this, he was afraid and again
attempted to carry weapons (among other things openly castigating Pompey), but
was prevented from doing this by Cato and Hortensius in case a civil war should
eventuate, and he departed unwillingly with the disgrace and dishonour of hav-
ing chosen to go into exile. 5 Before he left, he went up to the Capitol and dedi-
cated a small statue of Minerva, whom he called ‘Protectress’. He slipped away
to Sicily, for he had been governor there and had great hopes of honourable treat-
ment from its towns and citizens. 6 On his departure the law came into force, not
only with no opposition but, once he was out of the way, with the support among
others of those who had seemed to be Cicero’s chief adherents. His property was
confiscated, and his house destroyed, as though an enemy’s, and its site dedicated
for a temple to Liberty. A decree of exile was passed against Cicero himself, and
his stay in Sicily was prohibited; he was banished 3,750 stades from Rome, and it
was proclaimed that, should he ever be found inside this limit, both he and those
who received him could be killed with impunity.

12.56 Velleius Paterculus Compendium of Roman History 2.45.1–2:

Clodius’ hatred for Cicero
For Clodius’ profanation of the rites of the Bona Dea, see doc. 7.87; Cicero disproved his
alibi, but he was acquitted. For Caesar’s invitation to Cicero to join the land commission,
see doc. 12.46.

511
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
1 At about the same time Publius Clodius, a man of noble family, a skilful speaker
and man of audacity, who knew no limits in speech or action except his own
wishes, passionate in the execution of his evil schemes, notorious too for his affair
with his sister, and who had been brought to trial for his profanation of the Roman
people’s most sacred rites, since he felt a violent hatred for Marcus Cicero (for
what friendship could there be between men so different?) and had had himself
transferred from the patricians to the plebs, proposed a law as tribune that who-
ever had put a Roman citizen to death without a trial should be forbidden fire
and water (i.e., exiled): although Cicero was not expressly named, he alone was
the target. 2 And so this man, who had deserved the best from the state, won the
calamity of exile as his reward for saving his country. Caesar and Pompey were
not free from the suspicion of having been involved in Cicero’s downfall. Cicero
seemed to have brought this on himself by having refused to be one of the com-
mission of 20 men in charge of distributing the land in Campania.

CATO THE YOUNGER IN CYPRUS

Before Cicero’s exile, Clodius had proposed that Cyprus, the property of Ptolemy, the
brother of Ptolemy XII Auletes of Egypt (recognised by Rome in 59 BC), be annexed.
A little later (the chronology is imprecise), Clodius moved a second law to send Cato to
Cyprus to administer the annexation of the island and to reinstate exiles at Byzantium (docs
12.58, 59). The revenues from Cyprus would offset the cost of his grain law. Cicero states
that Clodius chose Cato because he wanted both Cicero and Cato out of the way (doc.
12.58), but Plutarch’s comment that Cicero’s exile would be effected only with Cato’s
absence is incorrect (doc. 12.59). Cato had counselled Cicero to acquiesce in going into
exile, to avoid a civil war, and had not objected to Clodius’ legislative programme.

12.57 Cicero In Defence of Sestius 59–63: Cato in Cyprus

The commission to Cyprus was clearly a prestigious one, and Cato went to Cyprus willingly
as quaestor pro praetore. Ptolemy committed suicide in Cyprus, and Cato realised nearly
7,000 talents for Rome, receiving a triumphant reception on his return to the city. 63: Cato,
along with other senators, had not attended senate meetings called by Caesar as consul in
protest against the violence of the latter’s methods.

59 That unfortunate king of Cyprus, who had always been our friend, our ally,
about whom no damaging suspicion had ever been brought to the attention of the
senate or our commanders, saw himself with his own eyes, as they say, being auc-
tioned off with every scrap of food and clothing . . . 60 Their aim in this business
was to put a blot on the reputation of Marcus Cato, being unaware of what strength
lies in seriousness of character, in integrity, in greatness of soul and, lastly, in that
excellence which remains calm in tempestuous storms, which shines in darkness,
which, even when shaken, remains unmoved and steadfast in its proper place, and
which always gleams with its true light and is never diminished by other people’s
baseness. Their intention was not to honour Marcus Cato but to exile him, not
to entrust that task to him but to impose it on him, for they openly stated in the

512
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
assembly (contio) that they had torn out Marcus Cato’s tongue, which had always
spoken unrestrainedly against extraordinary commands . . . 61 When I was con-
sul, at which time he was tribune-elect of the plebs, he put his life in hazard; he
expressed that opinion for the unpopularity of which, he saw, he would have to
take responsibility at the risk of his life; he spoke with vehemence, he acted with
spirit; he expressed clearly what he felt; he was leader, instigator, prime mover of
those measures – not that he did not see the danger to himself, but in such a storm
threatening the state he thought that he should consider nothing but the danger
to his country . . . 62 If he had refused the command, do you doubt that violence
would have been done to him, since all the measures of that year would have
seemed in the process of being overthrown by that one man? . . . 63 For could a
man who had failed to attend senate meetings in the previous year – though if he
had attended, he could at least have seen me as one of the supporters of his politi-
cal opinions – could he have remained calmly in Rome once I had been banished
and in my name the entire senate and his own stance been condemned?

12.58 Cato and Cicero as exiles

Cicero paints Cato as an exile like himself, believing that his own exile redounded to his
credit because it came about through his role in suppressing the Catilinarian conspiracy.
While deploring Caesar’s refusal to interfere with his exile, Cicero here in (iii), in April 49
BC, puts the blame on Pompey.

(i) Cicero On his House 65

So the hated Marcus Cato is banished to Cyprus, as if in receipt of a favour.

Scoundrels were unable to endure the sight of two people, and these were driven
out, one by being granted a distinction which was the deepest insult, the other by
a disaster which redounded very much to his credit.

(ii) Cicero In Defence of Sestius 56

Exiles who had been convicted were brought back from Byzantium at a time when
citizens who had not been convicted were driven out of Rome.

(iii) Cicero Letters to Atticus 10.4.3 (14 April 49 BC)

The one (Caesar) who once would not even raise me up when I prostrated myself
at his feet declared that he could do nothing against the other’s (Pompey’s) wishes.

12.59 Plutarch Life of Cato the Younger 34.3–7: Cato neutralised?

3 Clodius could not expect to overthrow Cicero with Cato in Rome, but, as he
was plotting for this more than anything else, when he entered on the tribunate he
summoned Cato and told him that, as he considered him the man of most integrity

513
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
among all the Romans, he was ready to prove this by his actions. 4 Though many
were requesting the command concerning Cyprus and Ptolemy and begging to be
sent, he considered only Cato worthy of it and offered him this favour with pleas-
ure. 5 When Cato protested that the affair was a trick and an insult, not a favour,
Clodius replied with arrogance and contempt, ‘Well, if you do not consider it
a favour, you will go on it as a disfavour’, and he immediately went before the
people and had a law passed sending Cato on the mission. 6 And when he set out,
Clodius gave him not a ship, nor a soldier, nor an assistant, but only two secretar-
ies, one of whom was a thief and total rascal and the other one of Clodius’ clients.
7 And, as if he had imposed just a small task on him with Cyprus and Ptolemy, he
also instructed him to restore the exiles of Byzantium, as, while he was tribune, he
wished Cato to be out of the way for as long as possible.

CICERO’S RETURN
With Cicero exiled and Caesar absent, Clodius in 58 began attacking Pompey’s acta.
Clodius’ arrangements for Cyprus had interfered with Pompey’s Eastern settlement but at
that stage were not the cause of any friction. However, Clodius freed Tigranes, the son of
the king of Armenia, held hostage for Pompey in the house of L. Flavius (doc. 12.60). A
skirmish on the Appian Way in which Pompey’s adherents attempted to regain the hostage
resulted in the death of Papirius, one of Pompey’s followers. A riot broke out at Rome,
and Gabinius’ fasces as consul were smashed, his followers were wounded, and Clodius
consecrated his property to the gods. The other consul, Piso, supported Clodius and was
himself wounded. On 11 August, a slave of Clodius was apprehended with a dagger outside
the senate and confessed to attempted murder: Pompey thereafter retired to his house.
Clodius also brought Bibulus into the assembly to affirm that he had been observing the
heavens when Caesar’s legislation was passed, therefore technically invalidating it.
Pompey, in reaction to Clodius’ attacks, sought to recall Cicero to help him against
Clodius, hoping that Cicero would not speak against the triumvirate. Already in 58 (unsuc-
cessful) moves had been made by two tribunes (Ninnius and Culleo) to recall Cicero
from exile, and on 29 October eight tribunes supported his recall, but the tribunician veto
was applied. Cicero’s recall from exile was effected in 57 through the agency of eight of
the tribunes, with two tribunes once again opposed (Serranus and Numerius Rufus): he
returned to a tumultuous welcome on 4 September 57.

12.60 Dio Roman History 38.30.1–39.8.3: Cicero recalled

On 1 January 57 a senatorial resolution concerning Cicero’s recall was frustrated by a tribune,
and on 23 January a tribunician bill put to the assembly ended in bloodshed when Clodius’
brother Appius Claudius supplied gladiators he had on hand for funeral games. For the rest
of the year there were clashes between Milo and Clodius and their followers; Milo also made
use of gladiators. The senate decreed in July that a law about Cicero’s recall be brought before
the comitia centuriata (doc. 12.61); the senate, attended by 417 members, was unanimous
except for one vote, that of Clodius, who spoke against Cicero when the bill was put to the
comitia on 4 August 57, but it was passed. There is a lacuna (gap) in the manuscript at 39.6.2.

38.30.1 Cicero was not in exile for long but was recalled by Pompey, the very
man who had been mainly responsible for his banishment. The reason for this

514
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
was that Clodius had been bribed to seize and release Tigranes the Younger, 2
who was still imprisoned at the home of Lucius Flavius, and when Pompey and
Gabinius were annoyed at this he treated them with contempt, inflicted blows
and wounds on their followers, and broke the consul’s fasces and confiscated his
property. 3 Pompey, enraged at this, especially because of the way Clodius was
using against him the authority which he had himself restored to the tribunes,
determined to recall Cicero and immediately began to work through Ninnius for
his restoration . . .
39.6.1 While this was happening in Gaul, Pompey had put Cicero’s return to the
vote. The man he had used Clodius to drive out he now brought back to help him
against that very same person! – so swiftly does human nature sometimes alter,
with men receiving the very opposite treatment from those people from whom they
expect assistance or injury. 2 He was supported by some of the praetors and trib-
unes, including Titus Annius Milo, who brought the proposal before the populace.
Spinther the consul was acting partly as a favour to Pompey and partly to take
vengeance on Clodius for a private enmity . . . 3 Clodius, on his side, was supported
by various magistrates, including his brother Appius Claudius, a praetor, and the
consul Nepos, who had a private reason for disliking Cicero. 7.1 So now they had
the consuls as leaders, these men caused even more disorder than before, as did the
other people in the city as they took one side or the other. Consequently, many other
forms of anarchy took place, 2 including that of Clodius, who, during the voting, as
he knew the people were going to recall Cicero, got hold of the gladiators that his
brother had organised for the funeral games of Marcus, his relative, and charged into
the gathering, wounding many and killing many others. 3 As a result the proposal
was not passed and Clodius was feared by all, both as the associate of gladiators and
for other reasons. He then stood for the aedileship, hoping to avoid paying the pen-
alty for his violence if he were elected . . . 8.1 Milo’s contesting this caused great
disturbance, and in the end he also gathered some gladiators and others with the
same aims as himself and kept coming to blows with Clodius, with killings occur-
ring through practically the whole city. 2 Nepos was afraid of his colleague, and of
Pompey and the other leading men, and changed his stance, so the senate decreed
on Spinther’s motion that Cicero be recalled. The populace, on the motion of both
consuls, passed the measure. 3 Clodius of course spoke against it, but with Milo as
his opponent could commit no violence, and Pompey among others spoke in support
of the law so that that side was much the stronger.

12.61 Cicero Letters to Atticus 4.1.4–5: Cicero’s account of his return

Written c. 10 September 57 BC. The nomenclator was the slave employed by wealthy
Romans to remember the names of associates, voters and clients. Cicero arrived in Rome
on 4 September, deliberately timing his arrival to coincide with the celebration of the ludi
Romani, and the next day, the Nones, he delivered his speech to the senate, in which he
prided himself on the general support for his recall (cf. doc. 1.8).

4 I set out from Dyrrachium on 4 August, the very same day the law about me
was voted upon. I arrived at Brundisium on the Nones of August. My dear little

515
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
Tullia was there to meet me, and it was her birthday . . . On 11 August, while I
was at Brundisium, I learnt from a letter from my brother Quintus that the law had
been passed in the comitia centuriata to astounding demonstrations of enthusiasm
from all ages and ranks and with an incredible assemblage of people from Italy.
I then set out, after receiving the most distinguished attention from the people of
Brundisium, and, as I journeyed, deputations gathered from all sides with their
congratulations. 5 My arrival at Rome was such that there was no man of any rank
known to my nomenclator who did not come to meet me, except for enemies who
were unable to conceal or deny that they were my enemies. When I arrived at the
Porta Capena, the temples’ steps were crowded with ordinary citizens, and their
welcome was marked by immense applause, while similar crowds and applause
accompanied me right up to the Capitol – in the forum and on the Capitol itself the
number of people was astonishing. In the senate, on the following day, the Nones
of September, I expressed my thanks to the senators.

12.62 Cicero On the Responses of the Soothsayers 57–59: Cicero’s view

of Clodius
This speech was delivered in 56 BC. A strange noise had been heard near Rome, and the
haruspices (soothsayers) had given interpretations of why it had occurred: Cicero argued
in this speech that it was because of Clodius. He had, according to Cicero, extinguished
the rites of the Claudii Pulchi by being adopted by Fonteius: this was not true, as Fonteius
emancipated Clodius and he never ceased being a Claudian (Clodius also had two brothers).
The Aelian and Fufian laws, of the mid-second century, regulated the use of obnuntiatio;
Clodius’ law to allow senators to defend themselves against expulsion from the senate is
construed by Cicero as an abolition of the censorship: see doc. 12.54. The ‘generals’ refers
to Clodius’ tampering with the loyalty of Lucullus’ army in Asia Minor.

57 By taking the name of Fonteius, Clodius has consigned the name, religion,
memory and family of his parents to oblivion; by his inexpiable crime, he has
overthrown the gods’ fires, their thrones, tables, concealed and inmost hearths,
and secret rites forbidden not only to the sight but even to the hearing of men; he
has set on fire the shrine of those very goddesses whose aid is used in combat-
ing fires elsewhere. 58 And what can I say about his dealings with his country?
Firstly, by violence, weapons and threats he drove from the city, from all the
protection of his country, a citizen whom you have consistently proclaimed to
be that country’s saviour: next, after achieving the downfall of one whom I have
always stated to be the senate’s partner and whom he kept stating was its leader,
he overthrew the senate itself, the originator of the state’s well-being and policy,
by violence, massacre and fire; he abolished two laws, the Aelian and Fufian,
which were of the greatest benefit to the state; he did away with the censorship;
he removed the right of veto; he annulled the auspices; he furnished consuls who
were his partners in crime with funds, provinces and an army; those who were
kings he sold, those who were not he named so; he drove Gnaeus Pompey from
his house by armed violence; he overturned generals’ monuments; he demolished
his enemies’ houses; he inscribed his own name on your monuments. The crimes

516
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
he committed against his country are endless. And what of the individual citi-
zens he has put to death? The allies he has severed from us? The generals he has
betrayed? The armies where he has stirred up trouble? 59 Still worse, how griev-
ous are those crimes he has committed against himself, against his own family!
Who has ever treated an enemy camp worse than he has all the parts of his body?
What ship on the public river has ever been so open to all traffic than his youth
has been? What wastrel has ever wallowed so unrestrictedly with prostitutes as he
has with his sisters? And, last of all, what Charybdis so monstrous has the creative
talent of poets been able to paint which could gulp down oceans so great as the
plunder of Byzantines and Brogitaruses he has swallowed up? Or what Scylla ever
had dogs so conspicuous and famished as those you see him using, wretches such
as Gellius, Clodius and Titius, to devour the very rostra themselves.

POMPEY’S GRAIN COMMAND, 57 BC

Cicero became reconciled with Pompey and showed his gratitude by helping to secure
him an extraordinary command (the cura annonae) to deal with the grain shortage. After
Cicero’s return on 4 September, the plebs had blamed him, because of the large numbers of
Italians who had come to Rome to welcome him, for a shortage of grain in Rome, and there
was violence in the forum and on the Capitol; on 7 September the consul Metellus Nepos
was stoned and stabbed by two of Clodius’ supporters. On the next day, at a meeting of the
senate which most of the consulars avoided because of the violence of the day before, Cicero
proposed powers for Pompey to deal with the grain shortage. The tribune Messius’ proposal
of even greater powers was not accepted, though possibly reflecting Pompey’s wishes. On
9 September, the senate was well attended and approved the grain law; it gave him broad
powers, and he was granted 15 legates, the only known ones being Cicero and his brother
Quintus. Pompey himself visited Sicily, Sardinia and Africa, collecting grain for Rome. He is
known as active in this capacity for the years 57–54 (there is no evidence for 53).

12.63 Cicero Letters to Atticus 4.1.6–7: Pompey’s command

This passage follows on from doc. 12.61 above. The ‘one praetor and two tribunes’ referred
to here are Appius Claudius and the two tribunes opposed to Cicero’s recall. Cicero was
waiting for the pontiffs to rule whether Clodius’ consecration of his house was valid, and so
kept out of the issue as to whether Pompey should have wider powers than those proposed
by the consuls. Messalla and Afranius were supporters of Pompey.

6 Two days after that (Cicero’s return on 4 September), when the price of grain
was extremely high and people had gathered first at the theatre and then at the
senate, shouting, on Clodius’ instigation, that the shortage of grain was my doing,
the senate held meetings during those days about the grain supply, and Pompey
was called on to superintend it, not only by the populace but also by the honest
men (boni). As he himself wanted it and the crowd called on me by name to make
the proposal, I did so in an elaborate speech. In the absence of all the consulars,
except Messalla and Afranius, on the pretext that they thought it was not safe for
them to voice an opinion, a senatorial decree ratified my proposal that Pompey
should be asked to take on the commission, and a law was brought in to that

517
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
effect. The decree was immediately read out, and the people applauded in the new
absurd fashion when my name was mentioned. I then addressed the meeting, with
the consent of all the magistrates present except for one praetor and two tribunes.
7 On the following day the senate was crowded, with all the consulars there.
Nothing Pompey requested was refused. When he asked for 15 legates, he named
me first and said that I should be his second self in all matters. The consuls drew
up a law which gave Pompey total control over grain supplies throughout the
world for a five-year period; Messius proposed another one which gave him con-
trol over all moneys and added on a fleet, an army and authority in the provinces
overriding that of their governors. Our consular law now appears quite moderate;
Messius’ one is felt unendurable. According to himself, Pompey prefers the first,
according to his friends the second. The consulars, led by Favonius, are furious.
I keep quiet, all the more because the pontiffs have not yet given any reply about
my house. If they declare it no longer sacred, I have an outstanding site, and the
consuls, by senatorial decree, will make an estimate of the value of the building;
if not, they will demolish it, let out a contract in their own name, and make an
estimate for the whole.

12.64 Plutarch Life of Pompey 49.4–8: A secret agenda?

4 Pompey was won over by the arguments of those who thought that he ought to
bring back Cicero, Clodius’ greatest enemy and a great favourite with the senate,
5 and he escorted Cicero’s brother, who was petitioning on his behalf, with a large
force into the forum, where people were wounded and some killed, though he got
the better of Clodius. 6 The law was passed, and Cicero returned and immediately
reconciled Pompey to the senate, and, by his advocacy for the grain law, made him
once again almost total master of all the Romans’ possessions by land and sea. 7
For all harbours, trading centres, crop distributions – in a word, all goods carried
by sea or produced on land – were put under his control. 8 Clodius attacked it on
the grounds that the law had not been proposed because of the scarcity of grain,
but that the scarcity of grain had been contrived so that the law might be proposed
and Pompey’s power, which was, as it were, withering away as a result of his
depressed spirits, might be revitalised and restored by a new office.

12.65 Dio Roman History 39.9.1–3: The plebs riots

1 Cicero set aside the hatred he felt for Pompey as a result of his exile and was rec-
onciled to him, paying him back at once for his good services. 2 A severe famine
had broken out in the city, and the whole populace rushed into the theatre . . . and
then to the Capitol where the senators were meeting, and threatened at first to
slaughter them with their own hands and then to burn them alive, along with the
temples, 3 but Cicero persuaded them to appoint Pompey as superintendent of the
grain supply and also to give him for this purpose proconsular imperium for five
years, both within Italy and outside of it. So now, as earlier in the matter of the
pirates, Pompey was again to rule the whole world then under the power of Rome.

518
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
CAESAR IN GAUL
Events in 60 BC shifted the focus of attention towards Gaul. A revolt in 62 in Transalpine
Gaul of the Allobroges, oppressed by debt (cf. doc. 12.19), was crushed in 61 by Pomptinus,
the province’s governor. In 60 BC, the Helvetii defeated the Aedui (allies of Rome) and
planned a large-scale migration into Gaul. The senate reacted by altering the provinces
allocated to the consuls, arranging that they govern the Gauls (Cisalpine and Transalpine);
Metellus Celer died (April 59) without going to his province. Caesar as proconsul in 58 was
allocated Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum for five years under the lex Vatinia; the senate was
to add Transalpine Gaul. When he arrived in Gaul in 58, the situation was at first peaceful.
On 28 March 58 BC, the Helvetii (based in what is modern Switzerland) and other tribes
began a mass migration. Caesar succeeded initially in blocking them by destroying the
bridge across the Rhone, but they crossed the river through the territory of the Sequani.
They were not in the Roman province, but Caesar pursued them. He had five legions,
including two raised by recruitment in Cisalpine Gaul (bringing the total number of legions
in Gaul to six). He defeated the Helvetii and forced them to resettle the lands they had
abandoned.
In 57 BC, Caesar conquered most of Gaul and was voted, on the proposal of Cicero,
an unprecedented 15-day supplicatio for his victories (Pompey had been awarded a ten-
day supplicatio: doc. 12.31). Most of the year was spent campaigning against the Belgic
tribes in north-west Gaul. Caesar’s campaigns in 56 brought the rest of Gaul under Roman
authority, in particular the tribes of the Atlantic coast, especially the Veneti. The following
year (55) saw German tribes advance into Gaul across the Rhine; Caesar defeated them and
made a show of force across the Rhine into German territory. This year and the next (54)
he went to Britain, but in 54 there was an uprising in northern Gaul among the Treviri and
the Eburones which continued into 53, when Caesar marched across the Rhine again. The
following year, 52 BC, saw the revolt of Vercingetorix (doc. 12.91).

12.66 Cicero Letters to Atticus 1.19.2–3: The Gallic scare

Cicero, writing on 15 March 60, refers to three ambassadors chosen to persuade Gallic
tribes not to link up with the Helvetii, who were planning their migration. The description
of Lentulus as ‘perfume on lentils’ reflects his inadequacy for the task.

2 In politics the most important issue at present is the scare of a Gallic war.
The Aedui, our brothers, have recently suffered a defeat, and there is no doubt
that the Helvetii are in arms and making raids into the province. The senate has
decreed that the consuls should draw lots for the two Gauls, a levy be held, all
exemptions from service be cancelled, and ambassadors with full powers be sent
to address the communities of Gaul and attempt to stop them uniting with the
Helvetii. The ambassadors are Quintus Metellus Creticus, Lucius Flaccus and,
‘perfume on lentils’, Lentulus, son of Clodianus. 3 While I am on the topic, I
cannot omit mentioning that, when the first lot drawn from among the consulars
was mine, a crowded senate unanimously proclaimed that I ought to be kept in
Rome. The same thing happened to Pompey after me, so that it appeared as if
we two were being kept as guarantees for the Republic’s safety. Why, anyway,
should I wait for flattering comments on myself from other people when I am so
good at it myself?

519
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
12.67 Caesar Gallic War 1.29.1–3: Massacre in Gaul
1 In the camp of the Helvetii were found records written in Greek which were
brought to Caesar, which included a detailed list stating what number of them had
left their homes, how many were able to bear arms, and a separate list of children,
old men and women. 2 The total of all of these amounted to 263,000 Helvetii,
36,000 Tulingi, 14,000 Latobrigi, 23,000 Rauraci and 32,000 Boii; of these there
were about 92,000 able to bear arms. 3 The grand total was 368,000. A census was
held of those who returned home, at Caesar’s order, and the number was found
to be 110,000.

12.68 Caesar Gallic War 2.15.2, 27.3–28.3: Caesar and the

Nervii, 57 BC
This passage concerns his campaign against the Nervii, one of the Belgic tribes, in 57; he
was almost defeated by them at the River Sambre.

15.2 Caesar came to the borders of the Ambiani, who surrendered themselves and
their belongings to him without delay. 3 Their nearest neighbours were the Nervii.
When Caesar inquired about their character and lifestyle, he was informed as
follows: 4 traders had no access to them; they allowed no wine or any other luxu-
ries to be imported because they believed that such things enfeebled their spir-
its and diminished their courage. 5 They were fierce men of great courage, who
reproached and accused the rest of the Belgians for surrendering to the Roman
people and renouncing their ancestral courage; 6 they proclaimed that they would
send no envoys nor accept any peace terms . . .
27.3 The enemy, even when all hope of safety was lost, displayed immense
courage; when their first ranks had fallen, the next stood on them as they lay
there and fought from their bodies; 4 when these were thrown down and the
corpses heaped up, the remainder, as if from a mound, threw their missiles at
our men and intercepted and returned our javelins. 5 It was clear, therefore, that
they were to be judged men of immense courage, who had dared to cross a very
broad river, climb huge banks, and advance over very unfavourable terrain; the
greatness of their spirit made such immense difficulties easy. 28.1 With the bat-
tle over and the nation and name of the Nervii almost brought to extermination,
the elders, whom I said earlier were hiding with the children and women in the
creeks and marshes, believed, when the outcome was reported, that there was
nothing to hinder the conquerors, 2 nothing to save the conquered, and sent,
with the consent of all the survivors, envoys to Caesar and surrendered to him,
stating, in relating the disaster which had befallen their state, that they had been
reduced from 600 senators to three, and from 60,000 men who could bear arms
to 500. 3 To show compassion to these wretched suppliants, Caesar was careful
to leave them unharmed, ordering them to keep their lands and towns and com-
manding their neighbours to restrain themselves and their associates from any
injuries or crimes against them.

520
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
THE CONFERENCE AT LUCA, 56 BC
12.69 Cicero Letters to his Brother Quintus 2.3.2–4: Pompey’s
unpopularity
A letter written to Quintus mid-February 56. On 7 February Milo had been tried in the
forum, prosecuted by Clodius for the violence in 57. Pompey’s speech in Milo’s favour was
interrupted by Clodius’ gang, and when Clodius spoke he too was heckled and insulted by
obscene verses about his relationship with his sister (cf. 12.60 for further insults). Pompey
told Cicero that he was suspicious of a plot against his life and of Crassus’ support for C.
Porcius Cato (not Cato the Younger), a tribune who supported Clodius. Pompey was also
suspicious that Crassus was financing Clodius.
Ptolemy XII Auletes, having paid 6,000 talents in 59 to be recognised as king of Egypt,
was deposed by the Egyptians and took refuge in one of Pompey’s villas. Cicero pro-
posed that Lentulus Spinther (cos. 57) should restore Ptolemy when he became proconsul
of Cilicia in 56, with force if necessary. However, following a Sibylline oracle that the
Romans not assist the king of Egypt ‘with a multitude’, it was proposed by Crassus that
a commission of three effect the king’s restoration. Pompey’s friends made it clear that
Pompey wanted the commission. The senatorial debate lasted for three days, and the mat-
ter then came before the assembly, inconclusively. Finally the senate voted not to restore
Ptolemy at all, but this decision was vetoed. Pompey’s opponents in the senate had never-
theless won out, and he was not chosen to restore Ptolemy.

2 Milo’s trial took place on 7 February. Pompey spoke, or rather attempted to speak,
for as soon as he stood up Clodius’ gang put up a great clamour and kept interrupt-
ing him throughout his speech, not only with shouting but with loud insults and
abuse. As he came to a conclusion (and I must say that he showed courage, and was
not put off, but said all he had to and occasionally even won silence by the force of
his personality) – when he concluded, Clodius got up. Our side made such a noise
(for we wanted to return the favour) that it affected his thoughts, tongue and coun-
tenance. That was finished by the eighth hour, as Pompey had spoken till just after
the sixth hour, when all sorts of abuse and lastly some extremely obscene verses
were thrown at Clodius and Clodia. Pale and furious, Clodius started asking his
supporters in the middle of the shouting who it was who was starving the people to
death; his gang replied, ‘Pompey!’ Who wanted to go to Alexandria? They replied,
‘Pompey!’ Whom do you want to go? ‘Crassus!’ (He was there in support of Milo
but with little goodwill.) . . . 4 So I think great things are afoot. Pompey is aware,
and passes the information on to me, that there is a plot on hand against his life, that
Gaius Cato is being backed by Crassus and supplying Clodius with money; and
that both are being supported by Crassus and Curio, Bibulus and his other critics;
he says he has to keep well on guard not to be got the better of, with the crowd who
attend public meetings just about alienated from him, the nobility hostile, the senate
against him, and the youth misconducting themselves. So he is getting prepared and
collecting men from the countryside, while Clodius is strengthening his gangs and
getting them ready for the festival of the Quirinalia. With a view to the same occa-
sion, we are far superior with Milo’s personal forces, but a large band is expected
from Picenum and Gaul to help us stand up to Cato’s bills about Milo and Lentulus.

521
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
12.70 Cicero Letters to Friends 1.9.7–9, 11–12: Cicero on Luca
In December 54 Cicero wrote to Lentulus in his province of Cilicia explaining how he
came ‘to include Caesar’ (1.9.12) in his policy: friendly relations with him were necessary
because of Caesar’s connections with Pompey, and he mentions the promises made by
Pompey to Caesar, and by Quintus, Cicero’s brother, to Pompey, that Cicero would, in
effect, ‘behave himself’. The letter is a justification for Cicero’s activities after Luca.
Caesar’s activities as consul had come under scrutiny in 58, when L. Domitius
Ahenobarbus (cos. 54) as praetor had unsuccessfully attacked his legislation; Ahenobarbus
was now threatening to renew these attacks. On 5 April 56 BC the issue of the Campanian
land was hotly debated in the senate, and Cicero at this senate meeting successfully pro-
posed that the issue of the Campanian land ‘should be referred to a full senate on the Ides
of May’, which was an attack on Caesar’s land legislation; his speech to this effect ‘caused
a sensation’, ‘not only where I had intended (presumably Caesar), but even with people I
had never imagined (Pompey)’. A few weeks previously Cicero had subjected Vatinius (tr.
pl. 59) to a hostile cross-examination as a witness in the prosecution of Sestius: Vatinius
as tribune in 59 had been a major ally of the triumvirs and had passed legislation granting
Caesar his commands. Both of these attacks angered Caesar.
Pompey left on a trip to Sardinia as grain comissioner, but went via Luca. Caesar had
already seen Crassus at Ravenna, where Caesar ‘complained a great deal’ about Cicero’s
planned debate. Cicero makes it quite clear that Caesar met with Crassus at Ravenna and
with Pompey at Luca. Later sources – Plutarch, Suetonius and Appian – have a three-man
meeting at Luca, but Cicero is clearly correct. Pompey’s thinly veiled accusation in the
senate that Crassus was trying to kill him indicated that all was not well between him and
Crassus, but Caesar was able to organise a reconciliation between them.

7 My entire cross-examination was in fact nothing but a criticism of Vatinius’ trib-

unate. In it I spoke throughout with the greatest independence and spirit regarding
the use of violence, the auspices and the grants of kingdoms, and not only indeed
in this case but consistently and frequently in the senate. 8 In the consulship of
(Cn. Cornelius Lentulus) Marcellinus and (L. Marcius) Philippus, on the Nones
of April, the senate adopted my proposal that the matter of the Campanian land
should be referred to a full senate on the Ides of May. Could I have done more to
invade the citadel of that clique or been more forgetful of my past difficulties or
more mindful of my past career? My speech caused a sensation, not only where
I had intended but even with people I had never imagined. 9 After the senate had
passed a decree on my motion, Pompey, without showing me any sign of being
angry, left for Sardinia and Africa and en route joined Caesar at Luca. There
Caesar complained a great deal about my motion (he had been stirred up against
me by Crassus, whom he had seen beforehand at Ravenna). Pompey was said to
be extremely upset; although I heard this from other people, I learnt this primar-
ily from my brother. Pompey met him in Sardinia a few days after he had left
Luca. ‘You’re the man I want’, he said. ‘Nothing could be more fortunate than
our meeting. If you don’t speak seriously to your brother Marcus, you’re going
to have to pay up on that pledge you made me on his behalf.’ In short, he made a
serious complaint, mentioned what he had done for me, recalled the talks he had
had so frequently with my brother himself about Caesar’s legislation and what my

522
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
brother had pledged to him about me, and called my brother himself to witness
that his actions over my return had had Caesar’s approval. He asked that he com-
mend Caesar’s cause and prestige to me, requesting that I should not attack them
if I was unwilling or unable to defend them . . .
11 If I had seen the state in the control of reprobates and villains, as we know
happened in Cinna’s time and some other periods, no rewards (which have not the
slightest weight with me) or dangers (which can influence even the bravest men)
would have made me join their side, however great their services to me. However,
the chief man in the state was Gnaeus Pompey, who had won this power and glory
through services to the state of the greatest importance and the most outstanding
military achievements, and whose successful reputation I had promoted from my
youth, while in my praetorship and consulship I had visibly supported it. For his
part he had himself assisted me with his authority and by voicing his opinion
in the senate and by plans and hard work in conjunction with you. He had only
one enemy in Rome who was also mine, so I did not think that I need be afraid
of the reputation of inconsistency if, in sometimes voicing my opinion, I had
changed direction a little and shown my desire to enhance the reputation of a great
man who had performed many services on my behalf. 12 In this policy I had to
include Caesar, as you will see, since his interest and prestige were bound up with
Pompey’s. The long-standing friendship, which you are aware existed between
Caesar and my brother and myself, was here of great value, as was Caesar’s cour-
tesy and generosity, which we soon clearly observed in his letters and his ser-
vices to us. Concern for the state also influenced me strongly, as it seemed to me
that it did not desire a conflict with these men, especially after Caesar’s immense
achievements, and strongly objected to one. But what had most influence on my
decision were the promises on my behalf which Pompey had given to Caesar and
my brother to Pompey.

12.71 Appian Civil Wars 2.17.61–63: Caesar’s clientela at Luca

Pompey and Crassus were to be consuls for 55 BC and to have, respectively, Spain
and Syria as their provinces for five years; Caesar was to be proconsul in Gaul and
Illyricum for another five years and to appoint ten legates. While the story of the 120
lictors and 200 senators at Luca might be an exaggeration (cf. doc. 2.62), clearly various
magistrates did make their way to Luca, and, among them, specifically named as present
were Appius Claudius Pulcher (cos. 54) (Clodius’ brother) and Metellus Nepos (cos. 57)
(Plut. Caes. 21.2; cf. Suet. Jul. 24.1). This second double consulship of Pompey and
Crassus was supported by Clodius, and to cement their alliance Pompey’s son married
Appius’ daughter.
Appius Claudius’ and Clodius’ brother Gaius was praetor in 56; Clodius himself was
aedile. What Clodius stood to gain is unclear: perhaps it was simply a case of family
advancement to the consulship. Clodius made a public speech to win Pompey’s approval
and inveighed against the opposition of Marcellinus (cos. 56) to the candidature of
Pompey and Crassus (Dio 39.29.1). He did not, however, desist from his hatred of Cicero
(as Cic. Har. Resp. indicates). Appian on Caesar and the Celts [Gauls]: Gallic History
FF xv–xxi.

523
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
61 Caesar, who had achieved numerous brilliant successes in Gaul and Britain,
which I have recounted in my book on the Celts, returned loaded with wealth
to Cisalpine Gaul on the River Po to allow his army a short rest from constant
warfare. 62 From here he dispatched large amounts of money to many people
in Rome, and those who were the magistrates for that year and others who had
achieved distinction as governors or generals went in turn to meet him; so many
of them were there that 120 lictors could be seen around him at a time and more
than 200 senators, some of them thanking him for what they had already received,
and others hoping to get money from him or trying to gain some other benefit
from the same source. Caesar could now manage anything as a consequence of
his huge army, the immensity of his wealth, and his eagerness to oblige everyone.
63 Pompey and Crassus, his partners in the regime, also came at his invitation.
In their deliberations it was resolved that Pompey and Crassus should hold the
consulship again, and that Caesar’s governorship over his provinces should be
extended for another five years.

12.72 Dio Roman History 39.31.1–2: Pompey and Crassus re-elected

Pompey and Crassus still had to be elected as consuls in the comitia centuriata. They
declared their candidature after the date for nominations closed and then prevented the
consul Marcellinus from holding elections, employing C. Cato as tribune to interpose his
veto; the elections were finally held early in 55. L. Domitius Ahenobarbus also stood as
a candidate for the consulship, encouraged by his brother-in-law M. Porcius Cato, but
withdrew when his slave was killed and he, Cato and other supporters were wounded.
Crassus’ son Publius brought soldiers from Caesar to assist in the election.

1 After this Pompey and Crassus were appointed consuls following an interregnum,
since none of those who had previously announced their candidature put up any
opposition, though Lucius Domitius, who had canvassed right up to the very last
day, set off from his house for the assembly in the dark but, when the slave carry-
ing the light in front of him was murdered, took fright and proceeded no further.
2 Accordingly, as no one opposed their magistracy, and, what is more, as Publius
Crassus, who was Marcus’ son and at that point one of Caesar’s officers, brought
soldiers into Rome to ensure this, they were elected without difficulty.

12.73 Cicero On the Consular Provinces 19, 29, 34–35:

Caesar’s command
Cicero delivered this speech following the conference of Luca, after Pompey’s talk to
Cicero’s brother Quintus (doc. 12.70) had forced Cicero to adopt a more moderate political
line. The debate in June 56 concerned the assignation of four provinces: the two Gauls,
Macedonia and Syria. Cicero successfully spoke against the proposal to deprive Caesar of
the command of one or both of the provinces of Gaul with fulsome praise of Caesar and his
conquests. This speech, On the Consular Provinces, might be Cicero’s ‘palinode’ to which
he refers (doc. 12.74), but not all agree. He stresses that it is for the good of the state that
Caesar should remain in control of Gaul (esp. 34–35).

524
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
19 A vitally important war has been fought in Gaul; mighty races have been sub-
dued by Caesar, but they are not yet bound to us by laws, by established rights, by
a sufficiently stable peace. We see that the war is nearly at an end and, to speak
truth, almost completed, but it is only on condition that the same man who began
the war follows it up to the end that we may presently see it brought to a final con-
clusion, and, if he is succeeded, there is a danger that we may hear of the remnants
of that important war being revived and renewed.
28 Recently the matter of pay for his army was referred to us; not only did I
vote for it, but I even worked hard to persuade you to do so too; I gave lengthy
replies to those who disagreed; I was part of the committee that drafted the resolu-
tion. At that point, too, I conceded more to the man than to any kind of necessity.
For my view was that, even without this monetary assistance, he was able to
maintain his army by booty already won and conclude the war; but I did not think
that the honour and glory of a triumph should be diminished by any parsimony
on our part. We passed a resolution about ten legates, whom some totally refused
to grant, while others asked for precedents, others wanted to postpone the discus-
sion, and others wanted to grant them but omitting any flattering terms; I spoke
on this matter too in such a way that everyone could understand that I did what I
felt was in the interests of the state all the more lavishly on account of the prestige
of Caesar himself. 29 But, now it is a matter of allocating provinces, I am inter-
rupted, though I expressed my views on those other questions to a silent audience.
In the former cases honours for Caesar were at issue, but now my only concern
is military considerations and the highest benefits to the state. For why should
Caesar wish to remain in his province, unless to hand over to the state the work he
has on hand completely finished?
34 One or two summers more, with fear or hope, punishment or rewards, arms
or laws, can bind the whole of Gaul to us with everlasting chains. But, if the work
of conquest is abandoned prematurely and without finishing touches, although the
power of our enemies has been truncated, it will at some point come to life again
and result in the renewal of the war. 35 And so let Gaul stay under the protection
of the person to whose loyalty, courage and good fortune it has been entrusted.
For if he, who has already been adorned with Fortune’s richest gifts, were unwill-
ing to risk tempting that goddess too often, if he were in haste to return to his
country, his household gods, the honour which he sees waiting for him at Rome,
his delightful children, his illustrious son-in-law, if he were longing to ride to the
Capitol in triumph with that distinguished mark of honour, if, finally, he feared
some set-back which could not add to his glory as much as it could take away,
it would however still be incumbent on us to wish that all those tasks should be
completed by the same man by whom they have been so nearly brought to an
end. But, as what he has achieved at this point is enough for his own glory but
not enough for the state, and as he prefers to postpone his enjoyment of the fruits
of his labours rather than not fulfil the duty he has undertaken for the common-
wealth, we ought neither to recall a general who is so dedicated to successful
service of the state nor to disturb and impede the whole policy relating to the war
in Gaul which is now so nearly finalised.

525
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
12.74 Cicero Letters to Atticus 4.5.1–2 Cicero’s ‘palinode’:
Cicero refers in this letter of June 56 BC to his palinode, in which he said goodbye to
‘principles, truth and honour’ in his support of the triumvirate.

1 I feel my palinode was something which doesn’t do me credit. But farewell to

principles, truth and honour! . . . 2 The truth is I wanted to forge an unbreakable
connection for myself with this new alliance to make it totally impossible for me
to slip back to those people who, even when they should feel sorry for me, won’t
stop being jealous of me . . . Since those who have no power do not wish to be my
friends, let me try to make myself liked by those who do possess power.

THE CONSULSHIP OF CRASSUS AND POMPEY

12.75 Plutarch Life of Pompey 52.3–5: The second consulship of
Crassus and Pompey
C. Trebonius, tribune in 55 BC, passed a law to provide for two five-year proconsular
commands – Syria and the provinces of Spain – with the governors to make peace and war
as they saw fit. Syria went to Crassus, Spain to Pompey, who, contrary to Plutarch, did
not obtain Libya (Africa) as part of his command. Pompey and Crassus then successfully
proposed in the assembly an extension of Caesar’s command for five years. Bribery and
violence had been used to ensure the election of Vatinius, rather than M. Porcius Cato, to
the praetorship for 55.

3 By such means they made their way into office, and even then they did not behave
any more appropriately. First, while the people were in the act of voting for Cato’s
election to the praetorship, Pompey dissolved the assembly on the grounds of
inauspicious omens, and, after bribing the tribes, they proclaimed Vatinius praetor
instead of Cato. 4 They then, by means of Trebonius, a tribune, brought in laws
which, according to their agreement, continued Caesar’s command for a second
term of five years and gave Crassus Syria and the expedition against the Parthians,
and Pompey himself the whole of Libya, both Spanish provinces and four legions,
two of which he lent to Caesar at his request for the war in Gaul. 5 While Crassus
went out to his province at the end of his consulship, Pompey opened his theatre
and put on gymnastic and musical contests at its dedication, as well as wild-beast
combats in which 500 lions were killed, and above all an elephant fight, a most
astounding spectacle.

12.76 Dio Roman History 39.33.1–34.1: Jobs for the boys

Dio incorrectly gives Caesar’s extension of command as three years, not five. The picture
of Caesar’s supporters does not tally with the accounts of Plutarch and Appian above, who
record prearranged deals for 55 BC to benefit all three men. Favonius (praetor in 49) was a
supporter of Cato and an opponent of the triumvirate.

1 With the magistrates appointed, Pompey and Crassus started working to achieve their
aims. They did not speak on their own behalf either in the senate or in the assembly

526
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
but seriously pretended that there was nothing else they desired; 2 however, one of
the tribunes, Gaius Trebonius, put forward a proposal that one of them should be
given Syria and the neighbouring regions as his province and the other the two Spains
(where there had been recent disturbances), both for a five-year period, and that they
were to have the use of as many troops as they wished, both citizens and allies, and the
power to make war or peace with whomever they chose. 3 Many people disapproved
of this, especially Caesar’s friends, because, after attaining their own aims, Pompey
and Crassus were bound to prevent Caesar from holding power for much longer, and
some of them therefore prepared themselves to oppose the proposal. The consuls were
then afraid that they might fail to achieve their object and gained their support by
extending Caesar’s command too for another three years, to give the correct figure. 4
They did not, however, bring anything before the people on his behalf until their own
position was secured. Caesar’s supporters were in this way won over and stayed quiet,
and most of the others were too subdued by fear to say anything, satisfied, by so doing,
to preserve their lives. 34.1 On the other hand, Cato and Favonius opposed all their
projects, with two tribunes and some others working with them, but, as they were a
few struggling against a large number of opponents, they spoke out in vain.

12.77 Cicero defends his enemies in court

Cicero had to defend followers of Pompey and Caesar in 56–54 BC. Particularly galling
for Cicero were the defences he made at Pompey’s request of both Vatinius and Gabinius.
Vatinius was prosecuted for misconduct in his election to the praetorship for 55; with
Cicero defending him, he was acquitted; for Gabinius, see doc. 12.78.

(i) Cicero Letters to his Friends 7.1.4 (to M. Marius, (?) September 55)

I was weary of it (forensic oratory) even at the time when youth and ambition led
me on and when I could indeed turn down a case I did not wish to defend, but now
life is just not worth living. I have no reward to expect for my hard work, and I am
sometimes obliged to defend persons who have deserved none too well of me, at
the entreaty of those who have deserved well.

(ii) Cicero Letters to his Brother Quintus 3.5.4 (October or November 54)

Some of my enemies I have not attacked, others I have actually defended. Not
only my mind but even my hatred is not free.

THE EVENTS OF 54 BC
In December (probably) of 55 BC, Domitius Ahenobarbus was elected to the consulship
and Cato to the praetorship for 54, both of which had been prevented earlier by Pompey
and Crassus (cf. doc. 3.75). Clodius’ brother Appius Claudius Pulcher was the other consul
elected for 54, with Pompey and Caesar’s support. The enmity between Cicero and Clodius
remained, and Ahenobarbus as consul renewed his attacks on Caesar’s legislation of 59,
again unsuccessfully.

527
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
In 54 BC Messalla Rufus and Aemilius Scaurus were prosecuted for misconduct in their
campaigns for the consulship of 53, but the outcome is uncertain. In 52 Scaurus was pros-
ecuted again for the same offence and convicted. Gabinius on 23 October was acquitted of
maiestas (treason) for his restoration of Ptolemy without the authorisation of the senate, but
one hour later he was convicted of extortion in his province of Syria, where he had upset
the publicani. Gabinius as consul in 58 had ignored Cicero’s plea to prevent Clodius exil-
ing him, and Cicero had attacked his proconsulship in Syria. Nevertheless he appeared as a
witness for his defence in the trial for maiestas and defended him in the trial for extortion.

12.78 Electoral scandal in 54 BC

In the course of 54, evidence of an electoral scandal broke: Memmius, one of the
candidates for 53, revealed with Pompey’s connivance, but to Caesar’s annoyance, that he
and a fellow candidate, Cn. Domitius Calvinus (tr. pl. 59; not to be confused with Domitius
Ahenobarbus, cos. 54), had made a pact with the consuls in office during that year. The
elections for 53 were therefore continually postponed, and all four candidates were to be
prosecuted for bribery. This election scandal delayed the election of consuls for 53 until
July 53; Calvinus and Messalla Rufus were elected and then took office.

(i) Cicero Letters to Atticus 4.17.2–3, 5 (1 October 54)

2 The consuls are embroiled in a dreadful scandal because Gaius Memmius, one
of the candidates, read out in the senate an agreement which he and his fellow
competitor Domitius made with the consuls, that they would both give the consuls
4,000,000 sesterces if they were elected, unless they had found three augurs who
would state that they had been present when a lex curiata was passed, which had
not been passed, and two consulars, who would state that they had been present at
a decree arranging for the consular provinces, even though the senate had not met.
This agreement, as was stated, was not an oral one but with names and details in
many people’s notebooks, and was produced by Memmius at Pompey’s instigation
with the names erased. This meant nothing to Appius; he hasn’t lost anything. His
colleague is ruined and totally finished. 3 Memmius’ chances, now the coalition
is dissolved against the wishes of Calvinus, have gone cold, all the more because
we now understand that his revelation has seriously displeased Caesar. Our friend
Messalla and his fellow competitor Domitius have treated the populace very liber-
ally, and hence are very popular. They were sure to become consuls . . . 5 Three of
the candidates are expected to face prosecution, Domitius by Memmius, Messalla
by Quintus Pompeius Rufus, Scaurus by Triarius or Lucius Caesar. ‘What can you
say on their behalf?’ you may ask. I’ll be damned if I know!

(ii) Cicero Letters to his Brother Quintus 3.3.2–3 (21 October 54 BC)

2 Now hear what has been going on in politics. Day after day election days are
cancelled by the declaration of inauspicious omens, to the great joy of all honest
men, as the consuls are extremely unpopular because of the suspicion of their hav-
ing arranged to take bribes from the candidates. All four consular candidates have
been charged. Their cases are difficult, but I shall do my best to save our friend

528
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
Messalla, which involves the safety of the others too. Publius Sulla has charged
Gabinius with bribery, with his stepson Memmius, his brother Caecilius and his
son Sulla as co-prosecutors. Lucius Torquatus put in a rival claim to prosecute,
but to everyone’s delight failed to get it. 3 You will be interested to know what is
going on with Gabinius: we shall know about the treason in three days’ time; in
that trial he is disadvantaged by the dislike felt for him by all classes and is greatly
damaged by the witnesses, while his case is handled by unenthusiastic prose-
cutors. The jury is a diverse one, the president Alfius is reliable and solid, and
Pompey urgently trying to influence the jurors. What will happen I don’t know,
but I see no place for him in the community, am very unworried by the thought of
his ruin, and am perfectly at ease as to how things will turn out.

12.79 Plutarch Life of Julius Caesar 23.5–7: The death of Julia

While Pompey did not renew the marriage alliance with Caesar after the death of Julia, no
real break between the two men can be dated to this point; it was Pompey’s sole consulship
of 52 and his reconciliation with the senate that saw the beginning of the breakdown in the
relationship. Caesar was in Britain and received the letters advising him of Julia’s death on
his return; he staged a gladiatorial show in her honour in 46 (doc. 2.79).

5 (On returning to Gaul from Britain) Caesar found letters from his friends in
Rome which were about to be sent across to him, informing him of his daugh-
ter’s death. She had died in childbirth at Pompey’s house. 6 Both Pompey and
Caesar were greatly distressed at this, and their friends were very disturbed,
as the relationship which preserved the otherwise troubled state in peace and
harmony was now dissolved. And the baby also died, only a few days after its
mother. 7 As for Julia, the people took her body and carried her, in spite of the
tribunes, to the Campus Martius, where her funeral was held and where she lies
buried.

12.80 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 27.1: A proposed

marriage alliance
Pompey in fact married Cornelia, daughter of Q. Metellus Scipio, soon after entering his
sole consulship in 52. Cornelia’s husband had been the younger Crassus, killed in Parthia
on his father’s staff. Pompey chose Metellus as his consular colleague in July.

To maintain his relationship and goodwill with Pompey, Caesar offered him as
his wife Octavia, his sister’s granddaughter, who was married to Gaius Marcellus
(cos. 50), and for himself asked for Pompey’s daughter in marriage, who was
betrothed to Faustus Sulla.

12.81 Cicero Letters to his Brother Quintus 3.1.17, 3.6.3: Cicero feels
for Caesar
Written in September and November 54. For Cicero’s affection for his own daughter,
Tullia, see docs 7.27–28.

529
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
3.1.17 While I was still folding up this letter, letter-carriers arrived from you on
20 September, the twenty-seventh day after you sent it. How worried I was! And
how distressed I was by Caesar’s charming letter! The more charming it was, the
more distress I felt for the misfortune which has befallen him.
3.6.3 I got great pleasure in learning from your letter of the courage and dignity
with which Caesar conducts himself in his immense sorrow.

CRASSUS IN PARTHIA
12.82 Plutarch Life of Crassus 15.7–16.3: Crassus’ Parthian aims
While Pompey remained in Rome and administered Spain through legates, Crassus set out
for Syria in November 55 to make war on Parthia. In 54 BC he carried out punitive raids
into Mesopotamia and seized the Temple treasures of Jerusalem, and in 53 he invaded
Parthia. At the River Balik the Parthians defeated the Romans, decapitating his son Publius
and displaying the head, fixed to a spear, to Crassus. The survivors retreated to Carrhae,
where on 9 June Crassus and some 30,000 of the army were killed – one of the most
spectacular defeats the Roman army had ever experienced.

15.7 When the lots were cast, Crassus received Syria and Pompey the Spanish prov-
inces. 16.1 Everyone was pleased with the way the lot turned out. Most people did
not want Pompey to be far from Rome, and Pompey, who loved his wife, intended to
spend most of his time there, while as soon as the lot took place Crassus showed by
his delight that he considered that no more glorious piece of good fortune than this had
ever happened to him, and he could hardly keep quiet among strangers and in public,
while to his intimate friends he made many empty, childish boasts unsuited to his age
and temperament, since before this he had been anything but boastful or pompous. 2
Now, however, frantic with excitement and out of his senses, he did not intend Syria
or the Parthians to be the limit of his success but wanted to make Lucullus’ campaigns
against Tigranes and Pompey’s against Mithridates look like child’s play, in his hopes
seeing himself reaching as far as Bactria and India and the Outer Sea. And yet in the
decree passed concerning his command there was no mention of a Parthian war. 3
But everyone knew that Crassus was obsessed with this idea, and Caesar wrote to him
from Gaul approving the project and encouraging him to start the war.

12.83 Cicero On Duties 1.25, 3.75: Cicero’s views of Crassus

At Off. 1.109 Cicero links Crassus with Sulla as examples of those who would stoop to
anything to achieve their aims.

1.25 In those with greater ambitions, the love of riches leads them to strive for
power and patronage, as in the case of Marcus Crassus, who recently stated that
no amount of money was enough for the man who wished to be the leading citizen
in the state, unless he could keep an army on the income from it.
3.75 But if you were to give Marcus Crassus the power to get himself named
as an heir, though he was not truly an heir, by snapping his fingers, believe me, he
would dance in the forum.

530
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
12.84 Ovid Fasti 6.463–68: The death of Crassus
Augustus was of course to negotiate the return of Crassus’ standards, which he presented as
one of his greatest achivements (docs 15.1 (RG 19.2), 15.18, 15.96).

Of course, grief is sometimes mixed with joy,

Lest festivals prove an unmixed delight for the people:
Crassus at the Euphrates lost his eagles, his son, and his soldiers,
And was himself the last to perish.
‘Parthian, why do you rejoice?’ said the goddess.
‘You shall return the standards, while there will be an avenger who shall take
vengeance for the death of Crassus.’

CAESAR AND BRITAIN

In 55 and again in 54 BC, Caesar invaded Britain. His declared motive was the
assistance given by the British to the Gauls; there was also the allure of another
conquest, and presumably the desire for booty (and pearls: Suet. Jul. 47). There were
no territorial gains from either expedition, and no garrisoning force was left behind;
it is hardly likely that any of the tribute imposed was paid, although it was presented
as a triumphal achievement. Actual conquest of Britain began only in the reign of the
emperor Claudius.

12.85 Dio Roman History 39.50.1–53.2: Caesar in Britain, 55 BC

50.1 Caesar was at this time the first Roman to cross the Rhine, and afterwards, in
the consulship of Pompey and Crassus, he crossed over to Britain . . . 51.1 Caesar
wanted to cross to this country at this time because the rest of Gaul was at peace
and he had won over the Morini. He made the crossing with his infantry by the
best possible route but did not land at the most suitable spot, as the Britons, who
had learnt of his voyage, had seized all the landing-places facing the mainland.
2 He therefore sailed around a certain projecting promontory and along the other
side of it, where he disembarked in the shallows, overcoming those who engaged
with him and gaining a foothold before more help could arrive, afterwards driving
back these attackers too. 3 Only a few of the barbarians were killed (being chariot-
drivers and cavalry, they easily escaped the Romans, whose cavalry had not yet
arrived), but, panic-stricken at the reports about the Romans which had come from
the mainland, and at the fact that they had dared to cross at all and been able to
set foot in their country, they sent some of the Morini, friends of theirs, to Caesar
to treat for peace. When he requested hostages, they were at that point willing to
give them to him, 52.1 but when the Romans meanwhile faced problems because
of a storm, which damaged the fleet they had there and the one which was joining
them, they changed their minds and, while they did not attack them openly (for
the camp was heavily defended), captured some men who had been sent out to
forage for supplies in the belief that the country was friendly and killed them all,
except a few, for Caesar swiftly came to their rescue, after which they attacked

531
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
the Romans’ defences. They achieved nothing, but suffered reverses, though they
would not make peace terms until they had been defeated a number of times. 3
Caesar would not have considered coming to terms with them, except that the
winter was approaching and he did not possess a sufficient force to continue to
make war at that time of year, as the force which was coming to back him up had
been damaged and the Gauls had revolted as a result of his absence, so he reluc-
tantly made peace with the Britons, this time demanding numerous hostages but
getting only a few.
53.1 He sailed back to the mainland and put an end to the uprisings, having
gained nothing from Britain, either for himself or for Rome, except the prestige of
having made an expedition against the Britons. He took great pride in this, and the
Romans at home extolled this achievement to a marvellous degree. Because they
saw that what had formerly been unknown was now familiar, and the formerly
unheard of accessible, they considered the hopes for the future aroused by these
deeds as actual facts and rejoiced at all their anticipated future gains as if they
already possessed them. Because of this they voted the celebration of a thanksgiv-
ing (supplicatio) lasting 20 days.

12.86 Cicero Letters to his Brother Quintus 2.16.4–5: Quintus in

Britain
Written in late August 54 at Rome to Quintus, who was serving as Caesar’s legate. Cicero
wrote a literary account of Caesar’s expedition to Britain. He had also written a poem, ‘On
my vicissitudes’, and was hoping for further favourable comments from Caesar.

4 I come now to what should perhaps have been first. How happy I was to get
your letter from Britain! I dreaded the Ocean, I dreaded the island coastline; not
that I am making light of what is still to come, but there is more to hope than fear,
and I am more troubled by anticipation than by anxiety. I see that you have some
really splendid literary material – places, nature, topography, customs, peoples,
fighting, and of course the general himself! I shall be pleased to help you, as you
request, in any way you like, and I shall send you the verses you ask for (an owl
to Athens!)
5 But, look here, you seem to be keeping something from me. Brother, what
does Caesar think of my poem? He wrote to me earlier that he had read the first
book and had never read anything better than the first part, even in Greek; the rest
to a certain point he thought more slipshod (the word he used). Tell me the truth:
is it the content or the style he doesn’t like? Don’t worry at all – I won’t think a
whit less of myself. Just tell me the truth frankly and, as you always do, like a
brother.

12.87 Cicero Letters to Atticus 4.18.5: Mail from Britain

Written in October or November 54 BC. In a letter to Trebatius, Fam. 7.7.1, Cicero wrote
in June 54, ‘I hear there is no gold or silver in Britain; in that case I suggest you get a war
chariot and hurry back to us as soon as possible.’

532
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
From my brother Quintus and from Caesar I received letters on 24 October sent
from the shores of nearer Britain on 25 September. Britain has been subdued,
hostages taken, no booty, but tribute has been imposed and they are bringing the
army back from Britain.

12.88 Cicero Letters to his Brother Quintus 3.6.1: Quintus as Caesar’s

legate
Quintus had clearly been bemoaning conditions in Gaul; Marcus in November 54 reminds
him of the advantages which will accrue to both of them from Caesar’s patronage and
support.

Marcus to his brother Quintus, greetings. I have nothing to reply to your ear-
lier letter, which is full of irritation and complaining (you write that you gave
another too in the same vein to Labeo the day before, which hasn’t arrived yet),
but your more recent letter removed all my annoyance. I only advise and beg you
to remember amid these annoyances and labours and deprivations our reason for
your going there. We were not, after all, looking out for slight or trivial benefits.
What was it that we thought worth buying at the cost of our separation? We were
in search of solid support from the goodwill of a great and extremely powerful
man for every aspect of our public standing. We are relying more on hope than on
money; if that is lost, the rest will have been accumulated just to be thrown away.
So, if you keep on carrying your mind back to the purpose behind our former deci-
sion and hope, you will find it easier to put up with those military labours and the
other annoyances.

12.89 Caesar’s engineer, Mamurra

This was written before Julia’s death and after the first invasion of Britain, with Catullus
seeing Pompey and Caesar (here called ‘Romulus’) as associates. Mamurra was of an
equestrian family and had served both with Pompey against Mithridates and with Caesar
in Spain in 61; he was Caesar’s engineer in Gaul. He had made an immense fortune and
indulged in luxurious living, but he must have been capable to have been serving with
Caesar in Gaul; for cinaedi (sodomites), see docs 7.57–60.

(i) Catullus 29

Who can see it, who can endure it,

Unless a shameless, greedy gambler,
That Mamurra owns the wealth that once belonged to long-haired Gaul
And Britain at the end of the world?
5 Romulus, you sodomite, can you put up with the sight?
And shall that arrogant, overbearing chap
Now wander through everyone’s bedrooms
Like a white dove or an Adonis?
Romulus, you sodomite, can you put up with the sight,

533
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
10 You shameless, greedy gambler?
Surely this isn’t why, O egregious one,
You went to the furthest island in the West,
So this worn-out prick owned by you two
Could squander two or three hundred times its worth?
15 What is this but perverse generosity?
Hasn’t he finished off or got through enough?
First he went through his inherited property,
Then the plunder from Pontus, then thirdly
Spain’s, as the gold-bearing Tagus River knows:
20 Now fears are felt for Gaul and Britain.
Why on earth do you coddle him? What can he do
But eat up rich inheritances?
Surely this wasn’t why you, the city’s wealthiest men –
Father-in-law, son-in-law – have ruined the entire world?

(ii) Catullus 57

They suit one another well, those shameless sodomites (cinaedi),

Mamurra that pathic and Caesar.
And no wonder! Identical stains,
Picked up by one in the city, by the other at Formiae,
5 Mark them, which cannot be washed away,
Equally diseased, just like twins,
Both learned scholars on one little bed,
Neither a more voracious adulterer than the other,
Friendly rivals even of young girls.
Yes, they suit one another well, those shameless sodomites.

12.90 Caesar Gallic War 5.12.1–6, 14.1–5: Caesar on Britain

12.1 The interior of Britain is inhabited by natives who state that, according to
their tradition, they are indigenous to the island, 2 the coastal region by people
who crossed over from Belgium for the purposes of plunder or warfare, who after
the invasion settled there and began to cultivate the land. Nearly all of these are
called by the names of the states from which they came before their journey to
Britain. 3 There is a vast population and very numerous farm buildings similar
to those in Gaul, with an immense number of cattle. 4 They use either bronze or
gold coins or, instead of coins, iron rods of a standard weight. 5 Tin is found in the
midland regions of Britain, iron in the coastal regions, but of the latter the supply
is small; they use imported bronze. There is timber of all kinds, as in Gaul, except
for beech and fir. 6 They consider it wrong to eat hare, chicken and goose but keep
these for diversion and pleasure. The climate is more temperate than that of Gaul,
with milder cold seasons . . . 14.1 Of all the inhabitants, the most civilised by far
are those who live in Kent, a completely coastal region, whose lifestyle differs

534
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
little from that of the Gauls. Most of the inland dwellers do not plant corn 2 but
live on milk and meat and dress in skins. Indeed, all the Britons dye themselves
with woad, which produces a blue colour and gives them a more frightful appear-
ance in battle; 3 they wear their hair long and shave their whole body except
for the head and upper lip. 4 Ten or 12 men have wives in common, especially
brothers with brothers and fathers with sons; 5 but the offspring are considered to
belong to the family to which the girl was first taken in marriage.

12.91 Caesar Gallic War 7.1.1–8, 3.1–4.2: Vercingetorix

Caesar’s campaigns had until now been against a disunited Gaul, which he and his legates
had conquered piecemeal. At the beginning of 52 BC, the Gauls united in one great revolt
against the Romans led by Vercingetorix, in which even the Aedui joined. Caesar deals with
this revolt in BG 7, probably the most dramatic and exciting part of the BG. After various
incidents, Caesar besieged Vercingetorix in Alesia. He in turn was surrounded by a Gallic
force and had to build two walls, one around Alesia, and one on the outside of his position
against the besieging Gauls. Their attack failed, and Alesia surrendered. Vercingetorix was
to appear in his triumph and then be executed. A 20-day supplicatio was decreed by the
senate. Caesar had to fight some last battles, but in 51 Gaul was pacified and Caesar could
turn his attention elsewhere.

1.1 When Gaul was quiet, Caesar, as he had decided, sets out for Italy to hold
the assizes. There he learns of the murder of Clodius and, on being informed
of the senate’s decree that all younger men should be called up and sworn in,
he resolves to hold a levy throughout his province. 2 These events are quickly
reported to Transalpine Gaul. The Gauls invent and add to the rumours, a matter
which the situation seemed to demand, that Caesar was detained by disturbances
at Rome and, because of such great discord, was unable to join his army. 3 Excited
by this opportunity, those who even before this were bemoaning their subjection
to the rule of the Roman people begin to make war plans with greater freedom
and audacity. 4 Assemblies were summoned by arrangement between the Gallic
chiefs in wooded and remote areas and they complain of the death of Acco; they
point out that his fate could next fall upon them; 5 they pity the misfortune suf-
fered by the whole of Gaul; with all kinds of promises and rewards they call upon
men to begin the war and champion the freedom of Gaul at the risk of their lives. 6
First of all, they say, they must find a way, before their secret plans become gener-
ally known, to cut Caesar off from his army. 7 That was easy, because the legions
would not dare to leave their winter quarters in their commander’s absence, nor
could the commander reach his legions without an escort. 8 Finally, it was better
to die in battle than to fail to win back their former prestige in warfare and the lib-
erty handed down by their forefathers . . . 3.1 When the day comes, the Carnutes,
under the leadership of two desperate men, Cotuatus and Conconnetodumnus,
rush at a given signal against Cenabum, put to death the Roman citizens who had
settled there for trading purposes, among them Gaius Fufius Cita, a respected
Roman eques who by Caesar’s order was in charge of the corn supply, and seize
their possessions. 2 The report is swiftly carried to all the states of Gaul – for

535
 THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC
whenever any more important or glorious event occurs, they proclaim it loudly
through the fields and localities; others then take it up and hand it on to their
neighbours, as happens on this occasion. 3 For the deeds done at Cenabum at
sunrise were heard before the end of the first watch on the borders of the Arverni,
a distance of some 160 miles.
4.1 In a similar way there, Vercingetorix, son of Celtillus, an Arvernian, a
youth of the highest influence, whose father had held the chieftainship of the
whole of Gaul, and consequently, because he aimed at kingship, had been put to
death by the state, summons his dependants and easily inflames their spirits. 2 As
soon as his plan is known there is a general rush to arms.

536
 13

Civil War and Dictatorship

The ‘First Triumvirate’ had survived in 56 BC, much to Cicero’s disappointment,

but events soon paved the way for the breakdown of the alliance. The deaths of
Julia and Crassus left only two partners, who were no longer joined by family ties,
and Pompey gradually began to align himself with the optimates. During Caesar’s
absence in Gaul, factional violence led by Milo and Clodius reached such heights
that the consular elections in 54 were so delayed that the consuls for 53 did not
enter office until July; elections for 52 were continually postponed, and bribery
was rampant. As a result there was increasing talk of making Pompey dictator,
until a confrontation between Milo and Clodius on the Appian Way on 18 January
52 resulted in Clodius’ murder and riots in Rome in which the senate house was
burned down (docs 13.1–2). In consequence, Pompey was made sole consul for
52, a position the optimates, led by Cato, were more willing to allow him than
a dictatorship (docs. 13.3–4). Later he took his new father-in-law, Q. Caecilius
Metellus Pius Scipio (one of the declared candidates for 52), as colleague in the
consulship for the last five months of the year (doc. 13.6). Milo was convicted
and Pompey took the opportunity to introduce more stringent anti-violence and
anti-bribery laws (doc. 13.5). He was granted a further five-year governorship
in Spain, and his increased influence and favour with the optimates widened the
breach with Caesar, whose supporters wished to ensure that he could safely hold
a second consulship, which he wanted after his Gallic command (doc.13.7). In
contrast, the ‘hardline’ optimates such as Cato the Younger wanted to see Caesar
brought to trial for his actions as consul in 59 before he should be elected to such a
second consulship, and he attempted to replace him in Gaul with a successor: this
issue and the resulting ongoing debate were to lead directly to civil war.
The Marcelli (consuls in 51, 50 and 49) were to be particularly opposed to
Caesar, and senatorial hostility towards him continued to grow during 51. Pompey
was pressured into requesting from Caesar a legion he had lent him to deal with a
crisis in Gaul (docs 13.9–10) and, though this legion and another of Caesar’s own
were withdrawn in 50 to deal with the Parthian crisis, they in fact remained in
Italy under Pompey’s command, a situation which then seemed to present a threat
to Caesar (docs 13.10, 13, 21). On 29 September 51 the senate passed a resolu-
tion (doc. 13.12) that the question of Caesar’s successor should take precedence

537
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
over all other government business from 1 March 50. However, Caesar, with the
immense wealth gained in Gaul, was not without supporters, most notably one of
the consuls for 50, L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, who presented obstacles to this
discussion, and the tribune C. Scribonius Curio, one of Caesar’s most notable
critics in 59, now won over to his side by payment of his immense debts, who
demanded joint disarmament by both Caesar and Pompey (docs 13.14–16).
During 50 Pompey moved inexorably closer to the optimates and supported
attempts to terminate Caesar’s command. The breach between the two had wid-
ened to such an extent by August that, to Cicero’s friend and correspondent M.
Caelius Rufus, war appeared inevitable (docs 13.16–18). Nevertheless, war was
only the direct choice of a few ‘diehard’ optimates: when Curio managed on
1 December 50 to divide the senate on a vote for joint disarmament, only 22
senators voted against, while, in order to avoid civil war, 370 were in favour of
Pompey laying down his command as well as Caesar. At this point C. Claudius
Marcellus as consul entrusted the safety of the state to Pompey (docs 13.22–24).
When in January two of the tribunes for 49, M. Antony and Q. Cassius Longinus,
attempted to veto the senatus consultum ultimum outlawing Caesar, they were
obstructed and fled to Caesar at Ravenna (docs 13.24–25). On the night of 10
January 49 Caesar crossed the River Rubicon into Italy, making civil war inevi-
table, justifying himself on the grounds that his command had been terminated
unfairly and insultingly (docs 13.26–27). Suetonius, however, considers that his
main motive was to escape the prosecution by his enemies for his acts in 59,
which Cato had been continually threatening (doc. 13.28).
To the surprise of Cicero, at least, Pompey decided to abandon Rome and
withdrew first to Brundisium and then to western Greece, where Cicero was to
join him, despite overtures from Caesar. Caesar pursued Pompey down the Italian
peninsula and then returned to Rome before proceeding to Spain (Pompey’s prov-
ince), where he dealt with Pompeian opposition (docs 13.29–38). Now, as later,
Caesar was to deal with his defeated opponents with clemency. After returning
from Spain, he held the dictatorship for 11 days to preside over the consular elec-
tions; after he himself was elected for 48, he followed Pompey to Greece (doc.
13.42). Pompey’s supporters were riven with jealousy of each other and hatred of
Caesar, and his forces were inadequately trained (doc. 13.43). Following an initial
defeat in an attempt to blockade the army at Dyrrachium, Caesar overwhelm-
ingly overcame the Pompeian forces at Pharsalus in August 48 (docs 13.43–44).
Pompey fled and was assassinated in Egypt by advisors of the Egyptian king,
to Caesar’s great regret (docs 13.46, 53). After a stay in Egypt with Cleopatra,
Caesar had to engage in further military campaigns in Asia (against Pharnaces:
doc. 13.48), in Africa (against Metellus Scipio, Cato and other Pompeians) and,
finally, in Spain (against Pompey’s sons). With this final success at Munda in
Spain in 45 his victory was complete.
From 46 in particular Caesar began an intensive programme of political reform
(colonies, debt relief and grain distribution: doc. 13.56). Despite his clemency and
his practice of placing defeated opponents in key positions (docs 13.52–53, cf.
13.62), he was unpopular with the optimates because of his neglect of Republican

538
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
values and his increasing autocracy (docs 13.51, 54). He received numerous unprec-
edented honours from the senate and people (doc. 13.55). The granting of a perpet-
ual dictatorship in February 44 BC led to a conspiracy of more than 60 senators to
murder him before he left for his Parthian campaign on 18 March (docs 13.66–67);
Caesar was assassinated on the Ides (15th) of March 44. The conspirators, however,
did not take advantage of their position, as Cicero laments (doc. 14.4), and Caesar’s
popularity and the unpopularity of the ‘tyrannicides’ was enhanced by the generos-
ity of Caesar’s will (doc. 13.68), in which he adopted his great-nephew Octavian,
who was to complete the demise of the Republic. It could be argued that it was the
intransigence of the senatorial aristocracy towards Caesar (particularly of the 22
optimates – among whom Cato was conspicuous – who voted against peace on 1
December 50 BC), Pompey’s attitude, and Caesar’s own personality and the legacy
of his own actions in his consulship of 59 BC that led to the events of 50 and the
outbreak of the war between Caesar and Pompey. For the ancient sources and back-
ground reading for this period, see the introduction to chapter 12.

ANARCHY IN ROME
Cn. Domitius Calvinus and M. Valerius Messalla Rufus had finally entered office as con-
suls in July 53, but three of the consular candidates for 52 caused various disruptions for the
rest of the year: Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (who was to become Pompey’s father-in-
law in July 52), T. Annius Milo and P. Plautius Hypsaeus. In addition, Clodius was a can-
didate for a praetorship. Not only did widespread bribery take place on an unprecedented
scale, but these candidates had armed gangs in their employ, and the consul Calvinus was
wounded in one incident.
Milo had spent extravagantly on ludi in 53 to ensure election; he had put on immensely
expensive games and squandered three patrimonies in so doing. Clodius, on the other hand,
could expect election to the praetorship, given his popularity with the plebs and sections of
the senate and the support of Pompey, and he naturally supported Milo’s rivals Scipio and
Hypsaeus. These two were also Pompey’s choice, as his own rapprochement with Clodius
now made Milo dispensable. The year 53 ended without elections having been held, and
the increasing anarchy was giving rise to calls that Pompey should assume the dictatorship.

13.1 Asconius Commentaries on Cicero 30–36: The murder of Clodius

This incident took place on 18 January 52 BC. Marcus Lepidus is M. Aemilius Lepidus
(cos. 46 and 42, praetor 49), a member of the second triumvirate; he was the son of the
consul of 78 who led a revolt against the state (doc. 12.2). While he was interrex (he took
up office on 20 January), an attack on his house was carried out by the gangs of Clodius
and he was trapped there for five days. The interrex under whom the elections were actually
held was Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (cos. 51). Pompey assumed the sole consulship on the 24th
of the intercalary month before March.

30 Titus Annius Milo, Publius Plautius Hypsaeus, and Quintus Metellus Scipio
were candidates for the consulship, supporting their candidature not only by lav-
ish and open bribery but also by gangs of armed men. There was a bitter feud
between Milo and Clodius, because Milo was a close friend of Cicero’s and as

539
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
tribune had worked strenuously to have Cicero recalled, while Publius Clodius
still remained violently hostile to him after his recall and therefore enthusiasti-
cally supported Hypsaeus and Scipio against Milo. Milo and Clodius frequently
came to blows with each other in Rome at the head of their own gangs: they were
both equal in recklessness, but Milo was on the side of the optimates. Moreover,
while Milo was standing for the consulship, Clodius was a candidate, in the same
year, for the praetorship, which he realised would be crippled with Milo as consul.
The consular elections had been long delayed and could not be completed because
of these 31 desperate squabbles between the candidates, and for this reason in
January there were still no consuls or praetors, and the election day was being put
off by the same means as before; Milo in fact wanted the elections to be completed
as soon as possible and was confident of the support both of the ‘honest’ men,
since he was opposing Clodius, and of the people, because of the largesse he had
widely distributed and his immense expenditure on theatrical performances and
gladiatorial shows, on which Cicero informs us he spent three patrimonies, while
his opponents preferred to postpone them, and so Pompey, Scipio’s son-in-law,
and the tribune Titus Munatius had not allowed a proposal to be put to the senate
for an assembly of patricians to choose an interrex – the traditional procedure in
such a situation being to appoint an interrex. On 18 January (for I consider it best
to follow the official records and this very speech which agrees with the official
records, rather than Fenestella who gives the date of 19 January) Milo set out for
Lanuvium, his home town, where he was dictator, to appoint a flamen on the fol-
lowing day. At about the ninth hour, he was encountered by Clodius, a little past
Bovillae, the spot being close to a shrine of the Bona Dea; Clodius was returning
from Aricia, where he had been addressing the town officials. Clodius was riding
on horseback; he was accompanied by some 30 slaves, the usual practice when
making a journey at that time, who were lightly equipped and armed with swords.
Moreover Clodius had three friends with him, of whom one was a Roman eques
called Gaius Causinius Schola, and two were well-known plebeians, Publius
Pomponius and Gaius Clodius. Milo was travelling in a carriage with his wife
Fausta, daughter of the dictator Lucius Sulla, and a relation called Marcus Fufius.
Accompanying them 32 was a large band of slaves, including some gladiators,
among whom were the two well-known figures Eudamus and Birria. They were at
the far end of the column, moving more slowly, and began a brawl with the slaves
of Publius Clodius. When Clodius looked back threateningly at this uproar, Birria
threw a spear through his shoulder. With the fight in progress, more of Milo’s men
hurried up. The wounded Clodius was conveyed into a nearby tavern in Bovillae.
When Milo heard that Clodius had been wounded, he decided that it would be
more dangerous for himself to leave him alive, while his death would be a great
relief, even if he had to undergo a penalty, and ordered him to be turned out of the
tavern. The leader of Milo’s slaves was Marcus Saufeius. Clodius, who was hid-
ing, was then dragged out and finished off with a number of wounds. His body was
left in the road, because Clodius’ slaves were either dead or in hiding with seri-
ous injuries . . . To Clodius’ house hurried the tribunes Titus Munatius Plancus,
brother of the orator Lucius Plancus, and Quintus Pompeius Rufus, grandson of

540
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
the dictator Sulla through his daughter. 33 At their urging, the ignorant mob car-
ried the body to the forum, naked and trampled, on the couch as it had been laid,
so that the wounds could be seen, and placed it on the rostra. There Plancus and
Pompeius, who supported Milo’s opponents, held a public meeting and whipped
up hostility to Milo. Under the leadership of the clerk Sextus Cloelius the people
carried the body of Publius Clodius into the senate house and cremated it there,
using benches, tribunals, tables and secretaries’ notebooks; the senate house itself
caught fire and the Basilica Porcia next door to it was also damaged. The crowd of
Clodius’ supporters also attacked the house of Marcus Lepidus, the interrex (for
he had been appointed to this office), and that of Milo, who was absent, but was
driven back with arrows. Then they seized the axes from the grove of Libitina and
carried them to Scipio’s house and Hypsaeus’ and finally to Pompey’s gardens,
calling on him now as consul, now as dictator.
The conflagration of the senate house gave rise to a good deal more anger
among citizens than the murder of Clodius. And so Milo, who was thought to have
gone into voluntary exile, reassured by his opponents’ unpopularity, returned to
Rome on the night of the burning of the senate house. Undeterred, he still cam-
paigned for the consulship; he even openly gave each man 1,000 asses according
to tribe. Some days later the tribune Marcus Caelius held a public meeting on his
behalf and Cicero himself pleaded his case to the people. Both stated that Milo
had been ambushed by Clodius.
In the meantime, one interrex after another was appointed, because consular
elections could not be held 34 on account of the disturbances caused by the candi-
dates and the same armed bands. So, as a first step, a senatorial decree was passed
that the interrex, tribunes and Gnaeus Pompey, who was proconsul and near the
city, should see to it that the state suffered no harm, and that Pompey should hold
a levy throughout Italy . . . 35 During all this, as the feeling was increasing that
Gnaeus Pompey should be appointed dictator as the only way to solve the state’s
problems, 36 it seemed safer to the optimates that he should be created consul
without a colleague, and, when the matter had been debated in the senate, in a
senatorial decree on the motion of Marcus Bibulus, Pompey was appointed consul
by the interrex Servius Sulpicius on the 24th of the intercalary month and took
up office immediately. Three days later he moved new laws, two promulgated by
senatorial decree, one on violence, which specifically mentioned the murder on
the Appian Way, the burning of the senate house and the attack on the house of
the interrex Marcus Lepidus, and the other on bribery, in which the penalties were
intensified and the court procedure made shorter.

POMPEY AS SOLE CONSUL, 52 BC

After Clodius’ murder there were calls for Pompey to become dictator and a military
levy was held throughout Italy. The level of violence and corruption in 53 and 52 BC had
become unacceptable, even by Roman standards. Cato and his supporters felt that it would
be better if Pompey had a more regular office, and Bibulus (Cato’s son-in-law) therefore
proposed that he be made sole consul. This marks the change in the relationship between
Pompey and Caesar, which up to that point had been relatively amicable.

541
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
13.2 Cicero In Defence of Milo 27: Clodius at fault
Meanwhile, as Clodius was aware – nor was it difficult to be aware of it – that
Milo, as chief magistrate (dictator) at Lanuvium, had, under the obligation of
sacred and civil law, to take a journey to Lanuvium to proclaim the appointment
of a flamen, he suddenly left Rome the day before so he might, as was clear from
the event, lay an ambush for Milo in front of his estate.

13.3 Dio Roman History 40.50.3–5: The optimates turn to Pompey

Pompey had been invited by the senate to become sole consul and was increasingly rec-
onciled with the optimates. He now emerges as the supporter of law and order, though
not in any sense a tool of the senate. But Pompey’s good relationship with the senate was
established and would develop.

3 The city was in a state of suspense over who were to be its magistrates, with
some people saying that Pompey should be elected dictator, others that Caesar
should be consul . . . 4 As they were afraid of both men, the rest of the senate, as
well as Bibulus, who was the first to be asked for his opinion, anticipated the pop-
ulace’s enthusiasm by giving Pompey the consulship, so he would not be named
dictator, and as sole consul, so that Caesar might not be his colleague. 5 This novel
action was without precedent, yet they appeared to have made the right decision;
as Pompey was less supportive of the populace than Caesar, they hoped to detach
him from them completely and make him one of their own. And this worked out:
elated at this new and unexpected honour, he no longer made any plans to please
the people but tried to carry out in every respect the wishes of the senate.

13.4 Plutarch Life of Pompey 54.5–8: Bibulus and Cato

support Pompey
5 When, later on, Rome was again without consuls and more people now brought
up more vigorously the question of a dictatorship, Cato and his party were afraid
that they would be forced to give way and so decided to let Pompey have some
sort of legal magistracy to prevent his holding the absolute authority of a dictator-
ship. 6 In fact Bibulus, Pompey’s enemy, was the first to propose in the senate
that Pompey should be elected sole consul, arguing that in this way Rome would
either be saved from its current chaos or at least be enslaved to its best citizen. 7
The proposal appeared incredible, bearing in mind its advocate, and Cato got up,
giving rise to the belief that he would oppose it, but, when everyone fell silent,
declared that he would not personally have proposed the measure but, as it had
been proposed by someone else, he recommended that they adopt it, as he pre-
ferred any government to no government, and thought that Pompey would govern
better than anyone else in times of such chaos. 8 The senate accepted the measure
and decreed that Pompey, if elected consul, should govern without a colleague,
but that if he himself should want a colleague he could choose whomever he
thought suitable at the end of two months of office.

542
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
13.5 Dio Roman History 40.54.1–2: Milo’s conviction
Pompey as sole consul introduced various measures, including two laws on violence and
electoral bribery. Milo was charged with murder and other offences and tried on 4–7 April.
Pompey had already indicated that he would not support him, and he was defended by
Cicero and M. Claudius Marcellus (cos. 51); the prosecution was carried out by Mark
Antony and Appius Claudius Pulcher. Milo was condemned to exile for the murder; he was
also tried and convicted under Pompey’s law for electoral bribery. Hypsaeus, the second of
the two consular candidates supported by Pompey in 53, was also convicted. Pompey’s law
on bribery was retrospective, covering events back to his own first consulship in 70 BC.
This led Caesar’s supporters to be suspicious that Caesar was being targeted.

1 The courts met peacefully as a result of these measures and many were con-
victed on a variety of charges, including Milo among others for the murder of
Clodius, even though he had Cicero speaking for the defence. 2 For when the
orator saw the unprecedented sight of Pompey and the soldiers in the court he
was so panic-stricken and overwhelmed with fear that he said nothing of the
speech he had prepared, but merely with difficulty uttered a few words that died
away and gladly retired. The speech now extant, which purports to have been
delivered on Milo’s behalf at the time, was written later at leisure, when he had
recovered his confidence.

13.6 Appian Civil Wars 2.24–25 (92, 95): Pompey’s fellow consul
Appian (doc. 13.7) has those exiled from convictions under Pompey’s laws about violence
and ambitus going to Caesar. The son of Scipio Nasica, Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio
had been adopted by Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius.

92 All those condemned were exiled and Gabinius was fined in addition to being
exiled. The senate praised these proceedings loudly, voted Pompey two more
legions, and extended the term of his provincial government . . . 95 Pompey, as
if he had corrected all the problems which had necessitated one-man rule, made
Scipio his consular colleague for the rest of the year. But even after this, when
others had been appointed to the office, Pompey nonetheless remained the over-
seer and ruler and main power in Rome; for he possessed the senate’s goodwill,
particularly on account of their jealousy of Caesar, who had not consulted them
at all during his consulship, and because Pompey had swiftly helped the state
recover from its illness and not annoyed or offended any of them during his
magistracy.

13.7 Appian Civil Wars 2.25 (96–97): A second consulship for Caesar?
Caesar wanted to be allowed to stand in absentia for a later consulship: all ten tribunes
passed a law allowing him to do so. Pompey supported the law, but soon after he had a
law passed that candidates for office had to announce their candidature in person in Rome.
However, he then exempted Caesar from it. Caesar would be eligible to stand for a consul-
ship for 48, and hence needed his command to run to the end of 49, to stand in absentia
for the consular elections in summer of that year and step immediately into a consulship

543
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
without any intervening period as a private citizen. For himself, Pompey took another five-
year command in Spain, governing it through legates.

96 Those who were exiled went to Caesar in droves, warning him to watch out for
Pompey, as Pompey’s law on bribery was aimed at him in particular, but Caesar
encouraged them and spoke favourably of Pompey, and persuaded the tribunes to
introduce a law to allow him to stand for the consulship a second time in his absence.
Pompey was still consul when this was ratified and made no objection to it. 97 As
Caesar suspected that the senate would oppose this and was afraid that he might
become a private citizen and vulnerable to his enemies, he worked towards keeping
his power until elected consul and requested the senate to allow him a little more time
in his current governorship of Gaul or of part of it. When Marcellus (cos. 51), who
succeeded Pompey as consul, prevented this, Caesar is recorded as replying to the
person who informed him, with his hand on his sword-hilt, ‘This shall give it to me.’

THE LEAD UP TO CIVIL WAR

M. Claudius Marcellus and Servius Sulpicius Rufus were elected consuls for 51 BC. (M.
Claudius Marcellus was consul in 51, another Marcellus, C. Claudius Marcellus – his first
cousin – was consul for 50 BC, and yet another Marcellus, also a C. Claudius Marcellus –
brother of Marcus – for 49: all three were opposed to Caesar.)
It is unclear when Caesar’s command in Gaul was due to expire, but M. Claudius
Marcellus began moves against him early in 51 BC. He proposed that a successor to Caesar
be appointed before the latter’s tenure as proconsul of Gaul expired, arguing that the war
in Gaul was over and that Caesar not be allowed to stand in absentia for the consulship.
Marcellus also argued that Pompey’s additional clause exempting Caesar from the decree
requiring candidates for the consulship to be present was not valid, as it had been added by
Pompey and was not part of the decree itself. Caesar used the tribunes to veto Marcellus’
proposals; the other consul, Ser. Sulpicius Rufus, also acted in Caesar’s interests to resist
Marcellus. Marcellus showed his personal hostility to Caesar by having one of the citizens
of Novum Comum scourged (docs 13.8–9).
Pompey did not support Marcellus, in particular opposing his plan to terminate Caesar’s
command. It was decided to hold a debate later, on 13 August, which was postponed until
1 September; on 1 September 51 Pompey in the senate argued that no decree could be
passed about the Gallic provinces, but Metellus Scipio (Pompey’s father-in-law) proposed
the motion that the Gallic provinces should be discussed (before any other item of busi-
ness) in the senate on 1 March 50 BC. Later, on 29 September 51, Pompey indicated that
a debate about the consular provinces could take place in March 50 (docs 13.12, 13.35).
These attempts to have Caesar recalled were the first steps to civil war.
In addition, in 53 the senate had resolved that there should be a five-year gap between
holding an office and taking up a provincial command, and Pompey in 52 had this made
into law (the lex Pompeia de provinciis). Until five years had elapsed and magistrates
currently in office could take up these governorships, governors were to be chosen by lot
from consulars and praetorians who had not previously held a province. Under this law
Cicero was chosen by lot as governor (proconsul) of Cilicia, and he left Rome in May
51 to take up his post. This law meant for Caesar that after his consulship there would be
five years during which he did not have imperium and could be prosecuted for his acts
as consul in 59.

544
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
13.8 Cicero Letters to Atticus 5.11: Marcellus has a Transpadane Gaul
flogged
Written on 6 July 51. ‘Our friend’ here is Pompey: he was patron of the Transpadani.
The colony had been founded under legislation authored by Vatinius as tribune in 59 BC.
Marcellus was showing his opposition to Caesar’s activities during his consulship of 59.

2 Marcellus behaved with cruelty over the man from Comum. Even though he may
not have held a magistracy, he was still a Transpadane; so I imagine Marcellus has
irritated our friend no less than Caesar. But that’s his business.

13.9 Appian Civil Wars 2.26 (98–100): Growing hostility to Caesar, 51

BC
Novum Comum: doc. 13.8. Marcellus refused to accept as legal Caesar’s grant by the lex
Vatinia in 59 of Latin rights to Comum.

98 Caesar founded the town of Novum Comum at the foot of the Alps and granted
it Latin rights, one of which was that whoever held the magistracies each year
should become Roman citizens; for this is a condition of Latin status. Marcellus
(cos. 51) had one of the men of Novum Comum, who had been a magistrate and
who was accordingly considered a Roman, beaten with rods for some reason, in
defiance of Caesar, something which does not happen to Romans. Marcellus in his
anger revealed his true purpose that the blows should be the mark of the alien –
he instructed the man to carry them to Caesar and show them to him. 99 As well
as insulting Caesar in this manner, he also proposed to send successors to take
over his provinces before the appointed time; but Pompey prevented this with a
specious pretence of goodwill, saying that they should not insult a distinguished
man who had been so very useful to his country in a dispute over a short period
of time, while he made it clear that Caesar’s command must be terminated imme-
diately it expired. 100 For this reason Caesar’s greatest enemies were elected
consuls for the following year (50 BC), Aemilius Paullus and Claudius Marcellus,
cousin of the Marcellus already mentioned, while Curio was made tribune, who
was Caesar’s bitter enemy and very popular with the people and a very skilled
speaker. Of these Caesar was unable to win over Claudius by money but bought
Paullus’ neutrality for 1,500 talents and the cooperation of Curio with an even
larger sum, as he knew he was encumbered by numerous debts.

13.10 Caelius in [Cicero] Letters to his Friends 8.4: Pressure is

put on Pompey
Cf. doc. 13.12. Written by M. Caelius Rufus to Cicero in Cilicia on 1 August 51. Caelius (tr.
pl. 52 and aedile in 50) kept up a regular correspondence with Cicero while the latter was
in Cilicia, and these letters provide an invaluable source for the events of 51 and 50. The
temple of Apollo was outside the pomerium in the Campus Martius and therefore Pompey,
who was invested with imperium, could be present at the meeting. The consuls-elect for
50 were L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus and C. Claudius Marcellus. Pompey had lent Caesar
a legion in 53.

545
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
4 In politics we had ceased to expect anything new; but when the senate met
in the temple of Apollo on 22 July (51 BC) and the question was put about pay
for Pompey’s troops, the matter of the legion which Pompey had lent to Caesar
was brought up, whom it belonged to and how long Pompey would let it stay in
Gaul. Pompey was compelled to state that he would remove the legion, but not
straightaway in response to the remarks and outcry from his detractors. Then there
was a question put about the replacement of Gaius Caesar, regarding which (that
is, on the question of the provinces) it was agreed that Pompey should return to
the city as quickly as possible so that a debate on the replacement of governors
could be held with him present – Pompey was on the point of going to his army
at Ariminum and left at once. I think the debate will take place on the Ides (13th)
of August. Either a decision will be reached or it will be disgracefully vetoed –
for during the discussion Pompey made the comment that everyone ought to pay
attention to the senate’s dictates. I, however, am looking forward to nothing so
much as Paullus, as consul-elect, being the first to give his views on the issue.

13.11 [Caesar] Gallic War 8.53.1–2: Marcellus tries to end Caesar’s

command
The law of Pompey and Crassus was the lex Licinia Pompeia in 55 BC, extending Caesar’s
command for another five years in Gaul.

1 In the previous year (51 BC), in an attack on Caesar’s position, Marcellus, con-
trary to a law of Pompey and Crassus, had brought prematurely before the sen-
ate a motion on Caesar’s provinces. Opinions were voiced, and when Marcellus,
who wanted any position for himself which could be gained from the ill-will felt
towards Caesar, called for a division, the crowded senate crossed over in support
of the ‘No’ side. 2 This did not alter the resolution of Caesar’s enemies but incited
them to come up with more compelling reasons, which could be used to force the
senate to approve what they themselves had resolved.

13.12 Caelius in [Cicero] Letters to his Friends 8.8: Pompey’s views on

Caesar’s command
In this letter of early October 51 BC, Caelius gives an account of the senatorial proceedings
of 29 September 51 and quotes decrees of the senate (8.8.5–8). The senate resolved, with
Pompey’s agreement, that the consuls elected for 50 (Paullus and C. Marcellus) would on
1 March in their year of office (50) bring the matter of Caesar’s command before the sen-
ate and bring no other matter to the senate until this issue was resolved. Another decree of
the same day, that no one with the power of veto should prevent the discussion about the
provinces taking place on that day, was vetoed by four tribunes (but the resolution itself
about the provinces was not).

4 Finally, after frequent postponements and much serious discussion, it became

clear that Gnaeus Pompey wanted him (Caesar) to leave his command after the
Kalends of March. The senate approved and I send you a copy of the decree and

546
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
recorded resolutions. 5 ‘On this day, 29 September, in the temple of Apollo, . . . In
as much as M. Marcellus, consul, did address the senate on the matter of the
consular provinces, it was resolved: that L. Paullus and C. Marcellus, consuls,
on entering their office, should on or after the Kalends of March in their year of
office (50 BC) refer the question of the consular provinces to the senate, and that
from the Kalends of March they should bring no business before the senate, either
previously or in conjunction; moreover for the same purpose they might hold a
meeting of the senate on comitial (assembly) days and pass decrees . . . ’
9 Furthermore the confidence of the public has been greatly enhanced by some
comments made by Gnaeus Pompey, in which he remarked that before the Kalends
of March he could not justly make any decision about Caesar’s provinces, but
after the Kalends of March he would have no hesitation. When he was asked what
would happen if any vetoes were interposed at that stage, he said that it was of no
importance whether Gaius Caesar was not going to follow the senate’s decree or
if he was getting someone ready to prevent the senate from passing a decree. ‘And
what’, asked someone else, ‘if he wants to be consul and keep his army?’ Pompey
replied mildly: ‘What if my son wants to take his stick to me?’ As a consequence
of these remarks, people think that Pompey is having trouble with Caesar.

13.13 Caelius in [Cicero] Letters to his Friends 8.10: Parthian

problems
Written on 17 November 51. After Crassus’ defeat in Parthia, his quaestor Cassius (C.
Cassius Longinus, one of the conspirators against Caesar) had regrouped the survivors in
Syria. In September 51 the Parthians crossed the Euphrates towards Roman Syria. Pompey
wanted the command, but for the moment Cassius, then Cicero and Bibulus as governors
in 51–50 of Cilicia and Syria, dealt with the situation (cf. doc. 5.73).

2 The reports about the Parthian crossing have given rise to a lot of talk. One
view is that Pompey should be sent, another that Pompey ought not to be taken
away from Rome, another that Caesar should go with his army, another the con-
suls, but no one wants privati sent by senatorial decree. Moreover the consuls,
who are afraid that the senate may not approve their military appointment and
that the job might go shamefully over their heads to someone else, are unwilling
to have senate meetings at all, to the point where they appear to be neglecting
government. But whether due to negligence or inertia or the fear I suggested, it is
respectably obscured under the belief that they are men of moderation who have
no wish for a province . . . 3 It’s now the end of the year – I am writing this letter
on 17 November. I can clearly see that nothing can be done before the Kalends of
January. You know (M. Claudius) Marcellus, how slow and ineffectual he is, and
Servius (Sulpicius Rufus) too, a real procrastinator. What do you think of their
behaviour, what do you see as their ability to get something done which they are
not interested in, when they are dealing so feebly with something they do want as
to make it look as if they are not interested? When the new magistrates come in,
if there is going to be a Parthian war, that issue will take up the first months, but

547
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
if there’s not going to be a war there, or if it’s small enough for you two (Cicero
and Bibulus) or your successors to cope with with a few reinforcements, I can see
Curio being active in two directions, first taking something away from Caesar,
then giving something to Pompey, any little gift, however trifling. Paullus, too, is
talking unjustifiably about a province. Our friend Furnius (tr. pl. 50) is ready to
put up resistance to his greed.

THE EVENTS OF 50 BC
One of the tribunes elected in 51 for 50, Servaeus, was convicted of electoral bribery under
the lex Pompeia de ambitu, and C. Scribonius Curio was elected in his place. Curio had
been opposed to the triumvirate in 59 (docs 12.51–53) and was viewed as a friend of the
optimates. He was popular with the plebs and had married Fulvia, Clodius’ widow. He had
been massively in debt but was bailed out by Caesar and served his interests, though at first
he concealed his change of alliance, moving formally over to Caesar in February 50 when
his request for a month to be intercalated was refused.
The main issue of this year was the terminal date of Caesar’s Gallic command. Scholars
disagree both on the exact date when his second term as governor of Gaul was due to expire
and whether the dates set for the discussion of termination of his command (1 March 50)
and, later, for its actual termination (13 November 50) were reasonable: Pompey thought
the 13 November date ‘fair’ and accused Curio of simply making trouble (doc. 13.16). But
Caesar (doc. 13.27) states that the SCU of 7 January 49 deprived him of six months of his
command (i.e., it was due to expire in mid-49). Pompey’s insistence in 51 that Caesar’s
command should not be debated until 1 March 50 could be taken to indicate that the exten-
sion of the latter’s five-year command as arranged by Crassus and Pompey in their consul-
ship (55 BC) under the lex Pompeia Licinia was due in fact to expire on or soon after that
date. The first year Caesar could hold a second consulship was 48, as he himself notes
(doc. 13.42). It was essential for Caesar that his command should be extended until he was
elected to his second consulship, or he would be liable for prosecution for events in his
first; Pompey was anxious, however, that there should be such a gap (docs 13.16, 13.18).
The consuls elected for 50 BC were one of M. Marcellus’ cousins, C. Claudius Marcellus,
and L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, who was thought to have been bribed by Caesar. In 50
Paullus did support Caesar, who had helped him financially to complete his rebuilding of
the Basilica Aemilia in the forum at the cost of 1,500 talents. The debate about consular
provinces was due to take place on 1 March 50, but the matter was apparently postponed,
and Paullus, as presiding consul, clearly played a key role. Caelius in a letter of April notes
that Pompey had now decided, along with the senate, that Caesar was to step down from
his command on or before 13 November 50 (doc. 13.16).

13.14 Caelius in [Cicero] Letters to his Friends 8.6: Curio changes sides
Written in February 50 BC. Cicero in his province had heard of disturbances in Curio’s
tribunate. Appian sees Curio’s road bill (he planned to be superintendent for five years)
and the expected optimate opposition to it as a deliberate move to excuse his change of
allegiance from Pompey. In 50 Caelius was curule aedile. For the panthers, see doc. 2.77.

3 We have really industrious consuls! – up till now they’d not managed to get a
single decree through the senate except about the (date of the) Latin Festival. 4

548
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
Our friend Curio’s tribunate is a total frost. I just can’t tell you how dormant every-
thing is here. If it weren’t for my battle (as aedile) with shopkeepers and water-pipe
inspectors, the whole city would be fast asleep . . . 5 Regarding my remark above
about Curio’s frozen inactivity, he’s now warmed up – and is being enthusiastically
torn to pieces! Most irresponsibly, because he didn’t get his own way about interca-
lation, he’s gone over to the populace and begun talking in support of Caesar. He’s
declared a road bill, rather like Rullus’ agrarian bill, and a food bill, which instructs
the aediles to make distributions. He’d not started any of this when I wrote the first
part of my letter . . . You’ll be in disgrace if I don’t have any Greek panthers!

13.15 Appian Civil Wars 2.27 (103–5): Joint disarmament

If Caesar planned to stand in summer 49 for the consulship of 48, there would have been
ample time for him to be prosecuted for his activities as consul in 59 BC if he stood down
from his governorship on 13 November 50. In this case, he would need to rely on Pompey
in any confrontation with Cato and other optimates, or face prosecution and its serious con-
sequences for his career. Curio proposed early in the year that both Caesar and Pompey lay
down their arms. On 1 December 50 Curio made the same proposal, this time successfully:
it produced a dramatic vote in favour of peace (docs 13.22–23).

103 Matters turned out as Curio had anticipated, and he had an excuse for taking an
opposing line. Claudius proposed the sending of successors to Caesar to take over
his provinces, for his term was coming to an end. Paullus kept silent. 104 Curio,
who was believed to disagree with both, supported Claudius’ motion but added
that Pompey ought to lay down his provinces and army like Caesar, for in this way
Rome’s government would be free and without fear on all sides. 105 Many argued
with this as unfair, as Pompey’s term had not yet ended, at which Curio showed
himself more openly and decidedly against sending successors to Caesar unless the
same applied to Pompey – as they were suspicious of each other, he stated, the city
could enjoy no definite peace unless they all became private citizens. He said this
because he was aware that Pompey would not lay down his command and saw that
the people were now angry with Pompey over his prosecutions for bribery.

13.16 Caelius in [Cicero] Letters to his Friends 8.11: Curio opposes

Pompey
Caelius in April 50 BC here indicates that Pompey had expressed his unwillingness that
Caesar be elected consul while still in control of Gaul and his army. This highlights Caesar’s
predicament, as he did not wish there to be an opportunity for his enemies to prosecute him
for the events of 59. Pompey was presumably envisaging that Caesar would stand for the
consulship of 48 BC.

3 As for politics, all dispute is centred on just one issue, that of the provinces.
The current state of play is that Pompey appears to be supporting the senate on
Caesar having to lay down his command on the Ides of November (50 BC). Curio
would put up with anything rather than allow that, and has put aside the rest of

549
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
his programme. Moreover our friends, whom you know well, don’t dare to take
the matter to outright conflict. This is how the scene for the whole issue is set:
Pompey acts as if he is not attacking Caesar but settling the issue so as to be fair to
him; he says Curio is deliberately stirring up trouble. Yet he strongly disapproves
and clearly is afraid of Caesar becoming consul-elect before he has handed over
his army and province. He is getting fairly rough treatment from Curio and the
whole of his third consulship is being subjected to criticism. I can tell you this: if
they use every means to restrain Curio, Caesar will protect his veto-giver; if, as
seems likely, they are too scared, Caesar will stay as long as he likes.

13.17 Appian Civil Wars 2.28 (107–11): Pompey confronts Caesar

Pompey’s attitude towards Caesar may have been encouraged by the support he received
throughout Italy when he fell ill.

107 While sick in Italy, Pompey wrote a disingenuous letter to the senate praising
Caesar’s achievements and narrating his own from the beginning – that he had
not sought his third consulship or the provinces and army which followed but
had been granted them after he had been called on to cure the state. Regarding
the powers he had unwillingly accepted, he said, ‘I will willingly lay them down
for those who wish to take them back and will not wait for the designated date on
which they expire.’ 108 The disingenuousness of his letter created an impression
of sincerity for Pompey and prejudice towards Caesar, as not going to give up his
command even at the fixed time. When he reached the city, Pompey made similar
statements to the senators and then promised to lay down his command. 109 As a
friend and kinsman of Caesar, he said that Caesar would very gladly do the same,
for he had had a lengthy and difficult campaign against very warlike peoples, had
added a great deal of territory to his country, and would now come back to his
honours, sacrifices and relaxations. He said this so that Caesar would immediately
be assigned successors, while he had only made a promise.
110 Curio exposed his deviousness, stating that promises were not enough and
that he should immediately lay down his command and Caesar should not disarm
until Pompey was a privatus. Because of their private enmity, it would not be advan-
tageous either for Caesar or for the Romans that such great power be held by one
man, but that each of them should have power against the other in case either should
use violence against Rome. 111 With no further attempt at concealment, he cease-
lessly attacked Pompey as aiming at tyranny and stated that, if he did not lay down
his command now through his fear of Caesar, he would never do so. He proposed
that, if they did not obey, both should be voted public enemies and an army be raised
against them, for by doing this he concealed that he had been bought by Caesar.

13.18 Caelius in [Cicero] Letters to his Friends 8.14: Caelius

forecasts war
Written c. 8 August 50.

550
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
2 On important political matters, I have often written to you that I cannot see
peace lasting another year; and the closer the inevitable conflict approaches, the
plainer the danger seems. The question on which the great powers will come into
conflict is that Gnaeus Pompey is determined not to allow Gaius Caesar to become
consul unless he gives up his army and provinces, while Caesar is sure he cannot
be safe if he leaves his army; he has, however, proposed that both should give up
their armies. This is what their love affair and scandalous alliance have come to –
not sliding into secret disparagement but breaking out into war! For my own posi-
tion, I cannot decide what course to take; I don’t doubt the same question is going
to trouble you too. I have obligations and friendly relations with the men on one
side; on the other side I love the cause and hate the people . . . 3 In the present
conflict I see that Gnaeus Pompey will have on his side the senate and those who
sit on juries, while all who live in fear and gloomy expectations for the future will
join Caesar; his army is without comparison. At all events, there is still enough
time to weigh up their respective forces and choose which side to join . . .
4 To sum up, what do I think will happen? If one or the other does not go to
the Parthian war, I see great dissension ahead, to be settled by steel and force.
Both are well prepared with resolution and troops. If only it could happen without
personal risk, Fortune would be preparing a great and entertaining show for your
benefit.

13.19 Cato in [Cicero] Letters to his Friends 15.5: Cato on Cicero’s

supplicatio
In this very characteristic letter of late April 50 BC – brief, to the point and surely heav-
ily ironic – in reply to one of Cicero’s, Cato explains why he voted against the successful
motion of mid-April for a supplicatio in Cicero’s honour for his defeat of brigands on
Mount Amanus. Bibulus, hopeless governor of Syria, was Cato’s son-in-law, and Cato had
arranged for him to have a 20-day supplication. Caesar had also written congratulating
Cicero and commenting gleefully on Cato’s attitude (Cic. Att. 7.1.7, 7.2.7). For a similar
request to C. Marcellus, as consul-elect for 50, see doc. 2.49.

1 That which the public interest and our friendship encourage me to do, I do will-
ingly, that is, rejoice that the courage, integrity and diligence, which it is well known
were displayed by you as a civilian in a grave crisis at home, are being put to good
use with equal assiduity by you as a soldier. As a result, that which I was able to do
according to my own judgement, that is, to praise by both vote and speech the fact
that the province was protected by your integrity and judgement, that the kingdom
of Ariobarzanes, and the king himself, were saved, and that the hearts of our allies
were brought back to an enthusiastic acceptance of our rule, this I did.
2 As to the supplicatio being decreed, if you, in a matter in which the safety of
the state was secured, not in any way by chance but by your own judgement and
moderation, would prefer that we should thank the immortal gods rather than give
the credit to you, I rejoice at it. But if you think a supplicatio automatically leads
to a triumph, and this is the reason you prefer fortune to get the praise rather than

551
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
yourself, I should say that a triumph does not always follow a supplicatio, and that
it is far more glorious than a triumph to have the senate resolve that a province
was secured and preserved by the clemency and integrity of its governor rather
than by the force of soldiers and the goodwill of the gods; that was my view when
I gave my vote.
3 I have written to you at length against my usual practice to make you believe
(as I very much wish you to do) that I am making every effort to convince you,
both that I supported the course that I thought most conducive to your honour and
that I rejoice that your own preference was adopted. Goodbye, retain your affec-
tion for me, and, following the road you have begun, continue to demonstrate to
the allies and the state your responsibility and diligence.

13.20 Cicero Letters to Atticus 7.7: Cicero returns to Italy

Dated to 19(?) December 50 BC. Cicero returned to Rome in January 49 but, despite his
wishes, was not awarded a triumph. 6: Caesar was planning to be a candidate for the con-
sulship of 48. His tribunes for 49 were Mark Antony and Q. Cassius Longinus (not to be
confused with the later conspirator C. Cassius Longinus, also tribune that year). Pompey’s
‘council’ was made up of his close associates. The ‘man from Gades’ refers to the adoption
of L. Cornelius Balbus (earlier Caesar’s engineer) by the wealthy Theophanes of Mytilene;
for Mamurra, see doc. 12.89.

4 Regarding my triumph, unless Caesar attempts something underhand through

his tribunes, all seems to be plain sailing; but calmest of all is my own mind, which
takes the whole thing in a spirit of acquiescence, all the more because I hear from
a number of people that it has been decided by Pompey and his council to send me
to Sicily because I have imperium. That’s just stupid! Neither the senate nor the
people has authorised me to hold imperium in Sicily, and, if the state refers this to
Pompey, why send me rather than a private individual? And so, if this imperium
is going to be troublesome, I’ll make use of the first gate I see. 5 You state that
the anticipation of my arrival is astounding, but that none of the honest, or reason-
ably honest, men have doubts about what I will do. I don’t understand whom you
mean by ‘honest men’. I know of none – that is, if we are looking for classes of
good men. There are some honest men individually, but in political conflicts you
need to look for classes and species. Do you consider the senate ‘honest’,when
it is their doing that the provinces have no governors? – Curio would never have
held out if discussion had begun with him, but the senate refused to support the
proposal and as a consequence there are no governors to succeed Caesar. What of
the tax-farmers, who are never reliable and are now Caesar’s greatest friends, or
the moneylenders, or the farmers, who desire peace above anything else? – unless
you think they are afraid of living under an autocracy, but they would never have
worried about that as long as they were left in peace.
6 You may ask whether I approve of accepting the candidature of a man who
retains his army after the legal date has passed. I disapprove even of his candi-
dature in absence, but, once that was granted, the other was granted with it. Do I
approve of his ten years’ command and the way it was put in place? I then approve

552
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
of my exile, of the loss of the Campanian lands, of a patrician being adopted by a
plebeian, and of a man from Gades by someone from Mytilene, and of the wealth
of Labienus and Mamurra and Balbus’ gardens and estate at Tusculum. The source
of all these evils is the same. We should have opposed him when he was weak
and it was easy; now we are facing 11 legions, all the cavalry he might want, the
Transpadane Gauls, the urban populace, so many tribunes, our desperate young
men, and a leader of such prestige and daring. We must either fight it out with
him or allow his candidature according to law. ‘Fight’, you’ll say, ‘rather than be
a slave.’ 7 For what? If you’re defeated, proscription; if you win, you’ll still be a
slave. . . . I can see clearly what would be best in these terrible circumstances: no
one can be certain what will happen if it comes to war, but we all assume that, if
the honest men are defeated, he’ll be no more merciful than Cinna in slaughtering
the leading men and no more moderate than Sulla in robbing the wealthy . . .

13.21 [Caesar] Gallic War 8.54.1–55.2: Caesar loses two legions

In 50 the senate decreed that two legions be prepared for the Parthian campaign; the ques-
tion of Caesar’s return of a legion loaned by Pompey had already been the subject of sena-
torial discussion in August 51 (doc. 13.10).

54.1 The senate then decreed that one legion was to be sent by Gnaeus Pompey
and a second by Gaius Caesar for the Parthian campaign, and it was quite clear
that the two legions were to be taken off only one man. 2 For Gnaeus Pompey
gave up the First Legion, which he had sent to Caesar as it was raised by a levy in
Caesar’s province, as if one of his own. 3 Caesar, however, although there was no
doubt at all about the intentions of his enemies, returned the legion to Pompey and
from his own troops ordered the Fifteenth, which he had kept in Nearer Gaul, to
be handed over in accordance with the senate’s decree . . . 5 He himself set out for
Italy. 55.1 When he arrived, he learnt that, through the agency of the consul Gaius
Marcellus, the two legions he had sent back, which in accordance with the sen-
ate’s decree should have been led off for the Parthian campaign, had been handed
over to Gnaeus Pompey and kept in Italy. 2 Although this action left no doubt in
anyone’s mind what was in train against Caesar, Caesar still decided to put up
with everything as long as some hope was left to him of the issue being resolved
constitutionally rather than through military conflict.

13.22 Plutarch Life of Pompey 58.1–9.2: Caesar’s

friends – and enemies
Plutarch here summarises the events of 50 BC. Curio’s support came from Piso, Caesar’s
father-in-law, and his friend Mark Antony (tr. pl. 49). Curio’s suggestion on 1 December
that both men lay down their command was considered by many in the senate as unfair, as
Pompey’s command had three years yet to run (doc. 13.15). But the mood for peace was
clear: only 22 senators sided with Marcellus and the rest with Curio. Marcellus therefore
went to Pompey’s Alban villa and entrusted him with the two legions that were stationed in
Italy in preparation for the aborted Parthian campaign (doc. 13.21).

553
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
58.1 Caesar, too, was now becoming more actively involved in public affairs and
no longer stayed at a distance from Italy’s borders, but was always sending his
soldiers to Rome to vote in elections and using money to win over and bribe
numerous magistrates. 2 Among these were the consul Paullus, who changed
sides for 1,500 talents, and the tribune Curio, who was relieved from irretrievable
debt by Caesar, plus Mark Antony, who out of friendship for Curio had become
involved in his debts. 3 It was actually said of one of Caesar’s centurions, who
had come back to Rome and was standing near the senate house, when he heard
that the senate would not give Caesar a prolongation of command, that he clapped
his hand on his sword and said, ‘But this will give it to him.’ 4 And all of Caesar’s
actions and preparations had this end in view. Nevertheless Curio’s demands and
requests on Caesar’s behalf seemed very fair. 5 He demanded one of two alterna-
tives: either that Pompey as well should be required to disband his army or that
Caesar should not – on the grounds that, whether they became private citizens on
equal terms or remained rivals with their present forces, they would cause no dis-
turbance, but whoever made one of the two weak doubled the power he feared. 6
When Marcellus, the consul, replied to this by calling Caesar a robber, and urging
that he be voted a public enemy if he did not lay down his arms, Curio, supported
by Antony and (L. Calpurnius) Piso, got his way in having the matter put to the
senate’s vote. 7 He proposed that those who wanted only Caesar to lay down his
arms and Pompey to retain his command move to one side; the majority did so. 8
When he a second time made the proposal that all those who wanted both men to
lay down their arms and neither retain command move to one side, only 22 sided
with Pompey and all the rest with Curio. 9 He felt that he had won and rushed
joyfully to the assembly, which welcomed him with applause and pelted him with
garlands and flowers. Pompey was not in the senate, as commanders of armies are
not allowed into the city.
10 Marcellus, however, got up and said he was not going to sit there listening to
speeches, but, as he could see the imminent arrival of ten legions marching over the
Alps, he was personally going to dispatch someone to oppose them in his country’s
defence. 59.1 At this everyone put on mourning as if for a national disaster, while
Marcellus, with the senators following him, marched through the forum on his way
to see Pompey and, standing in front of him, declared, ‘I order you, Pompey, to
come to your country’s aid, to make use of the forces already prepared for action
and to levy others.’ 2 Lentulus (L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus) too, one of the two
consuls elected for the following year (49 BC), said the same. But when Pompey
began to raise troops, some refused to obey the order and others showed up only
reluctantly and without enthusiasm, while most people demanded a settlement.

13.23 Appian Civil Wars 2.29–31 (112–23): Pompey ‘the better

Republican’
C. Claudius Marcellus as consul divided Curio’s motion of 1 December 50 into two sepa-
rate motions, one to send out successors to Caesar (which passed) and one to deprive
Pompey of his command, which was not carried, which was what Marcellus had intended.
But Curio reintroduced his motion, and the senate voted 370 to 22 to preserve the peace

554
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
by decreeing that both were to lay down their arms. Marcellus then entrusted the state
to Pompey, who clearly had made up his mind for war. Curio’s tribunate ended on 10
December, and he left to join Caesar at Ravenna.

112 Pompey was enraged with him (Curio) and threatened him, immediately
withdrawing to the suburbs in indignation. The senate was now suspicious of both
men but considered Pompey the better Republican, while they hated Caesar for
behaving towards them with contempt during his consulship; some of them con-
sidered that it was really not safe to remove Pompey’s power until Caesar should
have laid down his, since he was outside the city and possessed of more sweep-
ing ambitions than Pompey. 113 Curio gave the opposite viewpoint, that they
needed Caesar against Pompey, or that everyone should be disbanded together.
As he did not carry his point, he dismissed the senate with the whole affair still
unresolved – tribunes are able to do this. Pompey thus had cause to regret restor-
ing the tribunate to its former powers after it had been reduced to insignificance
by Sulla. 114 Despite being dismissed, however, they voted on just one issue, that
Caesar and Pompey should each send one legion of soldiers to Syria to defend it
after the disaster incurred by Crassus. 115 Pompey was devious and demanded
back the legion which he had recently lent to Caesar to compensate for the disaster
suffered by Caesar’s two generals, Titurius and Cotta. Caesar made each man a
present of 250 drachmas and sent the legion to Rome with another of his own.
As the anticipated emergency in Syria did not eventuate, these legions spent the
winter at Capua, 116 while the people sent by Pompey to Caesar spread many
reports hostile to Caesar and assured Pompey that Caesar’s army was worn out
by long, hard service and longing for home, and that it would defect to him as
soon as it crossed the Alps. 117 Though they gave these reports, either from igno-
rance or because they had been bribed, every soldier enthusiastically supported
and laboured for Caesar from being used to serving in his campaigns and from the
rewards accorded by war to the victors and all the other things they received from
Caesar – for he gave lavishly to ensure their support for his plans – and, though
they were well aware of these, they stood by him nonetheless. 118 Pompey, how-
ever, relied on this information and did not collect either an army or equipment
appropriate for so great an enterprise. The senate asked each man for his opinion,
and Claudius (Marcellus) cunningly divided the question into two and asked for
their views separately, whether successors to Caesar should be sent and whether
Pompey should be deprived of his command. The majority voted against the latter
motion but in favour of successors for Caesar. 119 Curio then put it to the vote
whether both should lay down their commands: 22 senators voted against and 370
went back to Curio’s view to avoid civil war, whereupon Claudius dismissed the
senate with the cry: ‘Have it your own way – with Caesar as your master!’
120 When a false report suddenly came to hand that Caesar had crossed the
Alps and was marching against the city, there was immense confusion and fear
on all sides, and Claudius proposed that the army at Capua should go to engage
Caesar as an enemy. When Curio opposed him on the grounds that the report
was false, he declared: 121 ‘If I am hindered by a vote from taking steps for the
public safety, I shall do so on my own authority as consul.’ With these words, he

555
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
ran from the senate with his colleague to the suburbs, where he presented a sword
to Pompey, saying, ‘My colleague and I instruct you to march against Caesar on
your country’s behalf, and we give you for this purpose the army now at Capua or
in any other region of Italy and whatever troops in addition you should yourself
wish to levy.’ 122 Pompey undertook to obey the consuls’ orders, but added, ‘If
there is no better way’, whether being disingenuous or still making a pretence of
decency. 123 Curio had no authority outside the city (for tribunes are not allowed
to go outside the walls), but publicly lamented what had occurred and demanded
that the consuls should proclaim that no one had to obey Pompey’s levy. He was
unsuccessful, and, as his period of office was coming to an end and he was afraid
for himself, as well as having given up any hope of being able to assist Caesar any
longer, he left in haste to join him.

THE FLIGHT OF THE TRIBUNES

In 50 BC the consuls elected for 49 BC were C. Claudius Marcellus, brother of the consul
of 51 BC, and L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus; both were opposed to Caesar, and Caesar’s can-
didate Servius Galba was defeated. Antony, however, was elected to the college of augurs
on the death of Hortensius and also as one of the tribunes for 49. Caesar used the rights of
the tribunes as a major pretext for war (cf. doc. 1.23). On 21 December Antony, as tribune,
attacked Pompey’s entire career and spoke for those condemned under the laws of 52. On 1
January 49 matters came to a head with a dispatch from Caesar read to the senate.

13.24 Caesar Civil War 1.1.1–5.5: Caesar’s view of events in January 49

Caesar’s Civil War (BC) commences with a reference to a dispatch brought by Curio from
Caesar at Ravenna and read out in the senate, despite opposition. Caesar proposed that
both Pompey and he should give up their armies; if Pompey would not, neither would
Caesar, and he would defend his position with arms. On 7 January the optimates, espe-
cially Lentulus and Cato, successfully had a senatus consultum ultimum passed and warned
Pompey not to be deceived by offers from Caesar.

1.1 When the consuls had been handed Caesar’s dispatch, permission was obtained
from them with difficulty, and after a great struggle on the part of the tribunes,
that it be read in the senate; they could not, however, gain permission for a motion
to be brought before the senate regarding the dispatch. The consuls propose a
motion concerning the Republic. 2 The consul Lucius Lentulus urges on the sen-
ate, promising that he will not fail the Republic if they are prepared to speak their
views boldly and resolutely; 3 but, if they consider Caesar and try to win his
favour, as they have done on earlier occasions, he will consider his own interests
and not submit to the senate’s authority: he, too, could take refuge in Caesar’s
favour and friendship. (Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius) Scipio voices the same view:
4 that Pompey is of a mind not to fail the Republic if the senate supports him; if
it delays and acts in a more conciliatory fashion, the senate will vainly request his
assistance, should it choose to do so at a later date.
2.1 This speech of Scipio’s, as the senate was meeting in the city and Pompey
was close by, appeared to come from Pompey’s own mouth. 2 Some had voiced

556
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
more moderate views, such as, initially, Marcus Marcellus, who gave a speech to
the effect that the matter should not be referred to the senate until levies had been
held throughout Italy and armies enlisted, under whose protection the senate could
venture, safely and freely, to make whatever decrees it wished; 3 and such as
Marcus Calidius, who gave his view that Pompey should set out for his provinces,
so that there should be no reason for hostilities: Caesar was afraid, he said, now
two legions had been extorted from him, that it might appear that Pompey was
holding them back and keeping them near the city to use them against him; such
as Marcus Rufus, too, who supported Calidius’ view with a few minor changes. 4
All these were vehemently and abusively attacked by the consul Lucius Lentulus. 5
Lentulus totally refused to put Calidius’ motion. Marcellus, frightened by the abuse,
abandoned his proposal. 6 And so most of them were forced by the language of the
consul, fear at the presence of the army, and the threats of Pompey’s friends, against
their will and under pressure, to support Scipio’s proposal: that Caesar should dis-
band his army before a certain date; if he did not do this, he should be considered
to be planning acts against the Republic. 7 Mark Antony and Quintus Cassius, trib-
unes, interpose their veto. The question of their veto is at once brought to the senate.
8 Violent opinions are voiced, and the more violent and fierce the speech, the more
loudly the speaker is applauded by Caesar’s enemies.
3.1 When the senate was dismissed in the evening, all its members are sum-
moned out by Pompey. Pompey praises the brave and encourages them for the
future and reproaches and rouses the unenergetic. 2 Many from the old armies of
Pompey are called up from all sides with hope of rewards and promotions, and
many are summoned from the two legions handed over by Caesar. 3 The city and
comitium itself are full of tribunes, centurions, volunteers . . . 4.4 Pompey himself,
urged on by Caesar’s enemies, and by his wish to have no one his equal in prestige
(dignitas), had completely turned away from Caesar’s friendship and become rec-
onciled with their common enemies . . . 5.3 That final and ultimate decree of the
senate is resorted to which had never previously been called upon, except when
the city was on the point of destruction and when, through the temerity of evildo-
ers, everyone despaired of safety: the consuls, praetors, tribunes and any men of
proconsular rank near the city are to take measures that the Republic suffer no
harm. 4 This resolution is recorded by the senate’s decree on 7 January. And so,
on the first five days on which the senate could meet from the day Lentulus took
up his consulship, excepting two election days (i.e., up to 7 January), the most
severe and harsh decrees are passed regarding Caesar’s command and those most
important persons, the tribunes of the plebs. 5 The tribunes immediately flee from
the city and take themselves to Caesar. At that time he was at Ravenna and await-
ing replies to his very moderate requests, in case men’s sense of justice might be
able to bring matters to a peaceful conclusion.

13.25 Cicero Letters to his Friends 16.11: Cicero on the flight

of the tribunes
The tribunes fled to Caesar at Ravenna, where he made their treatment a pretext for war
(doc. 1.23). Caesar’s view that his proposals were moderate is not one shared by Cicero,
who saw them as belligerent. Cicero is writing here on 12 January 49 BC to Tiro.

557
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
2 True that our friend Caesar has sent a sharp, threatening letter to the senate and
continues to declare that he will keep his army and province against the senate’s
wishes, and my friend Curio is encouraging him. Our friend Antony and Quintus
Cassius, without being forcibly expelled, left to join Caesar together with Curio,
after the senate had given the consuls, praetors, tribunes and us proconsuls the
duty of seeing to it that the state took no harm. 3 Never has the state been in
greater danger, never have wicked citizens had a leader more ready for action.
True that on our side, too, preparations are very earnestly under way. This is
happening through the authority and enthusiasm of our friend Pompey, who has
begun, rather late, to be afraid of Caesar.

CROSSING THE RUBICON

13.26 Appian Civil Wars 2.34 (134–40): ‘The die is cast’
News of the senatus consultum of 7 January reached Caesar by 10 January, and he
made the decision to defend his position with arms. On the night of 10–11 January he
crossed the Rubicon, bringing his troops into Italy. Ariminum, the first town in Italy
proper, was taken. The phrase ‘Let the die be cast!’ is from a play by the Greek play-
wright Menander.

134 Although the war had now started on both sides, being already openly
declared, the senate considered that Caesar’s army would take some time in arriv-
ing from Gaul and that he would not rush into such a venture with only a few men,
and so ordered Pompey to raise 130,000 men from Italy, particularly veterans who
would have experience of war, and to enlist as many brave men as possible from
neighbouring provinces. 135 They voted him for the war the entire public treas-
ury straightaway and their private fortunes in addition, if needed for the soldiers’
pay. In their anger and partisanship, they sent round to the allies for additional
funds with the greatest possible haste. 136 Caesar had sent for his own army, but,
being used to depend on the surprise caused by his speed and the terror caused
by his audacity rather than on the immensity of his preparations, he decided, with
his 5,000 men, to be the first to attack in this great war and to seize the strate-
gic positions in Italy before the enemy. 137 Caesar, therefore, sent the centuri-
ons, with a few of their most courageous soldiers, dressed in civilian clothes, to
enter Ariminum and take the city by surprise; this is the first town in Italy after
you leave Cisalpine Gaul. 138 As evening approached, Caesar withdrew from a
drinking party, on the grounds that he was not feeling well, leaving his friends to
continue feasting, and, mounting his chariot, drove towards Ariminum, with his
cavalry following at a distance. 139 On his journey he came to the Rubicon River,
which forms Italy’s frontier, where he stopped and, gazing at the stream, revolved
in his mind a consideration of each of the evils that would result if he crossed this
river in arms. 140 He recovered himself and said to those with him, ‘My friends,
my not crossing will bring about evils for me – my crossing will for all mankind.’
With these words, he crossed with a rush like one possessed, uttering this well-
known phrase, ‘Let the die be cast!’

558
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
13.27 Caesar Civil War 1.8.1–11.4: Caesar’s justification
The proposal of Pompey’s father-in-law, Metellus Scipio, in the senate on 1 January that
Caesar dismiss his army (doc. 13.24) and so become a private citizen would have meant that
he would be open to prosecution by his enemies. This was a situation he had to avoid. At
Ariminum, Caesar received the praetor Roscius and Lucius Caesar, as public envoys, with a
communication from Pompey. Caesar replied with his own proposals for peace, presented to
Pompey on 23 January at Capua; Pompey replied in turn, but Caesar argues here that he could
not accept Pompey’s conditions. Preparations for war continued. To Caesar his right to stand
in absentia for the consulship while retaining his Gallic command was the crucial issue, and
in his speech to his troops in January 49 he exhorted them to defend his dignitas.

8.1 After learning the wishes of the soldiers he sets out for Ariminum with the
Thirteenth Legion and there meets the tribunes who had fled to join him; he sum-
mons the remaining legions from their winter quarters and orders them to follow
him. 2 To Ariminum comes the young man Lucius Caesar, whose father was one
of his legates. When their first greetings were over, he reveals the reason for his
coming, that he has instructions for him from Pompey on a private matter: 3 he
says that Pompey wants to clear himself in Caesar’s eyes, and that Caesar should
not take as an attack on himself what he had done for the sake of Rome. He had
always put the good of Rome before private friendships. Caesar, considering his
high position, should also for the benefit of Rome give up his partisanship and
grievances and not be so bitterly angry with his enemies as to harm the state in
his desire to harm them. 4 He adds a few remarks of the same kind together with
excuses for Pompey. The praetor Roscius puts before Caesar nearly the same pro-
posals in the same words, explaining that they came from Pompey.
9.1 Although these proceedings appeared to do nothing towards alleviating
the wrongs that had been committed, now, however, that he had obtained suit-
able men to convey his wishes to Pompey he asks of both, as they had brought
him Pompey’s instructions, that they not object to taking his terms in reply back
to Pompey, in case they might be able, by a little trouble, to put a stop to serious
conflict and free all Italy from fear. 2 As for himself, he said, his prestige (digni-
tas) had always been of prime importance to him and preferable to life itself. He
had been grieved that a kindness bestowed on him by the Roman people should be
insultingly wrested from him by his enemies, and that he should be dragged back
to the city deprived of six months of command, when the people had decreed that
he could be a candidate in absentia at the next elections. 3 However, for Rome’s
sake he had endured with equanimity the loss of this privilege: when he sent a
dispatch to the senate suggesting that everyone should give up their armies, he
had not even been granted that. 4 Levies were being held throughout Italy, two
legions, taken from him on the pretence of a Parthian war, were being kept back,
the state was in arms. What was the aim of all this but his destruction? 5 He was,
however, prepared to agree to anything and to put up with anything for the sake of
Rome. Let Pompey set out for his provinces, let them both disband their armies,
let everyone in Italy lay down arms, let the state be freed from fear, and let free
elections and the control of the whole state be entrusted to the senate and Roman

559
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
people. 6 That this might be done more easily and on definite conditions and
be ratified by an oath, either let Pompey come nearer or allow him to approach
Pompey: in this way all conflict would be settled through discussion.
10.1 After accepting the commission Roscius arrives at Capua with Lucius Caesar
where he finds Pompey and the consuls; he reports Caesar’s demands. 2 After delib-
eration they reply and send them back to him with instructions, of which the gist was
as follows: 3 Caesar should return to Gaul, leave Ariminum and disband his army; if
he did so, Pompey would go to the Spanish provinces. 4 Meanwhile, until a pledge
be received that Caesar would do as he promised, the consuls and Pompey would
not pause in levying troops. 11.1 It was an unfair condition to demand that Caesar
should leave Ariminum and return to his province, while he himself (Pompey) kept
not only his provinces but someone else’s legions; to desire Caesar to disband his
army, while he was holding levies; 2 to promise to go to his province and not to fix
a deadline by which he must go, so that, even if he set out when Caesar’s consulship
had finished, he would still appear guiltless of breaking his oath; 3 furthermore, fail-
ure to make an opportunity for a conference or promise to approach Caesar meant
that all hopes of peace should be abandoned. 4 Accordingly, he sends Mark Antony
from Ariminum to Arretium with five cohorts; he himself stays at Ariminum with
two cohorts and arranges the holding of a levy there; he occupies Pisaurum, Fanum
and Ancona, each with one cohort.

13.28 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 30.1–4: Caesar’s motives

1 But when the senate would not interfere and his enemies declared that they would
come to no compromise over matters affecting the state, he crossed into Cisalpine
Gaul, held the assizes, and stopped at Ravenna, intending to resort to war should
the senate take more serious action against the tribunes of the plebs who used their
vetoes on his behalf. 2 This was his excuse for civil war, but it is thought that he had
other reasons. Gnaeus Pompey used to state that, because Caesar’s private wealth
was not sufficient to finish the works he had undertaken or to fulfil on his return
the expectations he had raised in the populace, he wanted general mayhem and
anarchy. 3 Others say that he was afraid of being called to account for what he had
done in his first consulship contrary to the auspices, laws and vetoes, for Marcus
Cato habitually proclaimed, and on oath, that he would prosecute Caesar the instant
he dismissed his army. It was also publicly said that, if he returned as a privatus, he
would have to defend his case before jurors surrounded by armed men, as Milo did.
4 Asinius Pollio renders this more probable when he states that Caesar at Pharsalus
looked on his enemies as they lay dead on the battlefield or fled with these actual
words: ‘They wanted it like this; with all my great achievements, I, Gaius Caesar,
would have been condemned if I had not looked to my army for help.’

CICERO’S VIEW OF EVENTS

13.29 Cicero Letters to Atticus 7.11, 7.13: Pompey abandons Rome
Written on 21(?) and 23 January 49 BC. Caesar had the Thirteenth Legion with him at
Ravenna (doc. 13.27) and eight legions in Gaul, of which two were on their way to him.

560
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
Pompey had seven legions in Spain and three in Italy. Though Pompey controlled Rome
and had the backing of the senate, he abandoned the city on 17 January and retired to
Capua, ordering the consuls and the senate to join him there, unless they wanted to be
declared enemies of the state. On 17 March, despite Caesar’s attempted blockade, he sailed
to Epirus and established his forces at Dyrrachium. Caesar then went to Rome for two
weeks, having a meeting with Cicero on the way at Formiae (see doc. 13.37). At Rome,
while he made it clear that he was no Sulla or Marius, when he was debarred from the
treasury by one of the tribunes, Caesar took the money by force.

11.3 Let’s return to our friend. What do you think, for heaven’s sake, of Pompey’s
plan? I mean why has he abandoned Rome? I’m totally at a loss. At that point
nothing seemed more stupid. Abandoning Rome? Wouldn’t you have done the
same if the Gauls were on their way? ‘The state isn’t made up of house walls’, he
might say. But it is of altars and hearths . . . 4 The complaints from the public are
amazing (as to Rome I don’t know, but you will tell me) at the city being without
magistrates, without the senate. What’s more, the idea of Pompey as a runaway
affects people amazingly. And so, the situation is completely changed. They now
think there should be no concessions to Caesar. You will have to explain to me
what all this means.
13.1 But you see what kind of a war it is: a civil war, true, but one originating
not from conflict from among the citizens but from the recklessness of one desper-
ate citizen. He, however, is strong in his army, has won many to his side by hopes
and promises, and has coveted every man’s entire possessions. The city has been
delivered to him, without protection, full of resources. What might you not fear
from a man who considers our temples and homes not as his native land but as
plunder? But what he will do or how, without senate or magistrates, I have no idea;
he certainly won’t be able to maintain any pretence of behaving constitutionally.

13.30 Cicero Letters to his Friends 16.12: Caesar’s terms

According to Cicero in this letter to Tiro on 27 January 49 BC, Caesar offered the following
terms after the flight of Pompey and the optimates from Rome.

2 As Caesar, driven by some insanity and unmindful of his name and honours, has
seized Ariminum, Pisaurum, Ancona and Arretium, we have abandoned Rome –
how wisely or courageously there is no point in arguing. 3 You see our situation.
True, he is offering terms, that Pompey go to Spain, that the levies which have
been raised and our forces be disbanded, while for his part he will hand over
Transalpine Gaul to Domitius and Cisalpine Gaul to Considius Nonianus (who
have been allocated them); he will come to Rome to canvass for the consulship
and no longer wants his candidature to be accepted in absentia; he will canvass for
three market-days in person. We have accepted his terms, as long as he withdraws
his troops from the places he has occupied, so a senate meeting can be held in
Rome to discuss these terms without fear. 4 If he does this, there is hope of peace,
though not an honourable one (for the terms are imposed on us), but anything is
better than to be in our current situation.

561
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
13.31 Appian Civil Wars 2.38 (152): Pompey marshals his forces
Cicero disapproved of the departure from Italy, but Pompey had considerable resources in
the East. His clients, gained during his Eastern campaigns (cf. doc. 2.61), sent troops, and
he collected a fleet. Pompey was perhaps regarding Sulla as an example, as he had returned
from the East to triumph over his enemies and capture Rome.

Pompey hastened from Capua to Nuceria, and from Nuceria to Brundisium to

cross the Adriatic to Epirus and there finish his preparations for war. He wrote to
all the provinces and to their kings, cities, governors and leaders to send him assis-
tance for the war as speedily as possible. While they were all doing this, Pompey’s
own army was in Spain and ready to set out to any place where it might be needed.

13.32 Cicero Letters to Atticus 8.3: Cicero’s indecision

Cicero on 22 January 49 had expressed to Atticus his doubts about whom to join in the
conflict; while still undecided, here, on 18–19 February, his preference for Pompey comes
through. He did join Pompey, even after personal solicitation from Caesar (docs 13.36–37).

1 Troubled as I am by most serious and unhappy events, and not having the oppor-
tunity to consult with you in person, I would still like your advice. The whole
matter at issue is this: if Pompey leaves Italy – which I think he will – what do you
think I should do? You may be able to advise me more easily if I briefly set out
what comes to my mind in favour of each side. 2 As well as the greatest obliga-
tions which I owe to Pompey regarding my restoration and the friendship I have
with him, the state’s cause itself leads me to feel that my policy should be joined
to his policy and my fortune to his. There is something else: if I remain and aban-
don that band of most upright and distinguished citizens, I have to fall into the
power of one man. While he demonstrates in many ways that he is my friend (and
you are aware that I endeavoured long ago to make him such, because I suspected
that this storm was imminent), two things, however, have to be considered – how
much confidence can be placed in him and, however definitely he is a friend of
mine, whether the role of a brave man and good citizen should be to stay in the
city, in which he has held the highest offices and commands, has achieved great
things, and has been endowed with the most glorious priestly office, with reduced
status and with danger to be undergone, together, perhaps, with some dishonour,
should Pompey ever restore the constitution. So much on this side.
3 Now see what lies on the other. Our friend Pompey has done nothing which
has not lacked wisdom and courage and, I should add, nothing which hasn’t been
contrary to my advice and influence. I say nothing of the past, how he promoted,
aggrandised and armed Caesar against the state, supported his laws passed by
violence and contrary to the auspices, added on Transalpine Gaul, became his
son-in-law, acted as augur at Publius Clodius’ adoption, showed more concern for
restoring me than for keeping me here, extended Caesar’s command, consistently
supported him during his absence, exerted himself, even in his third consulship
after he had taken on the role of defender of the state, to see that the ten tribunes

562
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
brought in their law that Caesar could stand in absentia, which he confirmed in
some way by a law of his own, opposed the consul Marcus Marcellus, when he
was trying to end Caesar’s command in Gaul on the Kalends of March – saying
nothing of all this, what could be more disgraceful or more confused than this
departure from Rome or, rather, this shameful flight in which we are now
engaged? What terms would not have been accepted in preference to abandoning
our country? The terms were bad, I admit, but what could be worse than this?
4 Alright, he will restore the constitution. When? What provision has been
made for such hope? Hasn’t Picenum been lost? Hasn’t the road to Rome been
opened? Has not all money, public and private, been handed over to the enemy?
What’s more, there is no party, no strength, no base to draw those who wish to
defend the constitution. Apulia was chosen, the least populated part of Italy and
the most distant from the onset of this war, perhaps in despair as on the coast and
opportune for flight.

13.33 Pompey in [Cicero] Letters to Atticus 8.11c: Pompey

summons Cicero
Pompey wrote this to Cicero on 20 February 49 BC. Cicero in fact procrastinated about
joining Pompey in Apulia and did not sail with him to Dyrrachium in Epirus. His leaving
Italy was then delayed by Caesar’s control of the peninsula, and he sailed to Dyrrachium
only in June.

Greetings. I read your letter with pleasure; I recognised your former qualities still
active for the public welfare. The consuls have joined the army I command in
Apulia. I urge you very strongly, in view of your unrivalled and constant concern
for our country, to join us so that we may work together to bring aid and assistance
to our afflicted country. I suggest that you travel by the Appian Way and come
quickly to Brundisium.

CIVIL WAR
13.34 Caesar in [Cicero] Letters to Atticus 9.7c:
Caesar to Oppius and Balbus
This letter was written c. 5 March 49 on the march through Italy. Domitius Ahenobarbus,
appointed Caesar’s successor in Transalpine Gaul, had defended Corfinium against
Pompey’s advice and was defeated. Caesar released the captured senators and equites.
Caesar’s policy of clemency contrasted strongly with Pompey’s attitude that senators
who did not join him would be enemies of the state and the talk in Pompey’s camp of
proscriptions and confiscations of property (doc. 13.43). The Spanish-born L. Cornelius
Balbus (cos. 40) had been Caesar’s officer of engineers (praefectus fabrum) and, along with
C. Oppius, an eques, was one of his main supporters.

1 I am extremely pleased that you express in your letter how strongly you approve
of the events at Corfinium. I will willingly follow your advice, all the more will-
ingly because I had of my own accord decided to show as much clemency as

563
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
possible and work hard towards a reconciliation with Pompey. Let us try to see
whether in this way we can regain everyone’s goodwill and enjoy a long-lasting
victory, since all others by their cruelty have been unable to escape hatred or to
make their victory last, except for only Lucius Sulla, whom I am not going to
imitate. Let this be the new type of conquest, to defend ourselves with clemency
and generosity. Regarding how this can be done, I have a few ideas and many
more can be found. I ask you to turn your thoughts to such matters. 2 I captured
Numerius Magius, Pompey’s prefect. Of course I followed my usual practice and
released him at once. Two prefects of engineers of Pompey’s have now come into
my power and have been released by me. If they wish to show their gratitude, they
should urge Pompey to prefer to be my friend rather than the friend of those who
have always been his and my bitter enemies, whose intrigues have brought Rome
to its present condition.

13.35 Cicero Letters to Atticus 5.6, 7.8: Cicero’s debts to Caesar

Two letters of Cicero’s on 19(?) May 51 and 25/26 December 50 referring to his endebt-
edness to Caesar; he owed him some 800,000 sesterces (200,000 denarii; Att. 5.5.2: 15
May 51). Despite Cicero’s constant criticisms of Caesar, he had had little compunction in
borrowing money from him. Caesar’s successes in Gaul had enabled him to give financial
support to numerous senators (cf. docs 12.70–72).

5.6.2 But I shall keep persisting in one matter as long as I think you are in Rome,
and that is in asking you about Caesar’s loan, that you leave it settled.
7.8.5 But what annoys me most is that Caesar’s money must be repaid and the
provision for my triumph be used for that purpose; it has an ugly look to be in debt
to a political opponent. But this and much else when we are together.

13.36 Caesar in [Cicero] Letters to Atticus 9.6a: Caesar to Cicero

Written by Caesar on the way to Brundisium c. 5 March 49 BC. Caesar was to see Cicero
at his estate at Formiae (doc. 13.37). C. Furnius was tribune in 50.

Although I have just seen our friend Furnius and was unable to speak or hear
his news at my leisure, since I am hurrying and on the march with my legions
already sent on ahead, I could not, however, omit writing to you and sending him
to express my thanks, as I have often done and expect to do even more often: you
have done me such services. I especially request you, since I expect to come soon
to Rome, that I may see you there so I can make use of your advice, influence,
prestige and help in everything. I must return to my purpose: you will overlook
my haste and the brevity of this letter. You will learn all the rest from Furnius.

13.37 Cicero Letters to Atticus 9.18: Caesar visits Cicero

Ten days after Pompey fled from Italy, Caesar called on Cicero (28 March 49). He wanted
Cicero to attend the senate at Rome, but Cicero insisted on his own freedom of speech or

564
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
non-attendance. Caesar was displeased and advised him to stay out of the conflict (Att.
10.8.3, 10.8b). Antony refused to allow Cicero to leave Italy, but he managed to join
Pompey’s forces at Dyrrachium in June.

1 On both points I took your advice; my words were such that he thought well of
me rather than thanked me, and I was adamant on the matter of not going to Rome.
But we were mistaken in thinking him compliant – I have never seen anyone less so.
He said that in my judgement I was convicting him, that the rest would be slower to
come if I did not. I replied that their case was not the same as my own. After a long
discussion, ‘Come on, then, and work for peace.’ ‘At my own discretion?’ I asked.
‘Would I dictate to you?’ he replied. ‘Well’, I said, ‘I shall work along the lines that
the senate does not approve of an expedition to the Spanish provinces or of armies
being transported to Greece, and’, I went on, ‘I shall have a lot to say commiserating
with Gnaeus.’ His response to that was, ‘But I don’t want those sorts of things said.’
‘That’s what I thought’, I replied. ‘But that is why I do not want to be there, as I must
either make those kind of remarks or not come to Rome – with much else, which I
could not keep quiet about, were I there.’ The conclusion was that he asked me to
think things over, as if looking for a way to end the conversation. I could not refuse.
That’s how we parted. I believe, therefore, that he is not pleased with me. But I was
pleased with myself, a feeling I have not had for some time.

13.38 Caesar Civil War 1.32.1–33.4: Caesar addresses the senate

32.1 After carrying out these arrangements Caesar withdraws his soldiers into the
nearest towns so they might for the remainder of the time have some rest from
labour; he himself sets out for Rome. 2 Having summoned the senate, he reminds
them of the injuries done him by his personal enemies. He declares that he had not
sought any extraordinary position but, in waiting for the proper time for his consul-
ship, had been content with the privileges open to all citizens. 3 A proposal had
been brought forward by the ten tribunes and passed, though his enemies spoke
against it, and Cato in particular bitterly opposed it, using his old delaying tactics of
making the discussion drag on for days, that he should be allowed to stand for the
consulship in absence, Pompey himself being consul at the time; if Pompey disap-
proved, why had he allowed it to be passed? If he approved, why did he prevent
him from making use of the people’s kindness? 4 He points out his own patience,
when of his own accord he suggested that the armies be disbanded, although this
would have meant a sacrifice for himself of prestige and position. 5 He comments
on the vindictiveness of his enemies who, what they demanded in the other case,
refused in his, and preferred total upheaval to giving up their imperium and armies.
6 He relates the way they wronged him in taking away his legions, their cruelty and
insolence in impinging upon the rights of the tribunes; he reminds them of the terms
he proposed, the meetings requested and refused. 7 Under these circumstances he
urges and desires them to take up the government and administer it alongside him-
self. If fear makes them shun this, he will not put the burden on them but administer
the state on his own. 8 Envoys should be sent to Pompey regarding a settlement,
nor was he frightened by what Pompey had said a little earlier in the senate, that the

565
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
prestige of those to whom envoys are sent is enhanced, while fear is attributed to
those who send them. 9 Such considerations seemed to belong to a weak and feeble
spirit. His wish was, just as he had striven to outdo others in achievements, to sur-
pass them too in justice and equity. 33.1 The senate approves the proposal to send
envoys, but no one who could be sent was found, everyone refusing the duty of the
embassy, primarily through fear. 2 For Pompey, on leaving the city, had said in the
senate that he would take the same view of those who remained in Rome and those
who were in Caesar’s camp. 3 So three days were spent in discussion and excuses.
Moreover Lucius Metellus, a tribune, is put up by Caesar’s enemies to thwart this
proposal and prevent everything else he might propose to enact. 4 When his aim was
understood, with several days already having been wasted, Caesar, in order to avoid
spending any more time, having failed to achieve the business he had intended to
transact, leaves the city and goes to Further Gaul.

13.39 Cicero Letters to Atticus 10.7.1: The battle for autocracy

This letter was written on 22(?) April 49 BC. Cicero foresaw a repetition of Sulla’s takeo-
ver of Rome in 82.

The Republic is not the question at issue. The struggle is over who is to be autocrat, in
which the king who has been expelled is the more moderate, honourable and blame-
less, and unless he is the winner the name of the Roman people must inevitably be
wiped out, but, if he is the winner, his victory will follow Sulla’s practice and example.
So, in this conflict, you should support neither openly and adapt yourself to events.
But my case is different, because I am tied by an obligation and cannot be ungrateful.

13.40 Velleius Paterculus Compendium of Roman History 2.33.3:

Pompey endured no equal
Cf. Caesar BC 1.4 (doc. 13.24): Pompey wished to have no one his equal in prestige (dignitas).

From the time Pompey first went into public life, he could endure no equal at all,
and in those affairs, in which he ought to have been first, he desired to be the only
one. No one craved all other things less, or glory more, than he did; he was unre-
strained in grasping at magistracies, though extremely diffident once in office,
while he entered into them with the greatest eagerness, only to lay them down
without concern, and, although he appropriated of his own free will whatever he
desired, he would resign it at the wish of other people.

13.41 Cicero Letters to Atticus 10.4.4: Cicero blames Pompey and

Caesar
Written to Atticus from Cumae on 14 April 49.

I do not rank the achievements of these top commanders above my own, nor
even their very fortune, though they seem to be at the peak of prosperity, and my

566
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
fortune appears more turbulent. For can anyone be fortunate and happy who has
either abandoned his country or oppressed it?

13.42 Caesar Civil War 3.1.1–2.2: Caesar’s first dictatorship

After swiftly overrunning Italy, Caesar then proceeded to Spain, where he defeated Pompey’s
legates Afranius (cos. 60) and Petreius. While at Massilia he was named dictator after a law to
this effect was passed by the praetor Lepidus, and on returning to Rome in 49 he presided over
the consular elections in which he himself was elected consul for 48. He resigned the dictator-
ship after eleven days and made his way to northern Greece (leaving Lepidus in charge of
Rome). His legislation during this short period as dictator included debt relief and the restora-
tion of exiles and sons of the proscribed, and he ensured the celebration of the Latin Festival.

1.1 Caesar as dictator held the elections, and Julius Caesar and Publius Servilius
(Isauricus) were made consuls, for this year (48 BC) was the first in which Caesar
was legally able to become consul. 2 Once this was done, as credit throughout
Italy was fairly tight and debts were not being repaid, he decided that arbitrators
should be appointed to make assessments of property and possessions at pre-war
values, and that the creditors should be paid at these rates. 3 He thought that this
was the best way to remove or lessen the fear of the abolition of debts, which
often accompanies wars or civil strife, and to preserve the debtors’ honour. 4
Furthermore, in motions brought before the people by praetors and tribunes, he
restored to their former status several persons who, in the period when Pompey
had kept troops in the city as a bodyguard, had been convicted of bribery under
the Pompeian law, in whose trials, which were completed in a single day, one set
of jurors had heard the evidence and another given their votes . . . 2.1 He allowed
11 days for these measures and for holding the Latin festival and all the elections,
and then resigned the dictatorship, left the city and went to Brundisium. 2 He
had ordered 12 legions and all the cavalry to meet there. However, he found only
enough ships to transport scarcely 15,000 legionaries and 500 cavalry. This one
thing, shortage of ships, prevented Caesar from quickly concluding the war.

POMPEY AND HIS FOLLOWERS

13.43 Cicero Letters to his Friends 7.3: Cicero regrets his actions
In this letter, written in mid-April 46 to M. Marius, Cicero recalls his views of Pompey’s
followers at Dyrrachium. Caesar’s opinion was along the same lines (doc. 13.44): Pompey’s
followers were not the boni, the ‘honest men’, after all, and the only thing good was the
cause itself, not its adherents. The ‘certain engagement’ that gave Pompey false confidence
was his defeat of Caesar at Dyrrachium in July. But Caesar lifted the siege and moved his
troops, and Pompey pursued him: the ‘pitched battle’ that resulted was Pharsalus in August
48, in which Pompey and his forces were thoroughly routed.

1 Since I very frequently ponder the general miseries in which we have lived for
so many years and, as I see it, in which we will continue to live, I have been in
the habit of bringing to mind the last time we were together; I even remember the

567
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
actual day. It was on 12 May in the year Lentulus and Marcellus were consuls
(49 BC) and I had come down that evening to my Pompeian place, and you were
there to see me, very worried in your mind. You were worried by considerations
of my duty on the one hand and my danger on the other: if I stayed in Italy, you
feared I would be failing in my duty; if I left for the war you were concerned
about the danger to me. On that occasion you doubtless saw that I, too, was in
such confusion that I could not decide what was best for me to do. But I preferred
to give in to honour and reputation rather than to weigh up chances of personal
safety. 2 I came to repent of my action, not so much on the grounds of danger to
myself as on those of the many evils with which I was struck when I arrived (at
Dyrrachium): first of all, that the troops were neither numerous nor warlike; sec-
ondly, that, apart from the commander and a few others (I mean among the chief
figures), all the rest were greedy for plunder in the war itself and so bloodthirsty
in the way they talked that I shuddered at the thought of their victory; finally,
the most distinguished among them were deep in debt. In short – nothing good
except the cause. After seeing all this, I despaired of victory and began trying to
persuade them to make peace, of which I had always been a supporter; then, when
Pompey was strongly opposed to that view, I set to persuading them to delay the
war. Sometimes he approved of this and seemed to be going to follow this policy,
and perhaps he would have done had he not started, after a certain engagement, to
have confidence in his troops. From that time, that pre-eminent man was no longer
a general. With an inexperienced and hastily collected army he fought a pitched
battle against the toughest of legions. He was defeated, even his camp was lost,
and he fled shamefully and alone. 3 As far as I was concerned that was the end of
the war, and I could not see how we, who had been no match for the enemy with
our forces intact, would be superior with our forces shattered.

13.44 Caesar Civil War 3.82.2–83.4: Pompey’s supporters

L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, as consul in 54, had opposed the triumvirate; he was to com-
mand Pompey’s left wing at Pharsalus and was killed in the battle; Q. Caecilius Metellus
Pius Scipio (cos. 52, Pompey’s father-in-law) had been responsible for the proposal at
the beginning of 49 that Caesar disarm; he escaped from Pharsalus to Africa and died at
Thapsus; P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (cos. 57) was the older brother of Lentulus Crus
(cos. 49), one of the Pompeians released by Caesar after Corfinium who rejoined Pompey.
He died shortly after Pharsalus.

82.2 With this addition to Pompey’s forces and the uniting of two great armies,
the former view of everyone was confirmed and their hope of victory increased,
so that whatever interval lay before them seemed only a delay in their return to
Italy, and, whenever Pompey acted with some slowness or deliberation, they pro-
claimed that it was the business of only a day, but that he was making the most of
his command and behaving to men of consular and praetorian rank as though they
were slaves. 3 They were already openly fighting over rewards and priesthoods
and allocating the consulship for years ahead, while others were demanding the
houses and other property of those who were in Caesar’s camp . . . 83.1 Domitius,

568
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
Scipio and Lentulus Spinther were already in daily contention for Caesar’s
priesthood and openly sinking to the worst invective in their speech, as Lentulus
paraded the distinction of his age, Domitius boasted his influence with the people
and prestige, and Scipio trusted in his kinship with Pompey . . . 4 In short, all were
concerned about potential honours for themselves or monetary rewards or pros-
ecuting private enmities, and they reflected not on the ways in which they could
conquer the opposition but on how they ought to use their victory.

13.45 Dolabella in [Cicero] Letters to his Friends 9.9: Cicero’s

son-in-law
This letter was written, in May 48 BC from Caesar’s camp outside Dyrrachium, by
Dolabella (tr. pl. 47), one of Caesar’s legates, to his father-in-law Cicero. Dolabella argued
that it was time for him to abandon his adherence to Pompey. It is usually thought that
Caesar was instrumental in having this letter written. Dolabella commanded a fleet for
Caesar in 49 but was defeated.

2 You can see Gnaeus Pompey’s position – he is defended neither by the glory of
his name and achievements nor by his status as patron of kings and nations, which
he used frequently to boast about, and does not have the chance, which the most
lowly people have, of being able to flee with honour. Driven out of Italy, Spain
lost, his veteran army taken, and now finally blockaded, which I don’t think has
ever happened before to any of our generals! And so, use your common sense to
consider what he can hope for or what good you can do him; you will then find it
easiest to make the decision which would be most advantageous for you. But I beg
you that, if he does get out of his current predicament and takes refuge with his
fleet, you consider your own interests and be, at long last, your own friend rather
than anyone else’s. You have now done enough for duty and friendship; you have
done enough for your party and the kind of state of which you approved. 3 It is
now time to take our stand where the state is at present rather than, by longing
after its old form, to find ourselves nowhere.

13.46 Plutarch Life of Pompey 79.1–80.3: Pompey’s death

Pompey and his forces fled, and Pompey made for Egypt via Lesbos, where his wife Cornelia
joined him. The advisors (Achillas, Potheinus and Theodotus) of the young king Ptolemy XIII
decided to kill Pompey rather than earn Caesar’s hostility by receiving him. Achillas took
Septimius and sailed out to Pompey’s trireme: Septimius had been Pompey’s military tribune
in 67 BC and was serving in Egypt in this capacity from 55 to 48. Philip, who cremated the
remains of the corpse, was Pompey’s freedman. Pompey’s remains were later retrieved and
buried by Cornelia at his Alban villa; Caesar arrived in Egypt three days after Pompey’s
death, on 2 October, and was presented with his head and signet ring; he had Achillas and
Potheinus executed. Theodotus escaped but was later killed by Brutus or Cassius.

79.1 As it was a long distance to land from the trireme, and none of those in the
boat with him had a friendly word for him, he looked at Septimius and asked,

569
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
‘Surely I am not mistaken? Were you a comrade-in-arms of mine?’ He only nod-
ded his head, without saying anything or showing any friendliness. 2 As there was
deep silence again, Pompey took a small roll containing a speech written by him
in Greek, which he had prepared for his address to Ptolemy, and started to read it.
3 As they approached the shore, Cornelia, along with his friends, watched from
the trireme with great anxiety as to what would happen and began to take courage
when she saw many of the royal entourage at the landing place, as if to give him
an honourable reception. 4 But at this point, while Pompey was holding Philip’s
hand so he could stand up more easily, Septimius first ran him through with his
sword, and then Salvius next and Achillas drew their daggers and stabbed him. 5
Pompey drew his toga over his face with both hands, without saying or doing any-
thing unworthy of himself, only groaning and enduring their blows, having lived
one year less than 60 and ending his life only one day after his birthday.
80.1 When the people on the ships saw the murder, they gave such a cry of
lamentation that they could be heard from the shore and fled, quickly weighing
anchor. A strong wind assisted them as they ran out to sea, so that the Egyptians,
though they wanted to pursue them, turned back. 2 But they cut off Pompey’s
head and threw the rest of his body naked from the boat and left it there for anyone
who wanted to see such a sight. 3 But Philip remained by him until they had had
their fill of gazing at it; he then washed the body in seawater and wrapped it in one
of his own tunics, as he had no other, and looked along the shore until he found
the remains of a small fishing boat, old but sufficient for a funeral pyre for a body
which was naked and not intact.

13.47 Cicero Letters to Atticus 11.6: Cicero on Pompey’s death

Written to Atticus on 27 November 48.

5 I never had any doubt regarding Pompey’s fate. The hopelessness of his situation
was such that all rulers and peoples were totally convinced of it, so that, wherever
he went, I thought this would happen. I cannot help grieving over his wretched
fate; I knew him to be a man of integrity, clean living and good character.

13.48 Plutarch Life of Julius Caesar 49.10–50.4: ‘Veni, vidi, vici’

In Alexandria, Caesar supported Cleopatra in the power struggle against her brother-
husband Ptolemy, and Caesar’s son by Cleopatra, Caesarion (Ptolemy XV), was born in
47 BC. Caesar then moved north to deal with Pharnaces, king of the Crimea, whom he
defeated on 2 August 47 at Zela. The Domitius here is Cn. Domitius Calvinus (cos. 53).

49.10 Leaving Cleopatra as ruler of Egypt – who a little while afterwards had a
son by him, called Caesarion by the Alexandrians – he set out for Syria. 50.1 After
leaving Syria, he learnt while crossing Asia that Domitius had been defeated by
Pharnaces, son of Mithridates, and had fled from Pontus with a few troops, while
Pharnaces was making full use of his victory to occupy Bithynia and Cappadocia,
attempting to take over the country called Lesser Armenia and stirring up revolt

570
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
among all the kings and tetrarchs there. 2 Accordingly Caesar immediately
marched against him with three legions, fought a great battle against him near
the city of Zela, and drove him in flight from Pontus, while utterly destroying his
army. 3 When he reported how swift and speedy this battle had been in writing
to one of his friends, Amantius, at Rome, he used just three words, ‘Came, saw,
conquered!’ 4 In Latin, the words have the same inflectional ending and thus an
impressive brevity.

13.49: Caesar honoured after Pharsalus, 48 BC

Inscribed pedestals at Ephesus and Pergamum, dedicated in honour of Caesar in 48 BC.

(i) SIG3 760 (Ephesus)

The cities in Asia and the peoples and tribes (dedicated this statue of) Gaius
Julius, son of Gaius, Caesar, pontifex maximus and imperator 5 and consul for
the second time, (descendant) of Ares and Aphrodite, god manifest and common
saviour of human life.

(ii) IGRR 4.305 Pergamum

The people (dedicate this statue of) Gaius Julius, son of Gaius, Caesar, imperator
and pontifex maximus, consul for the second time, their patron and benefactor, 5
saviour and benefactor of all the Greeks, because of his piety and justice.

13.50 Cicero Letters to Atticus 11.9: Cicero again regrets his position
Written to Atticus on 3 January 47. When Cicero returned to Italy after Pharsalus, Antony
informed him that Caesar was reviewing on an individual basis the cases of those who had
supported Pompey and wished to return to Italy. Cicero was ‘pardoned’ in September and
arrived in Rome in October. L. Cornelius Balbus managed Caesar’s affairs in Rome.

1 As you write, I did indeed act incautiously and more hastily than I should have,
and I have no hope, now that I am being kept back by the exemptions in the edicts.
If these had not been effected by your zeal and goodwill, I would have been able
to retire to a place of solitude. Now even that is forbidden. But why should I be
pleased to have come before the beginning of the tribunate, if I am not pleased to
have come at all? What am I to hope for from a person who was never my friend,
now I am legally ruined and crushed? Every day Balbus’ letters to me grow less
warm, and perhaps many letters from many writers are going to Caesar against
me. I am destroyed by my own fault; nothing in my wretched state is owing to
chance – it can all be laid on my shoulders. When I saw what kind of war it was,
with total lack of preparation and weakness against an excellently prepared oppo-
sition, I decided what to do and determined on a plan which was not so much
courageous, but permissible, especially in my case.

571
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
CAESAR’S DICTATORSHIPS
Shortly after Pharsalus, Caesar was named dictator for the second time, for 12 months,
by his fellow consul for 48 BC, P. Servilius Isauricus. Antony, master of the horse in late
48 and 47 (and so second-in-command to the dictator), temporarily lost Caesar’s support
in 47 as a result of his mishandling of the situation in Italy. Dolabella (Cicero’s son-in-
law), as tribune for 47, had agitated for a cancellation of debts which led to riots at Rome;
Antony had difficulty in restoring order and in dealing with mutinous soldiers in Campania.
After his defeat of Pharnaces in 47, Caesar returned to Rome in September and dealt with
the debt problem and mutiny. Antony remained out of favour until Caesar’s return from
Munda. Dolabella was forgiven, served under Caesar in Africa and Spain, and was chosen
by Caesar to replace him as consul for 44 BC when he went to Parthia.
In Africa, Caesar defeated the Pompeians led by Metellus Scipio (cos. 52) at Thapsus
on 6 April 46 (Scipio committed suicide, as did Cato a few days later at Utica). Probably in
late April 46, Caesar (also consul for the third time in 46) was made dictator for the third
time, now for ten successive years. His fourth dictatorship of 45 was to be converted into
a lifetime dictatorship in February 44 BC; he had held the consulship in 48, 46, 45 and
44. In Rome he celebrated four triumphs (for Gaul, Egypt, Pontus and Africa) in 46 BC
(doc. 2.35). Made consul for the fourth time for 45, Caesar proceeded to Spain, defeating
Pompey’s sons at Munda in March 45 BC: Gnaeus was later captured and killed, while
Sextus continued the revolt in Further Spain. A triumph for Munda was celebrated in
October 45.
Rex (‘king’): Before February 44, when he was made perpetual dictator, Caesar’s posi-
tion was still within Republican norms. It is possible that, with the Lupercalia incident (doc.
13.55), when Antony offered him a diadem, Caesar was testing public opinion to see what the
reaction would be to his becoming king: Antony’s offer could hardly have been spontaneous.
However, his planned departure on 18 March roused the conspirators to act on 15 March.
God: In the Hellenistic and Roman East, Caesar, like Hellenistic kings and other Roman gen-
erals, had already been accorded divine status. After Munda, temples were dedicated to him;
statues of him were to be placed in all the temples in Rome; and a statue of him was placed
in the temple of Quirinus and inscribed: ‘To the Unconquered God’. Antony was a member
of the college of the recently established Luperci Juliani (it was probably in this capacity that
he participated in the Lupercalia: doc. 7.78) and was appointed as the first flamen of Caesar,
though he did not take up this appointment until 40 BC. Caesar was allowed triumphal dress
(and so appear as Jupiter) for all public occasions; like the gods, he had a couch (pulvinar)
on which his image was placed; his house was to have a pediment, like a temple. Formal
deification came after his death. But he was in 45 and 44 clearly approaching divine status,
even if outright worship was not yet practised in Rome.

13.51 Cicero Letters to his Friends 9.15: Cicero to L. Papirius Paetus

One of several amusing letters written by Cicero to his wealthy friend Paetus at Naples in
46 BC. Q. Lutatius Catulus was consul in 78 and defeated by Caesar for the position of
pontifex maximus in 63 (doc. 3.22).

3 You speak to me of Catulus and those times. What is the resemblance? Then,
indeed, I did not like to be away too long from protecting the state; for I was sitting
in the stern in charge of the helm. But now I hardly even have a place in the hold! 4
Do you think there will be any fewer decrees of the senate if I am in Naples? When

572
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
I am in Rome and often in the forum, decrees of the senate are written at the home
of your admirer, my intimate acquaintance; indeed, when it occurs to him, I am put
down as present at their drawing up, and I hear of a senatorial decree, said to have
been passed on my motion, reaching Armenia and Syria, before I hear so much as a
mention of the matter itself. And I don’t want you to think that I am joking. I should
tell you that letters have been brought to me from kings at the ends of the earth, in
which they thank me for proposing the motion to give them the title of kings, when
I was unaware not only of their royal appellation but even of their very existence!

13.52 Cicero In Defence of Marcellus 13, 15: Caesar’s pardons

M. Claudius Marcellus (cos. 51), who had scourged a magistrate of Novum Comum (docs
13.8–9) and attempted to have Caesar replaced in Gaul before his term expired, resided at
Mytilene after Pharsalus. In 46, the senate requested that he be pardoned, and in this speech
Cicero praises Caesar’s clemency during the civil war.

13 Note, conscript fathers, the far-reaching effects of Caesar’s decision: all of us

who went to war impelled by some wretched and calamitous fate which attends
the state, though we can be charged with culpability on the grounds of human
error, have assuredly been acquitted of criminality. When Caesar preserved
Marcus Marcellus for the state at your intercession, and when he restored me both
to myself and to the state without any intercession, and all these other renowned
men, too, to themselves and to their country, whose number and eminence you
can see at this very meeting, he did not bring enemies into the senate but decided
that most people had been induced by ignorance and false and groundless fears
to go to war, not by greed or bloodthirstiness . . . 15 No critic of events will be so
unjust as to question Caesar’s wishes with regard to war, since he has without loss
of time decided on the restitution of those who advocated peace, though showing
more resentment to the rest. That was perhaps less to be wondered at when the
outcome and fortune of war was undecided and doubtful, but when a victor treats
the advocates of peace with respect, he is surely proclaiming that he would have
preferred not to fight at all rather than to win.

13.53 Cicero Letters to his Friends 6.6: Caesar fails to bear grudges
Written in October(?) 46 BC to A. Caecina, a Pompeian exiled after Pharsalus, who had
written a ‘libellous’ book against Caesar (Suet. Jul. 75.5); he later produced a book of
Remonstrances, dwelling on Caesar’s clemency. He had surrendered to Caesar in 46 and
was in Sicily awaiting permission to return to Italy.

8 In Caesar we see a mild and merciful disposition, just as you portrayed in your
outstanding book of Remonstrances. He is also amazingly impressed by remark-
able talents such as your own, and moreover gives way to widely held opinions,
as long as these are fair and inspired by duty and not petty or self-interested . . . 10
No one is so hostile to the cause, which Pompey embraced with more enthusiasm
than preparation, as to dare to speak of us as bad citizens or reprobates. In this

573
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
respect I always have to admire Caesar’s sense of responsibility, fairness and
wisdom. He never mentions Pompey except in the most respectful terms. Perhaps
he acted with harshness towards Pompey on numerous occasions – but those were
the acts of war and victory, not of Caesar himself. Look how he has welcomed
us! He made Cassius his legate, put Brutus in charge of Gaul and Sulpicius (cos.
51) of Greece, while Marcellus, with whom he was particularly angry, has been
restored in the most honourable way.

13.54 Cicero Letters to his Friends 7.30: Cicero to Manius Curius

In 45, Caesar was sole consul until the beginning of October; he then resigned and was
replaced by Q. Fabius Maximus and C. Trebonius; when Fabius Maximus died on the last
day of the year, Caesar replaced him with C. Caninius Rebilus. Cicero quipped that no one
had breakfast in Caninius’ consulship (cf. his comments on Vatinius: doc. 12.25). Cicero is
here writing at the beginning of 44 BC to a friend of his, a businessman in Patrae (western
Greece).

1 It is unbelievable how disgraced I feel in living in today’s Rome. You show

yourself to have been far more farsighted about events when you took flight from
here. Although things here are still disagreeable when you hear them, neverthe-
less to hear them is more bearable than to see them. You at least were not in the
Campus when the elections to the quaestorship started at the second hour. An
official seat had been put out for Quintus Maximus, whom these men used to call
consul; at the report of his death, the seat was taken away. He (Caesar), however,
having taken the auspices for a comitia tributa, held a centuriate assembly, and
at the seventh hour he proclaimed a consul elected, to remain in office until the
Kalends of January – the morning of the following day. So I can tell you that in the
consulship of Caninius no one had any breakfast! However, no crime was com-
mitted in his consulship; his vigilance was amazing – 2 he did not close an eye in
the whole of his magistracy! You’ll find all this laughable; that’s because you are
not here. If you were to see it, you couldn’t keep from tears. What if I told you the
rest? There are countless examples in the same vein.

13.55 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 76, 78.1–80.1: Exceptional

honours
After Munda in April 45 BC, Caesar was voted a supplicatio of an unprecedented 50 days
and granted the right to wear a laurel wreath, Imperator as a hereditary title, and the name
Liberator. He was to manage the army and public finances, and to have a public palace.
Annual races were to be held in the Circus on 21 April in his honour; the month Quintilis,
in which he was born, was renamed July; and he was named ‘Father of his Country’ (parens
patriae).

76.1 Not only did he accept excessive honours: a continuous consulship, a perpet-
ual dictatorship, the censorship of morals, as well as the praenomen ‘Imperator’
and the cognomen ‘Father of his Country’, a statue among those of the kings, and

574
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
a raised seat in the orchestra, but he also allowed honours too great for the mortal
condition to be bestowed on him: a golden seat in the senate house and on the
tribunal, a chariot (for carrying divine images) and litter in the circus procession,
temples, altars, statues next to those of the gods, a couch, a flamen, a college of
the Luperci, and the naming of a month after him; indeed, there were no honours
that he did not receive or grant at will. 2 His third and fourth consulships he held
in name only, satisfied with the power of the dictatorship, which was voted him
at the same time as the consulships, and in both years he substituted two consuls
for himself for the three final months, in the meantime holding no elections except
for tribunes and plebeian aediles and designating prefects instead of praetors to
administer the city’s affairs in his absence. When a consul died suddenly on the
day before the Kalends of January, he gave the vacant magistracy for a few hours
to someone who asked him for it. 3 With the same licence and disdain for ances-
tral custom, he appointed magistrates for several years ahead, bestowed decora-
tions of consular rank on ten ex-praetors, and admitted to the senate men who
had been granted citizenship and even some half-barbarous Gauls. In addition, he
placed his personal slaves in charge of the mint and public revenues. He entrusted
the supervision and command of the three legions he had left at Alexandria to his
favourite Rufio, son of one of his freedmen . . .
78.1 However, the incident that particularly aroused deadly hatred against
him was when all the conscript fathers approached him with numerous high hon-
ours that they had voted him, and he received them before the temple of Venus
Genetrix without rising from his seat. Some people believe that he was held back
by Cornelius Balbus when he attempted to rise; others, that he made no such
attempt at all, but instead glared at Gaius Trebatius when he advised him to stand
up. 2 This action of his seemed the more intolerable, as when, in one of his tri-
umphs, he rode past the tribunician benches, he was so furious that one of the col-
lege, Pontius Aquila (tr. pl. 45), did not stand up, that he cried out, ‘Go on then,
Aquila, make me restore the Republic, tribune!’ and for several successive days
would not promise anything to anyone except with the rider, ‘That is, if Pontius
Aquila will permit it.’
79.1 To this insult, which so obviously showed his disdain for the senate, he
added a deed of far greater arrogance, for, at the Latin festival, as he was returning
to Rome, among the extravagant and unheard-of acclamations of the populace,
someone in the crowd placed a laurel wreath on his statue with a white fillet tied
to it, and when the tribunes Epidius Marullus and Caesetius Flavus (tr. pl. 44 BC)
ordered that the fillet be removed from the wreath and the man taken off to prison,
Caesar sharply reprimanded them and deposed them from office, grieved either
that the suggestion of monarchy had been so unenthusiastically received or, as he
stated, because he had been deprived of the prestige of refusing it. 2 From then
on, however, he was unable to dispel the ill-repute of having aspired to the title
of king, although, when the plebs greeted him as king, he replied that his name
was Caesar and not Rex (King), and when, at the Lupercalia, the consul Antony
attempted a number of times to place a diadem on his head, he refused to accept
it and sent it to the Capitol as an offering to Jupiter Optimus Maximus. 3 Indeed,

575
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
the rumour had even spread widely that he was going to move to Alexandria or
Troy, taking the wealth of the state with him and leaving Italy exhausted by levies
and his friends in charge of Rome, while, at the next meeting of the senate, Lucius
Cotta was going to announce the view of the Fifteen in charge of the Sibylline
Books that, since it was written in the books of fate that the Parthians could be
conquered only by a king, Caesar should be given the title of king. 80.1 It was for
this reason that the conspirators hurried on their plans, to avoid having to assent
to this.

CAESAR’S LEGISLATION
Caesar’s main reforms, which date to 46, concerned the calendar, grain distribution and
debt relief. Sumptuary legislation was also introduced to limit personal expenditure and
extravagance.

13.56 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 41.1–43.2: Caesar’s reforms

In addition to the measures described in this passage, Caesar’s plans included construct-
ing a temple to Mars, a theatre, a highway from the Adriatic, a canal through the Isthmus
and libraries, restructuring the law code, draining the Pomptine marshes, and waging war
against Dacian and Parthian.

41.1 He filled the vacancies in the senate, enrolled more patricians, and increased
the number of praetors, aediles and quaestors, as well as that of the minor officials;
he also reinstated those who had been stripped of their privileges by action of
the censors or had been condemned for bribery by a jury. 2 He shared elections
with the people on the basis that, except for the candidates for the consulship,
the people should choose half the magistrates and he should personally nominate
the other half. These he announced by circulating brief notes around the tribes:
‘Caesar the Dictator to tribe such-and-such. I recommend to you so-and-so to hold
their magistracies by your votes.’ He even admitted to office the sons of those
who had been proscribed. He restored the right of jury service to two classes, the
equites and senators, disqualifying the third class, the tribunii aerarii. 3 He reg-
istered the people for the corn dole by a new method and locale, street by street,
using the owners of apartment buildings, and reduced the number of those who
received free grain from 320,000 to 150,000; so that new meetings did not have to
be called in the future to enrol people, he laid down that the places of those who
died were to be filled by lot every year by the praetors from those who were not
registered. 42.1 Since 80,000 citizens had been assigned to overseas colonies, he
enacted a law to rebuild the population of the depleted city which laid down that
no citizen older than 20 or younger than 40 years of age, unless he was serving
in the army, should absent himself from Italy for more than three years in suc-
cession; that no senator’s son should go overseas except as one of a magistrate’s
household or staff; and that graziers should have among their herdsmen at least
one-third who were free-born. He also granted citizenship to all medical practi-
tioners and teachers of liberal arts at Rome to induce them to stay in the city and

576
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
encourage others to settle there. 2 Regarding debts, he disappointed those who
wanted them cancelled, which was frequently called for, but finally decreed that
debtors should satisfy their creditors through a valuation of their property at the
price for which they had purchased it before the civil war, with whatever interest
they had paid in cash or pledged in writing being deducted from the total; by this
arrangement, about a quarter of the loan was wiped out. 3 He dissolved all guilds
except those founded in ancient times. He increased penalties for crimes; and,
since the wealthy had less compunction about committing crimes because they
were merely exiled with their property intact, he punished murderers of fellow
citizens, as Cicero records, by the confiscation of their entire property and the rest
by the confiscation of half of it.
43.1 He administered justice with great conscientiousness and severity. He
even removed those convicted of extortion from the senatorial order. He annulled
the marriage of an ex-praetor who had married a woman the day after her divorce
from her husband, although there was no suspicion of adultery. He imposed duties
on foreign goods. He forbade the use of litters and the wearing of scarlet robes or
pearls to everyone except those of a certain standing and age and on specific days.
2 He particularly enforced his law against luxury by placing watchmen in parts
of the market to seize and bring him delicacies which were on sale in violation
of his prohibition, while he sometimes sent his lictors and soldiers to take from a
dining-room items which his watchmen had failed to confiscate, even after they
had been served.

13.57 Dio Roman History 43.50.1–51.9: Better than Sulla

Caesar was clearly attempting reconciliation with the Pompeians and ensuring the people’s
support for a large-scale three-year expedition against Parthia. His great-nephew Octavian
(later the princeps Augustus) now enters the historical record. The two patrician aedileships
that Caesar created in 44 BC, the aediles cereales, had the especial role of overseeing the
grain supply.

50.1 Caesar also brought in laws and extended the pomerium. In this, as well as
in other matters, he appeared to be acting like Sulla. Caesar, however, removed
the penalties from the survivors of those who had fought against him and granted
them immunity on fair and equal terms: 2 he promoted them to magistracies and
returned their dowries to the wives of those that had been killed, while to their
children he granted a proportion of their properties, putting Sulla’s bloodthirsti-
ness in a very bad light and winning an outstanding reputation for himself not just
for valour, but also for magnanimity – although it is generally difficult for the
same man to excel both in war and in peace. 3 He prided himself on this, and also
on the fact that he had restored Carthage and Corinth . . . 51.1 These cities, then,
just as they had earlier been razed together, so they now revived at the same time
and looked like prospering once more. While Caesar was involved with this, the
desire to avenge Crassus and those who died with him overcame all the Romans
together, along with the hope that now, if ever, they could defeat the Parthians.
With one impulse they voted the war to Caesar and made extensive preparations

577
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
for it. 2 Among other matters, they resolved that he should employ a large num-
ber of subordinates and, so that the city would not be without magistrates in his
absence, and by deciding them on their own they should not relapse into civil
strife, that magistrates should be appointed for the next three years, the period that
they thought necessary for the campaign, although they did not nominate them
all beforehand. 3 Ostensibly Caesar chose half of them, having some legal right
to do so, but in fact he chose them all. For the first year, too, 40 quaestors were
elected, as happened previously, and now two patrician aediles for the first time,
as well as four from the plebs. Of these, two have their title from Demeter (Ceres),
and this has remained in force to the present time. 4 Sixteen praetors were also
appointed. . . .
6 All those to hold magistracies in the first year after that were appointed in
advance, and for the second year just the consuls and tribunes. They were far from
appointing anyone for the third year. 7 Caesar intended to hold the rank of dicta-
tor for both these years and nominated those who were to be masters of the horse,
someone else and Octavian, although he was still a lad. 8 For the time being,
while this was taking place, he appointed Dolabella consul in place of himself,
while Antony was to continue in power for the whole year. He assigned Gallia
Narbonensis and Hither Spain to Lepidus, and two men as masters of horse in
his place, each acting separately. 9 Owing favours as he did to many people, he
paid them back by such appointments and by priesthoods, adding one extra to the
Board of Fifteen and three to the Board of Seven, as they were called.

13.58 Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 14.10.2.190–95: Privileges for

Hyrcanus
A covering letter attached to Caesar’s decree on privileges of Hyrcanus, the high priest of
the Jews, in 47 BC. The Jews had originally signed a treaty of friendship with Rome in 161.
The final sentence may refer to all the Jews, not just Hyrcanus.

190 Gaius Julius Caesar, imperator and pontifex maximus, dictator for the second
time, to the magistrates, council and people of the Sidonians, greetings.
If you are well, it is well; I with the army am also well. 191 I send to you the
copy of the decree on a tablet, regarding Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, high priest
and ethnarch of the Jews, so that it may be placed among your public records. It is
my wish that this shall be erected on a bronze tablet in both Greek and Latin. 192 It
is as follows: Julius Caesar, imperator, [dictator] for the second time and pontifex
maximus, with my council have decided thus. Whereas the Jew Hyrcanus, son of
Alexander, both now and in former times in both peace and war, demonstrated
both loyalty and zeal towards our affairs, as many generals have born witness to
regarding him, 193 and in the most recent war in Alexandria came as an ally with
1,500 soldiers, and when sent by me to Mithridates surpassed in courage all the
regular troops, 194 for these reasons I order that Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, and
his children are to be ethnarchs of the Jews and hold the priesthood of the Jews in
perpetuity according to their ancestral customs, and he and his children are to be

578
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
our allies and are also to be counted among our individual friends, 195 and that he
and his children are to possess whatever high priest’s privileges exist according to
their own laws. And if in this period there should be any investigation concerning
the Jews’ way of life, it is my pleasure that the decision should rest with them. I
do not approve that winter billeting or money shall be exacted.

13.59 Bruns FIRA 102: Regulations for local magistracies

In this law for municipalities in Italy and their officials (the lex Julia municipalis), Julius
Caesar lays down the qualifications for magistracies and membership of the local senate.
These colonies and other towns were generally governed by a Board of Two or a Board of
Four. This law was in draft form at Caesar’s death and taken by Mark Antony to the senate
for ratification; other sections of the law deal with grain distribution, local censuses and the
repair of Rome’s streets (doc. 2.8).

88 After the Kalends of January (1 January), in the second year after this law is
passed, in a municipality, colony or prefecture, no person less than 30 years of age
90 shall be a candidate for, accept or administer the office of duumvir, quattuorvir
or any other magistracy, unless he has served three campaigns in the cavalry or six
campaigns in the infantry of a legion. These campaigns he shall have served in a
camp or in a province for the greater part of a year. Alternatively, two half-years
may count as separate years if allowed by laws and plebiscites. If someone has
exemption from military service by laws, plebiscites or treaty, whereby he should
not properly serve against his will, he is not bound by this restriction. Nor shall
anyone who is an auctioneer, master of funerals or undertaker, while engaged in
this business, 95 be a candidate for, accept, administer or hold the office of duum-
vir, quattuorvir or any other magistracy, nor shall he be a senator, decurion or con-
script or give his vote in a municipality, colony or prefecture. If any of those listed
above acts contrary to this law he shall be liable for a fine of 50,000 sesterces to
the people, and anyone who wishes is entitled to bring a case for this sum.
If anyone holds elections in a municipality, colony or prefecture after the next
Kalends of July (1 July) for the election or substitution of duumvirs, quattuorvirs
or any 100 other magistrates, he shall not proclaim or order to be proclaimed as
elected to any of these magistracies anyone who is less than 30 years of age unless
he has served three campaigns in the cavalry or six campaigns in the infantry of
a legion, and who has served these campaigns in a camp or in a province for the
greater part of a year, or alternatively two half-years counting as separate years, if
allowed by laws and plebiscites, or unless he has exemption from military service
by laws, plebiscites or treaty, 105 whereby he should not properly serve against
his will. Nor shall he proclaim the election of anyone who is an auctioneer, master
of funerals or undertaker, while engaged in his business, as duumvir, quattuorvir
or whoever may be the magistrate. Nor shall he select, substitute or co-opt such
persons either into the senate or into the decurions and conscripts. Nor knowingly
with malice aforethought shall he ask such a person for his opinion or order him
to speak or cast his vote. If anyone acts contrary to this law, he shall be liable for a

579
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
fine of 50,000 sesterces to the people, and anyone who wishes is entitled to bring
a case for this sum.
Nor among the decurions and conscripts in the senate of a municipality, colony,
prefecture, forum or meeting-place of Roman citizens shall anyone be admitted or
be permitted to speak his opinion or 110 cast his vote who has been or is condemned
for theft committed by himself or who compounds such a theft; anyone who has
been or is condemned in a case relating to trusteeship, partnership, guardianship,
mandate, bodily injury or malice aforethought; anyone who has been or is con-
demned either by the Plaetorian law (before 184 BC) or for something he has done
or does contrary to that law; anyone who has bound or binds himself to fight in
the arena; anyone who has denied or denies a debt on oath or who has sworn or
swears that he is financially sound; anyone who has declared or declares to sureties
or creditors that he is not able to repay his debt 115 or compounds with them on
his failure to pay; anyone whose debt is settled for them; anyone whose goods are
seized in accordance with the edict of the magistrate in charge of administering the
law, except for those who were under guardianship or absent on public business,
as long as they had not fraudulently contrived to be absent for this reason; anyone
who has been or is condemned in a public trial at Rome, with the ruling that he is
not permitted to remain in Italy, and has not been or is not restored to full status;
anyone who has been or is condemned in a public trial in the municipality, colony,
prefecture, forum or meeting-place to which he belongs; 120 anyone who has been
or is found guilty of having made a false accusation or done something from collu-
sion; anyone who has been or is stripped of army rank because of disgrace; anyone
whom a general has ordered or orders to leave the army because of disgrace; anyone
who has taken or takes money or another reward for the head of a Roman citizen;
anyone who has made or who makes a profit from prostituting his body; anyone
who has become or becomes a gladiator or stage actor or who keeps a brothel. If,
against the terms of this law, anyone takes his place or gives his vote 125 among the
decurions or conscripts in the senate, he shall be liable for a fine of 50,000 sesterces
to the people, and anyone who wishes is entitled to bring a case for this sum . . . .
135 Those who by this law are not permitted to be senators, decurions or con-
scripts of their municipality, colony, prefecture, forum or meeting-place shall not
stand for or accept the position of duumvir, quattuorvir or any other magistracy
from which they would pass into the senatorial order; nor shall such a person take
their seat at the games, or when gladiators are fighting, in the senatorial seating
for decurions and conscripts, or to take part in public banquets. If such a person
is declared elected against the terms of this law, he shall not become duumvir or
quattuorvir 140 or hold any other magistracy or office. If anyone acts contrary to
this law, he shall be liable for a fine of 50,000 sesterces to the people, and anyone
who wishes is entitled to bring a case for this sum.

13.60 Bruns FIRA 122: A charter for Urso

This law, officially the lex Colonia Genetiva Julia, a colony in southern Spain, appears to
have been drafted in the office of Julius Caesar shortly before his assassination and later

580
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
enacted by Mark Antony. Government is clearly in the hands of the senate and officials
(duumvirs, aediles, augurs and priests) rather than the people: cf. doc. 2.80. A new frag-
ment lays down that a decurion has to possess a building with no fewer than 600 roof-tiles
(and a citizen one with no fewer than 300 roof-tiles).

102 No duumvir who is conducting an investigation or holding a trial in accord-

ance with this law, unless that trial is bound by this law to be completed in one
day, shall conduct the investigation or hold the trial before the first hour or after
the eleventh hour of the day. The duumvir, with regard to the different prosecu-
tors, shall allow the chief prosecutor four hours and each subsidiary prosecutor
two hours. Where a prosecutor concedes some of his time to another person, this
person will be allowed as much additional time for speaking as has been conceded
to him. Likewise he will allow the person who has conceded some of his time to
another person that much less time for speaking. However many hours in total the
entire prosecution has for speaking in each individual case, he shall allow to the
defendant or whoever speaks in his defence twice that number of hours in each
individual case. 103 Whenever the majority of the decurions present resolve to
draft men in arms for the sake of defending the territories of the colony, the duum-
vir or prefect charged with jurisdiction in the colony of Genetiva shall be per-
mitted without prejudice to draft colonists and native inhabitants assigned to its
jurisdiction. And that duumvir, or whoever the duumvir has placed in command
of those men in arms, shall have the same right of punishment as a military tribune
of the Roman people in the army of the Roman people, and he shall exercise that
right and power without prejudice, as long as his actions are in accordance with
the resolve of the majority of the decurions who were present.
130 No duumvir or aedile or prefect of the colony Genetiva Julia shall propose
to the decurions of the colony Genetiva, or consult the decurions, or carry a decree
of the decurions, or enter or order to be entered such a decree in the public records,
and no decurion, when this matter is being discussed, shall announce a vote to the
decurions, or draft a decree of the decurions, or enter or order such a decree to be
entered in the public records, by which any senator of the Roman people or son
of that senator shall be adopted, chosen or made patron of the colony Genetiva,
unless three-quarters of the decurions agree using voting tablets, and unless that
person, at the time the decree of the decurions is under discussion, is a private
person in Italy without imperium. If anyone in contravention of this proposes to
the decurions, or carries or causes to be carried a decree of the decurions, or enters
or orders such a decree to be entered in the public records, or if anyone proclaims
a vote to the decurions, or drafts a decree of the decurions, or enters or orders such
a degree to be entered in the public records, he shall be condemned to pay to the
colonists of the colony Genetiva Julia, for every individual act in contravention of
this law, 100,000 sesterces, and anyone who wishes shall have the right and power
to bring an action, claim and prosecution for that sum in accordance with this law
before a duumvir, interrex or prefect.
132 No person in the colony Genetiva, after the passing of this law, who is a can-
didate or standing for election to any magistracy in the colony Genetiva Julia, in that

581
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
year in which he stands or intends to stand for a magistracy, shall put on entertain-
ments, or invite anyone to dinner, or with malice aforethought put on or hold a banquet
or cause another person to hold a banquet or invite anyone to dinner with regard to his
candidature, except for the candidate himself during that year in which he is seeking
election, who may invite to dinner if he wishes, and without malice aforethought, no
more than nine persons daily. No candidate seeking election shall with malice afore-
thought make a gift or give handouts or anything else with regard to his candidature.
No person with regard to the candidature of another person shall put on entertainments
or invite anyone to dinner or hold a banquet, or with malice aforethought make a
gift or give handouts or anything else with regard to another person’s candidature. If
anyone acts in contravention of this law he shall be condemned to pay to the colonists
of the colony Genetiva Julia 5,000 sesterces, and anyone who wishes shall have the
right and power to bring an action, claim and prosecution for that sum in accordance
with this law in an action for recuperation before a duumvir or prefect. 133 As to those
persons who will in accordance with this law be colonists of the colony Genetiva Julia,
their wives who are in the colony Genetiva Julia in accordance with this law shall obey
the laws of the colony Genetiva Julia, like their husbands, and shall possess all those
rights laid down in this law without prejudice.

CAESAR AND HIS IMAGE

13.61 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 45.1–3: Caesar’s appearance
45.1 Caesar is said to have been tall, with a fair complexion, shapely limbs, a rather
full face, and keen black eyes, and to have had sound health, except that towards the
end of his life he was subject to sudden fainting fits as well as nightmares. He also had
two attacks of epilepsy while on campaign. 2 He was fastidious in the care of his per-
son, and so not only kept his hair carefully trimmed and shaved but even had his body
hair plucked – some people accuse him of that at any rate – while he was extremely
vexed by the disfiguring effect of his baldness, since he found it exposed him to the
ridicule of his opponents. As a result he used to comb his receding hair forward from
the crown of his head and, of all the honours voted him by the senate and people, there
was none that pleased him more or that he made use of more gladly than the privilege
of wearing a laurel wreath on all occasions. 3 They say, too, that his dress was unu-
sual: his purple-striped tunic had fringed sleeves down to the wrist and he always wore
a belt over it, though it was rather loosely fastened. This, it is said, was the reason for
Sulla’s frequent warning to the optimates to beware of the ‘ill-girt boy’.

13.62 Sallust Conspiracy of Catiline 53.6–54.6: Caesar versus Cato

Sallust’s comparison of the virtues of Caesar and Cato was written c. 42 BC. He may have
been intending a tacit criticism by ‘extreme good qualities’ in the first line – both overdid
their excellences (Caesar his liberality, and Cato his ‘justice’).

53.6 Now within my living memory there have been two men of extreme good quali-
ties but very different characters, Marcus Cato and Gaius Caesar. Since the subject
has come up, it is not my intention to pass them by in silence but to disclose the nature

582
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
and character of each, as far as my ability permits. 54.1 Well, their descent, age and
eloquence were very similar, their greatness of spirit equal, and likewise their glory,
but in other respects they were different. 2 Caesar was considered great in kindnesses
and liberality, Cato in the integrity of his life. The former became noted for his clem-
ency and compassion, while severity added to the latter’s dignity. 3 Caesar won glory
by giving, helping and pardoning, Cato by making no gifts. In the one there was a
refuge for the wretched, in the other the destruction of evildoers. The former’s good
nature, the latter’s firmness were the subjects of praise. 4 Finally, Caesar had trained
himself to work hard, to stay vigilant; intent on his friends’ affairs, to neglect his own,
to refuse nothing worth giving; for himself he longed for great imperium, an army, a
new war in which his virtue could shine forth. 5 But Cato’s pursuit was moderation,
what was fitting, and most of all gravity. 6 He did not try to rival the rich in richness
nor the ambitious in politics, but the active man in virtue, the moderate in modesty, the
blameless in self-control; he preferred rather to be than to seem good; thus the less he
sought glory, the more it followed him.

13.63 Catullus 93: Catullus on Caesar

Suet. Jul. 73: Caesar invited Catullus to dinner after the latter had apologised for his invec-
tive against Caesar and Mamurra (cf. doc. 12.89).

I have no very great desire, Caesar, to try to please you –

Or even to know whether you are white or black.

13.64 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 56.1–7:

Caesar’s literary abilities
Caesar’s oratory was highly praised by Cicero (doc. 2.68), and he wrote a treatise on
Analogy. Of his works, the three books on the Civil War and seven books on the Gallic War
(the eighth was written by Hirtius) survive; see doc. 16.6.

1 He left memoirs of his deeds in the Gallic War and the Civil War against
Pompey. The author of the accounts of the Alexandrian, African and Spanish
campaigns is unknown: some think it was Oppius, others Hirtius, who also com-
pleted the last book of the Gallic War which Caesar left unfinished. Regarding
Caesar’s memoirs, Cicero, also in the Brutus, comments: 2 ‘He wrote memoirs
which should be highly praised; they are simply, straightforwardly and gracefully
composed, with all the clothing of rhetorical ornamentation removed; but, while
his aim was to provide material for others who wanted to write history to draw
upon, he has perhaps gratified several fools, who may choose to touch up his writ-
ings with curling-tongs, but has deterred all sensible men from writing on it.’ 3
Concerning these memoirs, Hirtius (BG 8, pref. 5–6) stresses that: ‘These mem-
oirs are so highly regarded in all men’s judgement that he seems to have deprived
writers of an opportunity rather than offered them one, while our admiration for
this is greater than that of others, for they know how beautifully and faultlessly
he wrote, while we also know how easily and rapidly he completed the task.’

583
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
4 Asinius Pollio considers that the memoirs were composed with insufficient care
and accuracy, since in many cases Caesar put too much trust in reports given by
others of their deeds and records his own actions incorrectly, either deliberately or
through forgetfulness; and he believes that Caesar intended to revise and correct
his work.
5 He also left a two-volume work On Analogy, two more volumes In Answer to
Cato, and a poem entitled The Journey. Of these, he wrote the first while crossing
the Alps when returning to his army after holding assizes in Cisalpine Gaul, the
second at roughly the time of the battle of Munda, and the last during the 24 days he
was travelling between Rome and Further Spain. 6 Some letters of his to the senate
are also extant, and he appears to have been the first to convert them to pages and the
form of a notebook, while, previously, consuls and generals sent their reports writ-
ten right across the sheet. Some letters of his to Cicero are also extant, as well as oth-
ers to his close friends on personal matters, in which, if anything had to be conveyed
confidentially, he wrote in cipher, that is with the order of the letters changed, so that
no word can be understood: if anyone wishes to decipher these and find out their
meaning, he has to change the fourth letter of the alphabet, that is, D for A, and so on
with the rest. 7 Certain writings of his boyhood and early youth are mentioned, such
as Praises of Hercules and a tragedy Oedipus and Collected Sayings; but Augustus
forbade the publication of all these minor works in a very brief and frank letter sent
to Pompeius Macer, whom he had chosen to organise his libraries.

13.65 Pliny Natural History 7.91–94: Caesar’s outstanding intellect

91 The most outstanding example of mental vigour I consider to be the dictator
Caesar; I am not now thinking of courage and perseverance, or of an elevation of
mind able to embrace all that the heavens contain, but of native vigour and quick-
ness winged as if with fire. We are told that he was accustomed to read or write
and dictate or listen simultaneously, and to dictate to his secretaries four letters
at the same time on matters of great importance, 92 or, if not otherwise occupied,
seven. He also fought 50 pitched battles and was the only one to beat Marcus
Marcellus (cos. 222), who fought 39 – for I would not count it to his glory that, in
addition to victories over fellow citizens, he killed 1,192,000 persons in his bat-
tles, a huge, if unavoidable, injury to the human race, as he himself admitted it to
be by not publishing the number slaughtered in the civil wars.
93 It would be fairer to credit Pompey the Great with the 846 ships he captured
from the pirates: unique to Caesar, in addition to what was mentioned above,
was the distinction of his clemency, in which he surpassed all others – even to
the point of regretting it later; he also presented an example of magnanimity with
which no other can be compared. 94 To count under this label the spectacles that
he put on and the wealth he poured out, or the magnificence of his public works,
would condone extravagance, but it demonstrated the genuine and unparalleled
elevation of an unsurpassed mind that, when Pompey the Great’s letter cases were
captured at Pharsalus and Scipio’s at Thapsus, he showed the highest integrity and
burnt them instead of reading them.

584
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
THE IDES OF MARCH
By the time Caesar became perpetual dictator in February 44, many of those he had par-
doned were reconciled to his prominence – others were not, and in becoming dictator for
life it was made clear that he had no intention of restoring the Republic. Though probably
predisposed to resist monarchy, M. Junius Brutus was won over to the conspirators’ cause
by C. Cassius Longinus. Brutus and Cassius, both pardoned by Caesar after Pharsalus (doc.
13.52), were the most prominent assassins (‘tyrannicides’); all told, more than 60 senators
were involved. Brutus joined Pompey’s forces in the civil war as representing the state, but
requested Caesar’s pardon after Pharsalus; he was made governor of Cisalpine Gaul in 46
and urban praetor for 44 BC and was designated as consul for 41.
Cassius had been quaestor under Crassus in Syria; he survived Carrhae and organised
the defence of Syria, where he served as proquaestor in 52–51, inflicting a major defeat
on the Parthians in the latter year. Tribune in 49 (not to be confused with another tribune
of 49, Q. Cassius Longinus), he was an adherent of Pompey’s and commanded a fleet, but
after Pharsalus surrendered it to Caesar and was pardoned; he served with him as a legate
against Pharnaces. Other assassins included Decimus Brutus, chosen as consul for 42, and
Trebonius (tr. pl. 55, cos. suff. 45). The assassination took place on the Ides of March (15
March) 44 BC. Caesar went to the senate house on the Ides despite ill omens, a dream of
Calpurnia (his wife) and an illness – all perhaps post-eventum inventions of the sources. On
the way he was handed a scroll with details of the plot but did not read it (perhaps another
invented detail). His assassination heralded the return of civil war.

13.66 Plutarch Life of Julius Caesar 66.4–14: Caesar’s assassination

Cicero has Trebonius detaining Antony, and he later writes to him that he wished that
Antony too had been killed (doc. 14.16).

4 Now Antony, who was a close friend of Caesar’s and physically fit, was detained
outside (the senate house) by Brutus Albinus (Trebonius in Plut. Brutus 17.1),
who deliberately engaged him in a lengthy conversation. 5 Caesar went on in and
the senate rose in his honour, while some of Brutus’ partisans went and stood
behind his seat and others went to meet him, as though they were going to sup-
port the petition being made by Tillius Cimber on behalf of his brother in exile,
and they joined him in his entreaties, accompanying Caesar as far as his seat. 6
When, after sitting down, Caesar continued to reject the requests and started to
grow angry with one or another as they importuned him more urgently, Tillius
grasped his toga with both hands and pulled it down from his neck – the signal for
the attack. 7 It was Casca who gave the first blow with his dagger, in the neck, a
wound which was neither mortal nor even deep, probably because he was nervous
at the beginning of such a bold venture, and Caesar, as he turned, was therefore
able to grab the knife and hold on to it. 8 At nearly the same moment both cried
out, the victim in Latin, ‘You villain, Casca, what are you doing?’, the aggressor
to his brother in Greek, ‘Brother, help!’ 9 This was how it began, while those who
were not in the plot were thunderstruck and terrified at what was being done, not
daring to flee or go to Caesar’s help, or even to utter a word. 10 All of those who
had prepared themselves for the murder produced their naked daggers, and Caesar

585
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
was encompassed by them all, wherever he turned confronting blows and dagger
aimed at his face and eyes, driven here and there like a wild beast and entangled
in the hands of them all – 11 for they all had to participate in the sacrifice and taste
his blood. It was for this reason that Brutus too gave him one blow in the groin.
12 And some say that Caesar fought back against all the others, darting this way
and that and crying out, but, when he saw that Brutus had drawn his dagger, he
covered his head with his toga and sank down, either by chance or because he
had been pushed there by his murderers, against the pedestal on which the statue
of Pompey stood. 13 The pedestal was drenched with blood, so as to appear that
Pompey himself was presiding over this vengeance on his enemy, lying at his
feet and struggling convulsively under numerous wounds. 14 He is said to have
received 23, and many of the conspirators were wounded by each other as they
tried to direct so many blows into one body.

13.67 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 82.1–2: ‘Et tu, Brute?’
Brutus’ mother, Servilia, was Cato’s sister, and Caesar was rumoured to be Brutus’ father
through an early liaison with Servilia: cf. doc. 7.45 for the affair.

1 As he took his seat, the conspirators gathered round him as if to pay their
respects, and straightaway Tillius Cimber, who had taken the lead, came closer as
if to ask a question. When Caesar shook his head and put him off to another time,
he seized his toga by both shoulders. Then, as Caesar cried out, ‘This is violence’,
one of the Cascas wounded him from behind just below the throat. 2 Caesar seized
Casca’s arm and ran it through with his stylus, but, as he tried to leap up, he was
stopped by another wound; when he saw that on every side he was confronted by
drawn daggers, he covered his head with his toga and at the same time drew its
fold down to his feet with his left hand to fall more decently, with the lower part of
his body also covered. Like this he was stabbed with 23 blows, without uttering a
word, except for a groan at the first stroke, though some have recorded that when
Marcus Brutus came at him he said (in Greek), ‘You, too, my child?’

13.68 Suetonius Life of the Deified Julius 83.2: Caesar’s will

The reading of Caesar’s will with its bequest to the people of Rome incited popular opposi-
tion to the tyrannicides. In the will, ratified by the senate on 18 March, Octavian, Caesar’s
great-nephew and the future princeps Augustus, was adopted as Caesar’s heir in September 45.

In his last will he named as his three heirs his sisters’ grandsons, Gaius Octavius
to three-quarters of the property and Lucius Pinarius and Quintus Pedius to the
remaining quarter; at the very end he also adopted Gaius Octavius, who was to
take his name, into his family; and he named several of his assassins among the
guardians of his son, if one should be born to him, Decimus Brutus even among
the heirs in the second degree. To the people he bequeathed for their public use his
gardens near the Tiber and 300 sesterces to each man.

586
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
13.69 Cicero On Divination 1.118–19: Omens of Caesar’s assassination
For the omens preceding Caesar’s death and the soothsayer (haruspex) Spurinna, see Suet.
Jul. 81 (doc. 3.43).

118 If we concede the proposition that there is a divine power which pervades
men’s lives, it is not difficult to apprehend the principle which directs those signs
which we see come to pass. For it is possible that, in the choice of a sacrificial
victim, there is some intelligent force that guides us which is diffused through
the whole world, or that when you are about to make the sacrifice a change takes
place in the vitals so that something is either taken away or added; for in a moment
nature adds or changes or diminishes many things. 119 The clearest proof, which
shows that this cannot be doubted, is what happened just before Caesar’s death.
When he was offering sacrifices on that day on which he first sat on a golden
throne and showed himself in a purple robe, no heart was found in the vitals of
the fat ox. Now do you think that any animal that has blood can exist without
a heart? Caesar was not perturbed by the strangeness of this occurrence, even
though Spurinna said that he should beware lest both thought and life desert him;
for, he said, both of these stemmed from the heart. On the following day there was
no head on the liver of the sacrificial beast. These omens were foretold to Caesar
by the immortal gods so he might foresee his death, not so that he might be on his
guard against it. So when those organs without which the victim could not have
lived are not found in the vitals, we should understand that the absent organs dis-
appeared at the moment of sacrifice.

13.70 Cicero On Divination 2.22–23: The fates of the ‘triumvirs’

Cicero here argues against his brother Quintus that divination is of no use if events are
ruled by Fate, and, if they are, then knowledge of the future is a disadvantage.

22 Leaving aside the men of earlier days, do you think that it would have been
of any advantage to Marcus Crassus, when he was at the peak of his wealth and
fortune, to know that he was going to perish beyond the Euphrates in shame and
dishonour after the death of his son Publius and the destruction of his army? Or
do you think that Gnaeus Pompey would have found happiness in his three con-
sulships, in his three triumphs and in the fame of his pre-eminent achievements
if he had known that, after losing his army, he would be slaughtered in a lonely
Egyptian spot, and that there would follow, after his death, events of which we
cannot speak without tears? 23 What indeed do we think of Caesar’s case? If he
had foreseen that in the senate, which he for the most part had chosen himself, in
Pompey’s hall, in front of the statue of Pompey himself, with so many of his own
centurions looking on, he would be slaughtered by the most noble citizens, some
of whom owed everything they possessed to him, and so little honoured that not
only none of his friends would approach his corpse but not even any of his serv-
ants, in what torment of mind would he have spent his life?

587
 CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
COINAGE
13.71 Crawford RRC 452.2: Victory over the Gauls
An aureus (gold coin) of 48–47 BC.

Obverse: Female head (a goddess, perhaps Pietas?), facing right and wearing a
diadem and an oak wreath.
Reverse: A trophy of arms, made up of Gallic weapons, helmet, shield and armour.
Legend: Caesar.

13.72 Crawford RRC 458.1: Caesar and Venus

A denarius of c. 47 BC. Anchises and Venus were the parents of Aeneas, legendary founder
of the Julian family. The coin is usually dated generally to after the defeat of Pompey at
Pharsalus or to 47–46 BC.

Obverse: Bust of Venus, wearing diadem.

Reverse: Aeneas, holding the palladium (see docs 2.29, 7.90) and carrying his
father on his flight from Troy.

13.73 Crawford RRC 480.7a: Perpetual dictator

A denarius of February–March 44 BC. The veil presents Caesar as pontifex maximus,
showing the official importance he attached to this position.

Obverse: Head of Caesar with veil (face visible); legend: Caesar Dict. Perpetuo
(Caesar, Perpetual Dictator).
Reverse: Standing Venus, facing left, with a sceptre in her right hand and a Victory
deity in the palm of her left hand.

13.74 Crawford RRC 508.3: The assassination of Caesar

A denarius of 43–42 BC. The assassination of Caesar is represented as emancipation for the
Roman people; this is the only contemporary portrait of Brutus.

Obverse: Head of Brutus. Legend: Brut. Imp. (Brutus imperator).

Reverse: A freedom cap, as worn by emancipated slaves, between two daggers.
Legend: Eid. Mar. (Eidibus Martiis: on the Ides of March).

588
 14

Octavian’s rise to power

Following the assassination of Julius Caesar, his fellow consul and protégé, Mark
Antony, was in an unparalleled position of power once it became clear that the
‘liberators’ did not enjoy popular support. He had considerable political and mili-
tary experience, far more so than the young Octavian, Caesar’s great-nephew,
who was shortly to arrive on the scene. Antony had served with Gabinius in Egypt
and Syria (57–54) and with Caesar in Gaul. As tribune in 49, his flight from Rome
had given Caesar a pretext for invading Italy, and he had played an important role
as Caesar’s magister equitum during the civil war, while Caesar had intended
leaving him in charge at Rome during his own Parthian campaign. While clearly
a flamboyant character, he was an experienced general, and accounts of his dis-
sipation and intemperance owe much to later Augustan propaganda (doc. 14.1).
In contrast, Octavian was only 19 years of age at Caesar’s death and little known in
Rome. Despite his relationship with Caesar, his family had had little experience in
political life: his father, Gaius Octavius, was a novus homo who was praetor in 61
BC, though his stepfather, Philippus, had been consul in 56. Octavian had served
in Spain with Caesar and had ridden behind him at his African triumph. He had
been studying at Apollonia, where the Parthian expedition was assembling, at the
time of the assassination (doc. 14.2). On hearing the news that he was Caesar’s
primary heir and had been adopted by him posthumously, he returned to Italy and
took the name Gaius Julius Caesar, even though his mother and stepfather advised
him against this, so positioning himself as Caesar’s son whose main object was to
avenge his death. Despite senatorial support, the liberators were unpopular, and
Brutus and Cassius had been forced to leave Rome. They had then begun raising
troops to secure Macedonia and Syria, the provinces they had been assigned by
Caesar but which had been reallocated to Antony and his fellow consul, Dolabella
(doc. 14.3).
In the meantime Cicero provided full details of his reactions to events to his
correspondent Atticus, often at almost daily intervals, regretting that the liberators
had not seized their opportunity properly and that Antony had taken the oppor-
tunity to have all Caesar’s draft acta ratified, including some laws that may not
have actually been Caesar’s (doc. 14.4). Octavian arrived at Brundisium in early
April and en route to Rome began encouraging Caesar’s veterans to support him

589
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
as Caesar’s son. He soon attracted a significant following and also appears to have
had access to state monies arriving into Brundisium, including taxes from the East
(docs 14.5–7). At Puteoli he met Cicero, as well as his mother and stepfather and
the consuls-designate for 43, Hirtius and Pansa. Despite the fact that his accepting
the adoption and taking Caesar’s name clearly implied that he would be taking
action against Caesar’s assassins, Cicero seems to have viewed him, if he could be
separated from Antony (doc. 14.9), as a potential political asset. In Rome, Antony
attempted to frustrate Octavian’s plans, and, when Antony refused to release the
bequest given by Caesar to all citizens (300 sesterces per person), Octavian raised
the money by selling property, thus reinforcing the popular support he enjoyed
as Caesar’s son and heir, while Antony was criticised for coming to terms with
the ‘liberators’. There was also conflict over Octavian’s wish to stand for the
tribunate and his attempt to place a golden chair and wreath for Caesar at the
games in honour of his victories held in July, while Octavian’s adoption was not
formally ratified by a lex curiata until late in 43 (docs 14.8, 10). Antony had
made the most of his opportunities following Caesar’s death and was thought to
have abstracted the latter’s funds, some 700 million sesterces, from the treasury
in the temple of Ops (docs 14.10, 14.15). In June he decided that Cisalpine Gaul,
with its command of the northern border of Italy, would be a more strategic prov-
ince than Macedonia and had irregular legislation passed exchanging his province
for Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul, while retaining five of the six Macedonian
legions which were recalled to Italy: however, the governor of Cisalpine Gaul,
Decimus Brutus, refused with the senate’s approval to give up his province. In
October Antony also accused Octavian of attempting to assassinate him with the
help of his (Antony’s) own bodyguard, and he then made for Brundisium to meet
his legions and ensure their loyalty (docs 14.10–11).
Octavian, painfully aware that he had little real support as yet, toured the colo-
nies of Caesar’s veterans in November, offering large bounties (2,000 sesterces
apiece) and presenting himself as Caesar’s avenger, while he persuaded Cicero to
support him in the senate. Cicero’s letters to Atticus detail his painful indecision
in early November over what to reply to Octavian’s letters and whether or not
to go to Rome to support him (he was ‘still obviously a boy’) in the senate (doc.
14.12). Octavian’s agents also managed to effect the desertion of two of Antony’s
Macedonian legions to his cause to add to the two legions of veterans he had already
raised, and he offered these to the senate to use against Antony, who was prepar-
ing to attack Decimus Brutus in Cisalpine Gaul. Octavian gave them a bounty of
2,000 sesterces apiece and promised 20,000 on demobilisation. Antony, hearing
of his legions’ defection, had left for Cisalpine Gaul in late November to besiege
Decimus Brutus in Mutina, and, despite his unpopularity with much of the senate,
most of the senators and equites had come to him at Tibur to offer their loyalty and
support (doc. 14.13). Without legions under its own command until the consuls of
43 took office, the senate perforce accepted Octavian’s troops, and, at the ‘request’
of his army, granted him propraetorian imperium at the urging of Cicero, who,
however violent his denunciations of Antony in the Philippics, was unable to per-
suade the senate to declare him a public enemy, though he did encourage Decimus

590
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
Brutus to resist him at all costs (docs 14.13–15). From December 44, while dis-
daining Antony’s claims and requests, Cicero constantly presented Octavian to the
senate as the saviour of the state against Antony’s aggression and brutality, and
when Octavian was granted imperium at the beginning of 43 he positioned himself
with Cicero’s approval as the senate’s champion alongside the two new consuls.
At this point Cicero was still regretting that Antony had not been eliminated along
with Caesar and considered Octavian as an ‘extraordinary boy’ (doc. 14.16). Even
as late as April Cicero was congratulating himself on his political sagacity, when,
after relieving the siege of Mutina, the consuls and Octavian finally defeated
Antony and he was declared a public enemy. Both consuls had been killed in the
conflict, but Cicero’s proposal of a triumph and 50-day thanksgiving in Octavian’s
honour was opposed, and Cicero, who even considered the possibility of holding
the consulship with Octavian, was warned by Decimus Brutus and Plancus that
the boy was equivocating rather than following up the victory and retaining troops
that had been promised elsewhere (docs 14.17–18).
By July Octavian had clearly decided that he would achieve more by siding
with Antony than with the senate, and in early August 43 he marched on Rome
with eight legions, paying his men from public funds half the bounties promised
them. He was appointed consul in his twentieth year, never having held a mag-
istracy (doc. 14.19). Lepidus had joined Antony in late May, and the three met
on an island near Bononia in October 43 to settle their differences and plan for
the future. This alliance is known as the ‘Second Triumvirate’. It was decided
that they should wage full-scale war against the ‘liberators’, and they shared the
Western provinces among themselves for a five-year period, with Antony tak-
ing the most strategic provinces in Gaul. Octavian at this point was still appar-
ently the junior partner. They also decided that, in order to raise funds to pay
all the veterans due to be demobilised, they would expropriate the property of
18 Italian cities, impose severe taxes, and draw up a list of proscribed whose
property would be confiscated. Approximately 300 senators and 2,000 equites
were named, including Cicero. On 27 November the senate formally appointed
the triumvirs to restore the state, with powers to make laws, appoint magistrates
and exercise jurisdiction unchallenged. Octavian then resigned the consulship,
and Lepidus was appointed consul for 42 (doc. 14.20). While Octavian was said
to have argued to spare Cicero, the triumvirs were not reluctant to give up mem-
bers of their own families, and Cicero, who had been totally hoodwinked by ‘the
extraordinary boy’, was executed at Caieta, one of his many country houses, in
December 43 – to Antony’s intense satisfaction. Livy pays credit to his courage in
the face of death (docs 14.21–22).
During 43 BC the tyrannicides had been consolidating their support in the East.
Cassius had taken control of Syria and four legions from Egypt, while Brutus
controlled Macedonia and Greece. Their troops had also been promised 20,000
sesterces apiece in the event of victory. The propaganda against the liberators was
intensified by the deification of Julius Caesar, which gave Octavian the status of
‘son of the god’ and the war a new religious dimension (docs 14.23–24). Brutus
and Cassius in their turn were honoured in the East in the hope that they might

591
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
liberate Greece from the Romans (doc. 14.25). The armies met at Philippi in two
engagements, on 3 and 23 October. The victory was due to Antony’s generalship
(Octavian, who was unwell, was reported to have spent three days hiding in a
marsh) and to the fact that Cassius committed suicide on believing that Brutus had
been defeated; Brutus committed suicide after the second battle. Appian reports
that Rome’s government, and the fate of the Republic, was explicitly decided by
the outcome.
Octavian returned to Italy to oversee the allocations of land to the veterans
being discharged, while Antony took charge in the East to restore stability after
the rapacious demands of the tyrannicides (docs 14.26–27). While the triumvirs
had agreed on the confiscation of the property of 18 Italian towns for colonies of
veterans, nearly double that number had to be sequestered, and the redistribution
of land brought great hardship to many areas. This was exacerbated by the pirati-
cal activities of Sextus Pompeius, Pompey’s younger son, which caused intermit-
tent famine at Rome (doc. 14.28). In 41, Lucius Antonius, one of the consuls
and Antony’s brother, and Antony’s wife, Fulvia, considered that Octavian was
settling his own veterans in preference to Antony’s and stirred up unrest in Italy.
Lucius had the support of the senate and briefly gained control of Rome, but was
then besieged in Perusia and defeated by Octavian in March 40. It is unclear to
what extent Antony himself knew what was happening, and his generals in the
West did not interfere on Lucius’ behalf. Fulvia may also have been inspired by
Octavian’s breaking of his betrothal with her daughter Clodia Pulchra, which took
place after Bononia at the troops’ request, since she now had no ties of relation-
ship with the young man. Octavian’s obscene lines attacking Fulvia and her sexu-
ality are quoted by Martial, while slingshots from both sides preserve the insults
hurled by the troops at each other (docs 14.29–31).
From 42 Antony toured the East, establishing client kings, settling disputes, and
raising resources to pay for the settlement of veterans and their promised bounties,
as well as overturning decisions made by Cassius in Syria (doc. 14.33). Another
pressing issue was the prosecution of the war against the Parthians, planned by
Caesar, not only to restore Roman honour after Crassus’ defeat but to protect the
Eastern provinces from Parthian incursions (doc. 14.35). One of the most impor-
tant client rulers in the East was Cleopatra VII of Egypt, who was summoned to
meet Antony at Tarsus. The resources of Egypt were important to Rome. Antony
dealt with all threats to her position and spent the winter of 41–40 in Egypt: their
twins were born in the following year (doc. 14.34). In mid-40 Antony returned to
Italy to patch up any differences with Octavian; to seal the reconciliation, Antony
and the younger Octavia, Octavian’s sister, were married, Fulvia having recently
died in Athens. Following a meeting at Brundisium, probably in September, the
generals went to Rome, where they were awarded ovations. The empire was again
portioned out, this time between East and West, with Lepidus, who was clearly
being sidelined, given only Africa. Octavian was to make war on Sextus Pompeius
and his fleet, and Antony on the Parthians. Because of Pompeius’ activities Rome
was again suffering famine, and new taxes had to be introduced. These were so
unpopular that Octavian’s life was endangered by rioting and he had to be rescued

592
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
in the forum by Antony and his troops (docs 14.36). The famine and riots demon-
strated Pompeius’ position of strength, and in 39 Antony, Octavian and Pompeius
signed a treaty at Misenum, by which Pompeius was granted Sicily, Sardinia and
other territories for a five-year period and was designated consul for 33 alongside
Octavian. Consuls for the next four years were also selected, with Antony to be
consul in 34 and Octavian to hold the consulship with him in 31. This agreement
was greeted with enthusiastic fervour in Rome and Italy (doc. 14.37).
As part of the negotiation with Pompeius, Octavian had married Scribonia
(Pompeius’ nearest possible female relation: she was the sister of Pompeius’
father-in-law). Octavian divorced her in October 39, the day that she gave birth
to his only child, Julia, in order to marry a young noblewoman, Livia Drusilla.
She was heavily pregnant at the time, but her husband kindly divorced her so
that she could marry Octavian. They were to remain together for over 50 years
(doc. 14.39). Italy was still threatened by Pompeius, and in 38 Octavian’s fleet
was twice defeated. Antony returned to Italy again in 37 and met Octavian at
Tarentum: the triumvirate, which had lapsed, was renewed for a further five-year
period. Pompeius was finally conclusively defeated by the talents of Octavian’s
admiral Agrippa, off Naulochus in September 36, and Lepidus, after trying to take
control of the land forces, lost his command and membership of the triumvirate.
Octavian was seen as the saviour of Italy; he was awarded an ovation, tribunician
sacrosanctity, and a golden statue in the forum, and he flagged that the Republic
would be restored on Antony’s return from Parthia (doc. 14.41).
During Antony’s absence in Italy, his legate Ventidius had defeated the Parthians
and killed the Parthian king. Antony returned to Cleopatra in 37, giving Egypt a
number of territories, including Cyprus and Cyrene. He was not to see Octavia
again, and Cleopatra bore another son, Ptolemy Philadelphus, in 36. Antony made
war on Parthia on his own account that year, invading from Armenia to the north,
but was forced to retreat when Artavasdes of Armenia and his cavalry deserted,
and he lost more than 20,000 men, a third of the army, to starvation and disease.
This was his first real military catastrophe, and it contrasted badly with Octavian’s
promotion of himself as the defeater of Pompeius (doc. 14.42). Octavian was also to
follow this up with a successful campaign against the Dalmatians and Pannonians,
while Antony, rather than taking another military force north, entrapped Artvasdes
of Armenia, which he publicised as a conquest of Armenia, heralding it as such
on his coinage. Cleopatra was also depicted, titled ‘queen of kings and of her sons
who are kings’, reflecting the ‘Donations of Alexandria’, a public spectacle in 34
in which Antony proclaimed Cleopatra (who appeared as Isis), Caesarion, and their
three young children rulers of Eastern provinces and client kingdoms of the Roman
empire. Such actions caused consternation in Rome, while Octavian refused to allow
Antony to raise troops in Italy and tried to make capital out of the latter’s divorce of
his sister (docs 14.43–46). Both sides engaged in invective and propaganda: Antony
was portrayed as having ‘gone native’ and living a dissolute and un-Roman lifestyle
under the influence of an arrogant and ambitious foreign queen, while Octavian in
turn was shown as a hypocrite and gambler with a murky past, whose morals were
no better than Antony’s (docs 14.47–49).

593
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
The term of the triumvirate expired in December 33, and when in the new
year Octavian surrounded himself with an armed guard in the senate, the two new
consuls, Sosius and Domitius Ahenobarbus, fled to Antony, who formed an alter-
nate senate from his numerous senatorial supporters. New and unpopular taxes
were instituted in Italy in 32 to cover the costs of the preparations for war. When
two of Antony’s legates, Titius and Plancus, deserted to Octavian (supposedly
because of their dislike of the presence of Cleopatra), he removed Antony’s will
from the keeping of the Vestals and supposedly read it in the senate, stressing in
particular that Antony had expressed the wish for his body after his death to be
sent to Cleopatra (doc. 14.50). War was then declared on Cleopatra as a foreign
enemy, and Antony and Cleopatra took their stand on the west coast of Greece
and waited for Octavian. At this point again Agrippa was to be Octavian’s greatest
asset, and his actions in weakening Antony’s naval contingent and capturing sup-
ply bases prior to the actual battle at Actium played a significant role in the out-
come. The battle itself took place on 2 September 31. Antony broke out through
the encircling fleet with about one-third of his ships and followed Cleopatra to
Egypt, abandoning his infantry, who surrendered to Octavian. When Octavian’s
troops reached Alexandria in 30, Antony’s entire navy deserted and he committed
suicide. Cleopatra killed herself nine days later to avoid being taken in triumph
to Rome (docs 14.51–53). In a poem to the literary patron Maecenas, Octavian’s
childhood friend and, like Agrippa, ‘right-hand’ man, Horace acclaims Octavian’s
victory at Actium over Roman soldiers in ‘a woman’s power’, surrounded by wrin-
kled eunuchs and mosquito-nets (doc. 14.52). Egypt was an important acquisition,
far too important to be governed by a senator in the normal way, and Octavian
was to ensure that the governor of Egypt would answer directly to him and be,
not a senator, but an equestrian. C. Cornelius Gallus had played an important part
in Octavian’s campaign after Actium and was appointed as first prefect of Egypt.
His governorship was a success, in that he put down a revolt in Thebes and led
his army beyond the First Cataract. However, his trilingual inscription at Philae
in 29 recording his achievements was hardly modest, and when he had statues
of himself erected throughout Egypt and inscriptions placed on the pyramids he
found himself recalled. It appears that the senate called on him to answer charges
of treason, and he committed suicide in 26 BC (docs 14.55–57).
Octavian had returned briefly to Italy after Actium, though not to Rome, but it
was his arrival in August 29 BC that led to great celebrations. At this point he was
still only 32 years of age. In his absence in January 29, the senate had ratified all
his acta, given him the right to use ‘Imperator’ as a first name, and declared that
the doors of the temple of Janus should be closed, signifying that the empire was
finally at peace for the first time since 235 BC. On his return, as the ‘restorer of
the Republic’ and Rome’s saviour from civil strife, he held three triumphs, over
Dalmatia, Cleopatra (Actium) and Egypt, between 13 and 15 August. Triumphal
arches were also erected in Rome and Brundisium, and the coinage celebrated his
wide-ranging victories. From the vast wealth of Egypt he was able to distribute
400 sesterces to every citizen, and 1,000 to every veteran, over and above the
bounties promised. The rate of interest fell sharply and everyone rejoiced (docs

594
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
14.58–62). There were still, however, issues to be addressed, most notably the
discharge of veterans: following Actium, Octavian was in command of some 70
legions and had to find appropriate settlements for tens of thousands of veterans.
The problem was ameliorated by many of them being paid out in money rather than
in land, and he may have settled 150,000 to 200,000 soldiers, leaving Rome with 28
legions (RG 3.3: doc. 15.1). His birthday and victories were quickly incorporated
into the calendar, while Antony’s birthday, 14 January, became unlucky (nefastus)
(doc. 14.63). In general, however, the fact that the conflict had been against Antony
was downplayed, with Cleopatra put centre stage as the empire’s enemy.
With opposition removed, it was important to Octavian that he be seen to
‘restore the state’ and facilitate the return to constitutional government. He held
the consulship every year between 31 and 27 BC, in the last two years in conjunc-
tion with Agrippa, which gave him a constitutional position from which to work.
In 28 the two of them had a full census carried out, and the membership of the sen-
ate was revised and reduced to some 800 members, while constitutional normality
was apparently being restored. It was also in this year that Octavian boasted that
he had restored 82 temples in Rome (docs 14.58, 15.1; RG 20.4). As the conclu-
sion of this programme of ‘restoring the state’ during 28 and 27 BC, Octavian
on 13 January 27 in a speech to the senate made a carefully prepared gesture of
resigning his powers into the hands of the senate and people. The senators natu-
rally responded with horror and begged him to retain power. He later states that he
came to be princeps by popular consent (RG 34.1; doc. 15.1), but even so he was
careful to avoid any suggestion of a perpetual position; while he did hold supreme
power, he did so in carefully defined five- or ten-year periods which had to be
renewed at the appropriate point. He now took control of any provinces where
unrest or warfare was a possibility, including of course their armies, while leaving
to the senate governorships of the more pacified provinces. This was initially for
a ten-year period. The governors he nominated would answer directly to him and
hold the rank of propraetor. At the same time he continued to hold the consulship
down to 23 BC. As Dio comments (doc. 14.64), since Octavian had control of
the armies and finances, in reality he had ‘absolute control of all matters for all
time’, even if the pretence and forms of Republican government were retained.
This, in Dio’s view, was the beginning of the monarchy. To signify his personal
authority and eminence, the princeps was also awarded the name ‘Augustus’ at
the motion of Plancus, previously one of Antony’s supporters. Tacitus consid-
ers that Octavian, while ‘parading himself as consul’, had gradually accumulated
powers and functions so quietly and unobtrusively that all opposition was at an
end and that the nobility and provinces welcomed the ensuing stability, even if it
did border on slavery (docs 14.65–66).
Ancient sources: apart from the Res Gestae, Augustus’ own account of his
achievements, the main sources for his early reign are Appian’s Civil Wars books
3–5 and Dio’s Roman History 45–56. Appian’s history, much of which is based
on sources now lost, unfortunately breaks off just before the final confrontation
between Octavian and Antony. The fragmentary Life of Augustus by Nikolaos
of Damascus presents some valuable material for Octavian’s early years and

595
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
arrival in Rome in 44, and this is especially useful, as it appears to be based on
Augustus’ own (lost) autobiography. Plutarch’s Life of Antony retells much of the
anti-Antony propaganda current before the battle of Actium but preserves some
interesting anecdotes, some of which may be accepted. Suetonius’ thematic biog-
raphy covers the main aspects of the reign, occasionally citing Augustus’ own let-
ters. The letters of Cicero also provide a detailed account of affairs at Rome, and
Cicero’s view on them, down to December 43. His Philippics, attacking Antony,
encapsulate the worst possible view of the latter’s aims and actions in an attempt
to pressure the senate into declaring him a public enemy of the state, but they are
magnificent rhetoric and evidence that senate meetings could be highly charged
and intellectually enjoyable.

ANTONY AND OCTAVIAN

Despite the term ‘Second Triumvirate’ (rule of three men), which is often used to label the
period between the death of Julius Caesar and the establishment of the principate, of the
three, Lepidus was in many ways a cipher. Events between 44 and 30 BC were centred
around two men in particular, Mark Antony and Caesar’s young great-nephew Octavian, 20
years Antony’s junior and, at the age of 19, almost entirely without experience of politics
or warfare. Mark Antony had, in contrast, been one of Caesar’s legates, was Caesar’s
consular colleague in 44, and had a distinguished military reputation, even if later sources
are careful to accuse him of a rather disreputable past as a youth. In 44 no one would have
believed that, of the two, it would be Octavian who would rise to sole power and portend
the demise of the Republic.

14.1 Plutarch Life of Antony 2.1–4.4: The young Antony

Mark Antony was probably born in 83 BC. He served as cavalry commander under
Gabinius in 57–54 BC and then with Caesar in Gaul. He commanded Caesar’s left wing at
Pharsalus in 48 and was his consular colleague in 44. At Caesar’s death he was the most
powerful man in Rome.

2.1 Antonius Creticus’ wife was Julia of the house of the Caesars, who rivalled
the best and most prudent women of her time. Her son Antony was brought up
by her, and after the death of his father she married Cornelius Lentulus, whom
Cicero executed for being a member of Catiline’s conspiracy. 2 This seems to
have been the reason and origin of Antony’s violent hatred towards Cicero. At
any rate, Antony says that Lentulus’ dead body was not even given over to them
until his mother had begged it from Cicero’s wife. 3 This is, however, admittedly
incorrect, for none of those punished by Cicero was denied burial. 4 Antony in his
youth showed brilliant promise, they say, until his friendship and intimacy with
Curio had a disastrous effect on him, for Curio was undisciplined with regard to
pleasures, and to make Antony more pliant got him involved in drinking sessions,
women, and expensive and unbridled extravagances – 5 which resulted in a seri-
ous debt, especially serious for one of his age, of 250 talents. When Curio pledged
himself as security for all of it and his father learnt of it, he banished Antony

596
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
from their house. 6 Antony then for a short time became intimate with the gang
of Clodius, the most brazen and loathsome of the demagogues of that time, which
was disrupting the entire government of the state; 7 but he soon had enough of
that man’s insanity and, in fear of the faction that was forming against Clodius,
left Italy for Greece and spent his time exercising his body for military service
and in studying oratory. 8 He adopted the extravagant, so-called Asiatic, style of
speaking, which was at the peak of its popularity at that time, which bore a strong
similarity to his own lifestyle, being boastful and arrogant and full of pride and
perverted ambition.
3.1 When Gabinius, a man of consular rank, was sailing for Syria, he tried to
persuade Antony to be part of the expedition, and, while he said that he would
not participate as a private citizen, he accompanied him on campaign once made
master of the horse. 2 And when he was sent against Aristoboulos, who was incit-
ing the Jews to a revolt, he was himself the first man to ascend the highest of the
fortifications and drove Aristoboulos from them all; 3 he then joined battle with
him, routed with his handful of troops their far more numerous forces, and killed
all but a few of them: Aristoboulos himself with his son was captured. . . . 4.1 His
physique gave him a noble bearing and he had an imposing beard, a breadth of
forehead and an aquiline nose, which were thought to mirror the virility depicted
in the portraits and statues of Herakles. 2 There was also an ancient account that
the Antonii were Herakleidai, as descendants of Anton, son of Herakles. 3 He
also believed that he authenticated this account by his physique, as I have said,
and his manner of dressing. For, whenever he was going to be seen by a number
of people, he would always have his tunic girt to his thigh, a great sword hung at
his side and a cloak enveloping him. 4 And even things others found offensive,
such as his boasting and jests and his drinking vessel in clear view and his sitting
beside someone who was eating, and eating standing at a soldiers’ table – it is
remarkable to find how much goodwill and affection towards him this inspired
in his soldiers.

14.2 Suetonius Life of the Deified Augustus 3.1–4.2, 8.1–3: Octavian’s

family
Octavian, Caesar’s great-nephew, was born in 63 BC. At the time of Caesar’s assassination
he was at Apollonia with Caesar’s army waiting to depart for the Parthian expedition.
C. Cassius Parmensis was one of Caesar’s assassins and was put to death by Octavian after
Actium. 3.2: Cicero’s letter is to his brother Quintus (1.1.21).

3.1 His father, Gaius Octavius, was from the beginning of his life a man of
wealth and reputation, and, indeed, I wonder that some have said that he was
also a money-changer and even employed to distribute bribes and perform other
electioneering jobs in the Campus: in fact, being brought up in affluence, he eas-
ily attained magistracies and performed in them with distinction. He obtained
Macedonia by lot as his province after his praetorship and on his way there wiped
out a band of runaway slaves, the remnants of Spartacus and Catiline’s armies,

597
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
who were in possession of the area around Thurii, a special commission given him
by the senate. 2 He governed his province with no less justice than courage: for, as
well as routing the Bessi and other Thracians in a great battle, he so dealt with our
allies that letters of Marcus Cicero are still extant, in which he urges and counsels
his brother Quintus who at the time was serving as proconsular governor of Asia –
with little credit to himself – to copy his neighbour Octavius’ behaviour in win-
ning the good opinion of our allies.
4.1 He died suddenly on his return from Macedonia (59 BC) before he could
stand as a candidate for the consulship, leaving three children: an elder Octavia by
Ancharia and a younger Octavia and Augustus by Atia. Atia was the daughter of
Marcus Atius Balbus and Julia, sister of Gaius Caesar. Balbus came from Aricia
on his father’s side, with many senatorial portraits (imagines) in his family, and
on his mother’s side had a very close connection with Pompey the Great. After
holding the office of praetor, he was one of the Commission of Twenty under the
Julian law which divided up the Campanian land for the plebs. 2 Indeed Antony,
who tried to disparage Augustus’ maternal line as well, taunts him by saying that
his great-grandfather Balbus was of African birth and that he owned first a per-
fumery and then a bakery at Aricia. Cassius of Parma similarly sneers at Augustus
in one of his letters as the grandson of both a baker and a money-changer: ‘Your
mother’s flour came from a wretched bakery at Aricia, and was kneaded into
shape by a money-changer from Nerulum whose hands were tarnished with cur-
rency exchange!’
8.1 He lost his father when he was four. In his twelfth year he delivered to the
people the eulogy for his grandmother Julia. Four years later, after adopting the adult
toga, he received military rewards at Caesar’s African triumph (46 BC), although
he had not taken part in the war because of his youth. When shortly afterwards his
uncle went to Spain to deal with the sons of Pompey, although he had barely recov-
ered from a serious illness he followed him through roads infested with the enemy,
with minimal companions, and even after suffering a shipwreck. By this undertak-
ing he greatly recommended himself to Caesar, who quickly formed a high opinion
of his character over and above the efforts he had put into his journey. 2 After the
recovery of the Spanish provinces, Caesar, in his plans for an expedition against the
Dacians and then the Parthians, sent him on ahead to Apollonia, where he devoted
his time to study. As soon as he heard that Caesar had been assassinated and that
he was his heir, he hesitated for a while as to whether to call on the nearest legions
but decided against that plan as precipitate and premature. However, he returned to
the city and claimed his inheritance, despite his mother’s doubts and the strong dis-
couragement of his stepfather, the ex-consul Marcius Philippus. 3 From that time he
raised armies and ruled the state, first with Mark Antony and Marcus Lepidus, then
with Antony alone for nearly 12 years, and finally on his own for 44.

THE AFTERMATH OF CAESAR’S ASSASSINATION

After Caesar’s assassination on 15 March 44 BC, there was general panic. Antony, the
other consul, fled home to hide; the troops of Lepidus, Caesar’s magister equitum, seized
the forum that night, and the conspirators, aided by a band of gladiators belonging to

598
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
Decimus Brutus, occupied the Capitol. On 17 March the senate, summoned by Antony,
voted for an amnesty, and that Caesar should have a public funeral while his laws and
will were to remain in force. On 20 March Caesar’s will was publicly read and his corpse
displayed to the crowd by Antony, which enraged the people against the conspirators; his
body was cremated in the forum, and by the middle of April Brutus and Cassius had to flee
from Rome. On Antony’s proposal, the senate abolished the dictatorship, and Antony was
thought to have fabricated many documents and new laws on the pretence that they were
found among Caesar’s papers. According to Cicero (doc. 14.15), Antony had also seized
Caesar’s funds, 700 million sesterces, from the temple of Ops.

14.3 Appian Civil Wars 4.8.57–58: Appian’s overview of 44–43 BC

57 When Gaius Caesar was assassinated, his murderers seized the Capitol, coming
down when an amnesty was decreed. The people were greatly affected at his funeral
and ran through the city searching out the assassins. These defended themselves
from their roofs, and those who had been appointed by Caesar himself as provincial
governors left Rome immediately. Cassius and Brutus were still in office as praetors
in the city, though Cassius had been selected by Gaius Caesar as governor of Syria
and Brutus of Macedonia. As they were not yet able, for the time being, to take up
their governorships of these provinces, but were unable to ride out the disturbing
situation in the city patiently, they left while still praetors; to put a good face on this,
the senate put them in charge of the grain supply so that they did not appear to have
to have made a run for it during this intervening period. When they had gone, Syria
and Macedonia were reassigned to the consuls Antony and Dolabella, very much to
the disapproval of the senate, although Cyrene and Crete were given in exchange to
Cassius and his fellow conspirator. They disdained these because of their relative
unimportance and began to raise troops and funds to invade Syria and Macedonia.
58 While they were engaged in doing this, as Dolabella had put Trebonius to death
in Asia and Antony was besieging Decimus (Brutus) in (Cisalpine) Gaul, the indig-
nant senate decreed Dolabella and Antony to be public enemies and reinstated
Brutus and Cassius in their former commands, adding Illyria to that of Brutus, while
instructing everyone else who held commands of provinces or armies from Rome,
from the Adriatic (Ionian) to Syria, to obey any orders given by Cassius or Brutus.

14.4 Cicero Letters to Atticus 14.4–5, 14.9–10: Cicero on the

Ides of March
Cicero saw the conspirators as tyrannicides or liberators and the senate on the whole
sympathised with them, but by April they were unpopular enough to be almost house
prisoners. Cicero had proposed the vote that Caesar’s acta should stand because he believed
that the liberators’ cause was already lost, and his frustration at events is clear. Octavian
arrived at Brundisium in April; the consuls-designate for 43 were Hirtius and Pansa.

14.4.2 (Lanuvium, 10 April 44) The Ides of March are our consolation. Our
heroes achieved all that rested with themselves gloriously and magnificently;
what remains needs money and men, none of which we have.

599
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
14.5.2 (Astura, 11 April 44) Those who ought to be guarded by all mankind,
not only for their protection but also for their glorification, are praised and loved,
but that is all, and are confined within their houses. Yet they are happy under any
circumstances, while the state is wretched. 3 I would really like to know how
Octavian’s arrival went off, and whether anyone is rallying to him or if there is
any hint of a coup. I don’t suppose there is, but in any case I would like to know.
14.9.2 (Puteoli, 17 April 44) There is a great crowd here and will be, as I hear,
a greater, including the so-called consuls-designate. Great gods! The tyranny lives
on, the tyrant is dead! We rejoice at the death of a murdered man whose acts we
defend! So . . . criticises us severely, so as to make us ashamed of being alive, and
not wrongly! It would have been better to die 1,000 times rather than put up with
all this – and it looks to me as if this will be of long duration!
14.10.1 (Cumae, 19 April 44) And so, was this what my – and your – dear
Brutus worked for, that he should stay at Lanuvium, that Trebonius should set
out on byways for his province, that everything done, written, said, promised and
planned by Caesar should have more weight than if he himself were alive? Do you
remember my crying out on that first day on the Capitol that the senate should be
summoned to the Capitol by the praetors? Immortal gods! What could have been
effected then to the rejoicing of all good men – even the reasonably good – with
the power of the bandits broken! You blame the Liberalia (17 March). What could
have been done then? We were long done for by that point. Do you remember how
you cried out that the cause was lost if he had a state funeral? But he was even
cremated in the forum and given a pathetic eulogy, and slaves and paupers were
sent against our houses with torches. Then what? That they dare to say, ‘Are you
opposing Caesar’s wishes?’ This and the like I am unable to endure. So I am plan-
ning a trip to ‘land beyond land’; your land, however, is out of the gale.

14.5 Livy Periochae 117: The events of 44 BC

After the assassination, Antony had Lepidus, Caesar’s magister equitum, made pontifex
maximus in place of Caesar and married his daughter to Lepidus’ son.

Gaius Octavius came to Rome from Epirus (for Caesar had sent him there ahead
as he was planning a war in Macedonia), and on receiving favourable omens took
the name Caesar. In the political disruption and insurrection, Marcus Lepidus
appropriated the office of pontifex maximus. The consul Mark Antony governed
with violence, carried by force a law concerning changes in the provinces, and
inflicted great injuries on Caesar (Octavian), too, when he asked for his support
against the assassins of his great-uncle. Caesar both for his own interest and for
that of the state began readying resources to use against Antony and called upon
the veterans who had been settled in colonies.

OCTAVIAN ARRIVES IN ITALY

At the time of Caesar’s murder, Octavian (whom Caesar had adopted by will in September
45 BC) was studying at Apollonia in Illyria, where the army was stationed in readiness

600
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
for Caesar’s planned Parthian campaign. When the will was read, and it was learnt that he
had been left as Caesar’s principal heir, Octavian hastened to Italy in April 44, with some
caution in case he might meet with opposition. During his journey from Brundisium to
Rome he began to encourage Caesar’s veterans to support him as Caesar’s son, and even
though the adoption was not yet officially approved by the senate he called himself Gaius
Julius Caesar (Octavianus), son of Caesar.

14.6 Appian Civil Wars 3.2.11–13: Octavian’s reaction to Caesar’s

murder
On his journey from Brundisium, Octavian was escorted by crowds of veterans and other
supporters, and by June he had raised an army of some 3,000 veterans. On 21 April he met
Cicero at Puteoli, as well as his mother Atia and stepfather L. Marcius Philippus, who advised
him to decline the inheritance (doc. 14.9). On arrival at Rome he met the consul Mark Antony,
who resented the young man’s arrival and his claim to be Caesar’s son and heir.

11 When more accurate information about the murder and public mourning
reached Octavian, together with copies of the will and the senate’s decrees, his
relatives cautioned him even more strongly to be wary of Caesar’s enemies as
he was his son and heir, and advised him to reject the adoption along with the
inheritance. However, he thought that to do so and not to avenge Caesar would be
shameful, and went to Brundisium after sending in advance to make sure that none
of the murderers had set any trap for him. When the army there advanced to meet
him and welcomed him as Caesar’s son, he took courage, offered a sacrifice, and
immediately took the name Caesar (it is usual among the Romans for adoptees to
take the name of their adopted fathers). He not only assumed it but even changed
his own name and patronymic completely, instead of Octavian son of Octavius,
calling himself Caesar son of Caesar, and continued this usage from that day on.
Straightaway crowds of men flocked to him from all sides as the son of Caesar,
some out of friendship for Caesar, others freedmen and slaves, as well as soldiers
who were transporting supplies and money to Macedonia or money and tribute
from other countries to Brundisium. 12 Encouraged by the crowds that were join-
ing him, and by the prestige given to Caesar’s name and the goodwill of everyone
towards himself, he travelled to Rome with an impressive multitude which grew
greater day by day like a torrent, though, while protected from open plots by the
crowds, he was even more on guard against surprise attacks because of this cir-
cumstance, since nearly all those accompanying him were recent acquaintances.
Some of the towns did not give him their entire support, but the soldiers who had
served under Caesar and been distributed into colonies flooded from these to greet
the youth, and lamented Caesar’s death and cursed Antony for not taking action
against such an abominable crime, saying that they would themselves avenge it
if anyone would lead them. Caesar praised them, but put the matter off for the
present and sent them away. When he was at Tarracina, about 400 stades from
Rome, he heard that Cassius and Brutus had had Syria and Macedonia taken away
by the consuls and that they had received as compensation the smaller provinces
of Cyrene and Crete; in addition, some exiles had returned, Sextus Pompeius had

601
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
been recalled, and new members had been enrolled in the senate in accordance
with Caesar’s memoranda, as well as many other events.
13 When he arrived at the city, his mother, Philippus, and all his other connec-
tions were worried about the senate’s estrangement from Caesar, the decree that
Caesar’s murder should not be punished, and the disdain shown him by Antony,
who was now in total control, and who had neither gone to meet him on his
approach as Caesar’s son nor sent anyone. He calmed their fears, saying that he
would himself go to meet Antony, as the younger man to the elder and the private
individual to the consul, and would pay all due respect to the senate. With regard
to the decree, he said, it had gone through because no one had as yet prosecuted
the assassins, but, when someone did have the courage to bring a prosecution,
the people and the senate would give him their assistance as one who was law-
abiding, and the gods as one who was upholding justice, while Antony would
equally support him. He broke off his remarks to declare that it was honourable
not only for him to incur danger but even to meet death, if after being selected out
of everyone in this way by Caesar he wanted to show himself worthy of one who
had himself courted every danger. He thereupon quoted the words of Achilles,
which were then particularly apposite, turning to his mother as if she were Thetis:
‘Might I straightway die, who was not able to defend his slain comrade!’ (Homer
Iliad 18.98). After this quotation, he added that it was this speech in particular,
and the subsequent action, that gave Achilles eternal renown; that he called on
Caesar not as a companion but as a father, not as a fellow soldier but as a general,
not as one who had fallen under war’s laws but as one who had been sacrile-
giously assassinated in the actual senate house.

14.7 Nikolaos of Damascus Life of Augustus 18.54–57: Octavian’s

assets
Nikolaos implies that Octavian may have appropriated the taxes from Asia – state moneys –
as well as Caesar’s funds for his Parthian campaign; cf. Appian (doc. 14.6), who suggests
he also had access to revenue from the East coming into Brundisium. Nikolaos records that
Philippus strongly advised his stepson not to accept the legacy and adoption. Octavian’s
friends doubtless included his schoolfriends Agrippa and Maecenas.

54 Atia allowed him to use the name Caesar and was the first in fact to agree. 55
Caesar inquired what all his friends thought about this as well and then immediately
accepted both the name and the adoption, with good fortune and favourable aus-
pices. This was the beginning of great things both for himself and for all mankind,
but in particular for the state and Roman people as a whole. He sent off at once to
Asia for the money and assets that Caesar had previously sent there for the Parthian
war, and when he received it, together with a year’s tribute from the people of Asia,
he kept for himself just the amount that had belonged to Caesar and handed what
was public property over to the state treasury. 56 Some of his friends at this point
urged him, as they had earlier at Apollonia, to visit Caesar’s colonies and raise an
army, inciting the men to join an expedition on his behalf by making use of the
prestige inherent in the renowned name of ‘Caesar’. They declared that the soldiers

602
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
would happily follow the leadership of Caesar’s son and would do anything they
could for him, as they still felt a tremendous loyalty and goodwill towards Caesar.
They remembered what they had achieved with him during his lifetime and longed
to win under the auspices of the name of ‘Caesar’ the power which they had previ-
ously conferred on Caesar himself. 57 However, the time for this did not seem to be
ripe. Accordingly he sought instead to acquire legally, through a decree of the sen-
ate, the honours his father had held, and not to gain the reputation of being ambitious
rather than trustworthy. He therefore listened closely to the eldest of his friends and
those with most experience, and set out from Brundisium for Rome.

14.8 Plutarch Life of Antony 16.1–6: Tension between Octavian and

Antony
When Antony returned to Rome in May 44 BC, tension soon developed between him and
Octavian when he refused to hand over the money bequeathed by Caesar to each member
of the plebs (300 sesterces per person). Octavian raised the money by selling property,
gaining great popularity in so doing. Antony also opposed Octavian’s desire to stand for
the tribunate and his placing a golden chair and wreath for Caesar in July at the Ludi
victoriae Caesaris (games in honour of Caesar’s victories, held 20–30 July), as decreed
in 45 BC. In addition, Antony delayed the passing of a lex curiata to ratify Octavian’s
adoption officially. There was a brief reconciliation between the two in July.

16.1 With affairs in this state, the young Caesar arrived at Rome. He was son of the
dead Caesar’s niece, as said earlier, and left as heir to his property, and had spent
some time at Apollonia, which is where he was when Caesar was killed. 2 He at
once greeted Antony as his father’s friend and reminded him of the money left in his
hands – for he was under obligation to give each Roman 75 drachmas as Caesar had
decreed in his will. 3 Initially disdaining him as a mere youth, Antony said that he
was foolish and that in the total absence of good judgement and good friends he was
taking up an unmanageable burden in seeking to succeed Caesar. 4 When he would
not listen to this, but kept demanding the money, Antony still kept on addressing
him and treating him with arrogance. 5 He opposed him when he stood for the tribu-
nate, and when he was attempting to dedicate his father’s golden chair, as had been
decreed, he threatened to send him off to prison if he did not stop currying favour
with the people. 6 But when the young man attached himself to Cicero and the oth-
ers who hated Antony and with their help conciliated the senate, while winning over
the people and gathering the soldiers from their colonies, Antony grew alarmed, and
they held a meeting on the Capitol which led to their reconciliation.

14.9 Cicero Letters to Atticus 14.11–12, 15.12: Cicero’s reactions,

April–June 44 BC
At Puteoli, on his way to Rome, Octavian met Cicero and the consuls-designate for 43,
Hirtius and Pansa, as well as his mother and stepfather. Octavian apparently flattered
Cicero, though Cicero was aware that, by accepting the adoption, Octavian would be
hostile towards the conspirators (‘our friends’). Marcellus (cos. 50) married Octavian’s

603
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
sister. In April Antony was proposing measures, supposedly intended or drafted by Caesar,
such as citizenship for the whole of Sicily.

14.11.3 (Puteoli?, 21 April 44) Balbus, Hirtius and Pansa are with me here.
Octavian has just arrived, in fact is staying at the villa next door, that of Philippus,
and pays me the highest respect. Lentulus Spinther is staying with me today, but
off early tomorrow.
14.12.1 (Puteoli, 22 April 44) My dear Atticus, I am afraid the Ides of March
have brought us nothing but joy and a recompense for our hatred and grief. What
news of events in Rome has reached me! And what I see here! – ‘a good deed, but
incomplete’. You know what affection I have for the Sicilians and what an honour
I judge it for them to be my clients. Caesar was generous to them, which pleased
me (though their Latin status was not to be endured – but be that as it may). Well,
behold Antony putting up a law (in return for an enormous bribe), a law ‘carried
by the dictator in the assembly’ by which they become Roman citizens – a thing
never mentioned when he was alive! . . . 2 Octavius is here with me – extremely
respectful and friendly. His own people call him Caesar, but Philippus does not,
so neither do I. I don’t think he can be a good citizen: there are too many people
with him who threaten death to our friends and say that matters cannot remain in
this state. What do you think will happen when the boy comes to Rome, which
isn’t safe for our liberators? They will always be famous, as well as happy in the
consciousness of what they did; but as for us, unless I am mistaken, we will not
be appreciated. So I long to be away – ‘where no more of Pelops’ line . . . ’, as the
poet says. Nor am I fond of these consuls-designate, who have even made me give
them oratory lessons, so I’m not allowed to have a rest even here at the waters!
But this comes of my being too easy-going!
15.12.2 (Astura?, c. 10 June 44) Octavian, as I saw, does not lack intelligence
or spirit and seemed to be as disposed towards our ‘heroes’ as I could wish. But
how much we can depend on one of his age, name, heredity and educational back-
ground is an important question. His stepfather in fact thinks nothing at all (I
saw him at Astura). But he’s to be encouraged, and if nothing else kept away
from Antony. If Marcellus is recommending my works, that’s excellent: Octavian
appeared to be to be very attached to him. He wasn’t particularly inclined to trust
Pansa and Hirtius. A good character – if he can hold his ground.

OCTAVIAN AND POPULAR SUPPORT

With Caesar dead, the main players in Roman politics were looking to improve their own
positions and further their own interests. The consuls made use of their magistracy to have
themselves voted valuable provinces for five-year periods: in June Antony put irregular
legislation before the people, exchanging his province of Macedonia for a five-year
governorship of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul (so he would be in a position to dominate
Italy) while retaining five of the six legions currently in Macedonia; Dolabella, with the
other legion, was to hold Syria for five years. The Macedonian legions were summoned
back to Italy, and Antony went to meet them at Brundisium in October. Brutus and Cassius,
who had senatorial support, which Antony did not, had refused first control of the grain

604
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
supply, then the relatively unimportant provinces of Crete and Cyrene, and were intent
on taking over the powerful Eastern provinces of Macedonia and Syria for themselves.
Decimus Brutus, another of the conspirators, refused to give up his province of Cisalpine
Gaul to Antony. At this point Octavian had no power base, and according to Nikolaos
felt threatened by Antony, who was blocking all his moves (such as ratification of his
adoption and paying honours to Caesar at the games in honour of his victories in July).
In October Antony also alleged that Octavian had tried to use Antony’s own bodyguard to
assassinate him. In November, therefore, Octavian toured colonies of Caesar’s veterans to
raise his own army, promising large bounties and vengeance on Caesar’s murderers, and
tried to ensure Cicero’s support in the senate. His position was strengthened when two of
the Macedonian legions deserted to him in late November and enabled him to offer to the
senate the use of his legions against Antony, who was preparing to attack Decimus Brutus
in his province of Cisalpine Gaul.

14.10 Nikolaos of Damascus Life of Augustus 28.108–13: Jostling for

position
Octavian was at this point in an invidious position; he was not supported by the consuls,
who had control of the treasury, with the result that he did not have access to the money he
was to distribute to the people according to Caesar’s will. His main rallying point was the
desire to avenge the murder of Caesar, though the ‘liberators’ had strong senatorial support.

108 Caesar, however, not at all cowed on account of his high spirit, put on some
spectacles on the occasion of the festival of Aphrodite (Venus Genetrix), estab-
lished by his father. He approached Antony again with a number of his friends,
asking to be allowed to set up the seat and wreath in his father’s honour. Antony
made the same threat as before, if he did not drop the idea and keep quiet. Caesar
backed off and did not oppose the consul’s refusal. But when he entered the thea-
tre the people loudly applauded him, and his father’s soldiers, angry because he
had been hindered from renewing these honours for his father, kept giving him,
as a mark of their approval, one round of applause after another throughout the
performance. 109 He then paid out the people’s money, which won their great
goodwill. 110 From that day on, Antony was clearly even more hostile towards
Caesar, as an obstacle in the way of the people’s support for himself. Caesar
saw (what had become very plain to him from the current situation) that he was
in need of political authority. He also saw that the consuls, using the strength of
their position, were openly resisting him and appropriating even more power for
themselves. Even the city treasury, which his father had filled with large amounts
of money, they had emptied within two months of Caesar’s death, withdrawing
huge sums on any excuse in this unstable situation, and were also on good terms
with the assassins. Octavian was therefore the only one left to avenge his father,
for Antony let everything go by and even approved of an amnesty for the assas-
sins. While many men joined Octavian, not a few joined Antony and Dolabella
and their supporters . . .
112 Lepidus, who had broken away part of Caesar’s army and who was trying
to seize power for himself, was in Nearer Spain and also possessed the part of
Gaul which borders on the upper sea. Lucius (Munatius) Plancus, the consul-elect,

605
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
held Gallia Comata with another army. Gaius Asinius, with another army, was in
charge of Further Spain. Decimus Brutus held Cisalpine Gaul with two legions,
and Antony was getting ready to march against him. Gaius Brutus was claim-
ing Macedonia and was just about to cross over there from Italy, while Cassius
Longinus was claiming Syria, though he had been appointed praetor for Illyria. 113
There were so many armies in service at that time, and with such men in charge,
each of whom was determined to acquire complete power for himself, regard-
less of all law and justice, with everything decided upon according to the force
each wielded. Caesar alone, to whom all authority had legally been bequeathed,
in accordance with the authority of him who had acquired it earlier, and because
of their relationship, was without any share of power whatever, and he was sus-
pended between the political jealousy and greed of men who were lying in wait
for him and for supreme power. God and Good Fortune were later to ensure that
all this turned out appropriately. But for the present Caesar feared for his life, as
Antony’s stance towards him was clear, and as he was unable to change it in any
way he stayed at home awaiting his chance.

14.11 Cicero Letters to his Friends 12.23, 11.28: Cicero to his friends
(October 44 BC)
12.23: Cicero is referring to Octavian’s supposed attempt in October to assassinate Antony
(cf. App. BC 3.39). Cornificius was one of Caesar’s legates and governor of Africa 44–42;
Matius was a friend of Caesar’s who had served with him in Gaul and had helped to
organise the celebrations of the Ludi victoriae Caesaris (Caesar’s victory games) in July 44.

12.23.2 (Rome, c. 10 October 44: to Cornificius) I am sure that news of city

matters is sent to you. If I thought otherwise I would write you all the details
myself, especially regarding Caesar Octavian’s venture. The general public think
that Antony has trumped up the accusation so he can possess himself of the young
man’s money; men of sense, however, and honest men both believe in the fact and
approve of it. In short, great hopes rest on him. It is thought that there is nothing
he will not do for praise and glory. As for our friend Antony, he is so conscious of
the hostility towards him that, after seizing the assassins in his house, he doesn’t
dare to publicise the matter. So on 9 October he set off for Brundisium to meet the
four Macedonian legions, whose support he intended to buy and then march them
to the city and place them on our necks. 3 You now have the outline of how the
republic stands at present, if there can be a republic in an army camp. I often feel
sorry for you, as your age has prevented you from ever being able to experience
the Republic in a state of health and security. Earlier it was at least possible to
hope; now even that has been denied us. What hope remains, when Antony dares
say in a public meeting that Cannutius (tr. pl. 44) is trying to get standing with
people who can have no place in the state while he – Antony – is alive and well!
11.28.2 (Rome, mid-October 44: Matius to Cicero) I am well aware of the criti-
cisms people have made against me following Caesar’s death. They count it as a
failing that I should find it difficult to bear the death of a friend and that I am angry

606
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
that the man I loved should have been killed; for they say that country should be
ranked before friendship, just as if they have already demonstrated that his death
benefited the state. But I shall not argue like a debater – I admit that I have not
yet arrived at that stage of philosophy. In the civil conflict I followed not Caesar
but a friend, whom, although I did not approve of his actions, I did not desert. I
never approved of civil war or even of the cause of the conflict, which I did my
very best to quench in its infancy. And so, in my friend’s (Caesar’s) victory, I
was allured by the delights of neither office nor money, rewards of which others,
whose influence with him was less than mine, took unfair advantage. My property
was even lessened by one of Caesar’s laws, thanks to which many who rejoice at
Caesar’s death continue to live in Rome. I exerted myself to ensure that our con-
quered fellow citizens be treated with forbearance, as if to save my own life. 3 Can
I, then, who wanted everyone unharmed, not be angry at the killing of the man
who brought it about, especially when the same men were responsible for both his
unpopularity and his death? ‘You will pay, then’, they insist, ‘since you dare to
disapprove of our action!’ What unheard-of arrogance! Some may take pride in an
act, while others are not even allowed to grieve with impunity! Even slaves have
always had the freedom to hope or fear, to rejoice or grieve of their own free will,
not that of someone else; those ‘authors of our liberty’, as these people like to call
themselves, are now trying to use fear to wrest this freedom from us. 4 They will
get nowhere. I will never deviate from duty or compassion through any threats
of danger. For I never considered an honourable death a thing to be avoided, and
often would even have desired it. . . . 6 So – I organised the games for Caesar’s
victory given by young Caesar. That was as a private service and had nothing to
do with the state. However, it was a duty that I owed to the memory and status
of an intimate friend, even after his death, and one which I could not deny at the
request of a most promising young man entirely worthy of the name of Caesar.
Also I have often called at the house of consul Antony to pay my respects, to
whom you will find those who consider me inadequately dedicated to my country
keep thronging to make some request or carry off a favour. What presumption! –
considering Caesar never stopped my associating with anyone I chose, even those
he did not like, that those who robbed me of my friend should try to stop me by
their grumbling from liking the people I choose!

14.12 Cicero Letters to Atticus 16.8, 16.9, 16.11, 16.15: Cicero envisages
a rapport (November 44)
Octavian in November toured colonies of veterans in Campania to win their support; he
offered them 2,000 sesterces apiece and raised a body of 3,000, supposedly to protect
himself from Antony. The Alaudae were the famous Legion V (the ‘Larks’ – a Celtic word –
raised by Caesar in Transpadane Gaul). P Servilius Casca, one of Caesar’s assassins, was
to be tribune in 43.

16.8.1 (Puteoli, 2 or 3 November 44) A letter to me from Octavian on the even-

ing of the first. He has a big undertaking in hand. He has won the veterans at

607
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
Casilinum and Calatia over to his point of view. No wonder – he’s giving them
500 denarii a head. He’s thinking of going round the rest of the colonies. Clearly
he’s looking towards war with Antony with himself as commander. So it looks to
me as if in a few days we will be in arms. But whom are we to follow? Look at
his name, look at his age. And he’s asking me first to have secret talks with him
at or near Capua. This is childish if he thinks it can be done secretly. 2 I told him
by letter that this was neither necessary nor possible. He sent me a certain Caecina
from Volaterra, a friend of his, who brought the news that Antony is heading for
the city with the Alaudae legion, requisitioning funds from the towns and march-
ing the legion in battle formation. He asked my advice on whether he should set
out for Rome with 3,000 veterans, or hold Capua and block Antony’s approach,
or go to join the three Macedonian legions which are marching along the Adriatic
coast, which he hopes will be on his side. They refused to take a bounty from
Antony – that’s his story, anyway – threw violent abuse at him, and left him while
he was still haranguing them. In a word, he is putting himself forward as our com-
mander and is expecting me to support him. I advised him to head for Rome. I
believe he will have the urban mob on side, and, if he can make them trust him,
the honest men as well. Oh, Brutus – where are you? What a great opportunity
you are missing! I couldn’t actually predict this, but I thought something of the
kind would happen.
Now I ask your advice. Do I go to Rome, or stay here, or flee to Arpinum
(which offers safety)? Probably Rome, in case I am missed if something seems
to have been achieved. So solve this – I have never been less able to make up my
mind.
16.9 (Puteoli, 4 November 44) Two letters for me in one day from Octavian!
He now wants me to come to Rome at once – he wants to handle matters through
the senate. I told him that I didn’t think the senate could meet before 1 January,
which I believe is the case. He adds ‘with your advice’. In short, he’s pressing and
I’m stalling. I have no confidence in his age, and I don’t know what he’s think-
ing. I don’t want to do anything without your friend Pansa. I’m worried about
Antony’s power and I don’t want to leave the sea. But I’m afraid of some ‘valiant
deeds’ while I’m not there. Varro doesn’t like the boy’s plan: I disagree. He’s
got a powerful army and can have (Decimus) Brutus. And he’s pursuing matters
openly, organising companies at Capua and paying bounties. I can see war at any
minute. Reply to all this. I’m surprised that your courier left Rome on 1 November
without a letter from you.
16.11.6 (Puteoli, 5 November 44) I did not hide myself down at Pompeii, as I
wrote to you I would, partly because of the weather, which is dreadful, and then
because I’m getting daily letters from Octavian saying that I should get busy,
come to Capua, save the Republic once again, or at any rate come to Rome. ‘Do
not refuse out of shame, out of fear accept!’ (Iliad 7.93). He has definitely shown,
and is still showing, plenty of energy, and will come to Rome with a large follow-
ing; but he is still obviously a boy. He thinks the senate will meet immediately.
Who will come? And if he does come, who will want to upset Antony with things
so uncertain? Perhaps he may be some protection on 1 January, or it may in fact

608
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
all have been fought out by then. The towns are coming out in favour of the boy
in a remarkable way. On his way to Samnium he went through Cales and stayed
at Teanum. Astounding turn-outs and support. Would you have expected it? In
consequence I’ll be back in Rome earlier than I planned. As soon as I decide, I
shall write.
16.15.3 (Arpinum, after 12 November 44) The boy is keeping Antony in check
very nicely for the moment, but we had better wait and see what eventuates. But
what an address! – a copy was sent to me. He swears ‘that he may be permitted
to attain his father’s honours’ – while stretching his right hand out to the statue!
‘Better destruction than such a rescuer!’ But, as you write, I think the most reliable
touchstone will be our friend Casca’s tribunate, as in fact I said to Oppius when
he was urging me to embrace the young man – and his whole cause and band of
veterans into the bargain – that I could do no such thing unless I was positive that
he would be not only no enemy but an actual friend to the tyrannicides. When he
said he would be, then ‘In that case why should we hurry?’ was my reply. ‘He
doesn’t need my help until 1 January, and we shall learn his attitude over Casca
before the Ides of December.’ He agreed wholeheartedly. So much for this then!

14.13 Appian Civil Wars 3.7.45–48: Senatorial wavering

Two of the Macedonian legions deserted to Octavian en route from Brundisium to Rome
in November 44 BC. Octavian gave them 2,000 sesterces apiece, promising 20,000 on
demobilisation, and stressed Antony’s reluctance to avenge Caesar; he also captured
Antony’s elephants (doc. 14.15), which was a great publicity item. Antony had called
a meeting of the senate on 24 November but postponed it to 28 November, after which he
left for Cisalpine Gaul (on 2 June the assembly had passed a law transferring the province of
Cisalpine Gaul to Antony for five years). Decimus Brutus (with the senate’s support) refused
to surrender the province to him, and Antony besieged him in Mutina in December. In early
December Octavian offered his legions to fight against Antony on behalf of the senate.

45 Antony chose from them all a praetorian cohort of the men who were best in
physique and character and marched to Rome, from there intending to make for
Ariminum. He entered the city arrogantly, encamping his troop of horse in front of
the town, but the men he kept with him were equipped for war and mounted guard
over his house at night in full armour; he also gave them passwords, and the watch
changed regularly as if in camp. He convened the senate to protest about Caesar’s
actions and, while he was actually entering, heard that, of his four legions on the
march, the one called ‘Martian’ had gone over to Caesar. Moreover, when he
was waiting at the entrance considering his options, he was told that the so-called
Legion IV had, like the Martian, gone over to Caesar. In this state of perturbation
he entered the senate house, as if he had convened them on other matters, spoke
briefly, and immediately departed to the city gates and from there to the town of
Alba to persuade the deserters to change their minds. But when he was shot at
from the walls he withdrew and sent to the other legions 500 drachmas per person,
while with the ones he had with him he marched to Tibur, taking with him the

609
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
usual equipment for those going into war: it was obvious now that there would be
a war, since Decimus had not given up Gaul. 46 While Antony was there, nearly
the entire senate and most of the equites, as well as the most important members
of the plebs, came to pay him their respects; they arrived when he was swearing
in the soldiers who were present, as well as the veterans who had flocked to him
(and there were a great number), and they voluntarily swore the oath as well that
they would not fail in goodwill and loyalty towards Antony, so that it would have
been hard to know who were the men who shortly before at Caesar’s assembly
were the ones bad-mouthing Antony. After this splendid demonstration, Antony
set out for Ariminum, which lies on the border with Gaul. His army, apart from
the new recruits, comprised three legions summoned from Macedonia, the rest
of which had now arrived, and one of discharged veterans who, though old, nev-
ertheless appeared to be worth twice the new levies. So Antony had four legions
of experienced men and the assistance that normally accompanies them, apart
from his bodyguard and the new recruits. Lepidus, who had four legions in Spain,
Asinius Pollio, with two, and Plancus in Further Gaul, with three, seemed likely
to take Antony’s side.
47 Caesar had two equally valuable legions, those that deserted to him from
Antony, as well as one of new recruits and two of veterans, which were not com-
plete in numbers or arms but were brought up to the full total by new recruits. He
led them all to Alba and sent a message to the senate, which congratulated Caesar
to such an extent that one would now have been at a loss to know who those were
who had earlier paid their respects to Antony – though it was concerned that the
legions had not come over to the senate but to Caesar. Nevertheless, it praised
both them and Caesar and said that it would shortly vote them everything neces-
sary, once the new magistrates had taken up their duties. It was clear that they
would use these against Antony; having no army of their own and being unable to
raise one without consuls, they put off everything till the consuls took office. 48
Caesar’s army provided him with lictors equipped with fasces and urged him to
take the title propraetor, as he was in charge of the war and themselves, and they
were always marshalled under magistrates. He thanked them for the honour but
deferred this matter to the senate. When they wanted to go before the senate in a
body, he prevented them as well as restraining them from sending envoys, as the
senate would vote these for him on their own account – and all the more, he stated,
if they perceive your enthusiasm and my hesitation.

CICERO AND ANTONY

Cicero was fanatically opposed to Antony and openly regretted that he too had not been
assassinated with Caesar on the Ides of March, blaming Trebonius for merely distracting
him rather than having him killed as well. In his Philippics (so named after the speeches of
Demosthenes against Philip II of Macedon), he pictured Antony as implacably opposed to
sound government and in total pursuit of personal power to the detriment of all that Rome
and the senate stood for. An initial version of the First Philippic was delivered against
Antony in the senate on 2 September 44 BC. The Second Philippic was never actually
delivered, only circulated in written form, but its denunciations of Antony’s conduct and

610
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
lifestyle since boyhood made any chance of co-operation between the two impossible for
the future. In the Third Philippic on 20 December, Cicero urged the senate to back Decimus
Brutus (who was refusing to stand down from his province) against Antony by confirming
all governors, and to reward Octavian and the two legions that had deserted to him. He was,
however, unable to persuade the senators to name Antony a public enemy.

14.14 Cicero Letters to his Friends 11.7.2–3: Decimus Brutus must

resist Antony
Cicero here urges Decimus Brutus to remember his aims as a tyrannicide and to resist
Antony and his army.

(Rome, mid-December 44: to Decimus Brutus) The main point is this, which I
want you to grasp very carefully and keep in mind: that in protecting the liberty
and well-being of the Roman people you should not wait for the authorisation of
a senate which is not yet free, or you would be condemning your own deed (for it
was not by any public decision that you liberated the Republic, which makes that
achievement both more significant and more glorious). You would also be sug-
gesting that the young man – or, rather, the boy – Caesar had acted indiscreetly
in venturing to undertake so momentous a public cause on his own initiative.
Moreover, you would be suggesting that the country-folk (who are of course very
brave men and the most loyal of citizens) had lost their senses – firstly the vet-
erans, your own fellow soldiers, and then the Martian and Fourth legions, who
judged their consul to be a public enemy and rallied to defend the welfare of the
Republic. The will of the senate should be acted on instead of its authority when
its authority is constrained by fear. 3 Finally, you have twice taken up the cause,
so you are already committed – first on the Ides of March, and then recently when
you raised a new army and troops. And so you must be prepared and motivated,
not that you will do nothing unless told to, but that you will so act as to receive the
greatest praise and commendation from everyone.

14.15 Cicero Philippics 3.2, 5.16–17, 8.8: Cicero denounces Antony

In the Third Philippic, on 20 December 44, Cicero was already presenting Octavian as
the saviour of the state against Antony’s brutality and bloodthirstiness and urged that he
be given official authorisation to continue this role. The senate met on 1 January 43 to
discuss war with Antony, and the new consul, Pansa, began a debate which was to give
Octavian propraetorian imperium and a place in the senate with the right to speak among
the consulars. Octavian now became the senate’s champion against Antony, while the two
consuls started recruiting armies. 3.2.4: Antony had killed some of the centurions of the
Martian legion for mutiny at Brundisium. Gallia togata: Cisalpine Gaul; Gallia comata:
‘long-haired’ Gaul.

3.2.3 (20 December 44) Gaius Caesar, a young man – or, rather, almost a boy –
of incredible and nearly superhuman intelligence and courage, just at the time
when Antony’s ferocity raged most hotly and when his cruel and destructive
return from Brundisium was causing terror, though we were neither requesting,

611
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
nor considering, nor even hoping for it – as it seemed an impossibility – gathered
a most reliable army of that indomitable class of veterans and lavished his patri-
mony on this – although I have not used the word I should, for he did not lavish it;
he invested it in the preservation of the state. 4 And although we cannot repay him
to the extent we are indebted, we should feel a gratitude greater than our minds
can imagine. For who is so ignorant of events, who so uncaring for the state, that
he does not realise that, if Mark Antony had reached Rome as he was threatening,
with the forces he expected to have, he would have left undone no kind of cruelty?
He who, in the house of his host at Brundisium, commanded the bravest of men
and best of citizens to be slaughtered, with whose blood as they were dying at
his feet it was well known that his wife’s face was spattered? Imbued with such
cruelty, since he was becoming much more incensed against us than he had been
against those he murdered, which – I ask you – of us, or which honest man at all,
would he have spared? 5 From this disaster, on his own initiative (for it could not
have happened otherwise), Caesar has liberated the state. And if he had not been
born in our state, through Antony’s criminality we would now have no state at
all. For this is my view and my judgement, that, had not a single youth stood out
against the attack and most callous endeavours of that madman, the state would
have perished to its very foundation. Indeed on this very day, conscript fathers –
as we are now for the first time assembled with the opportunity, thanks to his
good services, to speak our views with freedom – we must grant the authority to
enable him to defend the state, a task not only undertaken by him but entrusted to
him by us.
5.16.42 (1 January 43) I come now to Gaius Caesar, conscript fathers, and, if
he had not lived, which of us would be surviving today? Flying from Brundisium
to the city was a man of exceptional ferocity, inflamed with hatred, with a mental-
ity hostile to all honest men, with an army – Antony! What could have been used
to counter his brazenness and villainy? We did not yet have any commanders, any
troops; there was no public senate meeting, no freedom; our necks lay open to
his iniquitous savagery; we were all looking towards flight, which itself offered
no escape. 43 What deity at that point granted us, granted the Roman people, this
god-like young man? – who, when everything tending to our destruction was wide
open to that malevolent citizen, suddenly, beyond everyone’s expectations, arose
and assembled an army with which he opposed the frenzy of Mark Antony, before
anyone had any suspicion of these intentions? . . . 45 So let us give Caesar impe-
rium, without which no military matters can be conducted, no army held together,
no war waged; let him be propraetor, with all official authority. That rank is an
exceptional one for his age but is demanded by the force of circumstances, not
just for the sake of his prestige. So let us ask for that, which is as much as we will
attain today.
5.17.45 But I do hope that both we and the Roman people will often be able to
distinguish and honour this young man. For the moment, however, I propose that
the following be decreed: 46 ‘Whereas Gaius Caesar, son of Gaius, pontifex, pro-
praetor, in a grave state emergency exhorted the veteran soldiers to defend the lib-
erty of the Roman people and enlisted them; and whereas the Martian legion and

612
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
the Fourth with the highest zeal and greatest unanimity towards the state under
the leadership and authority of Gaius Caesar are defending and have defended the
liberty of the Roman people; and whereas Gaius Caesar, propraetor, has set out
with his army to relieve the province of Gaul, has brought under his authority and
that of the Roman people cavalry, archers and elephants, and has come, at a most
critical time for the state to aid the preservation and dignity of the Roman people –
for these reasons it is the desire of the senate that Gaius Caesar, son of Gaius,
pontifex, propraetor, be a senator and participate in debates with the standing of
praetor and that, whatever magistracy he may try for, the same computation be
made of his eligibility as would be permissible by law if he had been quaestor in
the preceding year.’
8.8.25 (4 or 5 February 43) But how modest are Antony’s commands! We must
be made of iron, senators, to deny him anything! ‘Both provinces’, he states, ‘I give
up, I dismiss my army, I do not refuse to be a private citizen’: these are his words –
he seems to be coming to himself. ‘I forget everything, I am prepared for recon-
ciliation.’ But what does he add? ‘If you give bounties and land to my six legions,
to my cavalry, to my praetorian cohort.’ He even demands rewards for men, for
whom it would be totally presumptuous to request a pardon. Moreover he adds that
‘those to whom he and Dolabella granted lands should remain in possession’ – 26
this is the Campanian and Leontine lands, both of which our ancestors considered
to be sanctuaries for our grain. . . . Additionally he demands that ‘his own and his
colleague’s (Julius Caesar) decrees in handwriting and notebooks should stay in
force’. Why is he concerned that each buyer should keep what he bought if he who
sold it keeps the money? And ‘that the accounts in the temple of Ops should not
be tampered with’ – that is, that 700 millions of sesterces should not be recouped,
and that ‘the Commission of Seven should not be indicted for their actions’ . . . 27
However, he does not urge on us more ‘commands’: he makes some compromises
and concessions. ‘Gallia togata’, he states, ‘I resign, but demand Gallia comata’ – so
he wishes to remain in peace – ‘with six legions, and these brought up to strength
from Decimus Brutus’ army’ – not from his own levies – ‘and hold it as long as
Marcus Brutus and Gaius Cassius hold their provinces as consuls and proconsuls’.
The way this man runs an election, his brother Gaius (for it is his year) has already
been defeated! ‘And that I shall hold my province’, he goes on, ‘for a five-year
period’ – but Caesar’s law forbids that, and you defend his acts!

14.16 Cicero Letters to his Friends 10.28, 12.25: Cicero’s accusations

Cicero obviously felt that he was a major player in politics in 44–43 BC, his aim being
to undermine Antony’s position at all costs. As events proved, those he thought he was
manipulating were better and more ruthless players than he himself. During Caesar’s
assassination Trebonius had distracted Antony; Trebonius as governor of Asia had been
killed by Dolabella in January 43. 12.25.4: Cicero is referring to his First Philippic (2
September 44).

10.28.1 (Rome, early February 43: to Trebonius) Cicero to Trebonius, greetings!

1 How I wish that you had invited me to that splendid banquet on the Ides of

613
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
March! We would then have had no left-overs! And now these are causing us
so many problems that the god-sent service to the Republic effected by you and
your colleagues leaves some room for complaint. And due to the fact that it was
by you, you excellent creature, that this cursed pest was drawn aside, and because
of you that he still lives on, I am almost infuriated with you, which in me is
hardly right – though you have left me more trouble to deal with than you have
everyone else put together. As soon as the senate was able to meet freely after
Antony’s disgraceful departure (for Cisalpine Gaul, 28 November), I reverted to
that former spirit of mine, that spirit which you and that dedicated citizen your
father always praised and admired. 2 For when the tribunes called a meeting of
the senate on 20 December and brought forward another issue, I ran through the
entire political situation, dealing with it in a very pointed manner, and recalled
the lethargic and burnt-out senate to its former customary vigour more by passion
than by strength of character. This day and my exertion and performance brought
the Roman people the first hope of recovering their liberty. And from that point
I have used every moment, not only in thought but in action too, on behalf of the
state. 3 If I didn’t think that all city matters and proceedings were reported to
you I would run through them myself, although hampered by a huge amount of
important business. But you will learn all that from others – from me a few items
and those in outline. We have a brave senate, but of the consulars some are fearful
and others on the wrong side. There was a great loss in Servius. Lucius Caesar
holds sound views but, as his (Antony’s) uncle, doesn’t express his opinions very
forcefully. The consuls are extraordinary: Decimus Brutus is splendid, the boy
Caesar extraordinary, and I at least have great hopes for him in the future; at any
rate you can certainly take this as a fact that, if he hadn’t quickly enlisted veterans,
if two legions of Antony’s army hadn’t put themselves under his command and,
if Antony hadn’t been faced with this threat, he would have left no crime and no
cruelty undone. Although I thought you would have heard all this I wanted you to
know it in more detail. I will write more when I have more free time.
12.25.3 (Rome, c. 20 March 43: to Cornuficius) A contrary tempestuous south-
erly brought me back to your fellow tribesmen at Rhegium, and from there I has-
tened to my homeland with all speed of winds and oars, 4 while the following day
I was the one free man in a gathering of servile lackeys. I delivered an attack on
Antony which he was unable to bear and poured out all his drunken fury on me
alone, at one point trying to provoke me into giving him a pretext for bloodshed,
at another trying to ensnare me with traps. I cast him, belching and vomiting, into
Caesar Octavian’s snares. This extraordinary boy has furnished the protection of
an army in the first place both for himself and for us, and then for the very survival
of the Republic itself. Unless he had done so, Antony’s return from Brundisium
would have meant the destruction of our country.

CICERO AND OCTAVIAN

Even in April 43 BC Cicero was still convinced of Octavian’s trustworthiness and his own
ability to manipulate him as an inexperienced politician in need of support, continuing to

614
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
present him to the senate as their saviour against Antony. After an initial panic in Rome,
when the first victory over Antony was reported, Cicero was treated as a hero.

14.17 Octavian as saviour

After a lengthy siege of Mutina by Antony, the battle of Forum Gallorum had taken place
on 14 April: Antony defeated Pansa but was in turn defeated by Hirtius; on 21 April Hirtius
was again to defeat Antony, who was finally declared a public enemy on 27 April. In thanks
for the first victory, on 21 April, Cicero proposed that Octavian be given the title imperator
and that there be 50 days of thanksgiving in honour of Octavian and the two consuls.
Decimus Brutus was awarded a triumph, but Cicero’s proposal of an ovation for Octavian
was opposed (Octavian had also asked for a triumph). The three brothers are the Antonii
(Mark Antony, Lucius and Gaius). This letter to Brutus was written c. 21 April 43 BC.

(i) Cicero Letters to Brutus 1.3

From Cicero to Brutus, greetings. 1 Our affairs seem to be in a better shape. I’m
sure you have been sent letters of all that has happened. The consuls have proved
themselves just as I have often written to you. As for the young Caesar, his natural
manly qualities are quite extraordinary. I only hope that when he achieves his posi-
tion and influence I will be able to guide and control him with the same ease as I do
now. Of course that will be more difficult, but I don’t despair of it. The young man’s
convinced, mainly through me, that his job is to see to our survival – and, for sure, if
he had not turned Antony back from the city, all would have been lost.
2 Three or four days before this magnificent outcome the whole city was thrown
into a panic and poured out with wives and children to go and join you. On 20
April they recovered and decided they wanted you to come here, rather than go to
you. On that day in fact I received the most splendid rewards for my great labours
and late-night vigilance – if there is any reward in genuine, wholehearted glory!
A huge crowd – the whole population of our city – thronged to my house and then
escorted me up to the Capitol and placed me on the rostra to the accompaniment
of the most remarkable cheering and applause. There is nothing vain about me –
there is no need; but the unanimity of all classes, with their thanks and congratu-
lations, does move me, for it is illustrious to be popular for having ensured the
people’s well-being – but I would prefer that you heard this from others! 3 Make
sure that you are meticulous in keeping me informed of your plans and actions,
and bear in mind that your generosity does not appear to be weakness. The senate
and the Roman people both consider that no enemies ever deserved harsher pun-
ishment than those citizens who took up arms against their native country in this
war. Of course I retaliate and attack them whenever I express my opinion with the
support of all right-minded men. Your opinion on this is for you to decide. Mine
is that the three brothers are three of a kind!

(ii) Cicero Philippics 14.10.28–29

28 (21 April 43) Will anyone really hesitate to call Caesar imperator? His age will
assuredly not dissuade anyone from such a decision, seeing that through valour he

615
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
has overcome his age. And in my view the services of Gaius Caesar have always
seemed the greater in that, because of his age, they were the less to be demanded
of him. For when we gave him imperium (1 January 44, as propraetor) we at the
same time bestowed on him the hopes which that name implies, and since he has
fulfilled them he has by his own actions justified the authority of our edict. So
this young man, of the highest spirit, as Hirtius most correctly writes, defended
a camp made for many legions with only a few cohorts and fought a successful
battle. And so, by the valour, judgement and good fortune of three generals of the
Roman people on a single day and in many locations, the state has been preserved.
29 Accordingly I propose, in the name of those three, 50 days of thanksgiving.

14.18 Cicero Letters to his Friends 11.20, 10.24: Warnings from

Cicero’s friends
Some of Cicero’s friends felt more concern about Octavian’s intentions than did Cicero,
who ignored their hints. The Ten: set up by the senate after the battle of Mutina to review
Antony’s acts as consul. From May 43 Octavian was in communication with Antony and
Lepidus, who joined forces in late May. Decimus Brutus was killed in June trying to flee
to Macedonia. He had joined Plancus and his army in Gaul, but in late July or early August
Plancus made the decision to join Antony.

11.20.1 (Eporedia, 24 May 43: Decimus Brutus to Cicero) My regard for you and
your services to me make me feel for you something I do not feel for myself –
fear! For I have often been told this, and have not dismissed it – most recently by
Labeo Segulius, who always acts in character and who tells me that he had been
with Caesar and that you were much spoken of. It’s true that Caesar made no
complaints about you except for the remark which he said you made about him –
‘The young man should be praised, honoured – and disposed of’ – and he went
on to say that he had no intention of being ‘disposed of’. I believe that the remark
was repeated to him, or made up by Labeo, not by the young man. Labeo wants
me to believe that the veterans are complaining bitterly and that you are in danger
from them, as they are especially upset that neither Caesar nor I have been made
members of the Board of Ten and that everything has been left to the judgement
of you chaps. . . . 3 You should meet with the veterans in any way possible. Do
first whatever they want about the Board of Ten and then about the bounties; if
you agree, you should propose that the lands of those soldiers who were Antony’s
veterans should be given to them by the two of us. As regards cash payments, say
that the senate will make a decision in time depending on finances. I think that
the four legions who have been allocated grants of land can be provided for out
of the . . . and Campanian land. In my view the lands should be allocated to the
legions either in comparable amounts or by lot. 4 It is not my insight that encour-
ages me to write this to you but my regard for you and my desire for peace, which
cannot come about without you. Unless it is absolutely necessary I shall not leave
Italy. I am arming and preparing my legions. I trust I shall not have the least suc-
cessful of armies in meeting all contingencies and enemy attacks. Regarding the

616
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
army, Caesar is not returning me the legion of Pansa’s. Reply at once to this letter
and send one of your people if there is anything more confidential that you think
I might need to know.
10.24.3 (Camp in Gaul, 28 July 43: Plancus, consul-elect, to Cicero) To this
point we have conserved our situation here entirely unchanged. I hope this deci-
sion meets with the approval of you all, although I realise how great is the longing
for a victory (against Antony), as is only to be expected, as it would be so desir-
able an outcome. Should these armies meet with a defeat, the state has no large
reinforcements at hand to put up a resistance to any sudden attack or skuldug-
gery by these traitors. I think you know what our forces consist of: in my camp
there are three veteran legions and one of recruits, the best of them all, while in
(Decimus) Brutus’ camp there is one veteran legion, another that has served two
years, and eight of recruits. So the total army is numerically strong but weak in
terms of reliability. We’ve seen only too often how much trust can be put in a
formation of recruits. 4 If the veteran African army or Caesar’s were to be added
to the strength of our forces we would confidently put the fate of the Republic to
the test; and we have noticed that, in Caesar’s case, there is less distance involved.
I have not stopped sending him letters urging him, and he has not ceased asserting
that he is coming without delay, though I realise that in the meantime he has been
side-tracked from that intention towards other plans. I have, however, sent our
friend Furnius to him with messages and letters, in case he may be able to achieve
something. 5 You are aware, my dear Cicero, that where regard for Caesar is con-
cerned you and I are colleagues, and as part of my intimacy with the late Caesar
during his lifetime I was bound to feel a regard and esteem for him, and, as far as
I could tell, he was of an extremely tolerant and obliging disposition. Considering
the very marked friendship between myself and Caesar and the fact that he was
considered as his son both by Caesar’s own decision and that of you all, I think
I would look bad if I did not treat him as such. 6 However – and, by Hercules!,
anything I write to you is written more in a spirit of grief than of hostility – the
fact that Antony is still alive today, that Lepidus has joined him, that they have
armies that are not to be sneezed at, that they have high hopes and audacity – for
all this they can thank Caesar! I will go back no further than the time when he
himself declared to me that he was on his way, and if he had decided to come the
war would either have been entirely over by now or have been pushed back into
Spain, which is very opposed to them, with great losses on their side. What he has
in mind and whose advice has made him turn away from so glorious an undertak-
ing, indeed one which is necessary and advantageous for himself, and deflected
him instead to this idea of a six-month consulship which he is pursuing to the
alarm of everyone with such absurd perseverance, I simply cannot imagine. . . . 8
Meanwhile we are enduring the full impact of the war in very difficult conditions,
as we see no chance of a decisive engagement in the immediate future and will
not commit ourselves to a withdrawal which could bring even greater ruin on
the state. If Caesar were to be mindful of his own best interests, or if the African
legions arrive quickly, we will make you safe on this side. Please keep up your
regard for me and be assured that I am all your own. 28 July, from camp.

617
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
TRIUMVIRATE AND PROSCRIPTIONS
With the consuls for 43 BC both dead following the battles against Antony, Octavian
demanded one of these vacant consulships, using his army to pressure the senate into
offering him the position. At this point Cicero still supported Octavian, and there was some
suggestion that they might share the consulship together. However, when the senate failed
to appreciate his services and tried to entice away the loyalty of his veterans, he, like his
great-uncle before him, marched on Rome, in early August 43, with the support of his eight
legions. Once appointed consul, he gave his men half the amount promised for bounties
(10,000 sesterces each) from public funds and had Caesar’s legacy to the people finally
paid in full. He also patched up his differences with Antony, and, together with Lepidus,
they formed the ‘Second Triumvirate’ and began to proscribe their opponents.

14.19 Appian Civil Wars 3.12.87–88: Octavian crosses the Rubicon

Octavian is here addressing his troops after the senate has proposed that they serve a second
campaign before receiving the promised bounty of 5,000 drachmas per man. The senate had
also sent messengers to the two legions that had deserted from Antony to advise them to
trust in the senate rather than a single commander. Following his coup d’état, Octavian was
appointed consul on 19 August, along with Pedius, Caesar’s nephew, for the remainder of
43 BC. Antony and Dolabella were now no longer public enemies, and Caesar’s assassins
were condemned and outlawed.

87 ‘I shall accept my fate, whatever it may be (for it is honourable to suffer any-

thing in a father’s service), but I have concerns for you, who are so deserving and
numerous, who have put yourself into danger for my sake and that of my father.
You know that I am not corrupted by ambition, since the time when I refused the
praetorship and its insignia which you offered me. I can now see only one safe
path for both of us: that I should procure the consulship with your assistance.
Should that occur, all my father’s grants to you will be confirmed, the colonies
that are still owed you will eventuate, and all your rewards will be paid in their
entirety, while I shall bring the murderers to justice and exempt you from all fur-
ther wars.’
88 At these words the army eagerly applauded and at once sent their centuri-
ons to demand the magistracy for Caesar. When in response the senate brought
up the matter of his age, the centurions argued as instructed that, in earlier times,
Corvinus was younger when he held the office, and later the Scipios, both the
Elder and the Younger, and that the country had greatly benefited from the youth
of each. They also mentioned the case just recently of Pompey the Great and
Dolabella, and that Caesar himself had been allowed to stand for the magistracy
ten years before the legal age. While the centurions were arguing this with great
confidence, some of the senators who could not stomach the fact that centurions
could enjoy such freedom of speech censured them for being more audacious than
was proper for soldiers. When the army learnt this they grew even more enraged
and demanded that they be led immediately to the city, stating that, because he
was Caesar’s son, they would hold a special election to give him the consulship,

618
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
and they eulogised the elder Caesar without restraint. When Caesar saw them so
passionate, he led them straight from the assembly, eight legions of infantry and
a corresponding number of cavalry, as well as the auxiliaries serving with the
legions. After crossing the River Rubicon from the province of Gaul into Italy,
which his father similarly crossed at the beginning of the civil war, he divided his
army into two: one of these he instructed to follow in their own time, while the
better, hand-picked division he had make a forced march, hastening to take the
city still unprepared.

14.20 Appian Civil Wars 4.1.2–11: The ‘Board of Three’

After a three-day meeting near Bononia, the triumvirate was formed in October 43 BC.
The troops insisted Octavian marry Antony’s stepdaughter, Fulvia’s daughter Clodia, and
the senate agreed to promote the campaign against Brutus and Cassius and their 20 legions.
The lex Titia on 27 November appointed the three ‘to restore the state’: they could make
or annul laws, appoint magistrates and exercise jurisdiction unopposed. Octavian then
resigned as consul, with Ventidius appointed instead, and Lepidus was to be consul in 42.
4.1.7: for the tax on women, see doc. 7.75.

2 Caesar and Antony transformed their enmity into friendship near the city of
Mutina, on a small low-lying island in the river Lavinius. Both had five legions of
soldiers, and they stationed these opposite each other while they made their way
with 300 men each to the bridges over the river. Lepidus went in front, searched
the island, and signalled with his military cloak for the other two to approach. They
left their 300 soldiers on the bridges under the control of friends and advanced in
full view to the centre, where they met in council, Caesar positioned in the middle
because of his office. Their meeting lasted for two days from morning till night,
and they reached the following decisions: Caesar would resign the consulship and
Ventidius take it over for the rest of the year; a new magistracy would be brought
in by law to deal with the civil dissensions, which Lepidus, Antony and Caesar
would hold for five years with powers equal to those of consuls – they thought it
better to call it this than dictators, perhaps because of Antony’s decree abolishing
dictators for the future; they would immediately nominate the city’s yearly mag-
istrates for the next five-year period; they would allocate the governorships of the
provinces, with Antony to have the whole of Gaul except that part bordering the
Pyrenees, which was called Old Gaul; Lepidus was to govern this in addition to
Spain; Libya, Sardinia and Sicily and any other islands in that region were to be
Caesar’s. 3 In this way the three divided the Romans’ empire among themselves,
postponing only the division of the areas beyond the Adriatic because these were
still under the control of Brutus and Cassius, against whom Antony and Caesar
were to make war. Lepidus was to be consul for the following year and remain in
the city to deal with any emergencies there, while governing Spain through others.
Lepidus was to have three legions of his army to keep control of Rome and divide
the other seven between Caesar and Antony, so that each could lead 20 legions
to the war. To encourage the army with promises of war booty, they would give

619
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
them, apart from other gifts, 18 of the Italian cities as colonies, cities renowned
for their wealth and the beauty of their estates and houses, which would be divided
among them – estates and houses included – just as if they had been captured from
an enemy in battle. . . .
5 As soon as the three men were by themselves they collaborated in writing
a list of those who were to be executed – the powerful because they suspected
them – while each selected their personal enemies, and they exchanged their own
relatives and friends with each other for slaughter, both then and later. For various
persons were added to the list from time to time, some from enmity, some only
for an offence or because they were friends of their enemies, or enemies of their
friends, or because of their wealth – for they needed a great deal of money for
the war, since all the revenue from Asia had been given to Brutus and Cassius,
who were still in receipt of it, and the kings and satraps were still paying their
contributions. They, however, were insolvent, as Europe and especially Italy were
exhausted with wars and taxes. In consequence they imposed very harsh taxes
both on the plebeians and even on women and intended taxes on sales and rents.
Some people were already on the proscription list as a result of the beauty of their
country or town house. All those from the senate who were condemned to death
and confiscation numbered about 300, and from those known as ‘knights’ some
2,000. Both their brothers and uncles were among the proscribed, as well as some
of the officers serving under them who had points of disagreement with the lead-
ers or other officers. . . .
7 A tribune, Publius Titius, proposed a law setting up a new magistracy to sort
out the present situation for five years comprising three men, Lepidus, Antony and
Octavian, to have the same powers as consul . . . with no time allowed for consid-
eration nor a proper day fixed for voting on it – the law was ratified immediately.
That same night, in addition to the first 17 victims, 130 other men were proscribed
in various parts of the city and shortly afterwards another 150. Names of those
who were condemned retrospectively or had been killed earlier by mistake kept
being added to the tablets, so that all the executions appeared to be legitimate. It
was proclaimed that the heads of all the victims should be brought to the three for
a fixed reward: this was paid in money to a free man and in freedom and money to
a slave. Everyone had to allow their private property to be searched. Anyone who
harboured or hid victims or refused the search was liable to the same penalties.
Anyone who informed on these was entitled to receive the same rewards.
8 The proscription was made in the following words: ‘Marcus Lepidus, Marcus
Antonius and Octavius Caesar, who have been elected to govern and regulate
affairs of state, proclaim as follows: if the traitors (to Julius Caesar) had not
duplicitously begged for mercy, and once obtaining it acted as the enemies of
their benefactors and conspired against them, they would not have assassinated
Gaius (Julius) Caesar – they whom he captured in war and then saved by his clem-
ency, whom he made his friends and promoted to magistracies, honours and gifts
without number; nor should we have been forced to make such widespread use of
our powers against those who have insulted us and proclaimed us public enemies.
Now, seeing that the evil intentions of those who have plotted against us and at

620
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
whose hands Gaius Caesar met his death cannot be pacified by benevolence, we
prefer to take pre-emptive measures against our enemies rather than put up with
the situation without protest. No one should consider our action unjust, harsh or
excessive who sees what both Gaius and ourselves have had to endure. Although
Gaius was both supreme commander and pontifex maximus, although he had
conquered and added to our possessions the peoples most menacing to Rome,
although he was the first man to attempt to sail the unnavigated sea beyond the pil-
lars of Hercules and the discoverer of a land unknown to the Romans, in the centre
of the senate house – designated as sacred space – under the eyes of the gods, 23
men murdered him with their villainous butchery, men whom he had captured
in war and spared, while some of them had been named as heirs of his wealth;
then the rest, in response to such an abominable crime – instead of punishing the
malefactors! – dispatched them to magistracies and commands, which they made
use of to seize hold of public funds. Even now they are raising an army against us
and trying to obtain another from barbarians who have always been the enemies
of our empire, while cities under Roman rule that have not obeyed them have
been burned or destroyed or razed to the ground, and others they have terrorised
and forced to bear arms against their native land and ourselves. 9 We have taken
punishment on some of them already, while others, with god’s help, you will soon
see paying the penalty. The greatest part of this undertaking has already been
accomplished and is well in hand, in Spain and Gaul and matters here at home, but
there is still one mission remaining – to march against Gaius’ assassins over the
sea. Since we are on the point of fighting this overseas war on your behalf, we do
not consider it safe, either for your interests or for our own, to leave other enemies
behind who will take advantage of our absence and be in wait for opportunities
presented by the war, nor should we delay on their account in a matter of such
great urgency, but ought rather to obliterate them once and for all, since they were
the ones who began the war against us when they voted that we and the armies
under our command were public enemies. . . . 10 But we shall avenge ourselves
only against those who are most guilty and most reprehensible. And this is on your
behalf no less than on our own. While we are fighting our wars, you will all nec-
essarily be facing dangers all around you, while we will have to pacify the army
which has been insulted, provoked and proclaimed a public enemy by our com-
mon adversaries. Although we could have arrested immediately those whom we
decided to, we prefer to proscribe them rather than arrest them unawares: this too
on your account, so that the enraged soldiery will not have the power to exceed
their instructions by taking action against the innocent, but with their victims enu-
merated and identified by name should spare the rest as ordered.
11 With good fortune! No one is to receive in his house any persons whose
name appears on this list, nor conceal them, nor send them away anywhere, nor
accept bribes. Anyone who is found saving or assisting or colluding with them we
shall add to the list of the proscribed without taking into account any mitigation or
pardon. Those who take part in the executions are to bring the heads to us – free
men for 25,000 Attic drachmas per head, and slaves for their freedom and 10,000
Attic drachmas and their masters’ citizen status. The same rewards will be in place

621
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
for informers. And no one who receives a reward will be recorded in our archives,
so they will remain anonymous.’ This was the wording of the three’s proclama-
tion, as closely as it can be translated from Latin into Greek.

14.21 Plutarch Life of Cicero 45.1–49.2: The end of Cicero’s career

In the first round of proscriptions, depending on the source, 12 or 17 victims were chosen,
including, at Antony’s insistence, Cicero. The proscriptions were to raise money to pay the
troops the promised rewards, but even so the triumvirs had to give them 18 of Italy’s richest
towns, and heavy and unprecedented taxes were imposed on the wealthy in Italy (Brutus
and Cassius controlled the resources of the East). Cicero was murdered on 7 December 43
BC (cf. App. 4.19). Fulvia was said to have pulled out Cicero’s tongue and stabbed it with
a hair-pin (Dio 47.8).

45.1 It was Cicero’s hatred for Antony in the first place, and then his innate
partiality for prestige, that attached him to Caesar (Octavian), as he thought to
enhance his own political standing through Caesar’s power. 2 Indeed, the young
man bowed down to him to the extent that he even addressed him as father. Brutus
was exceptionally angry at this, and in his letters to Atticus attacked Cicero on the
grounds that, in making up to Caesar through fear of Antony, he was clearly not
achieving freedom for his country but currying favour for himself with a benevo-
lent master. 3 However, Brutus took up with Cicero’s son, who was studying in
Athens, gave him a command and achieved a great deal through his agency. 4
Cicero’s power in the city was at its peak at this point, and, since he could do
whatever he pleased, he raised a faction against Antony and drove him from the
city, and dispatched the two consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, to make war on him,
while he persuaded the senate to vote Caesar lictors and praetorian insignia on
the grounds that he was fighting to defend their country. But when Antony had
been defeated and the forces had united under Caesar, with the two consuls hav-
ing died as a result of the battle, 5 the senate became afraid of the young man who
had enjoyed this splendid good fortune and attempted to entice his troops away
from him with honours and gifts and strip him of his power, arguing that there
was no need to defend the country now that Antony had taken flight. Caesar in
consequence became alarmed and sent emissaries in secret to Cicero to beg and
persuade him to secure the consulship for them both, and to handle affairs as he
thought best once he had taken office and act as a guide to him as a youth who was
striving for name and prestige. 6 Caesar himself admitted that it was through fear
of his army being disbanded and the danger of isolation that he made use in this
crisis of Cicero’s love of authority and urged him to seek the consulship with his
collaboration and assistance in canvassing.
46.1 It was at this point indeed, more than at any other time, that Cicero was
inveigled and tricked, an old man by a young one. He assisted Caesar’s canvass-
ing and got the senate on his side, for which he was immediately blamed by his
friends, while shortly afterwards he realised that he had brought ruin on him-
self and betrayed the people’s freedom. 2 For when the young man’s power had
increased and he won the consulship, he gave Cicero the cold shoulder, made

622
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
friends with Antony and Lepidus, united his forces with theirs, and divided up
rule with them, just like any other piece of property. And they drew up a list of
more than 200 men who had to be put to death. 3 The proscription of Cicero gen-
erated the greatest disagreement in their debates, with Antony refusing to come
to terms unless he was the first to be executed and Lepidus being in agreement
with Antony, while Caesar opposed them both. 4 They held secret meetings on
their own near the city of Bononia for three days, getting together at a place some
distance from the camps and surrounded by a river. 5 It is reported that for the first
two days Caesar kept up his fight to save Cicero, but gave in on the third day and
threw him over. The compromise reached was as follows: Caesar was to abandon
Cicero, Lepidus his brother Paulus, and Antony Lucius Caesar, who was his uncle
on his mother’s side. 6 In this way any human considerations were driven out by
the presence of anger and rage or, rather, they demonstrated that no wild beast is
more savage than man when in passionate pursuit of power. . . .
47.4 Only a few days afterwards Quintus (Cicero) was betrayed by his serv-
ants to those searching for him and was put to death along with his son. Cicero
was brought to Astura and, finding a ship there, immediately embarked and sailed
along the coast as far as Circaeum, making use of the wind. 5 From there the
steersmen wanted to set sail at once, but whether he feared the sea or had not
yet entirely given up his confidence in Caesar he disembarked and travelled 100
stades on foot as far as Rome. 6 Once again undecided, he changed his mind and
went down to the sea at Astura. There he spent the night in terrible and desper-
ate calculations, with the result that he actually decided to make his way secretly
to Caesar’s house and commit suicide on the hearth to set an avenging spirit on
Caesar – 7 but then the fear of tortures impelled him away from this course as
well. Turning over in his mind numerous muddled and contradictory resolutions,
he put himself in his servants’ hands to be taken by sea to Caieta, where he had
an estate and a pleasant refuge in the summer when the Etesian winds blow most
agreeably. . . .
48.6 Meanwhile his assassins arrived, Herennius a centurion and Popillius a
tribune, whom Cicero had once defended when he was charged with parricide,
along with assistants. On finding the door closed they broke in: Cicero was not
to be seen, and those inside said they did not know where he was, though it is
reported that a youth called Philologos, who had been educated by Cicero in lib-
eral studies and other lessons and who was a freedman of his brother Quintus, told
the tribune that the litter was being carried through the wooded and shady walks
to the sea. So the tribune, taking a few men with him, ran round towards the exit,
while Herennius hurried at a run down the walks. When Cicero saw him he told
the servants to put the litter down where they were. He, clasping his chin with
his left hand, a typical gesture of his, gazed steadily at his murderers, unwashed
and unkempt and his face wasted with worry, causing most of them to cover their
faces while Herennius was killing him. He stretched out his neck from the litter
and was killed, being at that point in his 64th year. Herennius, at Antony’s orders,
cut off his head and his hands, with which he wrote the Philippics. For Cicero
himself titled his speeches against Antony Philippics, and so the books are called

623
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
to this day. 49.1 When these appendages were brought to Rome, Antony hap-
pened to be conducting an election, but when he heard of their arrival and caught
sight of them he cried out, ‘Now let our proscriptions have an end!’ 2 He ordered
the head and hands to be placed above the ships’ beaks on the rostra, a spectacle
which was hideous to the Romans because they thought they saw there not the
face of Cicero, but a likeness of Antony’s soul.

14.22 Livy F 50 (book 120): Livy’s estimation of Cicero

Marcus Cicero had left the city before the arrival of the triumvirs, convinced, as
was the case, that he could no more escape Antony than Cassius and Brutus could
Caesar. He fled first to his Tusculan estate and from there set out by indirect routes
for his property at Formiae, as he planned to set sail from Caieta. From there he
put out to sea several times, but sometimes contrary winds drove him back, and at
others he was unable to endure the way the ship plunged under the heaving of the
waves, and finally a weariness for both flight and life overcame him. He returned
to his upper villa, which is little more than a mile from the sea, and said, ‘I shall
die in the native land I have so often saved.’ It is definitely known that his slaves
were prepared to fight bravely and loyally in his defence, but he ordered them to
set down the litter and endure patiently what a hostile fate was forcing upon them.
He put his head out of the litter and held his neck steady and was decapitated. Nor
was this sufficient for the savage brutality of the soldiers: they also cut off his
hands, upbraiding them for having written anything against Antony.
So the head was brought back to Antony and placed between the two hands on
the rostra, where as consul and often as ex-consul, and even in that same year in
opposing Antony, he had been listened to with so much acclaim for his eloquence
as no other human voice had won. People could hardly raise their eyes for tears to
gaze on his butchered appendages. He lived for 63 years, so that if there had been
no violence his death would not have seemed to be unseasonable. His character
was fortunate, both in its achievements and in its rewards for achievements. He
enjoyed a considerable period of good fortune and a long course of prosperity,
at intervals being struck by serious blows – his exile, the downfall of the party
whom he represented, his daughter’s death, and his own most grievous and bit-
ter demise – bearing none of these misfortunes in a manner worthy of a true man
except his death, which, if given its true weight, should seem the less undeserved
because he suffered from a victorious opponent nothing crueller than he would
have done himself had he achieved the same success. If, however, one were to
weigh his faults against his virtues, he was a man of greatness, dynamism and
pre-eminence – and one that would need a Cicero as eulogist to relate in detail the
entirety of his merits.

14.23 Livy Periochae 118–20: The events of 43 BC

118 In Greece, on the pretext of the welfare of the state and the campaign against
Mark Antony, Marcus Brutus gained control of the army commanded by Publius

624
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
Vatinius as well as the province. Gaius Caesar (Octavian), who as a private citizen
had taken up arms for the state, was given propraetorian imperium by the senate
plus consular insignia and also became a senator. Mark Antony besieged Decimus
Brutus in Mutina; envoys sent to him by the senate to negotiate for peace had little
success in arranging it. The Roman people put on military cloaks. Marcus Brutus
in Epirus overcame the praetor Gaius Antonius and his army. 119 Gaius Trebonius
was killed in Asia by the treachery of Publius Dolabella. For this crime Dolabella
was declared a public enemy by the senate. When the consul Pansa was beaten
by Antony, consul Aulus Hirtius came up with his army, routed Mark Antony’s
forces, and equalised the fortune of both sides. After being defeated by Hirtius and
Caesar, Antony fled into Gaul and gained the support of Marcus Lepidus and the
legions he commanded. He was declared a public enemy by the senate together
with all those in his camp. Aulus Hirtius, who after his victory had fallen in the
actual camp of the enemy, and Gaius Pansa, who died of a wound he received in his
unsuccessful battle, were buried in the Campus Martius. The senate showed little
gratitude to Gaius Caesar, the only survivor of the three commanders, as it decreed
a triumph for Decimus Brutus, who had been delivered from his siege at Mutina
by Caesar, but made an inadequate statement of their gratitude to Caesar and his
soldiers. Consequently Gaius Caesar, once friendly relations between him and Mark
Antony were restored though the agency of Marcus Lepidus, came to Rome with
his army, catching his opponents off-guard by his arrival, and was made consul at
the age of 19 years. 120 Gaius Caesar as consul passed a law to bring to trial those
by whose deed his father had been murdered; Marcus Brutus, Gaius Cassius and
Decimus Brutus were cited in that law and condemned in absentia. Asinius Pollio
and Munatius Plancus also joined Mark Antony with their armies, thus enlarging
his forces, and Decimus Brutus, whom the senate had instructed to pursue Antony,
fled when abandoned by his legions and was killed on Antony’s orders after coming
into his power, struck down by Capenus, a Sequanian. Gaius Caesar came to terms
with Antony and Lepidus with the provisions that he, Lepidus and Antony should
be a Board of Three for governing the state for a five-year period and that each
of them should proscribe their personal enemies. An immense number of Roman
knights and the names of 130 senators were included in this proscription, among
them Lucius Paulus, the brother of Lepidus, Lucius Caesar, the uncle of Antony,
and Marcus Cicero. Cicero was executed by Popillius, a legionary solder, at the age
of 63, and his head and right hand were also placed on the rostra.

THE ‘LIBERATORS’ AND CIVIL WAR

One of the agreements made at Bononia in October 43 BC was that Octavian and Antony
were to unite forces to make war on Brutus and Cassius to avenge Caesar’s death and were
to share the command with 43 legions (only 19 fought at Philippi). In January 42, Julius
Caesar was consecrated as a god. This gave the war against the liberators a new religious
dimension, and Octavian now had the status of divi filius (‘son of the god’); a temple was
built to Caesar in the forum. Brutus had taken Macedonia peaceably at the end of the term
of the retiring proconsul, Hortensius (his uncle), and also controlled Greece and most of
the troops in Illyricum. Pansa, urged by Cicero, had had Brutus ratified as governor, and

625
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
Brutus crossed to Asia in mid-43. Cassius succeeded in taking over Syria and was joined by
the four legions from Egypt. Trebonius, one of the conspirators, was governor of Asia. The
‘liberators’ possessed huge armies and enormous resources from their Eastern provinces
which they governed rapaciously, and according to Plutarch (Brutus 38) the armies that met
at Philippi were the greatest Roman forces that had ever fought each other. To encourage
commitment in fighting against other Romans, the soldiers had been promised the (now
standard) 20,000 sesterces a head in case of victory.

14.24 Dio Roman History 47.18.1–19.2: Caesar’s deification

A comet which appeared during the Ludi victoriae Caesaris (July 44 BC: doc. 14.8) had
been publicly interpreted by Octavian as Caesar’s soul ascending to heaven and was later
depicted on his coinage; in 38 a gold coin was issued depicting the head of the deified
Caesar with a star on the obverse. The Ludi Apollinares were celebrated from 6 to 13 July.

18.1 These three men at the same time venerated the former Caesar to the highest
degree, for, in as much as they were aiming at and striving for monarchy, they
furiously pursued the rest of the assassins, 2 in so doing organising immunity in
advance for themselves for their actions and security, and they eagerly undertook
anything that contributed to his honour in the hope that one day they might be
thought worthy of the same. For this reason they glorified him, both by the dis-
tinctions that had already been voted him and by others they now appended. 3 So,
on the first day of the year (42 BC), they took an oath and made everyone else
take one too that they would consider all his acts unchangeable (this still happens
today in honour of all those who come to supreme power and of those who have
held it and not been dishonoured). 4 They also laid the foundation of a temple
(heroon) to him in the forum in the place where he was cremated and had a statue
of him carried round at games in the circus, together with another of Aphrodite. If
a victory anywhere was reported, they granted the honour of a thanksgiving both
to the victor and to Caesar, though deceased. 5 They forced everyone to celebrate
his birthday by wearing laurel and making merry, and legislated that anyone who
failed to do so was accursed in the sight of Jupiter and Caesar himself and, if sena-
tors or their sons, were to be fined 250,000 denarii. 6 It happened that the Ludi
Apollinares fell on the same day, and so they decreed that his birthday should be
celebrated on the day before, as there was a Sibylline oracle prohibiting a festival
of any god on that day except Apollo. 19.1 As well as granting these honours, they
laid down that the day on which he was assassinated, when there had always been
a sovereign meeting of the senate, was unlucky. They closed the room in which
he was murdered for the time being and afterwards changed it into a lavatory;
they also built the Curia Julia, named for him, alongside the place known as the
Comitium, as had been decreed. 2 Furthermore, they prohibited any image of him,
as if he really were a god, to be carried at the funerals of his relatives, though this
was a very ancient custom and still taking place.

14.25 The people of Greece honour Brutus, 44–43 BC

i: This is a white marble base from Athens. Brutus had been adopted by his uncle, Quintus
Servilius Caepio, though he retained his own cognomen. ii: This inscribed base of a pedestal

626
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
from Delos held four statues; according to Dio 47.20.4, the Athenians voted Brutus and
Cassius bronze statues and set them up next to Harmodius and Aristogeiton, while the
inhabitants of Greece and Macedonia generally hoped Brutus would liberate them from the
Romans, as he had the Romans from Caesar (47.21.2). Quintus Hortensius was proconsul
of Macedonia (44–43 BC). iii: This is a white marble base, from Oropos in Boeotia.

(i) SEG 17.75; Raubitschek 15

The people (erected this statue of) Quintus Servilius, son of Quintus, Caepio Brutus.

(ii) ILS 9460; Raubitschek 17

The people of the Athenians and those who live on the island (dedicated this statue)
of Quintus Hortensius, son of Quintus, uncle of Caepio, because of Caepio’s own
benefactions to the city (of Athens), to Apollo.

(iii) SEG 17.209; IG 7.383; Raubitschek 16

The people of the Oropians (dedicated this statue of) Quintus Caepio, son of
Quintus, Brutus, their own saviour and benefactor, 5 to Amphiaraos.

14.26 Livy Periochae 121–24: The battles of Philippi, 42 BC

The first battle of Philippi, when Cassius committed suicide, took place on 3 October; the
second on 23 October. The final victory was due to Antony’s generalship: Octavian was
conspicuously absent much of the time and, according to Pliny, spent three days hiding in a
marsh (doc. 15.116). Antony had Hortensius (Brutus’ uncle), who had killed Antony’s brother
Gaius, executed over his brother’s tomb, but sent Brutus’ ashes to his mother, Servilia.

121 Gaius Cassius, who had been instructed by the senate to conduct a campaign
against Dolabella after he was declared a public enemy, gained control of Syria
supported by the authority of the state and, with the three legions which were
in that province, besieged Dolabella in the city of Laodicea and compelled his
death. By the orders of Marcus Brutus, Gaius Antonius was also captured and
executed. 122 For a short time Marcus Brutus successfully conducted a campaign
against the Thracians, and, when all the overseas provinces and armies had been
brought into the control of himself and Gaius Cassius, both men met at Smyrna
to decide on their plans for the coming war. They pardoned by common consent
their prisoner Publicola, the brother of Marcus Messala. 123 Sextus Pompeius,
the son of Magnus, gathered the proscribed and runaway slaves from Epirus and
for a considerable time used his force to engage in piracy without possessing any
particular base. First of all, he seized the town of Messana in Sicily, and then
the whole province, killed the praetor Pompeius Bithynicus, and finally defeated
Caesar’s legate Quintus Salvidenus in a naval battle. Caesar and Antony with their
armies crossed over to Greece to make war on Brutus and Cassius . . . 124 Gaius
Caesar and Antony fought at Philippi against Brutus and Cassius with a disparate
outcome, in that the right wing of each was successful and the victors on each side
captured the enemy camp. The death of Cassius tipped the balance between the

627
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
two sides, as he was on the wing which had been routed and committed suicide,
believing that the whole army had been vanquished. Then on the following day
Marcus Brutus was also defeated and put an end to his life, entreating Strato, his
companion in flight, to drive a sword through him. His age was about 40 . . . ,
among whom Quintus Hortensius was killed.

14.27 Appian Civil Wars 4.17.137–38, 5.1.3: The aftermath of Philippi

Antony now took control of the Eastern provinces, raising monies to pay the triumvirs’
soldiers. Octavian returned to Italy after another severe illness to oversee the settlement of
the veterans and continue the war against Pompeius.

137 In this way Caesar and Antony achieved through the audacious taking of
risks and two infantry battles an outcome so successful that it was totally without
precedent. Never had such large or powerful Roman military forces come into
conflict with each other before this time, nor had these been enlisted by normal
conscription methods but were hand-picked; they were not inexperienced recruits,
but disciplined and hardened over a long period, and turned on each other rather
than fighting against foreign or barbarian peoples. Sharing the same language
and military proficiency, alike in training and endurance, they were reciprocally
invincible against each other for these reasons. Nor had there ever been such rage
and daring shown in war as now, when citizens were fighting against citizens,
relatives against relatives, and fellow soldiers against each other. Proof of this is
that the number of the slain, across each of the battles, was apparently no fewer
for the conquerors than for the conquered.
138 The army of Antony and Caesar validated the forecast of its generals,
on one day and with one engagement exchanging the utmost peril of famine
and fear of annihilation for splendid wealth, total security and glorious victory.
Furthermore, the outcome came about that they had predicted to the Romans as
they were going into battle: Rome’s government was explicitly decided by that
one action, and it has not yet returned to being a democracy, nor was there any
further necessity for similar conflicts against each other, except for the civil war
between Antony and Caesar not long afterwards, which was the last engaged in
by the Romans . . . .
5.1.3 After the victory at Philippi, Caesar and Antony performed a magnifi-
cent sacrifice and praised their army. To arrange for the allocation of the rewards
of victory, the former went to Italy to divide up the soldiers’ land and to settle
them in the colonies (he chose this himself because of his sickness), while Antony
went to the peoples beyond (the Aegean) to collect the money the soldiers had
been promised. They divided the provinces between them as before and added
those of Lepidus. It was decided on Caesar’s advice that Gaul within the Alps
(Cisalpine) be independent, as the elder Caesar had intended, while Lepidus had
been accused of betraying matters to (Sextus) Pompeius. They agreed that, if
Caesar considered the accusation against Lepidus to be false, he would be given
other provinces. They dismissed from service those who had completed their full
period except for 8,000 who asked to continue to serve; these were taken back
and divided between them, formed into praetorian cohorts. The remainder of their

628
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
army, including those who had come over from Brutus, comprised 11 legions of
infantry and 14,000 cavalry. Of these Antony took six legions and 10,000 cavalry
for his campaign overseas, while Caesar had 4,000 cavalry and five legions, but
he gave two of these to Antony in exchange for those left in Italy by Antony under
the command of Calenus.

DISPOSSESSION, FULVIA AND LUCIUS ANTONIUS

With huge numbers of veterans due to be disbanded, the need for land on which to settle
colonies was of paramount importance following the triumvirs’ victory at Philippi. Although
the triumvirs had agreed following the conference at Bononia that the lands of 18 Italian
cities were to be appropriated for this redistribution, in the event the holdings of some 40
cities in Italy were confiscated; an allotment of 50 iugera seems to have been the norm
for soldiers, and 100 for officers: senatorial estates were exempted. Vergil’s own family
was said to have lost its land near Mantua until an appeal was made to Octavian by the
poet’s powerful friends. This redistribution of land, the effects of which were heightened
by occasional famine at Rome because of the activities of Sextus Pompeius, was to cause
unrest over the next decade. Mark Antony’s brother Lucius, consul in 41, together with
Antony’s wife, Fulvia, considered that Antony’s veterans were not receiving fair treatment
and stirred up enough resentment to spark off war with Octavian in Italy, which ended with
their defeat at Perusia in 40 BC.

14.28 Vergil Eclogue 1: Discontent in Italy

The redistribution of land in Italy to veterans caused great hardship, reflected in Vergil’s
Eclogues 1 and 9. In Eclogue 1 (written probably in 41 BC), Meliboeus represents the
dispossessed farmer, Tityrus (singing love songs at his ease) one who has been exempted
from dispossession by ‘god-like’ Octavian.

Meliboeus
Tityrus, here lying under cover of the spreading beech
You practise the woodland Muse on your slim reed-pipe
While I must leave my native land and my sweet fields:
I am driven from home – you, Tityrus, at ease in the shade
5 Teach the woods to echo ‘sweet Amaryllis’.
Tityrus
Meliboeus, a god has granted me this leisure:
For to me he will always be a god, and his altar
A tender lamb from my sheepfolds will always drench with blood.
It is he, as you see, that allows my cattle to ramble and myself
10 To play as I choose on this rustic pipe . . .
Meliboeus
26 What then was this special cause of your seeing Rome? . . .
Tityrus
40 What else could I do? My slavery allowed of no escape,
Nor were there elsewhere any other gods at hand to help.

629
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
Here I saw that youth, Meliboeus, in whose praise
Twelve days a year my altars will give smoke:
He was the first to answer my request with,
‘Pasture your cattle, as before, and raise your bulls.’ . . .
So, sooner will nimble deer graze on open sea
60 And seas abandon fish uncovered on the shore,
Sooner migrating across each other’s borders, will the exiled
Parthian drink the Araris, or Germany the Tigris,
Than his countenance will ever fade from my heart!
Meliboeus
While the rest of us must leave, some to thirsty Africa,
To Scythia and the turbulent Oxus,
Or Britain far separated from the whole earth!
When shall I ever see again my native lands after long years,
Or the turf-heaped roof of my poor cottage,
Or in after times gaze wondering at the ears of grain – my only kingdom!
70 Some godless soldier will now possess my well-tilled fallow,
A foreigner these crops! What misery civil strife
Has brought us! For these we have sown our fields!

14.29 Livy Periochae 125–26: The siege of Perusia

In 41 BC, following Octavian’s confiscation of land for his veterans, there was extensive
rioting, as well as famine, as Pompeius was blockading Italy. Antony’s wife, Fulvia, and
his brother Lucius, as consul, made political use of the concerns of the dispossessed. Lucius
had the support of the senate and briefly gained control of Rome with his army, but he was
besieged at Perusia and defeated by Octavian in March 40. Antony, who may not have been
fully aware of events, and Octavian were reconciled later in 40 at Brundisium.

125 Antony was left overseas (the provinces lying in that part of the empire had
submitted to him), and Caesar returned to Italy and distributed lands to his veterans.
Mutinies in his army against their general by soldiers incited by Fulvia, the wife
of Mark Antony, he put down at great risk. The consul Lucius Antonius, brother of
Mark Antony, on the advice of that same Fulvia, made war on Caesar. The people
whose lands had been assigned to the veterans were enlisted on his side, and he
routed Marcus Lepidus, who with his army was in charge of the defence of Rome,
and made a hostile foray into the city. 126 When Caesar was 23 years of age, he
besieged Lucius Antonius in the town of Perusia and repulsed several attempts by
him to break out. When he was forced by hunger to surrender, Caesar pardoned
him and all his soldiers but destroyed Perusia. With all the armies of the other side
brought under his command, he put an end to the war without bloodshed.

14.30 Martial Epigrams 11.20: Octavian’s elegiacs on Fulvia

Antony placed Glaphyra’s son Archelaus IV on the Cappadocian throne after Philippi (it
was rumoured that Glaphyra and Antony were lovers). Manius was one of his agents in

630
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
Italy, working with Fulvia in 41–40 BC. Octavian in this poem, emphasising his masculinity
and down-to-earth Roman moral standards, is clearly focusing on Fulvia rather than on
the Antonii as being responsible for the conflict. Octavian had recently divorced Fulvia’s
daughter Clodia Pulchra, which would have encouraged Fulvia to fight for Antony’s rights
against those of Octavian. Martial is here comparing his own ‘lewdness’ with the language
used by Augustus in his youth.

Malicious reader, these six bawdy lines of Caesar Augustus

Peruse, you who read Latin words with ill-humour:
‘Because Antony is fucking Glaphyra, this punishment
Fulvia laid down for me, that I should fuck her as well.
5 That I should fuck her too? What if Manius begged me
To bugger him – would I do it? I don’t think so, if I had any sense!
“Either fuck me or we fight”, she says. What – if my prick
Was more precious to me than life? Let the war trumpets sound!’
Caesar, you certainly absolve my naughty little books from censure –
10 You who know how to express yourself with Roman bluntness.

14.31 CIL 11.6721.5, 7, 9a, 11, 14: Flying insults from Perusia
ILLRP 1106–18. The term for a slingshot was glans (plural: glandes), which meant both
acorn and the head of the penis. These slingshots are known as the glandes perusinae. Many
slingshots were inscribed with insults (cf. 10.16 for examples in the Social War). Lucius’
coins show that he did in fact suffer from hair loss, as did Julius Caesar.

5 I’m heading for Fulvia’s cunt!

7 I’m heading for Octavian’s ass!
9a Greetings Octavian, you suck!
11 You pansy Octavian, sit on this one!
14 Bald Lucius Antonius, and you too Fulvia, open up your assholes!

ANTONY’S REORGANISATION OF THE EAST

Antony made a tour of the Eastern provinces, some of which had suffered severely
under the ‘liberators’, arbitrating disputes, installing client kings, raising resources and
removing tyrants. Although Brutus and Cassius had made great exactions throughout
the East to finance their war, Antony also needed to raise funds to pay for the settlement
of the triumvirs’ veterans. Many of the Eastern provinces had supported the liberators
and so needed careful handling, and he showed leniency to all except those who had
been involved in Caesar’s assassination, granting privileges to Athens and other cultural
centres. One of the most important client rulers was Cleopatra, whom he met (again)
at Tarsus in 41 BC. She had already supported the triumvirs by sending four legions to
oppose Cassius. While the campaigns against the Parthians were seen as expeditions
honour bound to take revenge for earlier defeats and retrieve captured Roman standards,
it is clear that the Eastern provinces could be devastated by their incursions, as in 40–39,
and that the Parthians had to be dealt with as a very real threat, and not just to cities on
the frontier.

631
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
14.32 RDGE 57: Antony honours festival winners
A letter of Antony’s found on papyrus in Egypt dated to 42–41 BC (or perhaps 33–32 BC),
the two occasions on which he was known to be in Ephesus. The grant refers to members
of a professional organisation of those who had won wreaths for events at sacred festivals,
both athletes and performers. Artemidoros is Antony’s physical trainer (his ‘anointer’), and
his name shows that he owed his citizenship to Antony. The purple stripe was granted to
distinguished citizens in Greek cities.

Mark Antony, imperator, triumvir for the restoration of the state, to the koinon
(association) of Greeks in Asia, greetings.
5 Earlier I was met in Ephesus by Marcus Antonius Artemidoros, my friend
and trainer, along with the eponymous priest of the society (synodos) of crowned
victors at sacred festivals worldwide, 10 Charopeinos of Ephesus, with regard
to the previous privileges of the society that they may remain unchanged, and
that I should agree to write to you immediately concerning the other honours
and immunities which they requested from me, such as exemption from military
service 15 and exemption from all liturgies and exemption from billeting, and a
sacred truce and inviolability during festivals, and the purple stripe. 20 I will-
ingly, both because of my friend Artemidoros and for the sake of their eponymous
priest, grant this favour for the honour of the society and for its growth. And
now Artemidoros has again met me, requesting that they be allowed to dedicate a
bronze tablet and to inscribe on it the immunities written above, and I, choosing
in no way to fail Artemidoros when he came to me about these issues, granted the
dedication of the tablet as he requested me. I have confirmed this in a letter to you.

14.33 Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 14.12.4.301–23: Antony and the

Jews, 41 BC
Antony here makes provisions for Jews who suffered under the government of Brutus and
Cassius in the East. Hyrcanus was high priest and ethnarch of Judaea; in 37 BC Antony and
the senate declared Herod king of Judaea.

301 Antony and Caesar had defeated Cassius near Philippi, as has been recounted
by others. After the victory, Caesar went to Italy and Antony marched off to Asia,
and while he was in Bithynia embassies from all parts came to address him. 302
Those in authority among the Jews also came to accuse the factions of Phasaelus
and Herod, stating that Hyrcanus had the semblance of ruling, but that these men
had all the power. 303 Antony showed great respect to Herod, who had come to
him to defend himself against his accusers, and consequently his opponents could
not even obtain an audience – Herod gained this from Antony through bribery.
304 When Antony arrived at Ephesus, Hyrcanus, the high priest, and our people
sent an embassy to him bearing a crown of gold and requested that he would write
to the provincial governors to release those Jews who had been taken by Cassius
as prisoners of war, although they had not fought against him, and to return to
them that country which, under Cassius, had been taken from them. 305 Antony

632
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
considered that the Jews’ requests were just and wrote immediately to Hyrcanus
and the Jews, and also sent a decree to the Tyrians, which stated that decision.
306 ‘Mark Antony, imperator, to Hyrcanus the high priest and ethnarch and to
the people of the Jews, greetings. If you are well, it is good; I too, with my army,
am in health. 307 Lysimachus, the son of Pausanias, Josephus, the son of Menneus,
and Alexander, the son of Theodorus, your ambassadors, met me at Ephesus and
have renewed the embassy on which they had formerly served at Rome; they have
diligently carried out the present embassy on behalf of you and your people and
have made clear the goodwill you have towards us. 308 Since I am convinced,
therefore, both by your actions and by your words, that you feel friendship towards
us, and as I understand that your lifestyle is steadfast and god-fearing, 309 I regard
you as one of our own. When those enemies to us and to the Roman people overran
the whole of Asia, sparing neither cities nor shrines, and did not keep the oaths they
had given, it was not only on account of our own conflict with them but on account
of everyone jointly that we took vengeance on those responsible for the offences
against men and wickedness towards the gods, the reason why, we suppose, that the
sun turned away his light, it too being loath to view their abominable crime against
Caesar. 310 We have also overcome their conspiracies, aimed against the very gods
themselves, which Macedonia experienced, as a climate peculiarly appropriate for
their unholy and reckless deeds, and (have overcome) that assemblage of half-mad
depravity which they mustered at Philippi in Macedonia, when they took posses-
sion of terrain that was well situated and walled round with mountains to the very
sea, and where the approach was controlled through only a single gate – and we
succeeded because the gods had condemned them for their wicked machinations.
311 And Brutus, when he had fled to Philippi and had been corralled by us, shared
in Cassius’ destruction. Now these have received their punishment, we hope that
we may enjoy peace for the future and that Asia may have a rest from war. 312 We
therefore ensure that the peace which god has granted us includes our allies as well,
with the whole of Asia restored as if from an illness through our victory. Therefore,
with regard to both you and your people, I shall take care of what will augment your
well-being. 313 I have also sent letters to the cities, that if anyone, whether freemen
or slaves, has been sold under the spear by Gaius Cassius or his subordinates, they
shall be set free, and I desire that you make use of the privileges granted you by
myself and Dolabella. I also forbid the Tyrians to use any violence against you and
order them to restore whatever places of the Jews they now hold. The crown that
you sent me I have accepted.’
319 ‘Mark Antony, imperator, to the magistrates, senate, and people of Tyre,
greetings. I have sent you my decree, which I desire you to take care to inscribe on
the public tablets, in Roman and Greek letters, and that you position it inscribed in
the most prominent place so that it can be read by all. 320 “Mark Antony, impera-
tor, one of the triumvirate for restoring public affairs, made this declaration: Since
Gaius Cassius, in his revolt, plundered that province, which was not his, and which
was overrun with armies, as well as our allies, and made the Jewish people –
a friend of the Roman people – capitulate; 321 and since we have overcome his
rebellion by arms, we now restore by our decrees and judgements what he has

633
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
plundered, so that these may be returned to our allies. And whatever Jewish pos-
sessions have been sold, whether they be Jewish persons or property, let them be
released, the persons into their original state and the property to its former owners.
322 I also desire that anyone who does not obey this decree of mine shall suffer
punishment; and, if caught, I will take care to prosecute the offender according to
his deserts.”’ 323 He wrote the same to the Sidonians, Antiochians and Aradians.
I have presented these opportunely as evidence for what I have stated: that the
Romans showed consideration towards our people.

14.34 Appian Civil Wars 5.1.8–11: Antony meets Cleopatra

As one of Rome’s client rulers, Cleopatra was summoned to meet Antony in 41 BC while
he was in Cilicia. According to Plutarch (Ant. 26) she sailed up the River Cydnus in a barge
with gilded stern, oars of silver and sails of purple, dressed like Venus and fanned by boys
like Cupids. Antony spent the winter of 41–40 in Egypt with Cleopatra, and their twins
were born in 40, a year after their meeting.

8 Antony was struck with her intelligence as well as her appearance and was
immediately taken with her, just as if he were a young man, although he was
now 40 years of age. It was said that he was always very susceptible in such
matters and that he had developed an interest in her at first sight long ago, when
she was still a girl, when he was serving as a young man as master of horse
under Gabinius’ command at Alexandria (55 BC). 9 Antony’s concern for public
affairs up to this point immediately vanished, and whatever Cleopatra ordered
transpired, with no regard for sanctity or justice. Though her sister Arsinoe was
a suppliant at the temple of Artemis Leukophryne at Miletus, Antony sent there
and had her put to death, and Serapion, Cleopatra’s governor in Cyprus, who had
fought alongside Cassius and was now a suppliant at Tyre, he ordered the Tyrians
to hand over to her, and he instructed the Aradians to hand over another suppli-
ant who, when Cleopatra’s brother Ptolemy disappeared at the sea battle against
Caesar on the Nile, said he was Ptolemy and whom the Aradians held. . . . 10 He
did not wait for the troubles in Syria to settle but distributed his army to winter in
the provinces while he himself went to Egypt to Cleopatra. 11 She received him
with magnificence, and he spent the winter there without any of his insignia as a
commander, adopting the dress and lifestyle of an ordinary person, either because
he was in a country under foreign sovereignty in a royal city or because he consid-
ered his winter stay as a holiday, as he even laid aside the concerns and retinue of
a general and wore the square-cut Greek garment instead of that of his own coun-
try and the white Attic shoe which the Athenian and Alexandrian priests wear,
called the phaikesion. His excursions were made only to the temples, gymnasia
and debates of the philosophers, and under Cleopatra’s influence he spent his time
with Greeks, to whom he dedicated the whole period of his stay.

14.35 RDGE 60: Parthians devastate the East

According to hostile sources, the Parthians took opportunity of Antony’s stay in Egypt to
attack Roman Asia Minor and took Syria, Palestine and even parts of northern Asia Minor.

634
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
This letter of Octavian’s, written to the city of Mylasa in Caria in 31 BC, highlights its
sufferings during the Parthian invasion in 40–39 led by Labienus. The city was still in a
critical financial condition in 31.

A Imperator Caesar, son of the god Julius, installed as consul for the third time,
to the Mylasan magistrates, council and people, greetings. If you are well, 5 it
is good. I too, with my army, am in health. You sent to me formerly concern-
ing the adversity that oppresses you, and now your 10 envoys have come to me,
Ouliades, . . . . B of the enemy to have fallen, and your city conquered, and many
of your citizens lost as prisoners of war, not a few murdered, and some burnt along
with the city, 5 with the brutality of the enemy sparing neither the shrines nor the
most sacred temples. They have informed me about your plundered land and the
farm buildings that have been torched, 10 resulting in your meeting with every
misfortune. With regard to all these, I am aware that you who have suffered this
are men who deserve every honour and favour from the Romans . . .

EVENTS IN ITALY
In 40 BC both armies were keen for compromise. At Brundisium the terms after Philippi
were mostly replicated, except that Octavian was now recognised as controlling Gaul.
Essentially Lepidus had been sidelined and the empire was divided into East and West, with
Antony in control of the East but with Octavian having the advantage of being clearly based
in Italy, even though he had the almost impossible task of combatting Sextus Pompeius
and his fleet. As Fulvia had died, to ratify this arrangement Antony married Octavian’s
sister Octavia Minor. Both Antony and Octavian went to Rome, where they were awarded
ovations, and coins were struck featuring them both, together with the head of Concordia.

14.36 Appian Civil Wars 5.7.64–8.68: The treaty of Brundisium, 40 BC

The pact of Brundisium took place in 40 BC, probably in September (Dio 48.28.3–29.1).
However, heavy taxation was again imposed, including an inheritance tax and one on
slaves, and Pompeius continued his blockade of grain ships. Riots took place in November
40 BC, and Antony’s intervention was necessary to save Octavian from being stoned by
the mob. Ahenobarbus, who had been in charge of the liberators’ fleet, had joined Antony.

7.64 When Caesar’s army learnt these facts they chose envoys and sent the same
ones to both commanders, taking no notice of accusations because they had been
selected not to decide between them but to make peace. They added Cocceius
to their number as a friend of both, as well as Pollio from Antony’s side and
Maecenas from Caesar’s, and determined that there should be an amnesty for
the past between Caesar and Antony and friendship for the future. Furthermore,
as Marcellus, who had married Octavia, Caesar’s sister, had only just died, the
adjudicators decided that Caesar should betroth Octavia to Antony, which he did
straightaway. The two men embraced each other, and shouts and good wishes to
each of them went up from the army without ceasing throughout the whole day
and night. 65 Caesar and Antony once again partitioned the whole Roman empire
between them, their boundary being at Scodra, an Illyrian city supposed to be

635
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
halfway up the Illyrian gulf. All nations and islands east of this as far as the River
Euphrates were to be Antony’s and all west of it as far as the Ocean to Caesar.
Lepidus was to govern Africa, as Caesar had given it to him. Caesar was to make
war on Pompeius, unless they came to terms, and Antony on the Parthians to
avenge their treachery towards Crassus. Caesar was to make the same agreement
with Ahenobarbus that Antony had. Each could raise an army in equal numbers
in Italy without interference. These were the last peace terms in place between
Caesar and Antony. Each of them immediately sent his friends to deal with cri-
sis situations, Antony dispatching Ventidius to Asia against the Parthians and
Labienus, son of Labienus, who with the Parthians had invaded Syria and reached
as far as Ionia in the recent hostilities. . . .
8.67 The Romans were now oppressed with famine, since the Eastern mer-
chants were unable to put to sea for fear of Pompeius and his Sicilian base, and
those of the West for fear of Sardinia and Corsica, which were under the power
of Pompeius’ officers, while those from the African coast were prevented by both
of these as they controlled both coastlines. The prices of everything rose, and the
people put this down to the conflict between the leaders and abused them, urg-
ing them to make peace with Pompeius. As Caesar would not comply with this,
Antony counselled him to hurry up the war because of the shortage. As there was
no money for this, a decree was published that the owners of slaves should pay a
tax for each of them of one-half of the 25 drachmas that had been laid down for the
war against Cassius and Brutus, and that anyone receiving a testamentary legacy
should contribute a proportion. The people tore down this document with violent
rage, infuriated that, after draining the public treasury, stripping the provinces
bare, and loading Italy itself down with imposts, taxes and confiscations, not for
foreign wars or for expanding the empire but against personal enemies and to
increase their own power – which was why the proscriptions and executions and
horrific famine had come about – they should rob them of whatever they had left.
Thronging together, they shouted their protest and stoned those who did not join
them, threatening to ransack and set fire to their houses, 68 until the whole popu-
lace was enraged and Caesar with his friends, and a few attendants came among
them intending to make them see sense and reason away their grievances. As soon
as they caught sight of him they started stoning him unmercifully and were not
even ashamed of themselves when he patiently tolerated this and allowed them
to continue even though he was wounded. When Antony heard of this he came
urgently to his assistance. When they saw him coming down the Via Sacra they
did not stone him, because he was in favour of making peace with Pompeius, but
told him to go away – when he refused they stoned him as well. He called in more
troops who were outside the walls. As they still would not let him pass through,
the troops divided to each side of the street and forum and attacked from the nar-
row ways, killing those they met: the people were unable to escape easily, being
hemmed in by the crowd and no longer having an exit route, while there transpired
a scene of slaughter and wounds with laments and cries from the rooftops. Antony
made his way through with difficulty and snatched Caesar away from the obvious
danger he was currently facing and got him safe to his house.

636
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
When the populace dispersed, the corpses were thrown into the river to prevent
the sight of them causing too much distress. A further reason for lamentation was
the sight of them floating down the river and of the soldiers, along with certain
malefactors, stripping the bodies and carrying off the better quality clothing as their
own. This affair was terminated at the cost of fear and hatred of the leaders, while
the famine grew worse and the people kept up their complaints – but quietly.

14.37 Appian Civil Wars 5.8.72–74: The treaty of Misenum, 39 BC

Following the riots in Rome, in 39 BC Octavian, Antony and Pompeius signed a treaty
at Misenum (also known as the treaty of Puteoli). Pompeius now had a fleet of some 250
vessels, and in this agreement he was granted Corsica, Sicily, Sardinia and the Peloponnese
for five years, as well as the consulship for 33. The reaction of the people, who sacrificed
to Antony and Octavian ‘as if to saviours’, shows the hardships which the ongoing conflict
had caused.

72 Finally, at the urging of Pompeius’ mother Mucia and his wife Julia, the three
men met on the mole at Puteoli, washed on both sides by the waves, with ships
anchored round it as protection, and agreed to the following terms: that the war
between them both by land and sea should be terminated and that trade should
be unhindered everywhere; that Pompeius should remove whatever garrisons he
had in Italy and no longer receive runaway slaves or blockade the coast of Italy
with his ships; that he should govern Sardinia, Sicily and Corsica, and all islands
then in his possessions, as long as Antony and Caesar governed the others; that he
should send to the Romans the grain that had long been laid down as tribute from
these islands, and possess the Peloponnese as well as these; that he should hold the
consulship in absentia through any friend he might designate; and that he should
be listed among the priests of the highest college. These conditions pertained to
Pompeius: the aristocrats still in exile could return, except those condemned by
vote of the senate or a court ruling as involved in the murder of Gaius Caesar;
the property of the rest, who had gone into exile through fear and whose posses-
sions had been seized by violence, were to be restored in their entirety except for
moveable property, while the proscribed would receive a fourth of theirs. Slaves
who had served in Pompeius’ army were to be free, and free persons, on their
discharge, were to receive the same gratuities as those serving under Caesar and
Antony. 73 These were the agreed terms, which they signed and sealed, and sent
to Rome to be guarded by the Vestal Virgins. . . . The daughter of Pompeius (the
granddaughter of Libo) was betrothed to Marcellus, the stepson of Antony and
nephew of Caesar. On the following day they designated the consuls for the next
four years: first Antony and Libo (34 BC), with Antony able to substitute anyone
he chose for himself, then Octavian and Pompeius (33 BC), Ahenobarbus and
Sosius (32 BC) and, finally, Antony and Octavian again (31 BC), and, as they
would both have been consuls a third time, it was hoped that they would then
restore the government to the people. 74 When this was completed, they went
their different ways: Pompeius sailed to Sicily, and Caesar and Antony travelled

637
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
to Rome. When the city and Italy learnt of this, there was immediate and uni-
versal praise for the restoration of peace, as they had been released from civil
war, the conscription of their sons, the arrogance of guards, the running away of
slaves, the plundering of fields, the devastation of agriculture and, above all, the
famine, which had utterly oppressed them. In consequence, as they made their
journey, sacrifices were offered to them as if to saviours, and the city would have
received them illustriously had they not entered Rome by night and secretly to
avoid resentment.

14.38 Cornelius Nepos Life of Atticus 19.4–20.5: Octavian, Antony and

Atticus
Atticus remained a close friend and adviser to both Antony and Octavian despite their
political differences; cf. doc. 14.38.

19.4 Atticus had a granddaughter by Agrippa, to whom he gave his daughter in

her first marriage. This granddaughter, when hardly a year old, Caesar betrothed
to his stepson Tiberius Claudius Nero, son of (Livia) Drusilla, an alliance which
formally strengthened their friendly relationship and ensured that they spent even
more time together.
20.1 Even before this betrothal, whenever Caesar was away from the city he
never sent letters to any of his other friends without writing to Atticus what he was
doing, particularly what he was reading, where he was and how long he was going
to stay there. 2 In fact, even when he was in the city, but because of his countless
commitments was unable to enjoy Atticus’ company as much as he wished, hardly
a single day passed when he did not write to him, either asking him some query
about olden times or requesting his opinion on some passage of poetry, as well as
teasing him to get him to write longer letters. 3 It was on account of this rapport,
when the temple of Jupiter Feretrius on the Capitol, which Romulus had erected,
was roofless and falling into disrepair through age and lack of care, that Caesar
had it restored on Atticus’ advice. 4 Mark Antony also kept up a correspondence
with Atticus, despite the distance, and took care to send him full details of what
he was doing even from the ends of the earth. 5 What this involved will be more
easily understood by someone able to judge how much wisdom it takes to retain
the friendship and goodwill of men who were not only rivals in the most momen-
tous undertakings, but also such adversaries as Caesar and Antony were bound to
become when each of them wanted to be the princeps (chief man) not only of the
city of Rome but of the entire world.

14.39 Dio Roman History 48.44.1–5: Livia’s ‘three-months child’

In 40 BC Octavian had married Scribonia, the sister of Pompeius’ father-in-law; he divorced
her the day she gave birth to Julia, his only child. The marriage to Livia apparently took
place on 17 January 38. Livia’s first husband, T. Claudius Nero, had supported Lucius
Antonius, Mark Antony and, finally, Pompeius.

638
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
1 Besides these occurrences at this time, Caesar married Livia. She was the daugh-
ter of Livius Drusus, who had been one of those proscribed on the register and
committed suicide after the defeat in Macedonia, and the wife of Nero, whom she
accompanied in his flight, as told earlier: she was in her sixth month of pregnancy
by him. 2 Caesar was hesitant, at any rate, and asked the pontifices if it would be
permissible to marry her while she was pregnant. They replied that if there were
any doubt as to whether conception had taken place they should put back the mar-
riage, but if this was agreed there was nothing to prevent its taking place now.
Perhaps they actually found this in the ancient rulings, but even if they had not
found it, they would certainly have said so. 3 Her husband gave her away like any
other father – and at the feast the following incident took place: a little boy, one of
the chatterers which women keep for fun, naked as a rule, on seeing Livia on one
side reclining with Caesar, and on another Nero with some other man, went up to
her and said, ‘What are you doing here, lady? Your husband’, pointing him out,
‘is reclining over there.’ 4 This is what occurred, and when the woman was living
with Caesar she gave birth to Claudius Drusus Nero. Caesar both acknowledged
him and sent him to his father, writing in his memoranda that ‘Caesar returned to
his father Nero the baby born by Livia, his wife.’ 5 Nero died not long afterwards
and left Caesar himself as guardian to this child and Tiberius. The populace gos-
siped a great deal about this and among other things said that ‘The lucky have
children in three months’, a remark which passed into a proverb.

14.40 Livy Periochae 127–29: The end of Sextus Pompeius

In 38 BC Octavian’s fleet was twice defeated by Sextus, off Cumae and in the Straits of
Messana. Antony returned to Italy early in 37 and met Octavian at Tarentum, where a
further agreement was reached: the role of Octavia in reaching a compromise was said to
be crucial, and she appears on coins in 37–36. The triumvirate, which had lapsed in 38,
was renewed for a further five-year term. The decisive battle against Sextus was fought on
3 September 36 off Naulochus under Agrippa: due to Agrippa’s tactics, only 17 of Sextus’
300 ships escaped, and some 30,000 slaves were returned to their owners (6,000 without
owners were crucified). When Lepidus then tried to take command of the combined land
force, the troops supported Octavian, and Lepidus lost his command and membership of
the triumvirate.

127 When Mark Antony . . . to make war on Caesar . . . his wife Fulvia, so that
nothing should hinder harmony between the leaders, he made peace with Caesar
and married his sister Octavia. He revealed that Quintus Salvidenus, on his own
evidence, had engaged in nefarious plots against Caesar, and he was condemned
and committed suicide. . . . As Sextus Pompeius, an enemy on Italy’s doorstep,
controlled Sicily and was hampering the grain trade, Caesar and Antony made
peace with him at his request, on the terms that he should hold Sicily as a prov-
ince. The book also covers the insurgence in Africa and the wars conducted there.
128 When Sextus Pompeius again made the sea unsafe by acts of piracy and did
not keep to the peace he had agreed, Caesar undertook the necessary war against

639
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
him and fought two naval battles with no definite outcome (38 BC). . . . The book
also covers the preparations for war in Sicily (37 BC). 129 Naval battles with dis-
parate outcomes were fought against Sextus Pompeius, in that one of Caesar’s two
fleets, commanded by Agrippa, was successful, while the other, led by Caesar,
was wiped out and the soldiers who had been disembarked on land were in serious
danger. Afterwards Pompeius was defeated and fled to Sicily (36 BC). Marcus
Lepidus crossed from Africa as if to join Caesar in waging war against Sextus
Pompeius, but when he also attacked Caesar he was deserted by his army and lost
his position on the Board of Three; however, he was successful in begging for his
life. Marcus Agrippa was awarded a naval crown by Caesar, an honour which no
one before him had held.

14.41 Appian Civil Wars 5.13.130, 132: Octavian pacifies Italy, 36 BC

Octavian celebrated an ovatio for the victory over Pompeius on 13 November 36 BC,
and a golden statue of him was set up in the forum on a column decorated with ships’
rams. Emergency and unpaid taxes could now be cancelled. Octavian did not receive the
tribuneship for life in 36 (this was in 23) but only tribunician sacrosanctity (Dio 49.15.5),
perhaps reflecting that given to Caesar in 44. Maecenas was made responsible for the
government of Rome (Dio 49.16).

130 When he arrived at Rome the senate voted him countless honours, of which
they made him the arbiter as to whether he should accept all or as many as he
might choose. They and the people, crowned with garlands, went an exceptional
distance to meet him and when he arrived escorted him to the temples and then
from the temples to his house. The following day he delivered speeches to the
senate and to the people, detailing his actions and his policy from the beginning
to the present: he also wrote down these speeches and published them in written
form. He proclaimed peace and harmony, stated that the civil wars had come to
an end, and released from their obligations those who still had taxes owing, as
well as both the tax-collectors and farmers of contracts. Of the honours voted him
he accepted an ovation, annual supplications on the days of his victories, and a
golden statue of himself, in the dress in which he entered the city, on a column in
the forum surrounded by the beaks of ships. The portrait was erected there with
the inscription: ‘Peace which had long been disrupted he re-established by land
and sea.’ . . . 132 This now seemed to be the end of the civil conflicts. Caesar at
that point was 28 years of age. Cities dedicated statues of him alongside their
own gods. Rome itself and Italy were openly plagued with companies of robbers,
whose activities seemed more like audacious looting than surreptitious robbery,
and Sabinus, who was chosen by Caesar to deal with this, executed many of those
he captured and in a year had brought everything into a state of total security, and
it was from this, they say, that there today exists the practice and structure of the
force of nightwatchmen. Caesar caused amazement at the unprecedented speed
with which this was resolved, and he allowed the annual magistrates to administer
public affairs, in most instances, according to tradition. He also burnt records
which pertained to the civil conflict and said that he would restore the constitution

640
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
in its entirety when Antony returned from the Parthian wars – as he was convinced
that Antony would also be prepared to lay down his magistracy now the civil
wars were over. Consequently the people acclaimed him and appointed him as
tribune for life, encouraging him through this permanent magistracy to relinquish
his former one. He accepted this and wrote of his own accord to Antony regarding
the government. Antony instructed Bibulus, who was leaving him, to meet with
Caesar. Like him, he dispatched governors to his provinces and considered join-
ing in his campaign against the Illyrians.

ANTONY, CLEOPATRA AND PARTHIA

During Antony’s absence in Italy, in 39 BC Ventidius had defeated Labienus and the
Parthians were pushed back across the Euphrates, with Pacorus being killed at the battle
of Cyrrestica in June 38. After wintering in Athens, Antony went east early in 38 and in
a further reorganisation of the Eastern provinces appears to have given Cleopatra Cyprus
and part of Cilicia, perhaps to provide timber to strengthen his fleet, to which he later
added further domains, including Crete and Cyrene. As part of his religious policy Antony
appears to have continued to emphasise his identification with Dionysus (Dio 48.39.2).
While Antony had given the promised ships to Octavian after the agreement at Tarentum,
Octavian had not handed over the legions to Antony as he had agreed. There was now a
break between the two, and Antony did not return to Octavia. Some four years after their
previous meeting, Cleopatra met Antony again in Syria in 37, and in 36 she bore him
Ptolemy Philadelphus. After his defeats by the Parthians in 36, Antony conquered Armenia
in 34 and celebrated a triumph at Alexandria (not Rome), after which he formally granted
Roman territories to Cleopatra and their children and recognised the legitimacy of Caesar’s
son Caesarion.

14.42 Livy Periochae 127–30: Events in the East, 40–36 BC

Criticisms of Antony’s conduct of the Parthian campaign in 36 are unfair, but he did lose
one-third of his army, mainly as a result of the defection of Artavasdes of Armenia and the
unfavourable conditions during their retreat, in which they covered 300 miles in 21 days.

127 The Parthians invaded Syria under the command of Labienus, who was one of
the Pompeian side, defeated Decidius Saxa, the legate of Mark Antony, and overran
that entire province (40 BC). . . . Publius Ventidius, Antony’s legate, defeated the
Parthians in a battle and expelled them from Syria after their leader Labienus was
killed (39 BC). . . . 128 Publius Ventidius, Antony’s legate, defeated the Parthians
in a battle in Syria and killed their king. The Jews were also conquered by Antony’s
legates. . . . 130 While Mark Antony was living it up with Cleopatra, he finally
invaded Media and made war on the Parthians with 18 legions and 16,000 cavalry.
After two legions were lost he withdrew with no favourable outcomes at all. The
Parthians then came after him, but after great panic and serious risk to his whole
army he returned to Armenia, covering 300 miles in 21 days in his flight. He lost
some 8,000 men to bad weather. He met with these violent storms, in addition to the
ill-starred Parthian war he had undertaken, through his own fault, as he was averse
to wintering in Armenia because of his haste to return to Cleopatra (36 BC).

641
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
14.43 Plutarch Life of Antony 54.1–55.4: The ‘Donations of
Alexandria’, 34 BC
In line with Octavian’s propaganda at the time, Plutarch here depicts Antony as an Eastern
ruler and a threat to Rome and its standards. At this point the twins Alexander Helios and
Cleopatra Selene were six and Ptolemy two years of age. Antony’s ‘donations’ suggested in
Rome dynastic ambitions, and there were concerns about coins which featured the heads of
Antony and Cleopatra, including one celebrating the Armenian triumph (doc. 14.44). While
it was quite acceptable in the East for Cleopatra to identify herself with Isis and Antony
with Dionysus or Osiris, as Isis’ consort, this was capable of serious misinterpretation in
the West.

54.1 Octavia was thought to have been treated with ignominy, and Caesar
instructed her on her return from Athens to reside in her own house. 2 But she
refused to leave her husband’s residence and begged Caesar, unless he intended
to make war on Antony on other grounds, to ignore his behaviour to her, since
it would be monstrous to have it reported that the Romans were forced into civil
war by their two greatest commanders, one out of passionate love for, and the
other out of resentment on behalf of, a woman. 3 Her words were supported by
her actions – for she lived in his house, just as if her husband were there himself,
and took care of his children, not only her own but those by Fulvia, considerately
and generously; 4 she also welcomed those of Antony’s friends who were sent to
Rome in pursuit of magistracies or business and gave them assistance in obtain-
ing what they wanted from Caesar. 5 Unintentionally, however, she was damag-
ing Antony by her conduct, for he was detested for his ill-treatment of such a
woman. He was detested too for the distribution of his property which he put into
effect in Alexandria for his children, which was seen as theatrical and arrogant
and showing a hatred of Rome. 6 For he had a crowd fill the gymnasium, where
he set up on a silver dais two golden thrones, one for himself and the other for
Cleopatra, with lower ones for his children, and first of all proclaimed Cleopatra
queen of Egypt, Cyprus, Libya and Coele Syria, with Caesarion as her co-ruler
(he was believed to be a son of the earlier Caesar, who had left Cleopatra preg-
nant). 7 Then he proclaimed his own sons by Cleopatra to be Kings of Kings and
bestowed on Alexander Armenia, Media and Parthia, as soon as it was conquered,
and on Ptolemy Phoenicia, Syria and Cilicia. 8 At the same time he presented his
sons publicly, Alexander in Median dress with a tiara and upright headdress and
Ptolemy in boots, short cloak, and a broad-brimmed hat crowned with a diadem.
The latter was the attire of the kings who succeeded Alexander, while the for-
mer was that of the Medes and Armenians. 9 When the children had embraced
their parents, the one was given a bodyguard of Armenians and the other of
Macedonians. Cleopatra, then as always when she appeared in public, wore a robe
sacred to Isis and was addressed as the New Isis. 55.1 By reporting this behaviour
to the senate and by frequently denouncing Antony before the people, Caesar kept
rousing the anger of the populace against Antony. 2 Antony for his part kept send-
ing counter-accusations against him. The main ones he brought were that, first,
when he captured Sicily from Sextus Pompeius, he had not given him any share

642
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
of the island; next, that having had the use of some of Antony’s ships for the war
he hung onto them; 3 thirdly, that after depriving his colleague Lepidus of office
and demoting him, he kept the army, territory and revenues assigned to Lepidus;
and, finally, that he had distributed almost all of Italy in allotments to his own
soldiers and left nothing for Antony’s. 4 Caesar’s response to these accusations
was that he had deposed Lepidus from his position because he was misusing it,
and with regard to his conquests in war he would share these with Antony as soon
as Antony shared Armenia with him. Moreover Antony’s soldiers had no claim
on Italy as they had Media and Parthia, which they had added to Roman territory
by their gallant campaigns under their general.

14.44 Crawford RRC 179: Coinage of Antony and Cleopatra

A silver denarius, 32–31 (East) with the legend in Latin. This was the first portrait of a non-
Roman woman on an official coin with a Latin inscription.

Obverse: Head of Antony, bareheaded, alongside an Armenian tiara. Legend: Of

Antony. Armenia defeated.
Reverse: Bust of Cleopatra, wearing diadem, with a ship’s prow. Legend: Of
Cleopatra, queen of kings and of her sons who are kings.

14.45 Plutarch Life of Antony 27.3–4: Cleopatra VII

Cleopatra VII Philopator (‘father-loving’), born in 70/69 BC, had ruled Egypt with two of
her brothers, Ptolemy XIII and XIV, in succession. As Caesar’s mistress, she was in Rome
at the time of his assassination, when she returned to Egypt with her son Caesarion, ruling
with him as her co-regent. The Ptolemaic dynasty in general spoke Greek, but Cleopatra
also spoke Egyptian and represented herself as the incarnation of the goddess Isis.

3 It is said that her beauty, in and of itself, was not incomparable, nor such as to
astound those that saw her, but her conversation was alluring and her appearance,
together with her eloquence in conversing and the way her personality captivated
those with whom she associated, produced an animating stimulation. 4 The very
tone of her speech was delightful, and she could turn her tongue skilfully like a
many-stringed instrument to whatever language she wanted, needing an interpreter
in meetings with only a few non-Greek speakers while giving her replies to most of
them on her own, for instance Ethiopians, Troglodytes, Hebrews, Arabs, Syrians,
Medes and Parthians. It is also said that she knew the languages of many others as
well, although the kings of Egypt before her had not even made the effort to learn
the Egyptian language, and some of them had even left off speaking Macedonian.

14.46 Livy Periochae 131–32: Events 36–31 BC

The first military victory which Octavian achieved in his own right (rather than relying on
Antony or Agrippa) was in Illyria. In the East, Pompeius was then found to be intriguing

643
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
with the Parthians and was killed by Titius, one of Antony’s generals. In 33 BC Octavian
continued to refuse to Antony the opportunity to raise troops in Italy and find lands for his
veterans and spoke against the ‘donations’ to Cleopatra’s children in the senate.

131 Although Sextus Pompeius had put himself under Mark Antony’s protection,
he started planning to make war on him in Asia, and was surprised by his leg-
ates and killed (36–35 BC). Caesar put down a devastating insurgence among the
veterans and subdued the Iapydae, Dalmatians and Pannonians (35 BC). Antony
successfully tricked Artavasdes, king of Armenia, by pledging his good faith, but
then ordered him to be thrown in chains and gave the kingdom of Armenia to his
son by Cleopatra, with whom he had long been passionately in love and whom
he now began to treat as his wife (34 BC). 132 Caesar overcame the Dalmatians
in Illyricum (34–33 BC). Mark Antony, because of his passion for Cleopatra,
by whom he had two sons, Philadelphus and Alexander, was unwilling to return
to the city or lay down his command when his term on the Board of Three was
completed and made plans for a war against the city and Italy; he assembled huge
forces by sea and on land for this purpose, as well as sending notice of divorce to
Octavia, Caesar’s sister. Caesar crossed to Epirus with his army. The naval battles
and cavalry engagements which followed, in which Caesar was successful, are
described in this book.

PROPAGANDA AND INVECTIVE

While Octavian and his supporters were careful to broadcast at Rome the degree to which
Antony was ‘going native’ in Egypt and showing his lack of respect for Roman traditions
and institutions, it is clear that his relationship with Cleopatra was not ‘a marriage’ per se
and was to some degree based on his reliance on Egypt’s resources and their value to Rome
and his own armies. To counter these attacks over his passion for Cleopatra, as well as over
his supposedly degenerate and drunken lifestyle, Antony produced counter-propaganda to
damage Octavian’s reputation, portraying him as a hypocrite whose morals were equally
as questionable as his own. However, Octavian had the advantage of geography in that he
could ensure the support of Italy, while Antony’s power base was in the East and he had no
chance to present his own case in person.

14.47 Pliny Natural History 14.147–48: Antony’s ‘drunkenness’

Antony’s work on his own drunkenness, written shortly before Actium, was presumably
intended to answer accusations about his intemperance, which date back at least to Cicero’s
Philippics (cf. doc. 14.1). The author Tergilla is not known. A congius is approximately
3.5 litres.

147 Tergilla rebukes Cicero, the son of Marcus, for being in the habit of gulping
down two congii at a single go, and with having thrown a cup (scyphus) at Marcus
Agrippa when intoxicated. These are the normal works of inebriation. But it is no
wonder that Cicero wanted to surpass the fame of Mark Antony, his father’s mur-
derer. 148 Antony, before young Cicero’s time, had grasped so eagerly at being
champion in this line that he even published a book about his own drunkenness, and

644
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
dared in his own defence to prove indubitably, in my view, how many evils he had
brought upon the world by his intemperance. It was a short time before the battle of
Actium that he vomited forth this book, from which it can be easily understood that,
drunk as he already was with the blood of citizens, he thirsted for it all the more.
For it is an inescapable consequence of this vice that habitual drinking increases the
eagerness for it, which is why the Parthians crave it so much.

14.48 Propertius Elegies 3.11, 29–72: Cleopatra demonised

Cleopatra was a frequent theme of Roman poets, particularly after her defeat and death.
Here Propertius was writing some ten years after Actium: cf. docs 15.11 (Vergil), 16.31
(Horace).

What of she who recently heaped disgrace on our soldiers –

30 A woman worn out by her own household slaves,
Who demanded as the price of her foul marriage
The walls of Rome and senators under her rule?
Pernicious Alexandria, land most adept at guile,
And Memphis, so often bloody from our woe,
Where the sand robbed Pompey of his three triumphs –
Rome, no day will blot out this stain for you!
Better for you, had your funeral taken place on the Phlegraean plain,
Or you had bowed your neck to your father-in-law (Julius Caesar).
Truly, that harlot queen of incestuous Canopus,
40 Our only stigma branded by Philip’s blood,
Dared to oppose yapping Anubis to our Jove,
To compel Tiber to endure the threats of Nile,
To repulse the Roman trumpet with clattering sistrum,
To pursue Liburnian rams with punted barges,
To stretch odious mosquito-nets over the Tarpeian rock,
And give judgements among Marius’ arms and statues!
What was the use of breaking Tarquin’s axes,
Whose proud life brands him with like name,
If a woman must be endured? Sing triumph!, Rome,
50 And in your safety pray long life for Augustus!
You fled, then, to the wandering streams of cowardly Nile:
Your hands received Romulus’ chains.
I saw your arms bitten by sacred serpents,
Your limbs draw in the secret path of sleep.
‘I was not to be feared, Rome, with such a citizen as him!’
So spoke the tongue engulfed in constant wine.
The city high on its seven hills, which governs the whole world,
In terror feared the threats of a female Mars.
The gods founded these walls, the gods protect them:

645
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
60 With Caesar living, Rome hardly need fear Jove.
Where now are Scipio’s ships, where Camillus’ standards,
Or Bosphorus, lately captured by Pompey’s hand?
Hannibal’s spoils and conquered Syphax’s monuments,
Pyrrhus’ glory shattered at our feet?
Curtius set up his monument when he filled the lake,
Decius broke the line with charging horse,
Cocles’ path attests the broken bridge,
And there’s one to whom the raven (corvus) gave his name.
Apollo of Leucas (Actium) will call to mind the shattered battle-line:
70 One day destroyed a battle-array so great.
But you, sailor, whether seeking port or leaving it,
Through all the Ionian Sea remember Caesar.

14.49 Suetonius Life of the Deified Augustus 10, 11, 15, 27, 68–70:
Antony’s propaganda
Antony was not the only one whose reputation was vilified (cf. doc. 14.1). His counter-
propaganda against Octavian is demonstrated here, and, like Octavian in his attack on
Fulvia (doc. 14.30), he is stressing his own masculinity and Roman plain speaking. At
70.2, Antony’s letter can be dated to 32 BC: Terentilla was the wife of Maecenas; Antony is
portraying Octavian as a hypocrite for attacking his relationship with Cleopatra.

10.3 On the advice of certain people Octavian hired assassins to kill Antony and
then, fearing retaliation when the plot was uncovered, recruited veterans for the
protection of himself and the state using all possible funds. He was put in com-
mand of the army he had raised with the rank of propraetor and dispatched along
with Hirtius and Pansa, who had become consuls, to assist Decimus Brutus, end-
ing the war he had been assigned in three months and two battles. 4 In the first
of these, Antony writes, he ran away and reappeared only two days later without
his cloak and horse; but in the following one it is agreed that he played the part
not only of a commander but of a soldier too, and in the midst of the battle, when
his legion’s eagle-bearer was badly wounded, he raised the eagle on his shoulders
and carried it for some time. 11 As Hirtius died in battle during this war and Pansa
shortly afterwards from a wound, rumour spread that both deaths were his work,
so that, with Antony put to flight and the state without consuls, he might have total
control of the victorious armies. Pansa’s death was so particularly suspicious that
Glyko, the doctor, was imprisoned on the charge of administering poison to the
wound. Aquilius Niger adds that he killed the other consul Hirtius in the confu-
sion of the fray. . . .
13.1 Then in alliance with Antony and Lepidus he also completed the war of
Philippi in two battles, although he was indisposed and unwell, in the first being
driven from his camp and only just managing to escape by fleeing to Antony’s
wing. He did not behave with moderation in his victory but had Brutus’ head sent
to Rome to be thrown at the feet of Caesar’s statue, and he raged violently even

646
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
at the most distinguished prisoners, not without the most abusive language. 2 For
example, to one man who humbly requested burial, he is said to have replied,
‘That is for the birds to decide’, and in another case, when a father and son begged
for their lives, to have told them to draw lots or play toss-and-catch to see which
would be spared, and then to have watched while both died, since the father was
executed after he volunteered, and the son then took his own life. As a result
the rest, when they were led out in chains, one of whom was Marcus Favonius,
the well-known emulator of Cato, saluted Antony courteously with the title
‘Imperator’ but reviled Augustus to his face with the most violent abuse. . . . 15
After the capture of Perusia he took vengeance on a large number of persons,
answering all those who attempted to beg for pardon or excuse their actions with
the one rejoinder, ‘You must die!’ Some write that 300 men from both (the sena-
torial and equestrian) orders were selected from the prisoners of war and slaugh-
tered on the Ides of March on the altar raised in honour of the Deified Julius, just
like sacrificial victims. Some have recorded that he had a specific aim in going to
war, that his secret adversaries, and those whom fear rather than goodwill kept on
his side, might be unmasked by giving them the opportunity of imitating Lucius
Antonius, and once they were defeated using their confiscated estates to pay the
bounties promised to his veterans. . . .
27.3 While he was triumvir his acts brought him universal odium. For exam-
ple, on one occasion he was addressing his soldiers at an assembly when a crowd
of countrymen were admitted, and he noticed that the Roman knight Pinarius
was taking notes and, thinking him to be a spy and snooper, ordered him to be
run through on the spot. And when Tedius Afer, consul-elect, criticised some
action of his in very savage language, he terrified him with such dreadful threats
that he hurled himself to his death; 4 similarly, when the praetor Quintus Gallus
was holding a two-leaved tablet under his robe when paying his respects (salu-
tatio), he suspected that he had a sword concealed and, not daring to have him
searched immediately, in case it might be found to be something different, shortly
afterwards had him seized from his tribunal by centurions and soldiers, had him
tortured like a slave and ordered his execution, even though he admitted nothing,
first gouging out his eyes with his own hands. However, he records that, after
requesting an audience with him, Gallus treacherously attacked him and that he
had him sent to prison, after which he was banished from the city and either died
in a shipwreck or was ambushed by brigands. . . .
68 In his early youth he was subjected to disrepute for various forms of deprav-
ity. Sextus Pompeius upbraided him for effeminacy; Mark Antony for having
earned his adoption by debauching himself to his great-uncle; and similarly Mark
Antony’s brother Lucius that, after surrendering his chastity to Caesar, he had
prostituted himself to Aulus Hirtius in Spain for 300,000 sesterces and that he used
to singe his legs with red-hot nutshells so the hair grew back softer. Moreover, one
day when plays were being performed, the whole people took the following line as
targeting him, joining in with loud applause when it was delivered on stage with
reference to a eunuch priest of the Magna Mater as he beat his drum: ‘Do you see
how a sodomite rules the world with his finger?’

647
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
69.1 Not even his friends deny that he was given to adultery, although they
condoned it as committed not from passion but from calculation, so he could
more easily find out his opponents’ plans through their womenfolk. Mark
Antony accused him not only of his hurried marriage to Livia but of taking the
wife of a man of consular rank from her husband’s dining-room in his very pres-
ence into a bedroom, and bringing her back to the dinner party with blushing
ears and dishevelled hair; that Scribonia was divorced because she complained
too freely of the inappropriate influence of a mistress of his; that paramours
were sought by his friends, who stripped and inspected matrons and fully grown
girls as if Toranius the slave-dealer was offering them for sale. 2 Antony also
writes to him in this familiar way before he was openly in conflict and on bad
terms with him: ‘What has changed you? Because I’m sleeping with the queen?
Is she my wife? Of course not! Have I only just started or been doing it for
nine years now? And are you screwing only Drusilla? Good luck to you, if
when you read this letter you have not been inside Tertulla or Terentilla or
Rufilla or Salvia Titisenia –– or all of them! Does it make any difference where
or whom you are fucking?’ . . . 70.2 He was also criticised for his passion for
expensive furniture and Corinthian bronzes and for his love of gaming – in fact,
even at the time of the proscriptions, there was inscribed on his statue: ‘My
father was a money-dealer, and I’m now a Corinthian-bronze-dealer’, since it
was thought that he had had some men listed among the proscribed on account
of their Corinthian bronzes. And later, during the Sicilian war, the following
epigram did the rounds:

‘Now he’s been beaten twice at sea and lost his ships
To ensure one victory he spends all his time at dice.’

CIVIL WAR
While Octavian, with the aid of Agrippa and his other supporters, was cleaning up and
beautifying Rome, Antony was again concerned with Parthia, as in 33 BC he was planning
another campaign, though his army returned to Ionia without engaging in one. The
triumvirate came to an end on 31 December 33 and the consuls for 32, C. Sosius and Cn.
Domitius Ahenobarbus, were strong Antonians (Dio 50.2 dates the start of war to early in
32). When Octavian surrounded himself with an armed guard in the senate the consuls fled
to Antony at Ephesus, along with many other senators, whom Antony organised into an
alternative senate. Octavia’s divorce mid-year was a consequence of the need for Cleopatra
and her troops to remain with the army (which also depended on Egyptian resources),
though this was unpopular with a number of his subordinates; 200 of Antony’s 800
warships were Egyptian. War was declared on Cleopatra as the foreign enemy; Antony
was merely deprived of his consulship for 31. Antony had more funds (Octavian had had to
raise emergency taxes) and 100,000 troops, against Octavian’s 80,000, plus more numerous
and heavier ships.

14.50 Plutarch Life of Antony 58.1–8: Preparations for war, 32 BC

In the lead up to war, the new taxation was again very unpopular, and at this point
Octavian had an oath of personal loyalty taken to himself throughout Italy and the West.
He may well have fabricated some of the terms of Antony’s will to ensure support in
Rome and Italy.

648
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
1 When Caesar heard of the speed and extent of Antony’s preparations, he was
alarmed in case he might be forced to fight the decisive engagement that summer –
2 for he lacked many things he needed, and people were unhappy at the taxes
exacted, as citizens were compelled to pay one-quarter of their income and freed-
men one-eighth of their property, and there were loud protests against him and dis-
turbances from these causes throughout the whole of Italy. 3 Consequently, it is seen
as one of Antony’s greatest mistakes that he postponed the outbreak of war, for he
gave Caesar time to make his preparations and put an end to people’s disturbances,
as while they were being taxed they were angry but once it had been exacted and
they had paid up they stayed quiet. 4 Titius and Plancus, Antony’s friends among
the consulars, who had been insulted by Cleopatra (for they had been violently
opposed to her accompanying the expedition), ran away to Caesar and informed
him about Antony’s will, of which they knew the terms. 5 It was deposited with
the Vestal Virgins, and they did not give it to him at his request but told him if he
wanted to take it to come and do so. 6 So he went and took it and first read the terms
through by himself and marked some discreditable passages. He then assembled the
senate and read it to them, though most of them thought this disgraceful – 7 as they
thought it strange and awful that someone should be charged while alive with what
he wanted to have done after his death. 8 He especially laid emphasis on the clause
to do with his burial: for it instructed that Antony’s body, even if he died in Rome,
should be carried in procession through the forum and then sent to Alexandria to
Cleopatra.

14.51 Velleius Paterculus Compendium of Roman History 2.84.1–87.3:

Actium, 31 BC
Antony took his stand on the west coast of Greece and waited for Octavian. The role
of Agrippa was crucial for Octavian’s victory, and Antony’s naval contingent had been
seriously weakened before the decisive sea battle, and he seems to have planned for the
option of flight. The critical battle took place on 2 September. Once Cleopatra and Antony
had fled, leaving most of the fleet and army, Antony’s remaining troops went over to
Octavian. Despite his ‘clemency’, Octavian did have Caesarion and Antony’s eldest son,
Antyllus, put to death. Plutarch recounts how Antony committed suicide on hearing that
Cleopatra was dead and how she drew up his body into her mausoleum for a final farewell.
Octavian wanted Cleopatra for his triumph, and foiled two suicide attempts, but after nine
days she employed an asp to kill herself along with her maids Iras and Charmion.

84.1 Then, in the consulship of Caesar and Messala Corvinus, matters were fought
out at Actium, where long before the battle took place the victory of the Julian
side was a foregone conclusion. On the one side, the soldiery and general were at
their peak, on the other everything languished; on the one the rowers were unwa-
vering, on the other weakened by hardship; on the one side ships of moderate size
but not unsuitable for speed, on the other ones only apparently menacing; no one
was deserting from his side to Antony, while from Antony’s there was someone
deserting to Caesar on a daily basis . . . 2 The distinguished Gnaeus Domitius,
who alone of Antony’s side refused to greet the queen except by name, defected
to Caesar at the risk of very real danger to himself. Finally, in view of Antony and
his fleet, Leucas was conquered by Marcus Agrippa and Patrai captured, Corinth
was seized, and the enemy fleet was defeated twice before the final confrontation.
649
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
85.1 Then the day of the great confrontation arrived, when, with their fleets in
battle formation, Caesar and Antony contended, the one for the safety, the other for
the destruction of the world. 2 The right wing of the Julian fleet was led by Marcus
Lurius, the left by Arruntius, while Agrippa had entire command of the conflict at
sea; Caesar focused on any section of the battle where the fortunes of war ensured
his help was needed and was everywhere at hand. Leadership of Antony’s fleet was
entrusted to Publicola and Sosius. Taurus commanded Caesar’s land army, Canidius
Antony’s. 3 When the engagement began, on the one side was everything – com-
mander, rowers and soldiers; on the other nothing except soldiers. Cleopatra was the
first to take to flight. Antony made the choice of accompanying his queen in her flight
rather than his soldiers in their struggle, and the commander who should have had the
responsibility for severely disciplining deserters now deserted his own army. 4 Even
in Antony’s absence his men continued to fight bravely and loyally for some time
and, with all hope of victory abandoned, contended to the death. Caesar, wishing to
win over by words those whom he could have killed with the sword, kept shouting
and pointing out that Antony had run away and kept asking for whom and with whom
were they fighting? 5 After battling it out over a long period in the absence of their
commander, they reluctantly put down their arms and admitted defeat, as Caesar had
promised to spare their lives and pardon them even before they could force themselves
to make this request; it was plain to see that the soldiers had acted the part of an ideal
commander and the commander that of a faint-hearted soldier – 6 in fact you could ask
whether in the case of victory he would have been guided by Cleopatra’s decision or
his own, since it was by her choice that he had turned to flight. The army on land also
gave in when Canidius rushed in headlong flight after Antony.
86.1 What benefits this day bestowed upon the world and how it impacted on the
good fortunes of the state who would dare recount in the space of so short a work?
The victory was truly a most merciful one, and no one was put to death and extremely
few were exiled – those who could not bring themselves to sue for pardon. . . .
87.1 The next year (30 BC) Caesar followed the queen and Antony to Alexandria
and put the finishing touches to the civil war. As for Antony, he was not slow to kill
himself, in this way clearing himself by his death from the many accusations of his
indolence. Cleopatra, however, eluded her guards by having an asp introduced to her
chambers and ended her life by means of its poisonous bite, showing herself unaf-
fected by womanly fears. 2 It was typical of Caesar’s fortune and clemency that he had
none of those who had borne arms against him put to death – it was Antony’s cruelty
that had Decimus Brutus executed. As for Sextus Pompeius, even though conquered
by Caesar, it was Antony again who deprived him of his life, although he had given
his oath that his rank would be protected. 3 Brutus and Cassius, without waiting to
discover their victors’ plans for them, had died voluntary deaths.

14.52 Horace Epodes 9: Actium and its outcome

Cleopatra was demonised by Roman authors: in Odes 1.37 Cleopatra is described as a
‘doom-laden monster’, though Horace gives a positive view of her suicide: doc. 16.31, cf.
doc. 15.11.

650
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
The Caecuban wine, put by for merry feasts,
When shall I, joyful at Caesar’s victory,
With you in your lofty home – should Jove allow –
Fortunate Maecenas, drink it,
While the lyre sounds its flute-accompanied melodies,
One Dorian, one Phrygian.
How recently, driven from the strait, Neptune’s son (Pompeius)
(General!), his ships all burned took flight,
Who threatened the city with the chains he’d torn
10 From faithless slaves he’d befriended.
Roman soldiers, alas! – Posterity, this you will not believe! –
Relinquished into a woman’s power,
Bear palisades and weapons and endure
To serve wrinkled eunuchs,
While among our military standards (shame!)
The sun discerns mosquito-curtains.
To him with neighing steeds two thousand Gauls desert
With cries of ‘Caesar’,
And concealed in harbour sterns
20 Of enemy ships lurk in swift retreat.
Hail, Triumph! Do you delay the golden
Chariots and oxen never broken to the yoke?
Hail, Triumph! Even from Jugurtha’s
War has there returned a leader equivalent to him? –
Even Scipio, to whom above the ruins of Carthage
Valour built a monument.
Beaten by land and sea the enemy
Has changed his cloak to one of Punic mourning.
Either to noble Crete with its one hundred towns
30 He plans to journey on unfavourable winds,
Or seeks the African sandbanks which the south wind stirs
Or wanders on the unpredictable sea.
Slave! Bring here more generous cups
And Chian wines or Lesbian –
Or to calm our queasy stomachs
Serve us out Caecuban.
Our anxiety and fear for Caesar’s success, it’s good
To wash away in Bacchus’ sweet relaxing wine.

14.53 Plutarch Life of Antony 75.4–6: ‘The god abandons Antony’

Octavian now commanded nearly 70 legions, and with some 40,000 veterans demanding
land he needed to appropriate Egypt and its wealth. Alexandria fell on 1 August 31 BC, and

651
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
the previous evening Octavian may have performed an evocation to tempt Egypt’s gods to
the Roman side (cf. doc. 3.57). Antony’s entire fleet deserted. Antony had long associated
himself in the East with Dionysus and Herakles, and his ‘god’ now leaves him to his fate.

4 During this night, it is reported, around the middle, when the city was quiet and
low-spirited through fear and apprehension of what was going to happen, some
melodious sounds of all kinds of musical instruments were suddenly heard and
the shouting of a crowd, with Dionysiac cries and satyric leapings, as if a thiasos
was clamorously departing the city; 5 their direction seemed to lie rather through
the middle of the city towards the outer gate facing the enemy, where the clamour
grew loudest, and then rushed out. 6 And those who sought to interpret the sign
believed that it signified that the god was abandoning Antony – the god to whom
he particularly likened and with whom he associated himself.

14.54 Palatine Anthology 6.236: A dedication from Actium

Written by Philippos, possibly in the second century AD. Octavian dedicated rostra from
Antony’s ships both at Actium and at Rome (Dio 51.1.3, 19.2).

Bronze-toothed beaks, voyage-loving naval weapons

Standing here as witnesses to the battle at Actium,
We preserve as in a hive the waxy gifts of bees,
Laden all around by the humming swarm.
Excellent gift of Caesar’s righteous government: for the weapons of enemies
He has taught instead to bear the fruits of peace.

GAIUS CORNELIUS GALLUS

As praefectus fabrum (prefect of the engineers), Gallus took an important part in Octavian’s
Egyptian campaign after Actium. An eques, he was appointed by Octavian as the first
prefect of Egypt and constructed a new forum, the Forum Julium, in or near Alexandria. He
put down a revolt in the Thebaid and marched beyond the Second Cataract. His trilingual
inscription at Philae (dated 15 April 29 BC), as well as inscriptions on the pyramids (Dio
53.23) and statues erected through Egypt, caused him to be recalled, and he was indicted
and committed suicide in 27/26. He was also a poet and wrote four books of love elegies to
‘Lycoris’, apparently Cytheris, a past mistress of Mark Antony. Egypt was not made into a
province but governed by an equestrian prefect appointed by Octavian (senators were not
even allowed to go to Egypt without his permission).

14.55 EJ 374: The Forum Julium in Alexandria

AE 1964 255. The inscription, dated to c. 30 BC, was affixed to an obelisk in Egypt which
was brought to Rome and then reused by the emperor Gaius. It now stands in St Peter’s
Square.

By order of Imperator Caesar, son of a god, Gaius Cornelius Gallus, son of

Gnaeus, prefect of engineers of Caesar, son of a god, built the Forum Julium.

652
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
14.56 ILS 8995: The settlement of Egypt, 29 BC
An inscription in Greek and Latin set up by Gallus at Philae in Upper Egypt. The Latin
version is translated here.

Gaius Cornelius Gallus, son of Gnaeus, Roman eques, after the kings had been
defeated by Caesar, son of a god, first prefect of Alexandria and Egypt, put down
the uprising of the Thebaid in 15 days, in which he defeated the enemy, and
was victor in two pitched battles and conqueror of five cities, Boresis, Coptus,
Ceramice, Diopsolis Magna and Opheieion. The leaders of these rebel cities
were captured 5 and the army led beyond the cataract of the Nile, where neither
the arms of the Roman people nor those of the kings of Egypt had previously
reached. The Thebaid, a source of fear to all the kings alike, was overcome and
envoys of the king of the Ethiopians given audience at Philae, with that king
being received into protection and a ruler of the Ethiopian Triacontaschoenundus
established. He made this dedication to the gods of his native land and to Nile,
his helper.

14.57 Anderson et al., JRS 69 (1979) 125: Gallus as poet

The date of this poem, found in a fragmentary Latin papyrus in Egyptian Nubia in 1978, is
uncertain, but it probably refers to Octavian’s return to Italy in 29 BC. Ovid (Am. 1.15.29–
30) says of Gallus that his literary fame will reach as far as his military commands and last
longer. Vergil’s tenth eclogue was written in his honour.

My fate will then, Caesar, be sweet to me, when you

Have become the most important part of Roman history,
And when after your return I read of the temples of many gods
Now richer for being decorated with your trophies.

OCTAVIAN’S RETURN
14.58 Velleius Paterculus Compendium of Roman History 2.89.1–6:
‘Restorer of the Republic’
Velleius is reflecting the propaganda regarding the ‘Restoration of the Republic’, as well
as the relief at the cessation of civil conflict. Octavian returned to Italy in August 29 BC,
during his fifth consulship, and had the Georgics read to him by Vergil. On 13–15 August
he celebrated three triumphs: for Dalmatia, Actium and Egypt. From the Egyptian booty
400 sesterces was given to every citizen and 1,000 to each veteran, and the rate of interest
fell sharply (Suet. Aug. 41).

1 When Caesar returned to Italy and Rome, the acclaim and welcome he received
from men of every class, age and rank, the magnificence of his triumphs and the
public spectacles he hosted – none of this could be properly narrated even within
the parameters of a formal history, and still less in a limited one such as this.
There is nothing that men can desire of the gods, 2 nor the gods grant to men, no

653
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
conceivable wish, no realisable happiness which Augustus on his return to the city
did not bestow on the Republic, the Roman people and the world. 3 Civil wars
were ended after 20 years, foreign wars were concluded, peace was re-established,
the tumult of arms everywhere put to rest. All was restored – the ascendancy of the
law, the authority of the law-courts, the eminence of the senate, the power of the
magistrates to its former status (except that two additional praetors were added to
the normal eight). And so the ancient and traditional form of the Republic was re-
established. 4 Agriculture returned to the fields, religious observances were once
again respected, men felt safe from danger, and each man’s property was now
safely his own. Laws were productively reformed and beneficial ones brought into
effect; senatorial membership was revised, impersonally but not without censure.
Eminent men, who had enjoyed triumphs and the highest state offices, were at the
invitation of the princeps asked to adorn the city with their presence. Only with
the consulship, which Caesar continued to hold until the eleventh time in succes-
sion, 5 was he not able to have his way, despite his frequent attempts to oppose
this – for the dictatorship, which the people persistently offered him, he as consist-
ently refused. As for the wars waged under him as commander, the pacification
of the world by his victories, 6 and his numerous achievements both outside of
Italy and at home, they would weary even a writer prepared to spend his whole life
on this one opus. For myself, mindful of the scope of my work, I have restricted
myself to setting a general picture of his principate before the eyes and minds of
my readers.

14.59 FIRA 1.56: Privileges for Octavian’s veterans

On his return Octavian was faced with the urgent necessity of settling veterans and paying
their promised bounties. This edict appears to have been cited in 31 BC by a veteran who
was being drafted as a collector of taxes against his will.

Imperator Caesar, son of the god, triumvir for the second time for restoring the
state, declares: I have decided to decree that all veterans be given exemption from
tribute . . . 5 to grant to them, their parents and their children, and the wives which
they have or shall have, exemption of all their property from taxation, 10 and so
that they may be Roman citizens with the most complete rights by law they shall
be exempt from taxation, free from military service, and exempt from the perfor-
mance of public duties. Likewise, those mentioned above shall have the right to
vote and be enrolled in the census in any tribe, and if they wish to be enrolled in
absentia it shall be permitted, both for those mentioned above and for their par-
ents, 15 wives and children; likewise, in the same way as I desired the veterans
to be exempt, I permit them also to hold, use and enjoy whatever priesthoods,
offices, prerogatives, privileges and stipends they possessed. Further, against their
will, neither other magistrates nor a legate, 20 nor a procurator, nor a tribute-
farmer shall be in their homes for the purpose of lodging or wintering, and no one
is to be dispossessed against their will.

654
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
14.60 Suetonius Life of the Deified Augustus 22: Closing of the temple
of Janus
The temple of Janus remained open during a state of war. According to Livy, it had been
closed only once since the reign of Numa, in 235 BC in the consulship of Titus Manlius
(1.19.3; cf. RG 13: doc. 15.1). Octavian had it closed in January of 29 BC, symbolising the
restoration of peace.

The temple of Janus Quirinus, which since the foundation of the city had been
closed only twice before his time, he closed three times in a much shorter period
after peace had been made by land and sea. He twice entered the city in an ovation –
after Philippi and again after the Sicilian war. He celebrated three regular triumphs,
for victories in Dalmatia, at Actium and at Alexandria, all on three successive days.

14.61 ILS 81: Triumphal arch in the forum at Rome, 29 BC

The senate and people of Rome to Imperator Caesar, son of the deified Julius,
consul five times, consul designate for a sixth, imperator seven times, the state
having been saved.

14.62 Crawford RRC 243: Coin celebrating Octavian’s successes

A denarius from the East, 28 BC.

Obverse: Head of Octavian, behind a lituus. Legend: Caesar consul six times.
Reverse: Crocodile standing right. Legend: Egypt captured.

PRINCEPS AND AUGUSTUS

On the Ides of January (13 January) 27 BC, in a speech to the senate, Octavian ‘gave the
state back’ into the hands of the senate and people (a claim he makes in RG 34.1: doc. 15.1).
However, the ‘settlement’ was a gradually developing process. Agrippa and Octavian in 28,
as consuls with censoria potestas (‘censorial power’), carried out a revision of the senate
and a full census for the first time since 70 BC. With all their special powers terminated,
they were again consuls for 27. In response to his speech, Octavian was given the provinces
of Spain, Gaul, Syria and Egypt for ten years and could continue to stand for the consulship
or govern them as proconsul through deputies (though Egypt remained under his personal
control). Important dates from his career now became part of religious calendars, and he
was granted the name ‘Augustus’ in 27, as well as the civic crown, for saving not the life of
a single citizen in battle but that of all the citizens by ending civil war: RG 34.2 (doc. 15.1).

14.63 Inscr. Ital. 13.2: Excerpts from the Fasti, 82–27 BC

Fasti (calendrical lists) exist for some 18 towns in Italy and are dated primarily to the first
centuries BC and AD. They listed religious festivals and other important occasions and
celebrations, including the days on which business could be transacted (cf. doc. 3.30). The
most important calendar is the Fasti Praenestini (the calendar from the town of Praeneste),
compiled by the antiquarian Verrius Flaccus, tutor to Augustus’ grandsons (see doc. 6.58).

655
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
82 BC
14 January. Evil day by decree of the senate: the birthday of Antony. Unfavourable
(Verulae, Oppianum).
63 BC
23–24 September. Festival by senatorial decree as on this day Augustus Caesar,
pontifex maximus, was born. Sacrifice to Neptune in the Campus Martius and to
Apollo by the theatre of Marcellus (Acts of the Arval Brethren).
c. 48 BC
18 or 19 October. On this day Caesar assumed the toga virilis. Thanksgiving to
Hope and Youth (Cumae).
43 BC
7 January. Imperator Caesar Augustus first took office (the fasces) in the consul-
ship of Hirtius and Pansa (Praeneste).
14 April. On this day Caesar was victorious for the first time. Thanksgiving for
the victory of Augustus (Cumae).
16 April. On this day Caesar was first acclaimed imperator. Thanksgiving to the
Good Fortune of his imperium (Cumae).
19 August. On this day Caesar entered upon his first consulship. Thanksgiving
(Cumae).
42 BC
23 October. Imperator Caesar Augustus was victor at Philippi, Brutus being killed
in the second battle (Praeneste).
38 BC
17 January. Festival by senatorial decree as on this day Augusta married the dei-
fied Augustus (Verulae).
36 BC
3 September. Festival and thanksgiving ceremonies at all the couches of the gods
as on this day Caesar, son of a god, was victorious in Sicily in the consulship of
Censorinus and Calvisius (Amiternum – wrong date).
31 BC
2 September. Festival by senatorial decree as on this day Imperator Caesar Augustus,
son of a god, was victorious at Actium; he and Titius were the consuls (Amiternum).
30 BC
1 August. Egypt brought under the rule of the Roman people. To Victory the
Virgin on the Palatine; to Hope in the Forum Holitorium (vegetable market).
Holiday by decree of the senate, since on this day Imperator Caesar Augustus
liberated the Republic from the most dreadful peril (Praeneste).
29 BC
11 January. Imperator Caesar Augustus put an end to war and closed the temple
of Janus for the third time since Romulus, in his fifth consulship with Appuleius
as colleague (Praeneste).
13–15 August. Augustus celebrated a triumph (Antium).

656
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
28 BC
9 October. To the public Genius; to fortunate Felicity; to Venus the Victorious on
the Capitol; to Apollo on the Palatine, games (Amiternum).
9 October. Games. Augustus dedicated the temple of Apollo (Antium).
27 BC
13 January. The senate decreed that an oak-leaf garland be placed above the door
of the house of Imperator Caesar Augustus because he restored the Republic to the
people of Rome (Praeneste).
16 January. On this day Caesar was named Augustus. Thanksgiving to Augustus.
Imperator Caesar was named Augustus in his seventh consulship with Agrippa, in
his third, as colleague (Cumae, Praeneste).

14.64 Dio Roman History 53.2.5–17.1: The ‘first settlement’ of 27 BC

Clearly members of the senate had been primed as to what to expect in this speech, and
their response was carefully stage-managed.

2.5 Since he had put into effect many undertakings illegally and unjustly during
the civil conflicts and in the wars, especially during his joint rule with Antony and
Lepidus, he abolished them all in a single edict, putting his sixth consulship as
their date of termination. 6 And as he was applauded and praised on this account
he wanted to display a further example of magnanimity, so that he would be hon-
oured even more for this and have his autocracy validated by people willingly
rather than appear to have coerced them unwillingly. 7 He therefore prepared his
most intimate friends among the senators and entered the senate in his seventh
consulship and read out this address:
3.1 ‘I am aware, fathers, that to some of you I will appear to have made an
incredible choice . . . 4.2 My army is in the best possible condition in terms of
both loyalty and strength, and there are funds and allies, and – most important
of all – you and the people are so well disposed to me that you would obviously
desire to be governed by me. 3 However, I shall lead you no longer and no one
will say that all my earlier conduct was in order to achieve absolute power. In
fact I resign my power completely and restore absolutely everything to you – the
army, laws and provinces, and not only those that you entrusted to me 4 but also
all those that I myself later acquired for you, so you can ascertain from these
actions themselves that from the very beginning I desired no domination, but in
truth wanted to avenge my cruelly murdered father and rescue the city from seri-
ous and unending crises.’ . . .
11.1 While Caesar was reading his address, a variety of feelings engaged the
senators. Some of them knew what he had in mind and consequently kept up
enthusiastic applause; of the rest, some were suspicious of what he said and others
believed it, and accordingly both groups marvelled equally, one at his devious-
ness the other at his resolution, 2 while both were annoyed, one at his duplicity
the other at his change of mind. For there were already some who loathed the
Republican system as a cause of civil unrest and were pleased at the change in
government and rejoiced in having Caesar, and so, while they reacted differently,

657
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
their opinions coincided. 3 Those who believed that he had spoken the truth could
not show their delight, with those who wished to being constrained by fear and
the others by their hopes, while those who disbelieved it did not dare to attack and
expose him, some because they were afraid and others because they did not wish
to do so. 4 As a result everyone was either compelled to believe him, or pretended
that they did. As far as praise was concerned, some were not courageous enough
and others did not want to – rather, even while he was still reading, and afterwards,
they kept shouting out, begging for a monarchy and saying everything with that
end in view, until they compelled him, as it appeared, to accept absolute power. 5
His first act was to have an edict passed giving to the men who were to make up
his bodyguard double the pay of that of other soldiers, to ensure he was strictly
guarded. After this he was truly in earnest about establishing the monarchy.
12.1 In this way he had his sovereignty ratified by both the senate and the
people, but as he wished even so to appear actually to be a Republican at heart,
he declared that, while he accepted all the responsibility for and superintendence
of public business on the grounds that it needed particular attention, he would
not personally govern all the provinces, 2 and that in the case of those he did
govern he would not do so in perpetuity. In fact the weaker ones, on the grounds
that they were peaceful and free from war, he gave back to the senate, while the
more powerful he kept control of on the grounds that they were unstable and at
risk and either had enemies on their frontiers or were able on their own account
to cause a serious uprising. 3 His rationale for this was that the senate could fear-
lessly enjoy the very best of the empire, while he himself had the hardships and
the dangers, but in reality through this pretext he intended that they should be
unarmed and unfit for battle, while only he had weapons and maintained soldiers.
4 Consequently Africa, Numidia, Asia, Greece with Epirus, the Dalmatian and
Macedonian regions, Crete and the part of Libya adjoining Cyrene, Bithynia with
the neighbouring Pontus, Sardinia and Baetica were considered as belonging to
the people and senate. 5 Caesar had the rest of Spain – the region of Tarraco
and Lusitania – and all the Gauls – Gallia Narbonensis and Lugdunensis, the
Aquitani and the Belgae, both themselves and any settlers among them: 6 as some
of the Celts, whom we call Germans, had occupied all the Belgic territory along
the Rhine which resulted in its being named Germany, the upper part of which
reached to the sources of the river and the lower to the British Ocean. 7 So these,
together with Coele Syria, as it is called, Phoenicia, Cilicia, Cyprus and Egypt
became Caesar’s share then at least – for later he returned Cyprus and Gallia
around Narbo to the people and himself took Dalmatia instead. . . . 13.1 So this
was how the provinces were divided up, and as Caesar wished even then to divert
them all well away from the impression that he was thinking in terms of monar-
chy, he undertook the government of those given him for ten years. He promised
during this period to put them in order and made the boastful claim that, if they
were pacified sooner, he would return them sooner to the senate. 2 Then he first
of all appointed the senators themselves to govern both types of provinces except
Egypt (to this one alone he assigned to an eques earlier named, for reasons there
mentioned). He then laid down that the governors of senatorial provinces should

658
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
have an annual term and be chosen by lot, unless they had the privilege accorded
to those who had numerous children or by right of marriage, 3 and they were to be
sent out by a public assembly of the senate, neither armed with a sword nor wear-
ing military dress, while the title of proconsul was to be employed not only for the
two ex-consuls but for the rest who had served as praetors or who had at least been
ranked as ex-praetors; 4 each of these groups was to employ as many lictors as
was customary in the city, and he ordered that they were to assume the insignia of
their magistracy immediately once outside the pomerium and to wear these con-
tinuously until they returned. 5 The other governors were to be chosen by him and
to be called his envoys and propraetors even if they were ex-consuls. . . . 6 He had
the group he chose himself use the title of propraetor and govern for much longer
than a year, at his pleasure, and they wore military dress and a sword with which
they were empowered to punish soldiers. . . . 14.1 It was in this way and under
these conditions that it became customary for ex-praetors and ex-consuls to be
sent out as governors of both types of province. In the first case, the emperor sent
out someone wherever and whenever he wished, and many praetors and consuls
while in office obtained provincial commands, as sometimes happens even now.
2 With the senatorial provinces, he allocated on his own responsibility Africa
and Asia to the ex-consuls and the others to the ex-praetors, but prohibited in all
cases that a governor be chosen by lot until five years had passed since his hold-
ing office in the city. 3 For a while all these, even if they exceeded the number
of provinces, received one of them – but afterwards, since some of them did not
govern well, these too were put under the control of the emperor, and in this way
he, in some manner, grants governorships to them as well; 4 for he orders the
allocation of exactly the same number of governors as provinces, and the men he
wishes . . .
15.1 This then is what happens in the case of the people’s provinces; to the oth-
ers, called the emperor’s provinces and which have more than one citizen legion,
are sent lieutenants selected by the emperor himself generally from the ex-praetors,
though sometimes from the ex-quaestors or those who have held some other mag-
istracy between the two. 2 As for the equites, the emperor himself chooses those
to be sent out as military tribunes, both those who are possible future senators and
the others (the difference between them I have already covered: cf. 52.25.6–7),
dispatching some to the citizen legions and others to the foreign units, according
to the custom laid down by (Julius) Caesar. 3 The procurators (for this is what
we call those who collect the public revenues and spend in accordance with their
instructions) he sends to all the provinces alike, both his own and those of the
people, some of these from the knights and others even from freedmen, except
that the proconsuls collect the taxes from the provinces they govern. 4 He gives
instructions to the procurators, proconsuls and propraetors so that they go out
(to their provinces) on explicit conditions, and both this practice and the giving
of salaries to them and the other officials was established at this time. 5 Earlier
certain contractors from the treasury provided everything they needed for this
magistracy, but it was under Caesar for the first time that they themselves began
to receive a fixed sum. This was not assigned to them all in equal amounts but as

659
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
their needs approximately required, and the procurators in fact got the very title
of their office from the amount of the funds given them. 6 These laws were laid
down for them all alike, that they were not to raise troops nor levy money beyond
the amount appointed unless the senate should vote or the emperor order it; and
when their successor arrived they were to set out from their province immediately
and not to delay on their return but be back within three months.
16.1 These regulations were established at that time, so to speak, but in real-
ity Caesar himself was to have absolute control of all matters for all time, in as
much as he was not only in charge of all the moneys (nominally the public funds
were separated from his own, but in practice he spent these too as he chose) but
also commanded the soldiers. 2 At any rate, when his ten-year period came to an
end another five years were voted him, then five more, then ten, then another ten,
and the same a fifth time, so that by a succession of ten-year periods he continued
sole ruler for life . . . . 17.1 In this way the power of both the people and the sen-
ate passed entirely to Augustus, and beginning with him there was in real truth a
monarchy in place – for a monarchy, even if two or three men did later hold the
power at the same time, it should unquestionably be considered.

14.65 Suetonius Life of the Deified Augustus 7.2: An

‘august’ title
Plancus had been one of Antony’s generals who joined Octavian in 32. The name Romulus
being that of a king and fratricide, Augustus was considered more appropriate as stressing
positive qualities with religious overtones (majestic, venerable, worthy of honour), while
also connected with the terms ‘augeo’ and ‘auctus’ (growth, increase, abundance).

He took the name Gaius Caesar, and then the surname Augustus, the former by
the will of his great-uncle and the latter on the motion of Munatius Plancus. When
some suggested that he ought to be called Romulus, being like him the founder
of the city, Plancus prevailed with the proposal that he should rather be named
Augustus, as this was not only a new title but a more honourable one, since sacred
places too, and those in which anything is consecrated by augury, are called
‘august’, from the increase (auctus) in dignity or from the behaviour and feeding
habits of birds, as Ennius demonstrates, when he writes (Annales 155): ‘by august
augury (augusto augurio) illustrious Rome was founded’.

14.66 Tacitus Annals 1.1.1–2.2: The death of the Republic

Tacitus in this passage is arguing that periods of temporary ‘rule’, by Sulla and Caesar for
example, were the logical prelude to the autocracy of the principate and Augustus’ sole rule
(cf. doc. 12.1).

1.1 At the beginning of Rome’s existence as a city it was ruled by kings; Lucius
Junius Brutus then instituted the consulship, together with political liberty.
Dictatorships were assumed for short periods of time; the powers of decemvirs
did not last more than two years, while the consular authority of military trib-
unes was short-lived. The autocracies of both Cinna and Sulla were brief; the

660
 OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO POWER
predominance of Pompey and Crassus was quickly superseded by that of Caesar,
and the armed might of Lepidus and Antony by that of Augustus, who took the
whole state, exhausted by civil discord, into his dominion under the name of
‘princeps’. . . . 2.1 After the state had been left unarmed, following the killing of
Brutus and Cassius, Pompeius overpowered in Sicily, Lepidus cast aside, Antony
slain, even the Julian party had no leader left but Caesar. Having set aside the title
of triumvir, he paraded himself as consul and was quite satisfied with the tribu-
nician power of protecting the people. He won the support of the soldiery with
gratuities, the people with grain, and everyone with the delights of peace, and then
edged forward little by little, absorbing into himself the functions of the senate,
the magistracies and the laws. He was opposed by no one, since the fiercest had
fallen in line of battle or through proscription, while the rest of the nobility found
that, the more one welcomed slavery, the quicker one was raised to wealth and
office, and, having flourished on revolution, preferred safety and the current state
of things to the old system and instability. 2 Nor were the provinces unhappy with
this state of affairs, where the rule of senate and people had been distrusted as a
result of the conflicts between rivals for power and the greed of magistrates, with
no assistance from the laws, which were overturned by violence, corruption – and
above all money.

661
 15

The Age of Augustus

Augustus had entrusted four documents to the Vestals to be read and actioned
after his death, one of which was a record of his achievements (his Res Gestae),
which was to be erected on bronze columns at the entrance to his mausoleum in
the Campus Martius (doc. 15.113). These pillars are lost, but the text, together
with a Greek translation, was inscribed on the temple of Roma and Augustus at
Ancyra, modern Ankara, Turkey (partial copies have also been found in two other
sites in Galatia). It appears to have been composed just before Augustus’ death
and stresses the constitutional nature of his position and the fact that any powers
he acquired were assumed with the full concurrence of the senate and people,
while he glosses over a number of events in his life before Actium. It promotes
an ideology rather than a factual narrative of his reign and puts him forward as a
moral example for posterity, while being very much a political document demon-
strating that the empire was now in its best possible state on account of his man-
agement (doc. 15.1). Following the ‘settlement’ of January 27, Dio at least consid-
ers Augustus’ position to have been monarchical, though Augustus always made a
show at least of consultation, having an advisory body for all proposed legislation.
The senate and assemblies continued to meet as before, and constitutional normal-
ity was apparently maintained, but Augustus’ approval was an essential part of
any decision (doc. 15.2). There is nothing intrinsically impossible in Augustus’
having composed the Res Gestae himself: like his great-uncle Caesar (doc. 13.64),
he tried his hand at a number of literary genres, including a response to Brutus’
eulogy of his father-in-law Cato, an autobiography (now lost), poetic works (some
written at the baths), and a tragedy on Ajax, which he ‘expunged’ because he was
unhappy with its style (doc. 15.3). The fasti continued to record his achievements
and high points in his career (such as becoming pontifex maximus) and events
within his family (doc. 15.4).
From 27 BC, Augustus’ constitutional position was one of great subtlety. It
was further refined in 23, after he had been seriously ill, when in July he resigned
the consulship he had held continuously since 31. This had the benefit of allowing
more senators to reach the consulship and to be available for consular duties such
as governorships. Instead of the consulship Augustus accepted tribunician potes-
tas for life (this was now to be the denominator of status and right of succession),

662
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
and from this point he used this to date events in his reign. He was also awarded
the right to put matters before the senate and, though no longer consul as such,
retained his provinces and their armies. During this illness in 23 he passed his ring
to Agrippa, thus designating him rather than his young nephew and son-in-law
Marcellus as ‘successor’. At this point there was no thought of handing on ‘rule’
as if he were a monarch; rather, the state, to ensure stability, needed an experi-
enced man at the helm. Augustus’ proconsular imperium was apparently such that
it was superior to that of the other governors in the senatorial provinces (‘maius’,
or greater, imperium), and he was able to override decisions made there, though
he was careful not to draw attention to this (docs 15.5–6). Certainly, whatever
Augustus’ actual position in relation to the senatorial provinces, the provincials
saw him as the main decision-maker, and the ‘Cyrene edicts’ appear to prove that
he possessed maius imperium overriding that of the governor (docs 15.7, 10). The
people in 23 were unhappy at his resigning the consulship, and in 21 and 20, dur-
ing Augustus’ absence in the East, there were difficulties over consular elections,
and only one consul was elected for 19. At around this time, too, in 23/22 and 19
BC, there had also been two conspiracies against Augustus. When he returned
from the East in October 19 he was granted further honours, including consular
power for life and the prefecture of morals and the right to enact any laws on
his own authority. The senate also built an altar to Fortuna Redux (‘Fortunate
Return’). Less obviously, in 18 his imperium was renewed for another five years,
while Agrippa was given tribunician potestas and presumably imperium for the
same period (docs 15.8–9).
Meanwhile it was still important for Augustus to be able to show himself a
great general expanding the frontiers of Rome. In January 29 he had been granted
the right to use ‘Imperator’ as a first name, and the doors of the temple of Janus
had been closed signifying worldwide peace. Poets such as Vergil celebrated his
victories at Actium and elsewhere (docs 15.11, 94–95). The return of the captured
standards by the Parthians, though achieved by diplomacy rather than by con-
quest, was heralded as a personal triumph of arms on his coinage (doc. 15.18),
while his victories were shown as having a worldwide impact, as in the embassy
sent to him from India, which included a Buddhist priest who immolated him-
self at Athens (doc. 15.15). Victories over foreign opponents were still lauded,
though increasingly such honours as triumphs were to be restricted to members
of the imperial family. In addition, in 21 BC Augustus took care that the general
Crassus should not be allowed the honour of the spolia opima for killing an enemy
leader in single combat, since he had not been fighting under his own auspices but
those of Augustus (docs 15.12–14). Augustus’ triumphs in warfare which estab-
lished stability and constitutional government were also shown as bearing the
fruits of peace in his conquest of foreign enemies. The Ara Pacis Augustae (altar
of Augustan Peace) was commissioned in 13 and dedicated in 9 BC, its reliefs
depicting the advantages now enjoyed by Rome, with members of the imperial
family prominently depicted (docs 15.15–18).
While in some respects proud to announce himself as an innovator, on the
question of religion Augustus was careful to show himself a traditionalist and

663
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
restorer. He established a festival to celebrate his victory at Actium near the site of
the battle, restored temples (82 in the year 28 BC alone; RG 20.4: doc 15.1), and
constructed many additional shrines, such as the temples of Apollo and Mars Ultor
(the ‘Avenger’, in honour of his father Julius Caesar); this temple also housed the
standards returned from the Parthians (doc. 15.96). After Lepidus finally died,
after many years under house arrest, in 13 BC, Augustus finally took on the posi-
tion of pontifex maximus, and from that point he had a justification for overseeing
religious rituals generally and ensuring that they conformed to traditional prac-
tices, as well as continuing to restore many that had fallen into disuse. In this, as
in everything else, he was publicly supported by his wife, Livia (docs 15.19–22).
One of the issues that most concerned Augustus in his moral and social legis-
lation was the birth rate among the higher classes, and in 18 BC he attempted to
encourage marriage and reward marriage and childbearing while imposing penal-
ties on the unmarried and childless. He also made adultery (and other forms of
sexual misconduct) a public as well as a private crime. There were, however,
advantages: citizens, though not senators, could now formally marry freedper-
sons, while couples with three or more children had testamentary advantages in
the inheritance of property (docs 15.23–27). This legislation was unpopular, espe-
cially with the equites, and in AD 9 the lex Papia Poppaea was passed to relax
some of the earlier stipulations (the fact that neither of these consuls was mar-
ried was an indication of the seriousness of the issue). His laws also addressed
the concerns of freedpersons, releasing them under certain conditions from the
guardianship (and right to inheritance) of their patron (docs 15.28–30). As part of
his celebration of the restoration of traditional religion and its values, Augustus
celebrated the centennial games (ludi Saeculares) in 17 BC, marking a new age
and time of rebirth in tune with his legislation to encourage marriage and child-
bearing (docs 15.32–34). It was unfortunate for Augustus that both his daughter
and granddaughter were seen openly to transgress his moral legislation, even if in
so doing they were also inspired by political motives (doc. 15.31).
As Julia was Augustus’ only child, it was imperative that he seek out a pos-
sible ‘successor’, although as yet the concept of handing on a form of monarchy
would have been anachronistic. In his illness in 23 BC he had turned to Agrippa
rather than his son-in-law and nephew Marcellus. He had, however, clearly been
grooming Marcellus for high honours, including allowing him to hold a spectacular
aedileship, until the boy’s death at the age of 19 years. In his Aeneid, Vergil pre-
sents the young Marcellus in the underworld as the greatest of a long succession
of Roman heroes (docs 15.5, 35–37). With his death, however, Augustus needed
a new father for any grandchildren, and Julia was therefore married to his friend
Agrippa (who had to divorce his current wife, Augustus’ niece and Marcellus’
sister). Sources hint at differences between Marcellus and Agrippa, but Agrippa’s
role in the East between 23 and 21 was that of deputising for Augustus as governor
of Syria, and their duties did not overlap (doc. 15.38). Quite apart from his role as
Augustus’ second-in-command and overseer of his military campaigns, Agrippa
left a lasting mark on Rome with his building and engineering projects. He held the
aedileship in 33 in order to improve Rome’s infrastructure and constructions, even

664
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
though this was a step down in the cursus honorum, as he had held the consulship
in 37; he was to be consul again with Augustus in 28 and 27. He spent a fortune on
beautifying Rome, repairing and improving the aqueducts and sewers, construct-
ing baths and fountains, erecting a basilica in honour of Augustus’ victories, and
building a complex in the Campus Martius including gardens and the Pantheon. He
was also known as an art-lover (docs 15.39–41). His edicts and achievements in the
East were acknowledged and honoured by the provincials, who erected numerous
statues in honour of Agrippa and his family members, including Julia and their
daughters: they were to have five children, the first, Gaius, born in 20 BC, followed
by Lucius in 17. The third son, Agrippa Postumus, was born after Agrippa’s death
(docs 15.42–46). While Agrippa’s decisions were noted for their justice and sense,
on one occasion he lost his temper when Julia was nearly drowned in a storm cross-
ing the River Scamander near Troy. He fined the city 100,000 silver drachmas,
which would have left it destitute: fortunately Nikolaos of Damascus was at hand
to ask King Herod of Judaea to plead on their behalf (doc. 15.47).
From 18 BC Agrippa was Augustus’ colleague in both tribunician power and
proconsular imperium, renewed for a further five years in 13, and his funeral ora-
tion suggests that, like Augustus, he possessed maius imperium. After the birth
of Lucius, Agrippa and Julia’s second son, Augustus had adopted both boys, and
was clearly intending that they be seen as his designated successors. Agrippa died
unexpectedly in March 12 BC and was buried in Augustus’ mausoleum, and Dio
gives a eulogistic summary of his achievements and loyalty to Augustus (docs
15.48–50). Augustus completed some of Agrippa’s more outstanding undertak-
ings, such as the first ever map of the known world, while the responsibility for
Rome’s water supply, together with the ‘household’ of expert slaves Agrippa
had maintained as workmen, were handed over to the senate (docs 15.51–52).
Augustus’ grandsons were as yet too young to be involved in public life, and for
a colleague in the interim Augustus turned to Livia’s elder son, Tiberius. In 11
BC Tiberius had to divorce his wife, Vipsania, a daughter of Agrippa, and marry
Julia (doc. 15.50).
While Augustus did not allow divine honours to be paid to him in Rome, he
promoted his status as ‘son of the god’ by such means as his coinage and his
construction of the temple of Mars Ultor (Mars the Avenger) in honour of his
assassinated ‘father’ (dedicated in 2 BC). In the East the goddess Roma had long
possessed a cult, as had certain successful generals such as Flamininus, and after
Actium shrines started to be erected to ‘Roma and Augustus’, as for example in
Ancyra, where the text of the Res Gestae was displayed. The cult was important
in major centres such as Pergamum and Athens (doc. 15.53), and in 9 BC Fabius,
the proconsul of Asia, made not only Augustus’ birthday a public holiday but also
the start of the New Year throughout the province (as ‘the beginning of all things’
and ‘the time for life’). For this innovation he won himself the crown designated
for the person ‘who formulated the highest honours for the god (Augustus)’ (doc.
15.54). Oaths of loyalty were taken throughout the East to Augustus and his fam-
ily on pain of total obliteration of oneself and all one’s descendants, and one of
the important duties of magistrates was to hold sacrifices to Imperator Caesar

665
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Augustus and his two sons, as well as festivals in honour of the imperial family.
Such games could be held in honour of the imperial family generally, Roma and
Augustus, Julius Caesar, or even Agrippa. Similar honours took place in the West:
an altar at Narbonne in honour of Augustus’ divine power (numen) was set up to
worship his divine spirit in perpetuity (docs 15.55–58).
One of the factors in Augustus’ earlier marriage legislation had been to permit
marriages with freedpersons (except for senators) and to enable freedpersons with
an appropriate number of children to avoid nominating their patron as sole heir.
Further legislation concerning slaves and freedmen was to follow. Probably in 17
BC Augustus settled the issue of ‘Junian Latins’, slaves who had been freed infor-
mally, to ensure that their patrons remained their heirs and that they were formally
recognised as freedpersons with certain citizen rights. In 2 BC, in the lex Fufia
Caninia, he dealt with the question of manumission by will, restricting the numbers
of slaves who could be manumitted in this way (never more than 100), though this
had no impact on other forms of manumission, while the lex Aelia Sentia in AD 4
laid down minimum age limits both for owners and for slaves who were to be manu-
mitted (docs 15.59–61). Now that adultery was a public crime, with serious penal-
ties for both parties, he also ensured that measures were put in place to ensure both
that slaves of accused persons could be tortured for their evidence and that com-
pensation should be granted should the slaves die under this treatment (doc. 15.62).
Following the death of Agrippa, Augustus had turned to Tiberius as a colleague
and husband for Julia. His adopted grandsons were his heirs, and there seemed every
chance that they would be suitable successors at the appropriate time. Julia had
received an excellent education and inherited her father’s quick wit, as well as his
independence of character. Macrobius preserves some of her ‘sayings’ as evidence
of her intelligence and outspokenness, and, while he was very fond of her, Augustus
used to say that he had two spoilt daughters, Rome and Julia (docs 15.63–64, cf.
66). Family life at this period is shown as affectionate, with positive relationships
between all family members, including Tiberius (doc. 15.65). It was unfortunate,
however, that the marriage between Tiberius and Julia was not a happy one, and in
2 BC Julia’s indiscretions were such that Augustus was forced to banish her after he
had made a public outburst about her behaviour in the senate. There was possibly a
political agenda, as a close member of the imperial family, Iullus Antonius, son of
Mark Antony and husband of Augustus’ niece Marcella, was implicated and com-
mitted suicide (doc. 15.67). Livia’s relationship with Augustus stood the test of time,
and, while she clearly had influence over her husband, she projected the image of a
discreet and loyal wife. The island of Samos certainly felt that she could represent
their interests with Augustus (he mentions ‘his wife’ in his reply), and Suetonius
preserves a letter from Augustus to her detailing his concerns about their problem
grandchild Claudius (docs 15.69–72). Some further insight into Livia’s domestic
life is seen by her possession of the smallest female dwarf in Rome, Andromeda,
her recipes for medicaments, such as a cure for a sore throat, and her villa north of
Rome, which provided laurel wreaths for Augustus and subsequent emperors after a
chicken carrying a branch of laurel had fallen auspiciously into her lap when being
carried off by a passing eagle (docs 15.68, 73–74; 6.68).

666
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Augustus was a painstaking administrator, with his eye on issues both in the
provinces and in Rome, and a letter of his is preserved giving judgement in a case
on Knidos, which had been brought directly to him by the Knidians when one of
their citizens had been killed accidentally by a falling chamber-pot (doc. 15.75).
More importantly, it was vital to keep the supply of grain flowing into Rome, and
he established a commission of ex-praetors to oversee the grain distribution. A
lex Julia on the grain supply prevented trafficking in grain prices and hoarding,
and the efficient transportation of grain from Egypt to Rome was ensured, while
within Egypt ships transporting grain down the Nile were escorted by Roman
legionaries (docs 15.76–77). Other laws passed by Augustus included ones on
violence, embezzlement, bribery and extortion, and, like Caesar, he attempted in a
sumptuary law to restrict excessive spending on private and public banquets (docs
15.79–80). Apart from the temples and sanctuaries he constructed and repaired in
Rome, he had a secular building programme, including his mausoleum, the Curia
Julia, and the Forum Augustum. Districts of Rome were supervised by annual
magistrates, a fire service was introduced, the Tiber was cleaned and widened,
and highways leading to Rome were improved (doc. 15.81).
Having resigned the consulship in 23 BC, Augustus accepted it again only to
introduce his two eldest grandsons to public life in 5 and 2 BC. Many duties were
open to ex-consuls, and there were often more than a single pair in a particular
year: the substitute consuls were known as ‘suffect’. This allowed more senators
to reach the pre-eminent position and afterwards to take on governorships, admin-
ister the treasury, and oversee the grain and water supply. Augustus also formed
an advisory group, consisting of certain magistrates and senators chosen by lot,
for the purposes of consultation prior to proposals going before the senate. He was
concerned to limit membership of the senate but was able to reduce it only to 600
members. Election to magistracies was still extremely competitive, but from AD
3 more senators from Italian towns appear, and there was scope for ‘new men’ to
reach the highest political positions. Such positions were highly prized, as were
other forms of service such as priesthoods, governorships and a variety of admin-
istrative positions (docs 15.83–87).
Like architecture and the fine arts, literature was to flourish in Augustus’ time,
and his reign was to be seen as a ‘Golden Age’ of poetry. Young writers were
deliberately encouraged and supported by Augustus’ childhood friend Maecenas,
who had held many duties in Rome while deputising for Augustus in his absence,
dealing with at least one conspiracy (docs 15.88–89), and who was a generous
patron of literature, if a verbose and pretentious poet in his own right. Vergil,
Horace and Propertius were all part of his literary circle and encouraged to write
on Augustan themes and promote Augustan ideology (docs 15.90–97). Maecenas
died in 8 BC, not long after Agrippa, and, as with Agrippa, Dio gives a eulogy
for him, praising him for his moderating influence on Augustus and his unob-
trusiveness in remaining an equestrian (he was never a senator), even though he
bestowed such honours on others. He was also known for his love of luxurious
living and was the first person in Rome to possess a heated swimming pool (doc.
15.98).

667
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
The last years of the first century BC were especially propitious for Augustus.
In 8 BC the month Sextilis, in which his main triumphs and achievements had
taken place, was named August in his honour. He was also in 2 BC named ‘pater
patriae’, father of his country, which he presents in the Res Gestae (35.1) as the
pinnacle of his career and the ultimate honour awarded him. His adopted sons
were growing up, Gaius especially being popular with the people, and were
allowed to attend senate meetings while taking on roles such as priesthoods and
leadership of the equestrian order (as ‘princeps iuventutis’). The boys received
honours from across the empire, and it was agreed at Sardis in 5 BC that the day
on which Gaius put on the toga virilis (adult toga) was to be a public holiday.
Augustus took the consulship in 5 BC and 2 BC to introduce them to public life,
and Gaius was designated consul for AD 1 and Lucius for AD 4. Augustus’ letter
on his 64th birthday to Gaius in the East, cited by Aulus Gellius, shows the affec-
tionate joking relationship between them and reveals that Augustus definitely saw
his two grandsons as his successors. Both boys were given the opportunity to gain
the requisite military experience, and Gaius was sent to the East in 1 BC with pro-
consular powers. In AD 1, his consular year, he campaigned in or near Arabia. In
AD 2 he made a treaty with the Parthian ruler Phraataces V after which he headed
north to Armenia, which had revolted (docs 15.99–104).
In 2 BC the boys’ mother, Julia, had been exiled to the island of Pandateria
as a result of her scandalous behaviour. This was a blow both to the moral image
Augustus wished to present and to the imperial family. Then, in AD 2, Lucius,
the younger of Augustus’ grandsons, died at Massalia on his way to Spain and, in
January AD 4, Gaius, who had been wounded in a siege in Armenia, died on his
way back to Italy. Cities across the empire, such as Pisa, awarded them full funerary
honours. Julia’s third son, Agrippa Postumus, was then adopted by Augustus, but
proved unsatisfactory and was exiled in AD 7, and the following year his sister Julia
was banished, like her mother, for adultery and possible treason. Militarily, the posi-
tion of the empire seemed secure, and Tiberius, with his adopted son Germanicus,
had been achieving some great victories in Illyricum since AD 6. Then, three days
after their triumphal arrival in Rome in AD 9, news came of an unprecedented dis-
aster in Germany, with three legions under the governor Varus lured into an ambush
and wiped out. Augustus was devastated and there was panic in Rome; conscrip-
tion was introduced in this emergency, with heavy penalties for those who did not
comply (docs 15.105–10). Tiberius therefore returned to campaign in Germany for
another three years, while, more importantly, Augustus had perforce to turn to him
as a colleague and successor, as he had lost or exiled all the members of his own
family (it was suggested that Livia may have had a hand in some of these deaths),
and, whatever Augustus’ own view of Tiberius, it was only in AD 13 that he was
given imperium equal to that of Augustus. Tacitus comments that nothing was now
left of ‘the good, old way of life’ and that equality had been abolished. At this point,
as Augustus’ life was drawing to a close, there was concern as to what would fol-
low, whether freedom or further warfare (docs 15.111).
After a few days on the island of Capri, and attending the games at Naples,
Augustus died on his way home to Rome, at Nola on 19 August AD 14. Livia was

668
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
with him to the last, and typically he cracked a joke or two with his friends. He
had left Tiberius as heir to two-thirds of his estate and Livia as heir to the rest, and
made huge donatives to the military, as well as bequeathing 40,000,000 sesterces
to the people of Rome. Apart from his will (one of the four documents left with
the Vestals), he left directions for his funeral, his Res Gestae, which was to be set
up in front of his mausoleum, and a summary of the troops and finances of the
empire. He was buried in his mausoleum, alongside Marcellus, Agrippa, Octavia
Minor, Gaius and Lucius (docs 15.112–13). It was inevitable that evidence of his
divinity would appear, and when an ex-praetor called Numerius Atticus swore
that he had seen Augustus ascending into heaven Livia presented him with a mil-
lion sesterces. Full divine honours were paid him, and his birthday was to be
honoured with the celebration of games known as the Augustalia (doc. 15.114).
Augustus’ achievements were viewed from very different perspectives by writ-
ers and historians: Nikolaos of Damascus sees him as ‘attaining the utmost power
and wisdom’, while Pliny the Elder lists in detail all the disappointments and
failures he had to face and dwells particularly on the dubious morality of his
early years, ending with the final disappointment of having to leave the empire
to Tiberius. Tacitus presents him from two antithetical viewpoints, those of his
supporters and those of his opponents. By giving the negative portrait last, the
implication is that Tacitus saw Augustus’ reign as one ending in failure and disil-
lusionment – though he was still granted temples and divine rites and became a
god (doc. 15.117).

THE RES GESTAE DIVI AUGUSTI

15.1 Augustus Res Gestae: Augustus’ view of his achievements
In this document Augustus is particularly concerned to list the honours awarded him by the
senate and people of Rome (culminating with the title pater patriae in 2 BC) and the monies
which he expended as a benefactor of the people and army. Where the Greek version differs
from the Latin, the Greek is given in square brackets.

Below is a copy of the achievements of the deified Augustus, through which he

made the whole world subject to the rule of the Roman people, and of the monies
which he expended on the state and people of Rome, as inscribed on two bronze
columns set up at Rome [translated and inscribed below are the achievements and
gifts of the god Augustus, which he left engraved at Rome on two bronze stelai].

The Ides of March and aftermath

1.1 At the age of 19 (44 BC), on my own decision and at my own expense, I raised
an army with which I liberated the state, which had been oppressed by a tyrannical
faction [from the slavery imposed by the conspirators]. 2 In acknowledgement of
this, the senate passed honorific degrees admitting me to its order in the consul-
ship of Gaius Pansa and Aulus Hirtius (43 BC), as well as granting me the right
to state my opinion as a consular, and granted me imperium [as well as granting

669
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
me the right to state my opinions with the status of an ex-consul, and gave me the
rods (of office)]. 3 It ordered me as propraetor to take measures together with the
consuls to ensure that the state come to no harm. 4 The people, moreover, in this
same year, made me consul, both the consuls having fallen in battle, and triumvir
for the settlement of public affairs.
2.1 Those who killed my father I drove into exile, punishing their crime through
the proper law-courts, and afterwards, when they made war on the state, defeated
them twice in battle [those who killed my father I exiled through legitimate trials,
avenging their impiety, and afterwards defeated them twice in battle when they
made war against the fatherland].

Warfare and triumphs

3.1 I often conducted wars, civil and foreign, by land and sea across the whole
world, and as victor pardoned all citizens who asked for mercy. 2 Foreign peo-
ples, whom it was safe to pardon, I preferred to spare rather than execute. 3 Some
500,000 Roman citizens have been under oath of allegiance to me [nearly 500,000
Romans came to serve in the army under my oath], of whom somewhat more than
300,000 I settled in colonies or sent back to their own towns after they had served
their term, and to all of them I allocated land or gave them money as reward
for their military service. 4 I captured 600 ships, excluding those smaller than
triremes.
4.1 I twice celebrated an ovation and have driven triumphal chariots three times
[I twice triumphed on horseback and three times in a chariot] and have been hailed
as imperator on 21 occasions; though the senate decreed other triumphs for me I
declined them all. I deposited the laurel from my fasces [rods] in the Capitoline tem-
ple after fulfilling the vows I had made in each war. 2 For successes by land and sea
accomplished under my auspices by me or my legates, the senate on 55 occasions
decreed thanksgivings to the immortal gods. Moreover, the days on which thanks-
givings were held by senatorial decree came to 890. 3 In my triumphs nine kings or
kings’ children have been led before my chariot. 4 I have been consul 13 times at
the time of writing and have held tribunician power 37 times.

Powers and magistracies

5.1 The dictatorship offered to me both in my absence and in my presence by

both the people and the senate in the consulship of Marcus Marcellus and Lucius
Arruntius (22 BC) I did not accept. 2 I did not refuse, in a time of severe grain
shortage, responsibility for the grain supply [supervision of the market], which I
administered in such a way that within a few days I freed the entire city from the
fear and danger facing it through my own expenditure and management. 3 The
consulship also offered to me at that time for a year and for life I did not accept.
6.1 In the consulship of Marcus Vinicius and Quintus Lucretius (19 BC) and
then of Publius Lentulus and Gnaeus Lentulus [18 BC] and thirdly of Paullus
Fabius Maximus and Quintus Tubero (11 BC), though the senate and people of

670
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Rome agreed that I should be appointed as sole guardian of laws and customs
with absolute power, I accepted no magistracy conferred contrary to the custom
of our ancestors. 2 The measures which the senate at that time wished me to carry
out I accomplished by virtue of my tribunician power, and on five occasions of
my own accord requested and received from the senate a colleague to share that
power. 7.1 For ten consecutive years I was a member of the triumvirate for the set-
tlement of the state. 2 I have been princeps senatus [I held first place in rank in the
senate], up until the day when I wrote this, for forty years. 3 I have been pontifex
maximus [chief priest], augur, one of the Fifteen for conducting sacred rites, one
of the Seven for religious feasts [one of the Seven in charge of sacred rites], Arval
brother, member of the fraternity of Titius, and fetial.

Restructure of society

8.1 As consul for the fifth time (29 BC) I increased the number of patricians by
order of the people and senate. 2 I revised the membership of the senate three
times [I selected the senate three times], and in my sixth consulship (28 BC), with
Marcus Agrippa as my colleague, I carried out a census of the people. I held a
lustrum 42 years after the previous one (17 BC), and 4,063,000 [4,603,000] indi-
vidual Romans were registered. 3 I then for a second time conducted a lustrum
on my own with consular power in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius
Asinius (8 BC), at which lustrum 4,233,000 individual Romans were registered.
4 And I conducted a lustrum for a third time with consular power with my son
Tiberius Caesar as colleague in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus
Appuleius (AD 14), in which 4,937,000 individual Roman citizens were regis-
tered. 5 Through new laws which I initiated I revived many patterns of ancestral
practices that were dying out in our generation, and I myself handed down to
posterity numerous models for them to imitate [I myself handed myself down to
posterity as a model of many things].

Religious honours

9.1 The senate decreed that vows for my health be offered by consuls and priests
every four years. In accordance with these vows, games have often been cele-
brated in my lifetime [in my lifetime omitted in Greek], sometimes by the four
most prestigious colleges of priests [sometimes through the collaboration of the
four priests] and sometimes by the consuls. 2 Furthermore, the whole citizen
body, both privately and as municipalities, have with one accord continuously
offered prayers for my good health at all the couches of the gods [sacrificed on
behalf of my safety].
10.1 By decree of the senate my name was included in the hymn of the Salii,
and it was enacted by law that I should be sacrosanct in perpetuity and should pos-
sess tribunician power as long as I lived. 2 I refused to become pontifex maximus
[I refused to accept the chief priesthood] in place of my colleague (Lepidus) during
his lifetime, though the people were offering me that priesthood, which my father

671
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
had held. Some years later I did accept this priesthood, at the eventual death of
that person who had used the opportunity of civil unrest to seize it, when from the
whole of Italy such a huge crowd flooded into Rome for my election, in the consul-
ship of Publius Sulpicius and Gaius Valgius (12 BC), as had never previously been
recorded. 11 In thanks for my return the senate consecrated the altar of Fortune the
Returner (Fortune the Saviour) in front of the temple of Honour and Virtue at the
Capena gate, where it ordered the priests and Vestal virgins [priestesses] to per-
form an annual sacrifice on the anniversary of the day (12 October) on which I had
returned to the city from Syria in the consulship of Quintus Lucretius and Marcus
Vinicius (19 BC), and named the day Augustalia after my title [from our name].
12.1 In accordance with a resolution of the senate some of the praetors and trib-
unes of the plebs, with the consul Quintus Lucretius and leading senators, were sent
to Campania to meet me, an honour up to this time accorded to no one except me. 2
When I returned from Spain and Gaul, after the successful conclusion of affairs in
those provinces, in the consulship of Tiberius Nero and Publius Quinctilius (Varus)
(13 BC), the senate decreed in honour of my return that an altar of Augustan Peace
be consecrated on the Campus Martius, where it ordered the magistrates and priests
and Vestal virgins [priestesses] to perform an annual sacrifice.

Closure of the temple of Janus

13 The temple of Janus Quirinus, which our ancestors resolved should be closed
when peace had been achieved throughout the whole empire of the Roman peo-
ple by victories by land and sea [when all land and sea was at peace under the
Romans], and which before I was born is recorded as having been closed only
ever twice since the foundation of the city, the senate decreed to be closed three
times while I was princeps.

Honours for his sons

14.1 My sons, whom fortune snatched away from me as youths, Gaius and Lucius
Caesar, the senate and the Roman people appointed in my honour as consuls (des-
ignate) when they were 14 years of age so that they could enter into the magis-
tracy after a five-year period, and that, from that day when they were led into the
forum, they were to participate in councils of state [be members of the senate].
2 Moreover, the whole body of Roman equites named both of them as Leader of
Youth (‘princeps iuventutis’) and presented them with silver shields and spears.

Expenditure on citizens and soldiery

15.1 To every member of the Roman plebs I paid 300 sesterces [75 denarii] in
accordance with my father’s will, and I gave in my own name 400 sesterces [100
denarii] from the spoils of war when I was consul for the fifth time (29 BC), and
again in my tenth consulship (24 BC) I paid out a donative of 400 sesterces [100
denarii] per man from my own patrimony, and as consul for the eleventh time (23

672
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
BC] I bought up grain in a private capacity and made 12 grain distributions, and in
my twelfth year of tribunician power (12 BC) I gave out 400 sesterces [100 dena-
rii] per man for the third time. These handouts of mine never reached fewer than
250,000 people. 2 In my eighteenth year of tribunician power, as consul for the
twelfth time (5 BC), I gave 60 denarii per man to 320,000 [330,000] members of
the urban plebs. 3 And as consul for the fifth time [29 BC] I gave to the colonists
who had been my soldiers 1,000 sesterces [250 denarii] each out of spoils; some
120,000 men in the colonies received this triumphal handout. 4 As consul for the
thirteenth time (2 BC) I gave 60 denarii to each of the plebs at that time in receipt
of public grain; these numbered slightly more than 200,000 men.
16.1 I paid money to municipalities in exchange for the land which I allo-
cated to my soldiers in my fourth consulship (30 BC), and later in the consul-
ship of Marcus Crassus and Gnaeus Lentulus Augur (14 BC); the total amount
paid was about 600,000,000 sesterces [150,000,000] for Italian estates and about
260,000,000 [65,000,000] for land in the provinces. I was the first and only one to
have done this of all who have founded colonies of soldiers in Italy or the prov-
inces in living memory [until my generation]. 2 And afterwards, in the consulship
of Tiberius Nero and Gnaeus Piso (7 BC), and, likewise, in the consulship of Gaius
Antistius and Decimus Laelius (6 BC), and in the consulship of Gaius Calvisius
and Lucius Pasienus (4 BC), and in the consulship of Lucius Lentulus and Marcus
Messalla (3 BC), and in the consulship of Lucius Caninius and Quintus Fabricius
(2 BC), I paid cash bounties in full to the soldiers whom I settled in their own
municipalities when they had completed their period of service; for this undertak-
ing I paid out about 400,000,000 sesterces [100,000,000].
17.1 On four occasions I assisted the treasury with my own money, transfer-
ring 150,000,000 sesterces [37,500,000] to those in charge of the treasury. 2 And
in the consulship of Marcus Lepidus and Lucius Arruntius (AD 6) I transferred
170,000,000 sesterces [42,500,000] from my own patrimony into the military
treasury, which had been established on my advice, from which bounties were
given to soldiers who had completed 20 or more years of service. 18 From the
year when Gnaeus and Publius Lentulus were consuls (18 BC), whenever the
revenues were inadequate, I gave out distributions of grain and money from my
own granary and patrimony [gave payments of grain and cash from my property],
sometimes to 100,000 persons, sometimes to many more.

Augustus and Rome

19.1 I built the senate house and the Chalcidicum adjoining it, and the temple
of Apollo on the Palatine with its porticoes, the temple of the deified Julius, the
Lupercal, the portico at the Circus Flaminius, which I allowed to be called the
Octavian after the name of the man who had erected an earlier one on the same
site, the platform of the gods (pulvinar) at the Circus Maximus, 2 the temples on
the Capitol of Jupiter Feretrius and Jupiter the Thunderer, the temple of Quirinus,
the temples of Minerva and Queen Juno and Jupiter Libertas on the Aventine, the
temple of the Lares at the top of the Via Sacra, the temple of the Penates on the

673
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Velia, the temple of Youth, and the temple of the Great Mother on the Palatine [I
built the council chamber and next to it the Chalcidicum, the temple of Apollo on
the Palatine with its porticoes, the temple of the god Julius, the shrine of Pan, the
portico at the Circus Flaminius, which I allowed to be called the Octavian after
the name of the man who first set it up, the temple near the great hippodrome,
2 the temples on the Capitol of Zeus Trophy-Bearer and Zeus Thunderer, the
temple of Quirinus, the temples of Athena and Queen Hera and Zeus Liberator
on the Aventine, of the Heroes next to the Sacred Way, of the household gods on
the Velia, the temple of Youth, and the temple of the Mother of the gods on the
Palatine].
20.1 I restored the Capitoline temple and the theatre of Pompey, both at great
expense, without any inscription of my name on them. 2 I repaired the conduits
of the aqueducts which in numerous places were collapsing through old age, and
I doubled the capacity of the aqueduct called the Marcian aqueduct by diverting a
new source into it. 3 I completed the Forum Julium and the basilica which stood
between the temple of Castor [the Dioscuri] and the temple of Saturn [Cronus],
works began and nearly completed by my father, and I commenced the rebuilding
on a more extensive site of the same basilica, when it had been destroyed by fire,
under an inscription in the name of my sons, and ordered that if I had not com-
pleted it in my lifetime it should be completed by my heirs. 4 As consul for the
sixth time (28 BC) I restored 82 temples of the gods in the city in accordance with
a resolution of the senate, with not one omitted that was in need of repair at this
time. 5 As consul for the seventh time (27 BC) I rebuilt the Via Flaminia from the
city to Ariminum and all the bridges except the Mulvian and Minucian [except for
two which were not in need of repair].
21.1 On my own land I built the temple of Mars the Avenger and the Forum of
Augustus out of the spoils of war. Near the temple of Apollo, on a site purchased
mainly from private individuals, I built the theatre, named for my son-in-law
Marcus Marcellus. 2 From the spoils of war I consecrated gifts in the Capitoline
temple and in the temple of the deified Julius [in the temple of Julius] and in the
temple of Apollo and in the temple of Vesta [Hestia] and in the temple of Mars the
Avenger [Ares], which cost me about 100,000,000 sesterces [nearly 2,500,000]. 3
As consul for the fifth time (29 BC) I returned 35,000 pounds of gold for crowns
to the municipalities and Italian colonies which had contributed this towards my
triumphs, and later, whenever I was hailed as imperator, I refused to accept crown
gold [I did not accept the offers of a crown] though the municipalities and colo-
nies decreed it just as generously as before [with the same eagerness as before].
22.1 On three occasions I put on a gladiatorial show in my own name and on
five occasions in the name of my sons or grandsons; some 10,000 men fought it
out in these shows. Twice in my own name and a third time in the name of my
grandson I presented to the people a display of athletes summoned from far and
wide. 2 I put on games in my own name on four occasions, as well as 23 times
on behalf of other magistrates. On behalf of the College of Fifteen, as Master of
the College with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague, I put on the Secular Games
[on behalf of the Fifteen, with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague I put on the

674
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
spectacles that take place after 100 years called Saeculares] in the consulship of
Gaius Furnius and Gaius Silanus (17 BC). As consul for the thirteenth time (2 BC)
I was the first to hold the Games of Mars [Ares], which from this time onwards the
consuls have held in succeeding years by senatorial decree and by law. 3 I put on
hunting spectacles of wild beasts from Africa for the people 26 times in my name
or the name of my sons and grandsons in the circus or forum or amphitheatre, in
which some 3,500 beasts were slaughtered.
23 I put on for the people the spectacle of a naval battle on the other side of the
Tiber, at the place where the Grove of the Caesars now stands, after a site 1,800
feet in length and 1,200 in width had been excavated; here 30 beaked ships, tri-
remes or biremes [on it 30 ships with rams, triremes or two-banked ships], as well
as many smaller ships, met in battle. In these fleets some 3,000 men were engaged
in the fighting apart from the rowers.

Offerings to the gods

24.1 As victor I replaced in the temples of all the cities in the province of Asia
the ornaments [dedications] which the man against whom I had waged war had
appropriated for himself after plundering the temples. 2 Silver statues which stood
in the city of myself on foot, on horseback and in a four-horse chariot [in chariots]
I personally removed and from the resulting funds placed offerings of gold in the
temple of Apollo in my name and in the name of those who had honoured me with
the statues.

Internal enemies

25.1 I brought peace to the sea, freeing it from the threat of pirates (i.e., Sextus
Pompeius). In that war I handed back to their masters for punishment nearly
30,000 slaves who had run away from their masters and taken up arms against the
state [I brought peace to the sea subjected to piracy by runaway slaves; of these I
handed over some 30,000 to their masters for punishment]. 2 The whole of Italy of
its own accord took an oath of allegiance to me and demanded that I be the leader
in the war which I won at Actium. The provinces of Gaul and Spain, and Africa,
Sicily, Sardinia [the provinces Gaul, Spain, Libya, Sicily, Sardinia] took the same
oath. 3 Of those who served under my standards at that time, more than 700 were
senators, of whom 83 either before or afterwards, up to the day of writing, have
been made consuls and some 170 have been made priests.

World conquest

26.1 I extended the frontiers of all the provinces of the Roman people where the
neighbouring peoples were not subject to our rule. 2 I pacified the Gallic and
Spanish provinces [Gauls and Spains], and Germany likewise, the area bounded
by Ocean from Cadiz to the mouth of the River Elbe. 3 I brought peace to the Alps
from the region adjoining the Adriatic Sea as far as the Tuscan Sea [from the region

675
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
near the Ionian Gulf as far as the Tyrrhenian Sea] without making war on any peo-
ple unjustly. 4 My fleet navigated through Ocean from the mouth of the Rhine to
the region of the rising sun as far as the territory of the Cimbri, which no Roman
had ever reached either by land or by sea, and the Cimbri and the Charydes and the
Semnones and other peoples of Germany of the same region through their envoys
sought my friendship and that of the Roman people. 5 Under my command and
under my auspices [under my command and with auspicious omens] two armies
were led at almost the same time into Ethiopia and into that part of Arabia called
Felix, and immense enemy forces of both peoples were killed in battle and numer-
ous towns captured. They advanced into Ethiopia as far as the town Napata, very
close to Meroe. The army penetrated into Arabia as far as the territory of the Sabaei
to the town of Mariba [as far as the city Mariba].
27.1 I added Egypt to the empire of the Roman people. 2 Greater Armenia, which
I could have made a province when its king, Artaxes, was murdered [after the king
was killed], I preferred in accordance with the example of our ancestors to grant as a
kingdom to Tigranes, the son of King Artavasdes and also grandson of King Tigranes,
through the agency of Tiberius Nero, who at that point was my stepson. And when
that same people later revolted and rebelled and were then reduced through the agency
of my son Gaius, I handed them over to King Ariobarzanes, son of Artabazus, king
of the Medes, for him to rule over, and after his death to his son Artavasdes; and
when he was killed I sent to rule this kingdom Tigranes, who was descended from
the Armenian royal family. 3 I won back all the provinces which lie towards the East
and Cyrene across the Adriatic Sea [beyond the Ionian Gulf], which were at that point
mostly in the possession of kings, and before that Sicily and Sardinia, which had been
occupied in the slave war (i.e., under the control of Sextus Pompeius).

Colonial foundations

28.1 I established colonies of soldiers in Africa [Libya], Sicily, Macedonia,

both Spains, Achaea, Syria, Gallia Narbonensis [Gaul around Narbo], Pisidia. 2
Moreover Italy has 28 colonies established under my authority, which in my own
lifetime have become very populous and well inhabited [moreover Italy has 28
colonies established by me, which became very populous in my lifetime].

Military standards

29.1 After subduing the enemy I recovered numerous military standards, lost by
other commanders, from Spain and Gaul and from the Dalmatians. 2 I compelled
the Parthians to return to me the spoils and standards of three Roman armies and
to request as suppliants the friendship of the Roman people. These standards,
moreover, I placed in the sanctum of the temple of Mars [Ares] the Avenger.

The Danube

30.1 The peoples of Pannonia, whom no army of the Roman people had ever
reached before my principate [before I was leader], I brought under the rule of

676
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
the Roman people after they had been subdued by Tiberius Nero, at that time
my stepson and legate, and I extended the frontiers of Illyricum to the bank of
the River Danube [Ister]. 2 An army of Dacians which crossed over to this side
was defeated and overwhelmed under my auspices [under my favourable omens],
and afterwards my army was led across the Danube and compelled the peoples of
Dacia to submit to the commands of the Roman people.

Diplomatic successes
31.1 Embassies of kings were frequently sent to me from India, such as had
never been seen before that time in the presence of any Roman commander. 2
The Bastarnae sought our friendship though envoys, as did the Scythians, and
kings of the Sarmatians on this side of the River Don and the further side [and the
Sarmatians who are on this side of the River Don and the kings beyond], and the
kings of the Albani and of the Hiberians and of the Medes.
32.1 Kings fled to me as suppliants, Tiridates, king of the Parthians, and
later Phraates, son of King Phraates; Artavasdes, king of the Medes; Artaxares
of the Adiabeni; Dumnobellaunus and Tincomarus of the Britons; Maelo of the
Sygambri; and . . . rus of the Marcomannian Suebi. 2 Phraates, son of Orodes,
king of the Parthians, sent into Italy to me all his sons and grandsons, not after
defeat in war but in search of our friendship through the pledges of his children.
3 And a large number of other peoples have enjoyed the good faith of the Roman
people during my principate [while I have been leader], with whom there had
not previously been any exchange of embassies and friendship with the Roman
people. 33 The peoples of Parthia and Media received kings they had requested
using their leading men as envoys [kings, who were requested using leading
men as envoys, received kingdoms from me]: the Parthians Vonones, son of
King Phraates, grandson of King Orodes, the Medes Ariobarzanes, son of King
Artavasdes, grandson of King Ariobarzanes.

Pre-eminence of Augustus

34.1 In my sixth and seventh consulships (28–27 BC), after I had put an end
to the civil wars and acquired control of all affairs with everyone’s consent [in
accordance with the prayers of my fellow citizens], I transferred government from
my own authority to the sovereignty of the senate and Roman people. 2 For this
service of mine I received the name Augustus [Sebastos] by senatorial decree and
the doorposts of my house were [my entranceway was] publicly arrayed in lau-
rels, a civic crown was affixed above my door [the wreath of oak leaves which is
granted for saving the lives of fellow citizens was fixed above the gateway of my
house], and a golden shield was set up in the Julian senate house [in the council
chamber]; through the inscription on this shield it is stated that the senate and
people of Rome granted this to me in honour of my valour, clemency, justice and
piety. 3 After that time I excelled everyone in auctoritas but had no more power
than those who were also my colleagues in any magistracy [I excelled all in rank,
but had no more power than those in office with me]. 35.1 While I was holding

677
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
my thirteenth consulship (2 BC), the senate and equestrian order and the entire
Roman people gave me the title of ‘Father of his Country’ (pater patriae) and
decreed that it should be inscribed in the vestibule [entranceway] of my house and
the Julian senate house [council chamber] and in the Forum of Augustus beneath
the chariot which was set up in my honour by senatorial decree. 2 When I wrote
this, I was in my seventy-sixth year (AD 13/14).

Appendix
1 The total amount of money that he gave either to the treasury or to the Roman
plebs or to discharged soldiers: 600,000,000 denarii. 2 The new works he com-
pleted: the temples of Mars, Jupiter the Thunderer and Feretrius, Apollo, the dei-
fied Julius, Quirinus, Minerva, Queen Juno, Jupiter Libertas, the Lares, the Penates
deities, Youth, the Great Mother; the Lupercal, platform of the gods (pulvinar) at
the Circus, senate house with the Chalcidicum, Forum of Augustus, basilica Julia,
theatre of Marcellus, Octavian portico, Grove of the Caesars across the Tiber
[the temples of Mars, Jupiter the Thunderer and Trophy-Bringer, Pan, Apollo,
god Julius, Quirinus, Athena, Queen Hera, Zeus the Liberator, Heroes, ances-
tral gods, Youth, Mother of Gods; council-chamber with Chalcidicum, Augustan
Forum, theatre of Marcellus, basilica Julia, Grove of Caesars, porticoes on the
Palatine, porticoes in the Flaminian hippodrome]. 3 He restored the Capitoline
temple and 82 sacred shrines, the theatre of Pompey, aqueducts, and Flaminian
Way [Flaminian Way, aqueducts]. 4 Expenses outlaid for theatrical shows and
gladiatorial games and for athletes and hunting spectacles and the sea battle, and
money given to colonies, municipalities, towns destroyed by earthquake or fire
[gifts to colonies and cities in Italy, and to cities in the provinces that had suffered
from earthquakes and fires], or individually to friends and senators, whose census
qualification he rounded up: immeasurable.

15.2 Dio Roman History 53.20.1, 21.1–22.1: Augustus’ government

From 31 to 27 BC Octavian held the consulship every year, with his constitutional position
resting on the consulship and the oath taken to him by soldiers and citizens (RG 25.2; doc.
15.1). By the settlement of January 27 (doc. 14.64) he was to hold proconsular imperium
for ten years, governing a suite of provinces, including Egypt, through legates, as well as
controlling the greatest proportion of Rome’s armed forces. Despite the pretence of the
restoration of the republic, Dio considers Augustus’ power from 27 as monarchical.

20.1 Caesar, as I have said, was granted the name of Augustus (27 BC), and a sign
of no little importance to him took place that very night – for the Tiber flooded
and covered all the level areas of Rome which became navigable, and from this
the diviners prophesied that he would rise to great things and hold the whole city
in his power. . . . 21.1 Augustus conducted all the business of the empire with
even more commitment than before, as if he had received it spontaneously as a
present from everyone, and in particular enacted a considerable amount of legis-
lation – however, I need not describe each piece in detail, but only those that are
relevant to my history. 2 And I shall do the same with regard to later events, so

678
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
that I shall not become tedious by dragging in all the sorts of things of which not
even those dedicated to such studies have an intimate knowledge. 3 However, he
did not enact all these laws just based on his own judgement, but some of them he
first put before the public assembly, so that if they gave rise to discontent in any
way he would know this in advance and make amendments – as he encouraged
anybody whatever to give him their advice in case someone should think of a way
to improve them – and granted people total freedom of speech, even redrafting
some of them. 4 Most significantly, he took as advisors for six-month periods the
consuls, or the other consul when he also held the consulship himself, one of each
of the other types of magistrate, and 15 men chosen by lot from the remainder of
the senatorial body, and in consequence the legislation proposed was in some way
communicated through these to all the other senators. 5 For, while he brought
some proposals before the whole senate, he generally followed this procedure,
thinking it better to scrutinise most matters quietly in advance, especially the most
important ones, in consultation with a few counsellors, and he even sometimes
tried judicial cases with them. 6 The complete senate in its own right continued
to sit in judgement as it had previously, and in some cases dealt with embassies
and heralds from both assemblies and kings, while the people and plebs continued
to meet for the elections – though nothing was ever done that did not meet with
Augustus’ approval. 7 At any rate it was he who chose and nominated for office
some of the future magistrates, while in the case of others he maintained the old
custom and left their selection in the hands of the people and plebs, while ensuring
that none were elected who were unsuitable or appointed as the result of factional
interests or bribery. 22.1 This then, in short, was how he governed the empire.

15.3 Suetonius Life of the Deified Augustus 85.1–2, 89.2–3:

Augustus as author
Augustus, like Caesar (doc. 13.64), clearly tried his hand at a number of literary genres. In
46 BC Brutus published a eulogy of his father-in-law Cato, to which Augustus later wrote
a response. His joke on his unsuccessful tragedy Ajax is typical of his sense of humour (see
docs 15.65–66): in the Trojan war Ajax went mad and fell on his sword after failing to receive
Achilles’ weapons, which were given to the greatest Greek warrior. Augustus also wrote an
autobiography in 13 books down until the Cantabrian war (27–26 BC). It is now lost, but
Nikolaos of Damascus used material from it on Augustus’ education in his (fragmentary)
Life of Augustus, which is therefore a valuable source for his early life (cf. docs 14.7, 10).

85.1 He wrote numerous works of various kinds in prose, some of which he read
aloud at a group of his close friends, as if in a lecture-room, for example his ‘Response
to Brutus’ Eulogy of Cato’. In the case of this work, as he was now elderly, when
he had nearly finished and was tired, he handed the rest over to Tiberius to read. He
also wrote Exhortations to Study Philosophy and an Autobiography in 13 volumes
which went up to the time of the Cantabrian war, but no further. 2 He also made light
attempts at poetic works. One of these, written in hexameters, has come down to us,
with the subject and title Sicily. There is another, equally short, of Epigrams, which
he composed mainly at the baths. He also began a tragedy with great enthusiasm,

679
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
but was unhappy with the style and destroyed it, telling his friends when they asked
how Ajax was going that ‘his Ajax had fallen on its sponge’. . . .
89.2 In reading authors in either Greek or Latin there was nothing to which
he paid more attention than useful precepts and examples both to the public and
to individuals, and he would often copy these word for word and send them to
members of his household, or governors of armies and provinces, or city magis-
trates, whenever they needed counselling. He even read out entire volumes to the
senate and made the people aware of them through proclamations, for example
the speeches of Quintus Metellus (cos. 143) on ‘Increasing the Birth-Rate’ and
Rutilius’ (cos. 105) ‘On the Size of Buildings’, to convince them that he was not
the first to pay attention to such matters, but that they had been of concern to their
forefathers. 3 He encouraged the men of talent of his time in every way possible:
he listened to their readings with goodwill and patience, not only poetry and his-
tory, but speeches and dialogues as well. But he was annoyed at being written
about unless seriously and by the most distinguished writers, and used to warn the
praetors not to allow his name to be devalued in prose declamations.

PRINCIPAL EVENTS
15.4 Inscr. Ital. 13.2: Excerpts from the Fasti, 19 BC–AD 14
For the fasti, see the comment at doc. 14.63.

19 BC
12 October. Festival by senatorial decree, as on this day Imperator Caesar
Augustus returned from the overseas provinces, entered the city and the altar of
Fortuna Redux was set up (Amiternum).
13 BC
4 July. Festival by senatorial decree, as on this day the Altar of Augustan Peace in
the Campus Martius was set up in the consulship of (Tiberius Claudius) Nero and
(P. Quinctilius) Varus (Amiternum).
12 BC
6 March. Festival by senatorial decree, as on this day Imperator Caesar Augustus
was made pontifex maximus in the consulship of (P. Sulpicius) Quirinius and
(Gaius) Valgius (Rufus). The duoviri for this reason make sacrifice and the people
wear garlands and abstain from work (Praeneste).
28 April. Festival by senatorial decree, as on this day buildings and the altar of
Vesta were dedicated in the house of Imperator Caesar Augustus, pontifex maxi-
mus in the consulship of (P. Sulpicius) Quirinius and (Gaius) Valgius (Rufus)
(Praeneste).
9 BC
30 January. Festival by senatorial decree, as on this day the Altar of Augustan
Peace in the Campus Martius was dedicated in the consulship of (Nero Claudius)
Drusus and (Titus Quinctius) Crispinus (Praeneste).

680
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
2 BC
5 February. Festival by senatorial decree, as on this day Imperator Caesar
Augustus, pontifex maximus, holding tribunician power for the 21st time, consul
for the 13th time, was named father of his country (pater patriae) by the senate and
Roman people (Praeneste).
AD 2
20 August. Sacrifice in honour of the dead Lucius Caesar (Antium).
AD 4
21 or 22 February. Sacrifice in honour of the dead Gaius Caesar (Verulae).
26 June. Festival by senatorial decree, as on this day Imperator Caesar Augustus
adopted as his son Tiberius Caesar, in the consulship of (Sextus) Aelius (Catus)
and (Gaius) Sentius (Saturninus) (Amiternum).
AD 14
17 September. Festival by senatorial decree, as on this day divine honours to the
deified Augustus were decreed by the senate in the consulship of Sextus Appuleius
and Sextus Pompeius (Amiternum).

AUGUSTUS’ CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION

In 23 BC, because of ill-health, and possibly also because of the conspiracy of Fannius
Caepio and Varro Murena (which is not securely dated), Augustus resigned the consulship
(on 1 July), which he had held continuously since 31. In its place he took tribunician
potestas for life (he already had tribunician sacrosanctity), the right to bring matters
to the senate, and the right to retain proconsular imperium in the city. He was to retain
the office of tribune until his death in AD 14, and the tribunate was to be an identifying
mark of the princeps, with Augustus dating his reign by it. From this point he designated
potential successors by taking them as tribunician colleagues. Although no longer consul,
he retained his provinces, and much scholarship has been spent on the question of whether
from this period his proconsular imperium was ‘greater’ than that of senatorial governors
(maius imperium), and whether he therefore could override the governors in the senatorial
provinces. Pompey had possessed such imperium in his command in the 60s against the
pirates, and the senate had granted it to Brutus and Cassius in 44. The sources below
suggest that Augustus did possess maius imperium, but that he was careful not to draw
attention to it and preferred to focus on his tribunician role as protector of the people. The
funeral oration for Agrippa, who was Augustus’ deputy in the East 23–21 BC, also suggests
that he was granted maius imperium (doc. 15.48, cf. doc. 14.3 for Brutus and Cassius).

15.5 Dio Roman History 53.30.1–32.6: The ‘second settlement’, 23 BC

At this point Augustus passed over his young nephew Marcellus as his successor, instead
nominating Agrippa; Agrippa was sent to the East in 23 BC not because of hostility
between himself and Marcellus (cf. doc. 15.38) but to deal with issues in the East, perhaps
including negotiation over the Parthian standards. This passage (53.32.5) is frequently
cited as evidence for Augustus’ maius imperium.

681
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
30.1 When Augustus was consul for the eleventh time, with (Gnaeus) Calpurnius
Piso (23 BC), he again fell ill, and so seriously, that he had no hope of recov-
ering. At any rate he arranged everything as if he were going to die and col-
lected around him the magistrates and the most prominent senators and knights,
though he did not appoint a successor, 2 despite the fact that they all expected
that Marcellus would be nominated for this position. In fact, after talking a little
with them about public affairs, he gave Piso a list of the armed forces and public
revenues written in a book and his ring to Agrippa . . . 31.1 When restored to
health he brought his will into the senate and wanted to read it, to show every-
one that he had not appointed a successor – though in fact he didn’t read it out as
no one would let him. 2 Everyone was absolutely astonished at this, as he loved
Marcellus as both son-in-law and nephew, and as well as the other honours he
had given him had helped him make an outstanding success of the festival he
put on as aedile, 3 by providing the forum with curtains overhead all summer
and presenting on stage a dancer who was a knight and a woman of noble birth,
and yet he had not entrusted the monarchy to him, but had actually preferred
Agrippa. 4 It seems, therefore, that he did not yet have confidence in the youth’s
judgement but wanted either the people to regain their liberty or that Agrippa
should receive the leadership from them – for he clearly realised that Agrippa
was very highly regarded by them, and he didn’t want to appear to be handing
sovereignty over to him on his own initiative. 32.1 So when he recovered, and
learnt that because of this Marcellus was not on good terms with Agrippa, he
immediately sent Agrippa to Syria so there should be no chance of their falling
out by having to associate with each other. Agrippa left the city straight away
but did not get to Syria: with rather more than his usual self-restraint, he sent his
legates there and remained on Lesbos.
2 Apart from doing all this, Augustus appointed ten praetors, as he no longer
needed any more, and this happened for several more years. The rest were to per-
form the same duties as in previous years, but two of them were to be in charge of
each year’s financial administration. 3 After arranging all these details, he went to
the Alban Mount and resigned the consulship. Since things had settled down, he
and most of the other consuls had held office for the entire year, and he wanted to
put an end to this now, so that as many people as possible might become consuls,
and he did this outside the city so that no one would stop him. 4 He was praised for
this and because he had selected to fill his place Lucius Sestius, who had always
been a fervent supporter of Brutus and had served with him in all his wars, and
even at this late date still kept his memory alive, had statues of him, and delivered
panegyrics in his favour. Not only did Augustus not disapprove of such friend-
ship and loyalty, he actually respected them. 5 Because of this the senate decreed
that he should be tribune for life, granted him the right at each senate meeting to
bring forward any matter he wished at any time, even if he were not consul, and
allowed him to have the rank of proconsul once for all and in perpetuity so that he
did not have to lay it down when entering the pomerium or have it renewed again,
and to hold authority in subject territory superior to that of the governors in each
case. 6 Consequently both he and the emperors after him had a certain legal right

682
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
to use the tribunician power in addition to their other powers – for the actual title
of tribune was not held by Augustus or any other emperor.

15.6 Strabo Geography 17.3.25: The division of the provinces

Strabo, writing not long after Augustus’ death, states here that Augustus was given authority
to make war or peace for his lifetime across all Roman territory (not merely restricted to
‘his’ provinces). Gallia Narbonensis and Cyprus became senatorial provinces in 23 BC.

The provinces have been divided up in different ways at different times, but at pre-
sent they are as Caesar Augustus organised them. For when his country entrusted
him with the government of the empire and he was granted authority to make war
or peace for his lifetime, he divided all the territory into two parts and granted one
to himself and the other to the people. To himself he allocated whatever had need of
a military garrison – that is the barbarian territory close to the tribes that had not as
yet been subjugated or where the land is poor and not adapted to agriculture, with
the result that the people rebel and are disobedient because of its poverty and the
abundance of strongholds. To the people he allocated the remaining territory, which
is peaceful and easy to govern without an army. He divided each part into a num-
ber of provinces, some called Caesar’s, the others the people’s. Caesar sends out
governors and administrators to Caesar’s provinces, organising the territories differ-
ently at different periods and administering them according to the circumstances of
the time, while the people send praetors and consuls to the public provinces; these
too are organised into different groupings as expedience demands. To begin with
he made two provinces consular – Libya, the region under Roman rule, excluding
that area formerly ruled by Juba and now by his son Ptolemy, and Asia within the
Halys and Taurus, excluding the Galatians and the tribes under Amyntas, as well
as Bithynia and the Propontis – and ten provinces praetorian: in Europe and the
neighbouring islands, the region called Further Spain, which reaches to the River
Baetis, Narbonese Gaul, third Sardinia with Corsica, fourth Sicily, fifth and sixth the
part of Illyricum next to Epirus and Macedonia, seventh Achaea (Greece), including
Thessaly and the Aetolians and Acharnanians and some of the Epirote tribes which
border Macedonia, eighth Crete and Cyrenaica, ninth Cyprus, tenth Bithynia with
the Propontis and some areas of Pontus. Caesar has the other provinces, to which he
sends consulars to supervise some of them, praetorians to some and equestrians to
others: and kings and dynasts and decarchies are in his area and always were.

15.7 RDGE 61: Restoration of property in Asia, 27 BC

As consuls in 27 BC, Augustus and Agrippa pronounced that public places and properties
then in the hands of individuals had to be restored to the city or to the gods. Interestingly
the province of Asia, to which this applies, was under the control of the senate from 27,
and technically, therefore, Augustus had no role in its governorship. It was presumably the
case that the consuls had been instructed by the senate to investigate the situation following
the end of the civil wars. There follows a letter in Latin by Vinicius (identity unknown),
who was governor of Asia shortly after 27 and who had been approached by the people

683
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
of Kyme to carry out the consuls’ instructions. That Augustus alone is named in his letter
and that he was to be seen as ‘restorer’ of the sanctuary of Dionysos (in Latin: Liber Pater)
is significant for the understanding of attitudes towards his unique position at this point.

A. Imperator Caesar Augustus, son of the god, . . . and Marcus Agrippa, son of
Lucius, consuls . . . If there are any public or sacred places in the cities (or in the
territory) of each city of the province, and if there are or will be 5 any dedications
at these places, no one is to remove or buy them or take them as security or gift.
Whatever has been taken away from there or bought and given as a gift, whoever
is in charge of the province is to ensure that it is restored to the public or 10 sacred
account of the city, and whatever money may have been given as security, he is
not to use this in administering justice.
B. . . . Vinicius, proconsul, sends greetings to the magistrates of Kyme.
Apollonides, son of Lucius, the Noracean, your citizen, came to me and demon-
strated that the temple of Liber Pater is, by title of sale, in the possession of Lysias,
son of Diogenes, your citizen, 15 and when the worshippers (thiasitae) wished to
restore the sacred property to the god, according to the order of Augustus Caesar,
by paying the price which is inscribed on the temple, (it was withheld) by Lysias. I
wish you to ensure that, if this is the case, Lysias accepts the price which has been
put on the temple and restores the temple to the god and that there be inscribed
on it, ‘Imperator Caesar, son of the god, Augustus 20 restored it’. But if Lysias
refuses what Apollonides demands, let him give adequate bail (to appear) where I
will be. I approve more that Lysias promises (bail).

15.8 Dio Roman History 54.10.1–6: Further powers, 19 BC

Augustus was absent from Rome in the East for three years from September 22 BC. In 21
BC the people tried to insist on electing him consul, and in 20 they refused to elect more
than one consul for 19, C. Sentius Saturninus, leaving the other position for Augustus. In
19 envoys were sent to try to persuade him to take the vacant office, but he selected one of
the envoys instead. When he returned, in October that year, the senate constructed an altar
to Fortuna Redux (‘Fortunate Return’: doc. 15.4), decreeing that on that date the priests
and Vestals should offer a sacrifice, and wanted to offer him a triumph, which he refused
though he accepted triumphal ornaments. On his return he was also granted the prefecture of
morals, consular power for life, and the right to enact any laws that he wished, presumably
without taking them to the assembly. These new powers were demonstrated by his sitting
between the two consuls in the senate and having 12 lictors at all times. More importantly,
but less obviously, in 18 his proconsular imperium was renewed for another five years,
while Agrippa was also given tribunician potestas and presumably imperium for five years.

1 The consul that year was Gaius Sentius (19 BC). When it was found necessary to
elect a colleague to serve with him (for on this occasion as well Augustus refused
the magistracy which was being kept open for him), there was civil strife again in
Rome and a number of murders, so that the senators voted Sentius a guard. 2 When he
refused to make use of it, they sent envoys to Augustus, each with two lictors. When
he learnt of what had been happening, realising that there would be no end to the evil,

684
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
he did not deal with the matter as he had before but appointed as consul one of the
envoys themselves, Quintus Lucretius, although he had been listed among the pro-
scribed, and himself hurried to Rome. 3 For this and for other things he had achieved
while absent, he was voted many honours of all kinds, none of which he would accept,
except the establishment of an altar to Fortuna Redux (this was the name they gave
her) and that the day on which he returned should be counted among the holidays and
named Augustalia. 4 Since even then the magistrates and the others made preparations
to go and meet him on the way, he entered the city at night, and on the next day gave
Tiberius the rank of an ex-praetor and Drusus the right to stand for magistracies five
years before the customary time. 5 In addition, as there was no similarity between
the behaviour of the people in his absence, when they rioted, and when he was in
Rome, when they were afraid, on their invitation he was elected supervisor of morals
(praefectus moribus) for five years, and accepted the authority of the censors for the
same period, and that of consul for life, and consequently was able to use the 12 fasces
always and everywhere, and to sit on the curule chair between the consuls of each
year. 6 After voting these privileges they begged him to set everything to rights, and
that the laws proposed by him should be called ‘leges Augustae’, and they wanted to
swear an oath that they would abide by them. He accepted all the other measures as he
thought them necessary but absolved them from the oath.

15.9 ILS 244: Augustus’ constitutional powers

This law of AD 70 appears to be a law of the people reflecting a senatorial decree outlining
the constitutional powers possessed by the emperor Vespasian. It quotes as precedents earlier
grants of imperium to Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius. The powers given to Augustus in the
‘settlement’ of 23 may have been embodied in a similar law passed by the assembly.

. . . that he (Vespasian) shall have the right to conclude treaties with whomever
he wishes, just as the deified Augustus and Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus and
Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus had; and that he shall have the
right to convene the senate, to put and refer proposals to it, and to have decrees of
the senate to be enacted by proposal and division of the senate, 5 just as the dei-
fied Augustus and Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus and Tiberius Claudius Caesar
Augustus Germanicus had; and that, when the senate is convened, in accordance
with his wish, authority, order or command, or in his presence, everything trans-
acted shall be considered and declared as fully irrevocable as if the meeting of
the senate had been convoked and held as normal; 10 and that, at all elections,
particular consideration shall be granted to candidates for a magistracy, office,
imperium or any supervisory position whom he has recommended to the Roman
senate and people or to whom he has given and promised his vote; . . . and that
he shall have the right to transact and act upon whatever divine, human, private
and public matters he considers to serve the advantage and paramount interest
of the state, just as the deified Augustus and 20 Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus
and Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus had; and that those laws and
plebiscites which were declared not binding on the deified Augustus and Tiberius

685
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Julius Caesar Augustus and Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus shall
not be binding on the Emperor Caesar 25 Vespasian, and the Emperor Caesar
Vespasian Augustus shall have the right to do whatever was proper for the dei-
fied Augustus and Tiberius Julius Caesar Augustus and Tiberius Claudius Caesar
Augustus Germanicus to do by virtue of any law or enactment; and that whatever
was done, 30 executed, decreed or ordered before the enactment of this law by
the Emperor Caesar Vespasian Augustus, or by anyone at his order or command,
shall be as fully irrevocable and valid as if they had been done by order of the
people or plebs.

15.10 SEG 9.8: Edicts relating to Cyrene, 7/6 BC

The five Cyrene edicts date from 7/6 and 4 BC and concern a number of issues, including
revision of the judiciary system, a case of treason and liability for public services. The
province of Crete and Cyrene was senatorial, but from the fact of his involvement these
edicts appear to demonstrate that Augustus as princeps possessed maius imperium
overriding that of the governor, and these edicts are often cited in that regard.

I The emperor Caesar Augustus, pontifex maximus, in the seventeenth year of

tribunician potestas, acclaimed imperator 14 times, declares:
Since I find that all the Romans in the provincial territory of Cyrene 5 of all
ages who have a census rating of 2,500 denarii or more, from whom the judges are
taken, and since embassies from the cities of the province have complained that
among these same Romans there are certain conspiracies to oppress the Greeks in
law-suits with capital penalties, with the same people acting in turn as 10 accus-
ers and witnesses for each other; and since I have myself ascertained that some
innocent people have been maltreated in this way and carried off to pay the ulti-
mate penalty, until the senate should make some decision on this, or I myself find
a better solution, in my view it will be the right and appropriate thing for those
governing the province of Crete and Cyrene to appoint in the provincial territory
15 of Cyrene the same number of Greek jurors from the highest census ratings
as Romans, none, whether Roman or Greek, to be less than 25 years and none to
have a census rating and property of less than 7,500 denarii, if there is a sufficient
number of such men. If the number of those judges who need to be appointed can-
not be filled up in this way, they shall appoint men 20 of half this census rating,
but not less, to be jurors in the trials of Greeks on capital charges. . . .
II The emperor Caesar Augustus, pontifex maximus, in the seventeenth year
of tribunician potestas, declares: Publius Sextius Scaeva does not merit reproach
or blame in that he decided that Aulus Stlaccius Maximus son of Lucius, Lucius
Stlaccius Macedo son of Lucius, and Publius Lacutanius Phileros freedman of
Publius 45 should be sent on to me under guard from the province of Cyrene as
they had stated that they knew and wished to declare something with regard to my
safety and public affairs; in doing this Sextius acted conscientiously and prop-
erly. But since they have no information relating to me or to public affairs and
have made it clear to me that they 50 fabricated and lied in what they said in the

686
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
province, I have released them and set them free from custody. But as for Aulus
Stlaccius Maximus, whom the Cyrenaean envoys accuse of having removed stat-
ues from public places, among them even the one on which the city engraved my
name on the base, until I have investigated this matter 55 I order him not to depart
without my permission.
III The emperor Caesar Augustus, pontifex maximus, in the seventeenth year
of tribunician potestas, declares: If people from the province of Cyrene have been
honoured with (Roman) citizenship, I order them nonetheless to perform in their
turn the compulsory public services (liturgies) of the Greeks, apart from those to
whom in accordance with a law or decree of the senate, or by the decree of my
father or myself exemption was granted 60 along with citizenship. And even for
these, to whom exemption was granted, it is my pleasure that they shall be exempt
with regard to the property they possessed at the time, but that they should be
charged for all property acquired subsequently.

AUGUSTUS ‘IMPERATOR’
At its first meeting on 1 January 29 BC, when Octavian was still in the East, the senate
granted him the right to use ‘imperator’ as a first name. It also decreed that the doors of
the temple of Janus should now be closed (this took place on 11 January) as Octavian had
‘put an end to all wars’; this did not of course refer to ongoing wars such as in Spain (doc.
14.60). Caesar had also been granted the name imperator as a title, as well as liberator (doc.
13.55). To celebrate his triple triumph Augustus gave 400 sesterces to every citizen and
1,000 to discharged soldiers, and Antony’s birthday (14 January) became an unlucky day
(nefastus; doc. 14.63)

15.11 Vergil Aeneid 8.675–90, 714–31: Augustus’ triple triumph

In book 8 of Vergil’s epic the Aeneid, Aeneas meets King Evander, who is ruling on the
future site of Rome. He is given a shield that his mother Venus has had made by Vulcan,
depicting Rome’s future glories. The final scenes of Rome’s triumphs that are shown
include Augustus’ victory at Actium and his triple triumph over Cleopatra (Actium), the
Egyptians and Dalmatia, celebrated 13–15 August 29.

675 In the centre bronze ships, the battle of Actium,

Could be discerned and you could see in warfare’s preparation
All Leucas afire, the waves gleaming with gold.
On one side Augustus Caesar leads Italians into battle
With senate, people, household and great gods,
680 Standing on the high stern; his forehead shoots twin flames,
His father’s star displayed upon his head.
Elsewhere Agrippa, favoured by winds and gods
Leads troops; the proud prize in war
Shines on his brow, the naval crown with beaks.
On the other side Antony, with barbarous wealth and foreign weapons,
Conqueror of eastern peoples and oriental shores,

687
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Leads behind him Egypt, and the Orient’s might
And utmost Bactria, his Egyptian consort following him (abomination!).
All press on together, and the whole sea foams,
690 Churned by the circling oars and the three-pronged rams. . . .

714 Next Caesar, entering Rome’s walls in triple triumph,

Dedicates immortal offerings to the Italian gods,
Three hundred massive shrines throughout the city.
The streets resound with happiness, games, applause:
Crowds of women in every temple, altars in each one.
Before the altars slaughtered bullocks strew the ground.
720 He, sitting at the snow-white threshold of shining Apollo,
Inspects the gifts of nations, and fixes them to proud doors.
Conquered peoples pass in a long line,
As diverse in language as in appearance, dress and arms.
Here Vulcan has formed the Nomad race and loose-robed Africans,
There the Leleges and Carians and arrow-bearing Gelonians;
Euphrates runs with gentler waves, and the Morini,
Remotest of mankind, the two-horned Rhine,
The untamed Dahae, and Araxes, resentful of its bridge.
Such things on Vulcan’s shield, his mother’s gift,
730 He wonders at, delighting in the images, ignorant of what will come,
Raising to his shoulder the glory and destinies of his descendants.

15.12 Suetonius Life of the Deified Augustus 21.1–3: Augustus’ foreign

policy
Augustus’ contribution to the defeat of Brutus and Cassius had not been conspicuous, but
he had increasingly gained ground against the experienced commander Antony when his
successful Illyrian campaigns (35–33 BC) were compared with Antony’s failure to achieve
victories against the Parthians at the same period. This Illyrian campaign was one of the
only two led personally by Augustus, and he was primarily responsible for its success;
he was even wounded in battle. The standards lost in the campaigns of Crassus, Decidius
Saxa and Mark Antony were returned by Phraates IV in 20 BC after negotiations relating
to Phraates’ kidnapped son, but their return was heralded as a great triumph of arms and a
personal victory for Augustus (doc. 15.18).

21.1 Sometimes as general and sometimes under his own auspices he overcame
Cantabria, Aquitania, Pannonia and Dalmatia together with all Illyricum, and like-
wise Raetia and the Vindelici and Salassi, Alpine tribes. He brought to an end the
invasions of the Dacians, with three of their leaders and huge numbers slain, and
pushed the Germans back over the River Albis, except for the Suebi and Sigambri,
who surrendered and whom he escorted into Gaul and settled in lands next to the
Rhine. Similarly, he subjugated other unruly peoples. 2 He never made war on any
nation without just and necessary cause, and he was so far from wishing to expand
his empire or military reputation at all costs that he compelled the leaders of certain

688
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
barbarians to swear an oath in the temple of Mars the Avenger that they would
maintain the faith and peace which they requested, while in some cases he tried
exacting a new kind of hostage – women – realising that they disregarded males
as surety; he also gave everyone the power of reclaiming their hostages whenever
they wished. On those who rebelled frequently and duplicitously, he never imposed
any heavier punishment than that of selling the prisoners on condition that they
should not be slaves in a neighbouring country, nor be freed within 30 years. 3 On
account of this reputation for valour and moderation, he brought even the Indians
and Scythians, known to us only by hearsay, to send envoys to request his friend-
ship and that of the Roman people. The Parthians as well readily gave up Armenia
at his command, and at his request returned the military standards which they had
won from Marcus Crassus (52 BC) and Mark Antony (40, 36 BC), and furthermore
offered him hostages, while, when there were on one occasion several people claim-
ing the throne, they would only accept the person selected by him.

15.13 ILS 886: Triumph for Plancus, after 22 BC

A mausoleum near Caieta, Latium. Plancus (cos. 42 BC) had supported Antony but defected
to Octavian in 32. It was on his proposal that Octavian was voted the name Augustus in 27
(doc. 14.65). While Plancus had been allowed a triumph, these became increasingly restricted
to Augustus and his family. Victories won by governors in Augustus’ provinces was seen as
Augustus’ own, as the governor was fighting under his auspices. The last triumph held by a
non-member of the imperial family was that of Cornelius Balbus in 19 BC.

Lucius Munatius Plancus, son of Lucius, grandson of Lucius, great-grandson of

Lucius, consul, censor, twice imperator, one of the Seven for feasts, triumphed
over the Raetians, built the temple of Saturn from spoils, divided lands in Italy at
Beneventum, settled two colonies in Gaul, Lugdunum and Raurica.

15.14 Livy History of Rome 4.20.7: The spolia opima

M. Licinius Crassus (cos. 30 BC), who was awarded a triumph for victories over the Thracians
in 21 BC, claimed the right to dedicate the spolia opima for having killed the leader of the
enemy. Only three Romans had previously been given this honour, one of whom, Cossus,
was a military tribune when he killed the king of the Veientes in 437 BC, and so not fighting
under his own auspices. Crassus claimed Cossus as a precedent, but the honour was refused
by Octavian because he claimed that Cossus had been consul and therefore fighting under
his own auspices, unlike Crassus, who was fighting under Octavian’s auspices, not his own.
An inscription ‘found’ during the restoration of the temple of Jupiter fortuitously proved that
Cossus had actually been consul and fighting under his own auspices; Augustus therefore
refused to award Crassus the spolia opima. Livy clearly doubts the veracity of this evidence.

I myself heard Augustus Caesar, the founder or restorer of all the temples, say that
he entered the shrine of Jupiter Feretrius when it was collapsing from age, and
restored it, and he actually read himself that inscription on the linen breastplate –
so I considered it almost sacrilegious to rob Cossus of the evidence witnessed by
Caesar, in his restoration of that actual temple, as to his plunder.

689
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
15.15 Nikolaos of Damascus F 100: An Indian embassy
Cf. Strabo 15.1.73, Dio 54.9.8–10, who adds the details that the gifts included tigers and
that Augustus was in Athens at the time. The holy man was presumably a Buddhist priest.
Plutarch comments that the tomb was well known in his day (Alex. 69.8); herms, sculptured
pillars of Hermes with heads but no arms, stood outside houses in classical Athens.

To these may be added the account of Nikolaos of Damascus. He says that at

Antioch, near Daphne, he met with envoys from the Indians who had been sent
to Augustus Caesar. It seems from the letter that there were more, but only three
had survived, whom he says he saw: the rest had died owing to the length of the
journey. The letter was written in Greek on a skin and revealed that the writer was
Porus, who, although he ruled 600 kings, put the highest value on the friendship
of Caesar and was prepared to allow him access to his country, whichever part he
wished, and would co-operate in anything that was fair. He says that this is what
the letter said. Eight naked servants, wearing girdles and anointed with perfumes,
presented the gifts they had brought. The presents were a ‘Hermes’, who from
infancy had no arms from his shoulders, whom I have seen, huge snakes, a serpent
10 cubits in length, a river tortoise 3 cubits in length, and a partridge larger than
a vulture. They were accompanied, it is said, by the person who burnt himself to
death at Athens. This is what they do when they are in distress and want to escape
their present adversity, while those in prosperity do the same like this man; for as
everything till now had succeeded with him, he thought it necessary to depart this
life, in case some unwished-for circumstance should fall on him while he was still
alive – and so with a smile, naked and anointed, wearing a girdle, he leapt onto the
pyre: on his tomb was inscribed: ‘Here lies Zarmanochegas (“sramana teacher”),
an Indian from Bargosa, who made himself immortal in accordance with the cus-
toms of the Indians.’

15.16 Ovid Fasti 1.709–22: The Ara Pacis Augustae

This altar (‘the altar of Augustan Peace’) was commissioned in honour of Augustus’ return
from Spain and Gaul in 13 BC and dedicated on 30 January 9 BC to celebrate the peace
brought to Rome by Augustus. It stood in the north-east corner of the Campus Martius,
and its surrounding walls depicted the advantages and security Rome now enjoyed and the
importance of traditional piety. Many of the figures portrayed specific individuals such as
members of the imperial family.

My song has led me to the Altar of Peace.

710 This will be one day from the month’s end.
With your hair tied back and crowned with Actian laurel fronds,
Peace be present and gently remain throughout the whole world.
While we lack enemies, there is also no reason for a triumph:
You will be a greater glory to our leaders than war.
May the soldier take arms only to restrain arms,
And may the fierce trumpet sound only for ceremonies.

690
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
May all the ends of the earth dread Aeneas’ line.
If any land fears Rome too little, then may it love her!
Priests, throw incense on the flames of peace,
720 And let a white victim stricken on its head fall down.
That the house that champions peace may last with peace for ever
Beseech the deities who favour pious prayers.

15.17 Pliny the Elder Natural History 3.136–37: Trophy in the Alps,
7–6 BC
This victory monument celebrated Augustus’ victories (or, rather, those of his stepsons
Tiberius and Drusus) over the Alpine tribes before 6 BC (RG 26.3: doc. 15.1). It stood on
the highest point of the Roman road (the Via Julia Augusta) into Gaul (modern La Turbie,
just north of Monaco).

To Imperator Caesar Augustus, son of the god, pontifex maximus, imperator 14

times, in the seventeenth year of tribunician power, the senate and people of Rome
because under his leadership and auspices all the Alpine peoples, from the upper
sea to the lower, have been brought under the power of the Roman people.
Alpine peoples conquered: Trumplini, Camunni, Venostes, Vennonetes, Isarci,
Breuni, Genaunes, Focunates, four Vindelician peoples, Consuanetes, Rucinates,
Licates, Catenates, Ambisontes, Rugusci, Sunaetes, Calucones, Brixenetes, Leponti,
Uberi, Nantuates, Seduni, Varagri, Salassi, Acitavones, Medulli, Ucenni, Caturiges,
Brigiani, Sogiontii, Brodiontii, Nemaloni, Edenates, Vesubiani, Veamini, barbarous
Gauls, Ulatti, Ecdini, Vergunni, Egui, Turi, Nematuri, Oratelli, Nerusi, Velauni and
Suetri.

15.18 Crawford RRC 4453: Triumph over Parthia

An aureus of 18–17 BC. The negotiations with Parthia were facilitated by the return of the
kidnapped son of Phraates IV (taken to Rome as hostage by Tiridates, a pretender to the
Parthian throne) in exchange for the lost legionary standards and any remaining prisoners
of war in 20 BC. Augustus depicted this as a military victory linked with the subjugation
of Armenia, which became a client state (see RG 29.2; doc. 15.1): a new temple was built
to house the standards, that of Mars Ultor, and coins were minted with the legend below,
while the victory was also featured on the breastplate of the Prima Porta statue of Augustus.

Obverse: Head of Augustus, bareheaded. Legend: The senate and people of Rome
to Imperator Caesar Augustus, consul 11 times, in his sixth year of tribunician
power.
Reverse: Triumphal arch with three portals; above the central portal a quadriga
with figure of Augustus; over the left portal a Parthian soldier offering Augustus
a standard; over the right portal another Parthian offering an eagle with the right
hand and holding a bow in the left. Legend: Citizens and military standards recov-
ered from the Parthians.

691
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
AUGUSTUS AND TRADITIONAL RELIGION
15.19 Dio Roman History 53.1.3–6: The Actian games, 27 BC
Augustus and Agrippa were consuls in 27, as in 28 BC. Octavian established the Actian
games at Nicopolis, near the site of the battle of Actium, in commemoration of his victory
over Antony and Cleopatra in 31 BC. The games had Olympic status and were celebrated
every four years from 27 until the mid-third century AD. The Roman or Great Games featured
a procession of Roman youths and were also noted for their chariot races (doc. 2.70).

3 At this particular time he not only attended to his normal duties but completed the
taking of the census, and in connection with this was called ‘princeps senatus’, as
had been customary when there really was a Republic. He also completed and dedi-
cated the temple of Apollo on the Palatine, the precinct around it, and the libraries.
4 He held with Agrippa the festival decreed to celebrate the victory at Actium and
as part of this put on the Circus games for youths and men of the nobility. 5 This
was held for a time every four years and was in the charge of the four priesthoods
in succession – I mean the pontiffs, augurs, the ‘Seven’ and the ‘Fifteen’, as they
were called. On this occasion, a wooden stadium was constructed in the Campus
Martius and an athletics competition held, as well as gladiatorial combats between
prisoners. 6 These went on for several days and continued even when Caesar fell ill,
as Agrippa discharged all Caesar’s duties as well as his own.

15.20 Suetonius Life of the Deified Augustus 31.1–4: Religious reforms

Augustus prided himself on his restoration of temples (82 in 28 BC, according to RG 20.4)
and construction of additional sacred monuments such as the temples of Apollo and Mars
Ultor. In order to restore traditional religious practices and values, he revived priesthoods and
ancient ceremonies, including the ludi Saeculares. Lepidus died in 13, but Augustus did not
assume the role until March 12, as the pontifex maximus traditionally took office in March.
From this point he had a justification for overseeing all religious practices and centred state
religion around his own house, where he dedicated a shrine to Vesta rather than taking up
residence in the domus publica, as would have been normal for the pontifex maximus.

1 After he had eventually taken on the position of pontifex maximus after Lepidus’
death (as he could not bring himself to assume it while Lepidus was still alive), he col-
lected all prophetic books, Greek or Latin in origin, which were in circulation anony-
mously or under the names of authors of poor reputation, and burnt them, retaining
only the Sibylline Books, and these too only selectively, placing them in two gilded
cases under the pedestal of the Palatine Apollo. 2 The calendar, which had been laid
down by the divine Julius, but afterwards disordered and confused through negligence,
he returned to its former regular system, and as part of this arrangement he called
the month Sextilis (August) by his own cognomen (8 BC), rather than September in
which he had been born, because it was in this month that his first consulship and most
outstanding victories had occurred. 3 He increased both the number and the promi-
nence of the priests, as well as their privileges, especially those of the Vestal Virgins.
And when it was necessary for another to be selected in place of one who had died

692
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
(when many people intrigued to ensure their daughters were not part of the selection
by lot), he swore that if any of his granddaughters were of the right age he would have
put her name forward. 4 He also resurrected some of the ancient rites that had gradu-
ally become neglected, such as the augury of Safety, the position of flamen dialis,
the Lupercalia, the ludi Saeculares and the Compitalia. At the Lupercalia he forbade
beardless boys from running, and similarly at the ludi Saeculares stopped young peo-
ple of both sexes from attending any ceremony at night unless with an older relative.
He arranged that the Lares of the crossroads (Lares Compitales) should be decorated
twice a year with spring and summer flowers.

15.21 Ovid Fasti 2.617–34: Household cults

At the Caristia, on 22 February, families gathered to dine together and make offerings
to their Lares. It followed the Parentalia, a nine-day festival where families visited their
ancestral tombs and made offerings to the spirits of the dead.

The following day is called the Caristia, from ‘dear ones’,

When a crowd of relatives comes to see their kindred gods.
After our family tombs and our departed it is, no doubt,
620 Pleasant to turn our faces on living family,
After all those lost, to behold what remains of our blood,
And reckon up the degrees of our kinship.
Let the blameless come: stay far from here, far away
Faithless brother, and mothers severe on their children,
Those who think their father too much alive, who count up their mother’s years,
The unjust mother-in-law who treats her hated son’s wife harshly . . .

631 Good people, offer incense to your family’s gods

(Concord will especially favour you on this day)
Make food offerings, welcome tokens of respect,
So the offering-dish will feed the ungirt Lares.
And when cool night entices you to your peaceful sleep,
Pour out wine with a lavish hand and pray,
‘Lares, be well!, you too, country’s father, best of men, O Caesar!’
Hallowed words to utter as you pour the unmixed wine.

15.22 CIL 6.883: Livia and Fortuna Muliebris

Livia supported Augustus in all his religious reforms and was responsible for restoring the
temple of the women-only cult of Bona Dea on the Aventine. She also restored the ancient
shrine of Fortuna Muliebris (‘Fortune of Women’) at the fourth milestone along the Via
Latina; for this cult, see doc. 7.84 (women who participated were expected to be univirae –
having only one husband – which Livia, of course, was not). She identifies herself in
this case by both her father and her husband, suggesting perhaps that this restoration was
undertaken of her own volition.

Livia, daughter of Drusus, wife of Caesar Augustus . . . .

693
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
MARRIAGE, DIVORCE AND ADULTERY
Augustus instituted wide-ranging legislation, much of which targeted the morality and
behaviour of the senatorial and equestrian classes, which he brought before the assembly
in his position as tribune. He was particularly concerned with issues of marriage and the
birth rate, and in 18 BC he promulgated the lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus (encouraging
marriage in the upper-class orders and restricting whom they could marry) and the lex Julia
de adulteriis coercendis (making adultery and other sexual misconduct such as pederasty
with a citizen boy a public as well as a private crime). His laws offered inducements to
marriage and childbearing and imposed penalties on the unmarried and childless. Adultery
was now strictly punished by exile and confiscation of property, and celibacy by the
inability to receive certain legacies. His legislation of 18 BC was not well received, and he
updated it in AD 9 through the lex Papia Poppaea, named for the two (unmarried) consuls
of that year, Papius and Poppaeus.

15.23 Suetonius Life of the Deified Augustus 34.1–2: New laws on

marriage
Augustus’ marriage legislation required all citizen males between 25 and 60 years, and
women between 20 and 50, to marry or suffer penalties including those of restricted
inheritance rights. The married but childless were also penalised. Targeting primarily
the senatorial and equestrian orders, this caused an outcry and various forms of evasion,
such as betrothal to infants so a marriage could be delayed. These laws were still arousing
hostility two decades later and had to be revised in AD 9, to which this passage refers.
Germanicus was the son of Livia’s younger son, Drusus, who was married to Agrippina
the Elder (Julia’s daughter). They had nine children, including the future emperor Gaius
(Caligula).

1 He revised existing laws and enacted new ones, such as on extravagance, adul-
tery and chastity, bribery, and on encouraging marriage among members of the
orders. The last, more rigorously formulated than the others, he was unable to
carry through because of the outcry by objectors until he had removed or mod-
erated part of the penalties, allowed three years’ grace for widows and widow-
ers, and increased the rewards. 2 When the equites still persistently demanded its
repeal at a public festival, he sent for the children of Germanicus and showed them
off, some on his lap and some on their father’s, making the point both by gesture
and expression that they should not refuse to follow that young man’s example.
And when he found that the force of the law was being evaded by betrothals to
immature girls and frequent changes of spouse, he shortened the length allowed
for betrothals and limited the number of divorces.

15.24 Dio Roman History 56.3.3–5: Augustus on married life

Augustus is talking here in AD 9 to the unmarried members of the equites, who had
persistently sought the repeal of his marriage legislation, in an attempt to encourage
them to marry and bring up children. Apart from Julia, banished for adultery in 2 BC,
Augustus himself had no other child and none by Livia. For acknowledging an infant,
see doc. 1.34.

694
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
3 What could be better than a wife who is decorous, a home-body, manager of
the household, childrearer, who gives you joy when you are well and cares for
you when you are sick, who shares your successes and comforts your ill-fortune,
who restrains the wild nature of youth and softens the harsh austerity of old age?
4 How can it not be delightful to pick up and acknowledge a baby born from you
both and to feed and educate it, a mirror of your body and of your soul, so that as it
grows another self comes into being? 5 How can it not be the greatest of blessings
that, when you depart this life, you leave behind your own successor and heir to
both the family and property, born of yourself, so that, while the corporeal human
body passes away, we live on in our successor, so that the family does not fall into
the hands of strangers and be as obliterated as totally as in warfare?

15.25 Justinian: Lex Julia on adultery, 18 BC

This law was concerned not with liaisons with slaves, prostitutes and low-class professions
but with adultery and stuprum (sexual misconduct) among the aristocracy. Adultery, for
the wife and her citizen lover, was now an official crime. For the first time, men were also
publicly targeted. Any citizen could bring a prosecution after 60 days, if the father and
husband of the woman involved did not do so, and any husband who did not divorce his
wife risked prosecution as a pimp. A convicted adulteress lost half her dowry and one-third
of her other property and was banished to an island; she could not remarry. The adulterer
could lose half his property and be banished to a different island or, if caught in the act in
his or the husband’s house, could be killed by the woman’s father.

(i) Digest 4.4.37 (Tryphonus Disputations 371)

But let us turn to the provisions of the lex Julia for punishing adultery, where
there is no lessening of the punishment if someone under age confesses that he
has committed adultery. Nor, as I have said, is there if he commits any of those
offences which the same law punishes as adultery, for instance if he knowingly
marries a wife convicted of adultery, or does not divorce a wife caught in adultery,
or where he makes a profit from his wife’s adultery, or accepts a bribe to conceal
any sexual misconduct (stuprum), or lends his house for the commission of sexual
misconduct or adultery within it; age is no excuse against the provisions of the law
for someone who, while he appeals to the law, himself transgresses it.

(ii) Digest 48.5.4.1 (Ulpian)

The power to bring the accusation after the husband and father is granted to stran-
gers who have the right to do so; for after 60 days have elapsed, four months are
granted to strangers.

(iii) Digest 48.5.5 (Julian)

There is no doubt that I am able to bring my wife to trial on a charge of adultery

in a previous marriage, since it is clearly provided for in the lex Julia de adulteriis
coercendis; if the woman accused of adultery is a widow, the accuser is free to

695
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
choose to accuse either the adulterer or the adulteress first, whichever he chooses;
but if she is married, he must first accuse the adulterer, then the woman.

(iv) Digest 48.5.23.2, 4 (Papinian)

2 The right to kill the adulterer is granted to the father in his own house, even
though his daughter does not live there, or in the house of his son-in-law. 4 The
father and not the husband is granted the right to kill the woman and every adul-
terer, because generally the sense of duty belonging to a father gives him wisdom
towards his children, while the warmth and impetuosity of a husband who forms
judgements too easily is to be restrained.

(v) Digest 48.5.26 (Ulpian)

In the fifth section of the lex Julia it is laid down that, when a man seizes an adul-
terer with his wife and does not wish or is not able to kill him, he is permitted by
his own right to hold him for not more than 20 consecutive hours of the day or
night for the sake of finding evidence of the crime without duplicity.

(vi) Justinian Institutes 4.18.3–4

3 Public cases are these: the lex Julia on treason, which applies its force to those
who have organised some intrigue against the emperor or state – the penalty for
this is loss of life and the memory of the defendant condemned after death. 4
Likewise the lex Julia on adultery, which punishes with the sword not only those
who defile the marriages of others but also those who dare to exercise unspeak-
able lust against males. Under this same lex Julia the crime of stuprum is also
punished, when anyone without force has debauched a girl or widow living virtu-
ously. The same law lays down as the penalty for offenders confiscation of half
their estate, if they are respectable, and corporal punishment and banishment if
they are low-born.

15.26 Ulpian Epitome 13.1–2, 14, 16.1–2: Lex Julia de maritandis

ordinibus
This law regulated the marriages of senators, who could not marry freedwomen, though
marriages with freedwomen were otherwise encouraged by Augustus. Those who were
unmarried or childless were able to inherit only from close relations, and even the amount
that a husband or wife could leave the other was regulated by the number of their children.
Widows and divorcees were penalised if not remarried within a certain time-frame.

13.1 By the lex Julia senators and their children are forbidden to marry wives
who are freedwomen or who have themselves, or their father or mother, practised
the dramatic art, likewise any that have made any profit from their body. 2 Other
freeborn males are forbidden to marry a procuress, or a woman manumitted by
a procuress, or one caught in adultery, or convicted in a public court or who has

696
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
practised the dramatic art: Mauricius adds also a woman convicted by the sen-
ate . . . . 14 The lex Julia gives women a respite of a year after the death of their
husband (before they have to remarry) and of six months after a divorce; the lex
Papia, however, gives two years after the death of a husband and a year and six
months after divorce.
16.1 Sometimes a husband and wife are able to receive from each other the
entire inheritance: for instance, if both or either of them are not yet at the age at
which the law insists on children – that is, if the husband is less than 25 years or
the wife less than 20; also if both of them have during the marriage exceeded the
ages laid down by the lex Papia – that is, 60 years for the husband and 50 for the
wife; likewise if relations within the sixth degree have married, or if the husband
is absent, both while he is away and within a year after he has ceased to be absent.
They also have complete capacity to make a will in favour of each other if they
have obtained the right of children from the princeps, or if they have a son or
daughter in common, or have lost a son of 14 years or a daughter of 12, or have
lost two children of three years, or three after their naming day, provided, how-
ever, that even one child lost under the age of puberty, whatever the age, grants
the right of taking the entire inheritance within the period of a year and six months
(from the death). Likewise, if the wife gives birth to a child by her husband within
ten months of his death, she takes his entire property. 2 Sometimes they cannot
take anything from each other – that is, if they have contracted a marriage against
the lex Julia and lex Papia Poppaea, for instance marrying a notorious wife, or a
senator marrying a freedwoman.

15.27 Augustus’ marriage legislation, 18 BC

The legislation made provision for rewards for those who had three or more children,
and in order for a betrothal to count as a marriage the marriage had to follow within two
years. Augustus and Livia had no children between them, which increased the hostility
to Augustus’ laws. Livia had two sons by her previous marriage, but at the death of her
younger son, Drusus, she was granted the privileges and status accorded to women with
three children. For the Voconian law of 169 BC, see doc. 7.69.

(i) Dio Roman History 54.16.1–5, 7

1 He imposed heavier penalties on unmarried men and women and at the same time
awarded privileges for marriage and the production of children. 2 And since among
the nobility there were far more males than females, he permitted any who wished,
apart from senators, to marry freedwomen and ruled that their offspring would be
legitimate. 3 Meanwhile an outcry arose in the senate concerning the disorderly
behaviour of women and young men, this being the reason, it was alleged, for their
unwillingness to enter into marital relationships, and when they urged him to rem-
edy this as well, with a sly allusion to his affairs with numerous women, 4 he at first
replied to them that the most essential regulations had already been laid down and it
was impossible to legislate on further issues in the same way. When he was finally
coerced into answering, he replied that ‘You all ought to counsel your wives and

697
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
instruct them as to your wishes – that is what I do.’ 5 On hearing this, they pressed
him all the more in their desire to learn what were the pieces of advice that he pro-
fessed to give to Livia, and he reluctantly made some comments about dress and
other forms of adornment and visits outside the house and decorous behaviour, not
in the least worried that his remarks were not borne out by his actions . . .
7 Furthermore, as some men were betrothing themselves to infant girls and through
this enjoying the privileges granted to those who were married, though not performing
their part of the bargain, he ordered that no betrothal would be valid unless the person
married within two years of the engagement – that is, that the girl was in every case to
be at least ten years at the time of betrothal, if the man was to benefit from it (for, as
I have said, girls are thought to be ready for marriage after completing 12 full years).

(ii) Dio Roman History 55.2.5–7 (9 BC)

5 The same festivities were being prepared for Drusus (as for Tiberius), and even
the Feriae (the Latin festival) was to be held a second time because of him, so that
he could celebrate his triumph at that time – but this was prevented by his death, and
Livia was given statues as a consolation and she was registered among the mothers
of three children. 6 For to those, both men and women, to whom the gods have not
granted the possession of that many children, the law (formerly through the senate,
but now through the emperor) awards them the privileges of those who have had three
children, so that they are not liable for the penalties for childlessness and may enjoy all
but a few of the rewards for large families – 7 and this applies not only to men but to
gods as well, so that if anyone leaves them a bequest at his death they may receive it.

(iii) Dio Roman History 56.10.1–3 (AD 9)

1 Afterwards he increased the privileges for those who had children, while he made
a distinction in the penalties for the married and unmarried, allowing both groups a
year in which to observe the requirements and avoid the penalties. 2 He permitted
some women to receive inheritances contrary to the Voconian law, by which it was
not permissible for any woman to inherit more than HS 100,000. He also granted
the Vestal Virgins all the privileges possessed by mothers. 3 After this the lex Papia
Poppaea was proposed by Marcus Papius Mutilus and Quintus Poppaeus Secundus,
who were consuls for part of the year. It was the case that neither had children and
not even a wife – from which the need for the law was indisputable.

THE LEX PAPIA POPPAEA, AD 9

15.28 Gaius Institutes 3.42–46, 49–50: Lex Papia Poppaea on
inheritance
Augustus’ legislation on marriage was revised in AD 9 to try to make it less unpopular. The
lex Papia Poppaea addressed the concerns of freedpersons in particular. If a freedman had
three children, his patron no longer received a share of the inheritance, while freedwomen
with four children were released from their patron’s guardianship.

698
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
3.42 Later on the rights of patrons were increased by the lex Papia as far as
wealthier freedmen were concerned. For by this law, where a freedman leaves
property worth 100,000 sesterces or more and has fewer than three children,
whether he dies after making a will or intestate, an equal share of his estate is
due to his patron. Accordingly, if a freedman leaves a single son or daughter as
heir, then half the estate is due to the patron, just as if he had died without any
son or daughter; if he leaves two male or female children as heirs, a third is due
to him; if he leaves three, the patron is excluded. 43 Regarding the property of
freedwomen, patrons suffered no injury by the ancient law. For since they were
in the legal guardianship of their patron, they could not make a will without their
patron’s consent, so that if he consented to the making of a will he would be the
heir, or if not it was his own fault. For if he did not consent to its being made and
the freedwoman died intestate, he would inherit, because no one could exclude
a patron from the estate of his freedwoman. 44 But later on by the lex Papia the
birth of four children released freedwomen from the guardianship of her patron,
so that they were allowed to make a will without the authority of a guardian, and
it provided that a share equal to that of each of the children whom the freedwoman
had at time of death should be due to the patron. Accordingly, if a freedwoman left
four children, a fifth part of her property went to her patron, but if she survived
all her children the property would pass to the patron. 45 What we have said of
the patron, we understand to apply as well to the son of the patron; likewise to
his grandson by a son, as well as to a great-grandson born to the grandson by a
son. 46 Although a daughter of a patron, a granddaughter by a son and a great-
granddaughter by a grandson by a son under the Law of the XII Tables have the
same rights as the patron, only the children of the male sex are granted inheritance
rights by the edict, but the daughter of a patron can demand half the property of
the estate of a freedman contrary to the provisions of the will, or in the case of
intestacy, against an adoptive son, wife or daughter-in-law in manus, by the lex
Papia, by the right of being the mother of three children, otherwise she would not
have that right. . . .
49 Previously, before the lex Papia, patronesses had only that right in the prop-
erty of their freedman that was granted to patrons under the Law of the XII Tables.
For they could not demand half the estate of an ungrateful freedman contrary to
the will, or on the ground of intestacy, against an adopted son, wife or daughter-
in-law, which right the praetor granted in the case of a freedman and his children.
50 But the lex Papia granted almost the same rights to a freeborn patroness with
two children and to a freedwoman who had three which male patrons possess
under the edict of the praetor; and it granted the same rights to a freeborn patron-
ess who had three children as had been given by the same law to a patron, but did
not award the same rights to a patroness who was a freedwoman.

15.29 Gaius Institutes 2.111: On celibacy and childlessness

The lex Papia Poppaea revised the legislation to allow those who were childless to receive
one half of inheritances.

699
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Celibates too, who are forbidden by the lex Julia from taking inheritances or lega-
cies, and those who do not have children, whom the lex Papia prohibits from
taking more than half an inheritance or legacy, are exempt from these restrictions
under the will of a soldier.

15.30 Gaius Institutes 1.144–45, 194: On guardianship

Before the lex Papia Poppaea, only the Vestals had no need of guardians (doc. 1.35); from
AD 9, the right of children allowed freeborn women and freedwomen the same status.

144 Parents are permitted by will to appoint guardians for their children who are
in their potestas, for males under the age of puberty and for females whatever their
age may be, even if they are married; for the ancients desired that women, even if
of full age, on account of their levity of mind, should remain under guardianship.
145 Accordingly, if anyone appoints by will a guardian for a son and daughter,
and both reach the age of puberty, the son will cease to have a guardian but the
daughter will nonetheless remain under guardianship; for it is only under the lex
Julia and Papia Poppaea that by the right of children women are released from
guardianship – with the exception of the Vestal Virgins, that is, whom even the
ancients desired to be free in honour of their priesthood, and so it was laid down
by the Law of the XII Tables.
194 Freeborn women are freed from guardianship by right of three children,
and freedwomen by the right of four, if they are in the statutory guardianship of
their patron or his freedmen; others who have different kinds of guardians, such as
Atilian or fiduciary, are freed from guardianship by right of three children.

15.31 Tacitus Annals 3.24.2: The Julias

Julia the elder, Augustus’ only child, was banished to an island in 2 BC for adultery, though
there may also have been political connotations to her behaviour. She had been married to
Marcellus, Agrippa and then Tiberius and had five children by Agrippa. Her elder daughter,
Julia the younger, who was married to L. Aemilius Paullus, was banished in AD 8 for
adultery with D. Junius Silanus. Her husband was later executed for conspiracy, and it is
possible that her exile might also have had political undertones.

While fortune was very propitious towards Augustus in public life, it was disas-
trous in private because of the immoral conduct of his daughter and granddaugh-
ter, whom he banished from the city while he punished their adulterers with death
or exile. For, in labelling misconduct between men and women – an everyday
occurrence – by the heinous names of sacrilege and treason, he transcended not
only the tolerance of our ancestors but even his own laws.

THE LUDI SAECULARES

In 17 BC Augustus celebrated the ludi Saeculares (centennial games) to restore and purify
the state and usher in a time of rebirth. These games were held only once in the life of any

700
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
citizen, and so were on a cycle of 110 years; the previous games were held in 149 or 146
BC. This celebration was commanded by a Sibylline oracle (doc. 15.34) and took place
beside the Tiber. Offerings of black victims were made at night to underworld deities, and
the festival specifically invoked Phoebus Apollo, Diana, Jupiter and Juno, as well as the
Greek deities of childbirth (the Ilithyiae) and the Fates (Moerae). Part of the festival involved
a banquet for the gods, and choirs of girls and boys, and one of matrons, sang hymns; the
centennial hymn itself was written for the occasion by the poet Horace (doc. 15.33).

15.32 ILS 5050: Official record of the secular games

The festival took place from 31 May to 3 June 17 with nocturnal sacrifices at the Campus
Martius, and sacrifices to other deities on the Capitoline and Palatine hills, followed by
theatrical performances. The senate decreed that a record of the games be set up on pillars
of bronze and marble in the Campus Martius, but the beginning of the document is lost.
The Fifteen are the quindecimvirs, the priestly college which guarded and consulted the
Sibylline Books (both Augustus and Agrippa were members).

90 On the following night in the Campus by the Tiber, Imperator Caesar Augustus
sacrificed to the divine Moerae nine she-lambs, offered whole in the Greek man-
ner, and in the same way nine she-goats and prayed as follows: Moerae, as it
is written regarding you in those books in order that each and everything may
prosper for the Roman people, the Quirites, that a sacrifice of nine she-lambs and
nine she-goats should be made to you, I beseech you and pray that you increase
the empire and sovereignty of the Roman people, the Quirites, in war and at home,
and that you always protect the Latin name, 95 that you grant the Roman people,
the Quirites, eternal safety, victory and health, and that you favour the Roman
people, the Quirites, and the legions of the Roman people, the Quirites, and keep
safe the state of the Roman people, the Quirites, and that you be well disposed
and propitious to the Roman people, the Quirites, the college of Fifteen, myself,
my family and household, and that you accept this sacrifice of nine she-lambs
and nine she-goats offered appropriately. For these reasons be honoured by this
sacrificial she-lamb and now and in future be well disposed and propitious to
the Roman people, the Quirites, the Fifteen for performing religious ceremonies,
myself, my family and household.
100 With the sacrifice completed, the games began at night on stage, where no
theatre had been constructed and no seats positioned, and 110 matrons, who had
been instructed by the Fifteen, held sellisternia with two seats positioned for Juno
and Diana.
1 June on the Capitol: Imperator Caesar Augustus duly sacrificed a bull to
Jupiter Optimus Maximus, in the same place Marcus Agrippa sacrificed another
and then they prayed as follows: 105 ‘Jupiter Optimus Maximus, as it is written
regarding you in those books in order that each and everything may prosper for
the Roman people, the Quirites, that a sacrifice of a fine bull should be made to
you, I beseech you and pray’; the rest as above.
Present at the sacred vessel (atalla) were Caesar, Agrippa, Scaevola, Sentius,
Lollius, Asinius Gallus, Rebilus. Then Latin performances took place in the

701
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
wooden theatre which was erected in the Campus next to the Tiber, and in the
same way mothers of families held sellisternia, and the performances which began
at night were not interrupted, 110 and an edict was proclaimed.
The Fifteen for performing religious ceremonies proclaim: ‘Whereas it has
seemed proper that the mourning of matrons should be restricted in accordance
with a worthy custom, and has been adhered to by frequent precedents, whenever
there has been a proper reason for public rejoicing, and since at a time of such
solemn ceremonies and games it seems best that this shall be repeated and adhered
to diligently and shall be appropriate to the honour of the gods and the memory of
their worship, we have decided that it is our responsibility to announce officially
to women by edict that they shall restrain their lamentations.’
115 At night by the Tiber Imperator Caesar Augustus made a sacrifice to the
divine Ilithyiae with nine barley-cakes, nine round-cakes and nine tiny cakes
(Greek: phthoïs), and prayed as follows: ‘Ilithyiae, as it is written regarding you
in those books in order that each and everything may prosper for the Roman peo-
ple, the Quirites, the sacrifice of nine barley-cakes, nine round-cakes and nine tiny
cakes should be made to you, I beseech you and pray’; the rest as above.
2 June on the Capitol: Imperator Caesar Augustus duly sacrificed a cow to
Juno the queen, in the same place 120 Marcus Agrippa sacrificed another and
then he prayed as follows: ‘Juno the Queen, as it is written regarding you in those
books in order that each and everything may prosper for the Roman people, the
Quirites, that a sacrifice of a fine cow should be made to you, I beseech you and
pray’; the rest as above.
Then 110 married mothers of households, who had been instructed by . . . spoke
as follows: 125 ‘Juno the Queen whatever may prosper for the Roman people, the
Quirites . . . married mothers of households with bent knees . . . you that . . . you
increase the sovereignty of the Roman people, the Quirites, in war and at home,
and that you always protect the Latin name, that you grant the Roman people, the
Quirites, eternal safety, victory and health, and that you favour the Roman people,
the Quirites, and the legions of the Roman people, the Quirites, and keep safe the
state of the Roman people, the Quirites, and that you be well disposed and propi-
tious to the Roman people, 130 the Quirites, the Fifteen for performing religious
ceremonies, myself . . . These things we 110 married mothers of households of
the Roman people, the Quirites, with bent knees, beseech and pray.’
Present at the atalla were Marcus Agrippa . . . Performances were held as on
the previous day . . .
At night by the Tiber 135 Imperator Caesar Augustus sacrificed a pregnant
sow to Earth the Mother, and prayed as follows: ‘Earth the Mother, as it is writ-
ten regarding you in those books in order that each and everything may prosper
for the Roman people, the Quirites, that the sacrifice of a pregnant sow should be
made to you, I beseech you and pray’; the rest as above.
The matrons held sellisternia on this day in the same way as on the previous
day.
3 June on the Palatine: Imperator Caesar Augustus and Marcus Agrippa made
a sacrifice to Apollo and Diana with nine barley-cakes, 140 nine round-cakes

702
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
and nine tiny cakes, and they prayed as follows: ‘Apollo, as it is written regard-
ing you in those books in order that each and everything may prosper for the
Roman people, the Quirites, that the sacrifice of nine round-cakes, nine barley-
cakes, and nine tiny cakes should be made to you, I beseech you and pray’; the
rest as above. ‘Apollo, as I have prayed to you with offerings of round-cakes and
a “good prayer”, for this reason be honoured by these offered barley-cakes and be
well-disposed and propitious.’
145 Similarly for the tiny cakes. In the same words to Diana.
With the sacrifice completed, 27 boys who had been instructed, who had
fathers and mothers still living, and the same number of girls sang the hymn; and
in the same way on the Capitol. Quintus Horatius Flaccus composed the hymn.
150 Present from the Fifteen were Imperator Caesar, Marcus Agrippa, Quintus
Lepidus, Potitus Messalla, Gaius Stolo, Gaius Scaevola, Gaius Sosius, Gaius
Norbanus, Marcus Cocceius, Marcus Lollius, Gaius Sentius, Marcus Strigo,
Lucius Arruntius, Gaius Asinius, Marcus Marcellus, Decimus Laelius, Quintus
Tubero, Gaius Rebilus, Messala Messallinus.
With the performances on stage concluded . . . next to the place where sacrifice
had been made on the previous nights and a theatre and stage erected, turning-
posts were put in place and four-horse chariots were started and Potitus Messalla
presented acrobats on horseback.
155 And an edict was proclaimed in these words: The Fifteen for performing
religious ceremonies proclaim: ‘To the traditional games we have added seven
days of games at our own expense: on 5 June Latin games in the wooden theatre,
which is by the Tiber, at the second hour; Greek musicians in Pompey’s theatre
at the third hour; Greek actors in the theatre which is in the Circus Flaminius, at
the fourth hour.’
Interval of a day: 4 June.
160 5 June performances took place . . . Latin games in the wooden theatre,
Greek musicians in Pompey’s theatre, Greek actors in the theatre, which is in the
Circus Flaminius.
10 June an edict was proclaimed in these words: ‘The Fifteen for perform-
ing religious ceremonies proclaim: On June 12 we shall give a wild-beast hunt
in . . . and we shall put on games in the Circus . . . ’
12 June a procession took place, boys . . . 165 Marcus Agrippa started the
chariots . . .
All these things were conducted by the Fifteen for performing religious cer-
emonies: Imperator Caesar Augustus, Marcus Agrippa . . . . Gnaeus Pompeius,
Gaius Stolo, Gaius . . . , Marcus Marcellus . . .

15.33 Horace Carmen Saeculare

While not considered one of Horace’s best compositions, the ‘centennial hymn’ was the
official hymn of the ludi Saeculares, to be chanted by a chorus of specially chosen girls and
boys. Leading matrons also played an important role. It refers to Rome’s prosperity and
greatness while also highlighting Augustus’ moral reforms and marriage legislation, which
was to underpin the fertility and growth of the next cycle of 110 years.

703
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Phoebus, and Diana queen of woodland,
Radiant glories of the sky, you to be worshipped
For ever and to be honoured, grant what we pray for
At this sacred time,

5 When the Sibylline verses counselled

Chosen girls and chaste boys
To the gods who protect the seven hills
To chant a song.

Kind sun, who in your shining chariot

10 Bring and hide the day, who are born different
And yet the same – may you never be able to behold a city
Greater than Rome!

You who duly bring forth ready offspring

Gently protect, Ilithyia, our mothers,
15 Whether you wish to be called Lucina
Or Genitalis:

Goddess, may you produce offspring

And help the decrees of the senate to thrive
For the joining of women and fruitful progeny
20 By the marriage law,

So that every 11 decades the fixed cycle

Brings back throngs to view the songs and games
For three bright days and as many
Pleasant nights.

25 You Fates, who have sung truthfully,

What was once foretold – may the immoveable
Divide keep it so, and to our past deeds
Join good fortune. . . .

61 Augur, splendid in shining bow,

Phoebus, beloved of the nine Muses,
Who with medical skill can raise
The body’s tired limbs,

65 If you look favourably on the Palatine altars

Prolong the Roman state and prosperous Latium
Into future lustra and better ages
For ever,

704
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
And she who holds the Aventine and Algidus,
70 Diana, attend the prayers of the Fifteen priests
And to the vows of the children, lend
Your kindly ears.
That Jove and all the gods hear this
We carry homewards good and steadfast hope,
75 The trained chorus who to Phoebus and Diana
Chant their praises.

15.34 Zosimus New History 2.5.1–6: The Sibyl on the secular games
Zosimus, a pagan author writing in the early sixth century AD, gives a detailed account of
the games. He considers that Rome’s decline was due to the failure to uphold these ancient
traditions. Only the beginning of the 37-line Sibylline Oracle is given here.

1 This is the way the festival is described as being celebrated: heralds go around
summoning everyone to the festival as a sight which they had never seen before
and would never see again. In summer, a few days before the spectacle com-
mences, the Fifteen sit on a tribunal on the Capitol and in the temple on the
Palatine and distribute objects of purification to the people: these are torches,
brimstone and pitch. Slaves do not participate, only free persons. 2 When all the
people have congregated in the above-mentioned places, and in the temple of
Diana situated on the Aventine, each bringing wheat, barley and beans, they hold
solemn all-night vigils to the Fates (Moerae) for . . . nights. When the time for
the festival arrives, which they celebrate for three days and an equal number of
nights in the Campus Martius, they dedicate the victims on the bank of the Tiber
at Tarentum: they sacrifice to the deities Jupiter, Juno, Apollo, Latona and Diana,
and also to the Moerae, Ilithyiae, Ceres, Hades and Proserpine.
3 On the first night of the spectacle at the second hour the emperor along with
the Fifteen sacrifices three lambs on three altars set up on the bank of the river,
and after sprinkling the altars with blood offers the victims burnt whole. After pre-
paring a stage like that of a theatre, they light torches and fire, sing a hymn com-
posed for the occasion, and present sacred spectacles. 4 Those who participate are
given the first fruits of the wheat, barley and beans, for these are distributed to all
the people, as I said. On the next day they go up to the Capitol, and there offer the
accustomed sacrifices, and from there on to the theatre which has been prepared,
where they celebrate games in honour of Apollo and Diana. On the following day
noble women assemble on the Capitol at the place which the oracle prescribed and
pray to and sing hymns in honour of the god, as is right. 5 On the third day in the
temple of Apollo on the Palatine, 27 outstanding boys and the same number of
girls, all ‘flourishing on both sides’ (that is, with both parents living), sing hymns
and victory songs in both Greek and Latin for the preservation of all cities under
Roman rule. There were other celebrations as well, held in accordance with the
god’s instruction, and as long as these were observed the Roman empire remained

705
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
intact. To convince us that all this is really true, I will give the Sibyl’s oracle,
although it has already been referred to by others before me:

6 When the longest term of man’s life has passed

And travelled the circle of 110 years,
Remember, Romans, and let this not be forgotten
Remember all this, to the immortal gods
5 Sacrifice on the plain by the boundless stream of Tiber,
Where it is narrowest, when night comes over the earth,
And the sun has hidden its light. Then sacrifice
To the all-generating Fates lambs and she-goats,
Black ones, and conciliate the Ilithyiae,
10 Who bring forth children through sacrifices, as is proper; and to Earth
Offer a black sow on the point of parturition.
But let pure while bulls be led to the altar of Zeus,
By day, not by night; for to the heavenly deities
The way of sacrifice is in the daytime, and thus
You should make offerings.

MARCELLUS AND AGRIPPA

M. Claudius Marcellus, born in 42 BC, was the son of Octavia Minor (Augustus’ younger
sister) and C. Claudius Marcellus (cos. 50). As Augustus’ nephew, he took part in his
triumph of 29 BC (along with Augustus’ stepson Tiberius) and married his daughter Julia
in 25. As both his nephew and his son-in-law, Marcellus was expected to be Augustus’
heir and successor. The fact that during his illness in 23 Augustus passed his signet ring
to Agrippa, signifying that he would take over government, was unexpected (doc. 15.5).
Marcellus had been granted the right to sit among the ex-praetors, and Augustus helped
him to put on a splendid spectacle as aedile in 23; he was clearly marked as his potential
heir in the absence of grandchildren, though not adopted. However, he died in the autumn
of 23 at the age of 19, apparently from the same epidemic that attacked Augustus. He was
the first of the family to be buried in Augustus’ mausoleum.
M. Vipsanius Agrippa was one of Augustus’ childhood friends and was responsible
for the victories over Sextus Pompeius and Mark Antony. He was married to Caecilia
Pomponia, Atticus’ daughter, then to Marcella the elder (Augustus’ niece) in 28, and after
Marcellus’ death to Julia in 21. His daughter Vipsania was married to Tiberius. He was
consul in 37, 28 and 27 and aedile in 33, when he spent a fortune on beautifying Rome.
He died in Campania in 12 BC and was buried in Augustus’ mausoleum. Augustus in 17
BC had adopted Agrippa’s two eldest sons by Julia, Gaius and Lucius, and made them
his heirs.

15.35 Palatine Anthology 6.161: Marcus Claudius Marcellus

Written by Crinagoras of Mytilene, a poet of the Augustan age. Marcellus took part with
Augustus in his campaign against the Cantabri in northern Spain (26–24 BC), returning
before Augustus to marry Julia.

706
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Marcellus, returning from the western war
Laden with plunder to the boundaries of rocky Italy
First shaved his ruddy beard; his country’s desire
This was – to send him out a boy, and receive him back a man.

15.36 Vergil Aeneid 6.860–86: You shall be Marcellus!

In the underworld, Aeneas’ father, Anchises, describes the future of the Trojan descendants
in Italy. Marcellus closes the parade of great Romans seen there by Aeneas. Famously
Octavia fainted when she heard Vergil recite this passage (doc. 15.90). Marcellus’ ancestor,
also M. Claudius Marcellus, who accompanied him in this procession, was five times
consul, an outstanding general in the Second Punic War, and won the spolia opima for
killing the Gallic king Viridomarus (cf. docs 4.46–47).

860 And now Aeneas asked – since he saw there come

A youth of outstanding beauty and with shining arms,
His face not joyful, and his eyes cast down –
‘Who is this, father, thus accompanying him on his way?
His son? Or another of his long line of descendants?
What murmuring round them! How impressive he appears!
But dark night circles his head with its sad shadows.’
Then father Anchises, eyes full of tears, replied:
‘My son, ask not about the great sorrow of your people.
The Fates will only show him to the world, nor allow him
870 A longer stay. The Roman people would seem to you
Too powerful, gods, were this gift permanent.
What mourning from mankind will that great city
Hear from the Field of Mars! And Tiber, you will see
What funerary rites, as you flow past his recent tomb!
No boy of Ilius’ line will so raise up his Latin
Forefathers by such hopeful promise, nor will Romulus’
Land ever pride itself so much on one of its sons.
Alas duty!, alas ancient honour, and right hands
Invincible in war! No one would have attacked him safely
880 When in arms, whether he met the enemy on foot,
Or dug spurs in the flanks of his foaming horse.
Ah, poor boy!, if only you may break the dictates of harsh fate –
You shall be Marcellus! Give me lilies with full hands,
Let me scatter brilliant flowers, let me heap my descendant’s spirit
With these gifts at least, in performing that poor service.’

15.37 ILS 898: Marcellus as patron

Marcellus, clearly seen as an important member of the imperial family, was also a patron
of Pompeii and of Tanagra in Boeotia.

The city of the Delphians honoured Claudius Marcellus, its patron.

707
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
15.38 Velleius Paterculus Compendium of Roman History 2.93.1–2:
Marcellus and Agrippa, 23 BC
For Marcellus’ aedileship, see doc. 15.5. Between 23 and 21, Agrippa was in the East as
governor of Syria but based at the island of Lesbos, deputising for Augustus. In 21 he
returned to Rome and remained in charge of affairs there while Augustus spent time in
Greece and Samos. In 19 he was in Gaul and Spain, where he finished the Cantabrian war.
In 18 Augustus made him his colleague in tribunician power for five years and gave him
proconsular imperium. Egnatius stood in 19 for the consulship, but his candidature was
refused. A subsequent plot was easily dealt with by the senate in Augustus’ absence. Caepio
and Murena were executed for treason in 22 BC.

1 About three years before the plot of Egnatius broke out, around the time of the
conspiracy of Murena and Caepio, 50 years ago, Marcus Marcellus, the son of
Augustus’ sister Octavia, died, whom people thought would have succeeded to
power should anything have happened to Caesar, though they considered, how-
ever, that this would not happen without some opposition from Marcus Agrippa.
He died while still a youth, after presenting most magnificent games in his role
as aedile. Indeed, as they say, he had noble qualities, was cheerful in mind and
disposition, and equal to the destiny for which he was being brought up. 2 After
his death Agrippa, who had gone to Asia on the pretext of imperial business, but
who had really, as rumour reports, taken himself off for the time being because of
his secret dislike of Marcellus, now returned and married Julia, Caesar’s daughter,
who had been Marcellus’ wife, a woman whose children did no good either to
herself or to the state.

15.39 Dio Roman History 53.26.5–27.5: Agrippa beautifies the city

This is the second closing of the temple of Janus in 25 BC, following Augustus’ campaign
in Spain (cf. doc. 14.60). Agrippa was responsible for numerous monuments in Rome,
including the basilica of Neptune in honour of Augustus’ victories and a new complex in
the Campus Martius, with the Saepta Julia (a voting hall), baths, gardens and the Pantheon.
Marcellus and Julia married while Augustus was ill in Spain in 25; Agrippa performed the
ceremony.

26.5 After Augustus’ successes in these wars, he closed the precinct of Janus,
which had been opened because of them. 27.1 In the meantime Agrippa adorned
the city at his own expense. He first constructed the basilica called ‘Poseidon’s’
in honour of the victories at sea and made it splendid by decorating it with the
painting of the Argonauts, and then built the Laconian steam bath (sudatorium) –
he gave the gymnasium the name ‘Laconian’ because the Spartans were thought
at that time to be particularly fond of stripping and exercising after anointing
themselves with oil. 2 He also completed the building called the Pantheon, so
named, perhaps, because its decorations included the statues of many gods among
its images, such as Mars and Venus, but my view is that it was named for its
domed roof, which resembles the heavens. 3 Agrippa wanted to place a statue
of Augustus there as well and give his name to the building, but when Augustus

708
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
would accept neither honour he placed a statue of the former Caesar in the temple,
and in the anteroom figures of Augustus and himself. 4 He did this not out of any
ambition or rivalry with Augustus but out of genuine goodwill towards him and
continual eagerness for the common good, and Augustus, far from blaming him
for this, honoured him the more. 5 For when Augustus was unable because of
illness to be in Rome to celebrate the marriage of his daughter Julia and nephew
Marcellus, he had Agrippa conduct this in his absence. And when the house on
the Palatine, which had previously been Antony’s and had been given to Agrippa
and (M. Valerius) Messalla (Corvinus) burnt down, he gave Messalla money but
made Agrippa share his own house.

15.40 Pliny the Elder Natural History 36.121: Agrippa’s water works
From his own funds Agrippa made extensive repairs to Rome’s water supply, including
constructing baths and cleaning the Cloaca Maxima. His Autobiography is lost, as is his
Geography and map of the known world (doc. 15.51). Although it was unusual to hold the
aedileship after a consulship (he had been consul in 37), the agenda was clearly to gain
support for Augustus (then Octavian) through providing amenities for the city of Rome.
Augustus continued work on the water system after Agrippa’s death (doc. 15.52). The Aqua
Virgo is still operational today.

Quintus Marcius Rex, when ordered by the senate to repair the conduits of the
Aqua Appia, Anio and Tepula, tunnelled passages through the mountains and
brought Rome a new water supply, named for him (Aqua Marcia) and completed
during the period of his praetorship (144–143 BC). Then Agrippa in his aedile-
ship (33 BC) added to these the Aqua Virgo (19 BC), repaired and restored the
channels of the others, and constructed 700 basins, as well as 500 fountains and
130 distribution reservoirs, many of these richly ornamented. On these works he
added 300 statues of bronze or marble and 400 columns of marble – all these car-
ried out in the space of a year. He himself, in his memoirs of his aedileship, added
that games lasting 59 days were celebrated and all 170 public baths were opened
free of charge, a number which has now been greatly increased at Rome.

15.41 Pliny the Elder Natural History 35.26: Agrippa as art-lover

Agrippa as governor of Syria was in Cyzicus at some time between 17 and 13 when he
acquired these paintings, as well as Lysippus’ Dying Lion from Lampsacus. At the time of
his death, Agrippa was building a villa at Boscotrecase. The frescoes there are some of the
finest examples of Roman wall painting.

It was the dictator Caesar who was responsible for making painting fashionable by
dedicating pictures of Ajax and Medea in front of the temple of Venus Genetrix.
After him, there was Marcus Agrippa, a man whose taste tended towards rustic
simplicity rather than elegant refinement. There exists, however, a magnificent
oration of his, worthy of the greatest of our citizens, on the subject of having all
statues and painting publicly exhibited, which would have been far preferable

709
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
to sending them off as exiles to country villas. Serious as he was in his tastes,
he bought two pictures, an Ajax and a Venus, from the people of Cyzicus for
1,200,000 sesterces. Furthermore he ordered small painted panels to be set into
the marble in even the hottest part of his baths; these remained there until they
were removed a short time ago, when the building was being restored.

15.42 Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 16.6.172–73: Agrippa and the

Jews
Iullus Antonius, son of Mark Antony and Fulvia and raised by Octavia, was consul in 10
and proconsul of Asia in 7 BC. When Agrippa divorced Marcella in 21 to marry Julia, Iullus
then married Marcella, by whom he had three children. He was involved in the scandal
surrounding Julia the Elder in 2 BC (he was named as her main lover, though there may
rather have been political implications in the relationship) and committed suicide. High in
Augustus’ favour until then, he is depicted on the Ara Pacis. Josephus cites a number of
such decrees and letters on Jewish rights (cf. doc. 14.33); what is interesting is that this one
mentions Agrippa several years after his death. Horace mentions Iullus as a fellow poet in
Odes 4.2.

172 Iullus Antonius, proconsul, to the magistrates, council and people of the
Ephesians, greetings. While I was dispensing justice at Ephesus on the Ides of
February (13 February 7 BC), the Jews resident in Asia pointed out to me that
Caesar Augustus and Agrippa permitted them to follow their own laws and cus-
toms and to make without hindrance the donations (gift of first fruits) which each
of them of his own choice makes for the sake of piety towards the divinity, which
they collaborate in conveying. 173 And they requested that I should confirm
my opinion in agreement with those given by Augustus and Agrippa. It is there-
fore my wish that you know that I coincide with the decisions of Augustus and
Agrippa and allow them to behave and act without hindrance in accordance with
their ancestral customs.

15.43 IG II2 4122: Athens honours Agrippa

An inscribed base that supported a statue of Agrippa in a four-horse chariot which stood in
front of the propylaea to the acropolis.

The people (dedicated this statue of) Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius, consul for
the third time (27 BC), their benefactor.

15.44 RDGE 63: Agrippa’s letter to the Argive Gerousia

A stele from Argos. The gerousia was probably an association of elder citizens concerned
with the management of local cults and may have been the equivalent of the Augustales in
Italy and thus associated with the imperial cult. This letter dates to 17–13, when Agrippa
was in the Greek East, and probably to the winter of 17/16, when he was at Corinth. Danaos
and his daughter Hypermestra were the ancestors of the Argive kings.

710
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Of the Elder Citizens. Agrippa to the elder citizens of the Argives, descended
from Danaos and Hypermestra, greetings. I am mindful of my own responsibil-
ity for providing for the continuance of your organisation 5 and the safeguarding
of its ancient prestige, and for restoring to you many of your lost rights. For the
future I intend to take thought for you and . . .

15.45 IG XII.2.204: Mytilene honours Julia

A marble base from Mytilene, Lesbos. This inscription may date from the period 23–21,
when Agrippa and Julia were based on Lesbos, although they wintered there on subsequent
occasions. Their daughter Agrippina may have been born there.

The people (dedicated this statue of) Julia, daughter of Imperator Caesar god
Augustus, wife of Marcus Agrippa, our benefactress, because of her excellence in
every way 5 and her goodwill towards our city.

15.46 EJ 76: Honours for the imperial family at Thespiae

Agrippa and his family, while in Greece, seem to have attended the festival of the Muses at
Thespiae in Boeotia. The inscription dates to between 17 and 12.

(a) The people honoured Agrippina, daughter of Marcus Agrippa.

The people honoured Marcus Agrippa, son of Lucius. To the Muses.
(b) The people honoured Lucius Caesar.
The people honoured Gaius Caesar.
The people honoured Julia, daughter of Imperator Caesar Augustus, wife
of Marcus Agrippa. To the Muses.
The people honoured Livia, wife of Imperator Caesar Augustus. To the
Muses.

15.47 Nikolaos of Damascus F134: Julia and an unexpected storm

At this point Agrippa was in Paphlagonia returning from Sinope on the south coast of the
Black Sea. This episode, in which Julia nearly drowned, took place in 14 BC when she was
25 years of age.

Nikolaos’ act of philanthropy. The people of Ilium (Troy) were unaware that Julia,
daughter of Caesar and wife of Agrippa, had arrived among them at night, and that
the Scamander was running high as a result of numerous storms, and that she
was in danger of being killed along with the household slaves who were accom-
panying her. In consequence of this Agrippa was enraged because the people of
Ilium had not come to her assistance, and he fined them 100,000 silver drachmas.
They were left destitute and, although they had not foreseen the storm or that the
young lady was arriving in it, did not have the courage to say anything to Agrippa.
When Nikolaos arrived, they begged him to get Herod to be their supporter and
protector. Nikolaos enthusiastically gave them his assistance because of the city’s

711
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
renown and appealed to the king, explaining the circumstances to him, that it was
unreasonable of Agrippa to be angry with them because he had not warned them
that he was sending his wife to them, and they were totally unaware that she was
arriving at night. In the end Herod assumed their protection and had them excused
from the fine. Since they had already departed as they despaired of the possibility
of deliverance, he gave Nikolaos, who was sailing to Chios and Rhodes, where
his sons were, the letter announcing this, for Herod himself was continuing on
to Paphlagonia with Agrippa. Nikolaos sailed from Amisos to Byzantium, and
from there to the Troad, and went to Ilium, and when he handed over the letter
of release from the debt, both he, and the king even more particularly, were paid
great honour by the people of Ilium.

15.48 P. Köln 10: Funeral oration for Agrippa, 12 BC

A Greek papyrus fragment of the first century BC from the Fayum in Egypt, a translation
of the Latin original delivered by Augustus. Varus (docs 15.107–8) was married to Vipsania
Marcella Agrippina, the daughter of Agrippa and Claudia Marcella. This fragment appears
to confirm that, like Augustus, Agrippa had maius imperium, at least from 13 BC.

. . . the tribunician power for five years in accordance with a decree of the sen-
ate was given to you when the Lentuli were consuls (18 BC), and again this was
granted for another Olympiad (five-year period) 5 when Tiberius (Claudius) Nero
and (Publius) Quinctilius Varus, your sons-in-law, were consuls (13 BC). And
into whatever provinces the Romans’ state should dispatch you, 10 it had been
sanctioned by law that your power was to be not less than any other magistrate’s
in those. Considered worthy of the supreme (tribunician) authority and a col-
league in our rule, by your own virtues and achievements you surpassed all men.

15.49 SEG 18.518: The ‘friends of Agrippa’

A slab of blue marble from Smyrna commemorating one of the members of the association
of the friends of Agrippa. Such associations were unofficial groups that met for social and
religious purposes to honour benefactors or for cult purposes.

The members of the association of the friends of Agrippa erected this monument for
their own associate, Marion, also known as Mares, citizen of Adana, in his memory.

15.50 Dio Roman History 54.28.1–29.8, 31.1–4: Agrippa’s legacy

Clearly, despite the length of time during which Agrippa had supported Augustus’ position,
his naval victories, his three consulships and his beautification of Rome, he was still not
accepted by the nobility (29.6). With Marcellus and Agrippa both dead, Julia now had
to marry Augustus’ stepson Tiberius, who was the logical replacement for Agrippa until
Julia’s children came of age.

28.1 Meanwhile, when Agrippa returned from Syria, Augustus increased his
authority by giving him the tribunician power again for another five years and sent

712
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
him to Pannonia, which was on the point of war, granting him greater authority
than that possessed ordinarily by governors outside of Italy. 2 He went off on cam-
paign, although the winter had already begun (this was the year in which Marcus
Valerius and Publius Sulpicius were consuls, 12 BC), but when the Pannonians
were frightened at his approach and abandoned their rebellion, he returned, falling
ill when in Campania. 3 When Augustus learnt this (he was putting on contests
for armed warriors at the Panathenaia in the name of his sons) he rushed back, and
finding him dead brought his body back to the city and laid it in state in the forum.
He also delivered the eulogy for him, after hanging up a curtain in front of the
corpse. 4 I have no idea why he did this, but some have said it was because he was
pontifex maximus, others because he was carrying out the duties of censor . . . 5
Augustus not only did this but had the funeral procession carried out in the same
way in which his own was later conducted, and buried him in his own mausoleum,
although Agrippa had taken one for himself in the Campus Martius.
29.1 This was how Agrippa died. He had in every respect clearly shown himself
to be the best of the men of his time, and had made use of Augustus’ friendship to
the greatest advantage of both Augustus himself and the state. 2 For the more he
surpassed others in excellence, the more he deliberately kept himself in a lesser
position to that of Augustus, and, while he dedicated all his wisdom and valour to
the best interests of Augustus, he handed over all the honour and power he received
from him to benefit others. 3 It was for this reason in particular that he never became
objectionable to Augustus himself or hated by the rest of the citizens, but rather
established the monarchy for him as if he was genuinely committed to autocracy,
while he won the support of the people through his philanthropy, as if he were the
greatest advocate for popular government. 4 At any rate he left them gardens and
the baths named for him so they could bathe for free, and to this end gave Augustus
certain properties. Augustus not only made these over to the people, but distributed
400 sesterces each to the people, on the grounds that Agrippa had instructed this.
5 Augustus actually inherited most of his property, among others the Chersonese
on the Hellespont, which had, I’m not sure how, come into Agrippa’s possession.
Augustus felt his loss for a considerable time and consequently made sure he was
honoured by the people, and named the son born to him posthumously Agrippa. 6
However, he did not allow the others to omit any of the traditional observances,
although none of the leading men wanted to attend the festivals, and he himself
oversaw the gladiatorial contests, although they were often held in his absence. 7
This misfortune not only affected Agrippa’s own household but had so great an
impact on all the Romans that as many omens as customarily occur prior to the
greatest disasters were observed on this occasion. Owls kept flying around the city,
and a thunderbolt struck the house on the Alban Mount where the consuls stay dur-
ing the sacred rites (the Feriae Latinae). 8 The star called the comet hovered for
many days over the city and dispersed in flashes of flame. Numerous city buildings
were destroyed by fire, including the hut of Romulus, which was set alight when
crows dropped on it burning meat from some altar. . . .
31.1 Now that Agrippa was dead, whom he had loved because of his excel-
lence, not because of their family relationship, Augustus needed a colleague to

713
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
assist with public affairs, one who would far surpass the rest in rank and power,
so that he could handle business promptly and without being the object of jealousy
or intrigue. Reluctantly, he chose Tiberius, for his grandsons were still children
at this time. 2 He made him divorce his wife, although she was the daughter of
Agrippa by another wife, and was raising one child while pregnant with another,
betrothed Julia to him, and dispatched him against the Pannonians. Out of fear for
Agrippa, they had been quiet for some time, but after his death they revolted. 3
Tiberius conquered them, after ravaging a large part of their country and causing
much distress to the people, making intensive use of his allies the Scordisci, who
shared the same border and carried similar weaponry. He took away their weap-
ons and had most of the men of military age sold into slavery and deported. 4 As
a result the senate voted him a triumph; however, Augustus did not allow him to
celebrate one but granted him triumphal honours instead.

15.51 Pliny the Elder Natural History 3.16–17: Agrippa’s map

Agrippa’s Geography influenced the works of Strabo and Pliny the Elder. He was also
the author of a map (the first ever made of the known world), copies of which were later
circulated to all major cities of the empire, though no copy survives today. The map was
completed after his death and displayed in the Portico Vipsania, erected by his sister Polla
(Dio 55.8.4). A Roman mile was 1,000 paces, each being 5 feet (equalling 1,618 yards).

16 Marcus Agrippa has also stated that the length (of Hispania Baetica) is 475
miles and its breadth 257, but this was when its boundaries extended to (New)
Carthage, a fact that has often caused serious errors in calculations, which are
usually the result of changes made in the boundaries of provinces or because, in
the calculation of distances, the miles have been increased or diminished . . . . 17
Today, the length of Baetica, from the town of Castulo on its border, to Gades
is 250 miles, and from Murci, on the coast, 25 miles more. The breadth meas-
ured from the coast of Carteia is 234 miles. When you consider the diligence of
Agrippa and the care which he employed in this project, when he was about to
display a map of the world to be gazed upon by that world, who could believe
that he could make such a mistake, and the deified Augustus as well? For it was
Augustus who completed the work when the portico containing the map had been
begun by Agrippa’s sister in accordance with Marcus Agrippa’s plan and notes.

15.52 Frontinus On Aqueducts 2.98–106: Rome’s water, 11 BC

After the death of Agrippa, the senate was given the responsibility for the water system.
Augustus nominated the curator, but the senate defined the powers and duties. The number
of fountains is actually given by Pliny (doc. 15.40).

98 First Marcus Agrippa, after his aedileship (33 BC), which he held after being
consul, was a kind of perpetual curator of the works and services he had put into
place. Now that the supply permitted it, he decided how much water should be allo-
cated to the public structures, how much to the collection basins, and how much to

714
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
private citizens. He possessed his own ‘household’ of slaves to maintain the aque-
ducts, reservoirs and basins. Augustus inherited this gang and gave it to the state.
99 After him, in the consulship of Quintus Aelius Tubero and Paulus Fabius
Maximus (11 BC), decrees of the senate were passed and a law promulgated on
the subject, which until that time had been managed by officials and lacked defi-
nite regulations. Augustus also laid down in an edict the rights possessed by those
who were drawing water according to Agrippa’s records, in this way making the
whole matter subject to his own grants. The discharge pipes, which I spoke of
above, were established by him, and he named Messalla Corvinus curator for
the maintenance and operation of the system, giving him as assistants Postumius
Sulpicius, an ex-praetor, and Lucius Cominius, a junior member of the senate.
They were allowed to wear the insignia as if magistrates, and a resolution of the
senate was passed concerning their duties, which is as follows:
100 Whereas Quintus Aelius Tubero and Paulus Fabius Maximus, consuls,
reported concerning the appointment of the curators of the public water supply
nominated by Caesar Augustus with the approval of the senate, and inquired of the
senate what action it wished to approve in the said matter, the senators proposed
as follows with regard to the said matter:
It is the pleasure of this body that those who are in charge of the public water
supply, when they are outside the city engaged in their duties, are each to have
two lictors, three public slaves and one architect, and the same number of clerks,
copyists, aides and criers as those possessed by those in charge of the distribu-
tion of grain to the plebs. When they are in the city, engaged in some aspect of
their position, they shall have the use of all these attendants, apart from the lic-
tors. Furthermore the curators of the water supply are to report to the treasury,
within the ten days following this decree of the senate, (the names of) the attend-
ants approved for their use by this decree of the senate; to those reported in this
way, the praetors of the treasury are to grant and assign the salary and yearly
rations, which the prefects for the distribution of grain are accustomed to allocate;
and they are permitted to expend these funds for that purpose without prejudice.
Furthermore they shall provide to the curators tablets, paper and all other materi-
als necessary for their duties and Quintus Aelius and Paulus Fabius, the consuls,
either one or both, if it seems preferable to them, in consultation with the praetors
of the treasury, shall place contracts (for these) . . . .
104 Whereas Quintus Aelius Tubero and Paulus Fabius Maximus, consuls,
reported concerning the number of public fountains within the city and its sub-
urbs, established by Marcus Agrippa, and inquired of the senate as to what action
it wished to approve, the senators proposed as follows:
It is our pleasure that the number of public fountains should neither be increased
nor decreased, from the number [of 500] currently in existence according to the
report of those commissioned by the senate to inspect the public water supply and
to determine the number of public fountains. Likewise it is our pleasure that the
curators of the water supply, whom Caesar Augustus nominated with the approval
of the senate, shall provide that the public fountains shall by day and night as
unremittingly as possible provide water for the use of the public . . .

715
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
106 Whereas Quintus Aelius Tubero and Paulus Fabius Maximus, consuls,
reported that certain private individuals were drawing water from the public
mains, and inquired of the senate as to what action it wished to approve in the said
matter, the senators proposed as follows:
That no private person shall be permitted to draw water from the public mains,
and furthermore all those to whom the right of drawing water had been given should
draw it from reservoirs; and the curators of the water supply should decide at what
places within the city private persons might be able appropriately to make reser-
voirs from which they can draw water, which they all receive in common from a
public reservoir with the agreement of the curators of the water supply. And no one
of those granted the right to use public water, within 50 feet of the reservoir from
which they draw water, shall have the right to lay a pipe wider than a quinaria.

AUGUSTUS AND IMPERIAL CULT

While Augustus refused divine honours at Rome in his lifetime, Roma (the goddess of
Rome) and Roman commanders since Flamininus had been objects of cult in the East (doc
5.26), where ruler worship was normal. Following Actium, cults to Roma and Augustus
jointly were set up at Pergamum and Nicomedia, and members of the imperial family other
than Augustus quickly had cults set up in their honour. Roman citizens were not permitted
to worship the living emperor but could pay honours to the goddess Roma and the divus
Julius and the numen or genius of Augustus.

15.53 IG II2 3173: A temple at Athens

A temple on the Athenian acropolis was erected to Roma and Augustus. Areios was archon
in one of the years between 27/6 and 18/17 BC.

The people (dedicated this temple) to the goddess Roma and Augustus Caesar,
when the hoplite general was Pammenes, son of Zenon of Marathon, priest of the
goddess Roma and Augustus the Saviour on the acropolis, when the priestess of
Athena Polias was Megiste, daughter of Asklepiades of Halieus. In the archonship
of Areios, son of Dorion of Paianieus.

15.54 OGIS 2.458: Imperial cult and the provincial calendar, 9 BC

Paulus Fabius Maximus (cos. 11 BC), proconsul of Asia, addressed this letter to the
assembly of Asia, suggesting that Augustus’ birthday be a public holiday and the beginning
of the New Year in the province’s cities. Most cities in the province of Asia were currently
using the Macedonian calendar, which started close to Augustus’ birthday, which made
this a feasible proposition. The temple in which the stele is erected is that of Roma and
Augustus in Pergamum.

I . . . from those we formerly received . . . goodwill of the gods and . . . whether

the birthday of the most divine Caesar is of greater pleasure or benefit, 5 which
we should consider rightly to be the beginning of all things, and he has restored, if
not to its natural state, at least to a workable condition, all forms that had become

716
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
imperfect and fallen into misfortune, and he has given another aspect to the whole
world, which would have happily accepted its destruction if Caesar had not been
born for the general good fortune of every person. Accordingly, anyone would
justly suppose that his birth 10 was the beginning of life and existence for every
person, as well as the end and termination of regret that one had been born. And
since from no other day could any person receive more auspicious beginnings,
either for the public or for private benefit, than from this one, which has been
auspicious for everyone, and since it is the case that nearly all the cities of Asia
employ the same date for entering upon office, 15 it is clear that this arrangement
was preordained by the will of some god so that its beginning should contribute to
the honour of Augustus; and since it is difficult to give adequate thanks for all his
numerous benefactions, unless we were to create a new way of reciprocating each
and every one, people should celebrate his birthday more joyfully as a holiday
shared by everyone, 20 as if some specific source of happiness had accrued for
them from his government.
I therefore lay down that, for all citizens, the birthday of the most divine Caesar
should serve as the one and only New Year’s Day, and that everyone should enter
into office on that day, which is the ninth day before the Kalends of October (23
September), so that it may be more highly honoured by receiving a great reli-
gious significance from outside itself, 25 and that it may become more widely
recognised by everyone, which I think will provide the greatest benefit to the
province. There will be a need for a decree from the association (koinon) of Asia
to be proposed comprising all his virtues so that our consideration for the honour
of Augustus may remain in perpetuity. I shall give orders that the decree shall be
engraved on the stele in the temple, with the requirement that 30 the edict be writ-
ten in both languages.

II It has been decreed by the Greeks of Asia, on the motion of the high priest
Apollonios, son of Menophilos, the Aizanian: since Providence, which has
divinely ordered our lives, has employed zeal and ambition and arranged the most
perfect consummation of life by producing Augustus, whom for the benefit of
mankind she has filled 35 with excellence, as if granting us and our descendants a
saviour who has ended war and brought about peace; and since at his appearance
Caesar exceeded the hopes of all those who received good news previously, not
only surpassing all those who had earlier been benefactors but not even leaving
any hope of surpassing him for those to come in the future; 40 and since the birth-
day of the god was the beginning of the good news to come through him for the
world, and since Asia decreed in Smyrna, when Lucius Volcacius Tullus was pro-
consul (cos. 33) and the secretary was Papion from Dios Hieron, that the person
who formulated the highest honours for the god should have a crown, and Paulus
Fabius Maximus the proconsul, benefactor of the province, 45 who has been sent
from his right hand and mind along with the others through whom he has given
benefits to the province, of which benefits no speech could compass the mag-
nitude, has found for the honour of Augustus something as yet unknown to the
Greeks, that from his birthday should begin the time for life. Accordingly by good

717
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
fortune and for our salvation, 50 it has been decreed by the Greeks in Asia that the
New Year shall begin for all cities on the ninth day before the Kalends of October
(23 September), which is the birthday of Augustus. So that the day shall always
correspond in each city, the Greek day shall be used as well as the Roman. The
first month shall be ‘Caesar’, as previously decreed, beginning 55 with the ninth
day before the Kalends of October, the birthday of Caesar, and the crown decreed
for the person who devised the highest honours for Caesar shall be awarded to
Maximus the proconsul, who will be publicly proclaimed on each occasion at the
gymnastic festival at Pergamum in honour of Roma and Augustus, as follows:
‘that Asia crowns Paulus Fabius Maximus for devising 60 most piously the hon-
ours for Caesar’. Likewise there shall be a proclamation at the festivals held for
Caesar in each city. The rescript of the proconsul and the decree of Asia shall be
inscribed on a white marble stele, which will be set up in the precinct of Roma
and Augustus. And the ‘advocates’ of this year shall ensure that, 65 in the cities
at the head of administrative districts, the rescript of the proconsul and the decree
of Asia shall be inscribed on white marble steles, and that these steles are set up
in the temples of Caesar.
The months shall be reckoned as follows: Caesar, 31 days; Apellaios, 30 days;
Audnaios, 31 days; Peritios, 31 days; Dystros, 28; Xandikos, 31; 70 Artemision,
30 days; Daisios, 31; Panemos, 30; Loos, 31; Gorpiaios, 31; Hyperberetaios, 30;
total of days, 365. For this year, because of the intercalated day, Xandikos shall
be reckoned at 32 days. In order that from now there will be a correspondence of
months and days, the current month of Peritios shall be reckoned up to the 14th,
and on the ninth day before the Kalends of February (24 January) we shall reckon
the first day of the month of 75 Dystros, and for each month the beginning of the
new month shall be the ninth day before the Kalends. The intercalated day shall
always be that of the intercalated Kalends of the month of Xandikos, at two-year
intervals.

15.55 ILS 8781: Oath of loyalty to Augustus and his family

A stele from Gangra in Paphlagonia, dated to 6 March 3 BC; Paphlagonia had been attached
to the province of Galatia in 6/5 BC. Similar oaths in the East are attested for Assos, Samos
and Palaipaphos on Cyprus.

Of Imperator Caesar, son of the god, Augustus in his twelfth consulship, third year
(of the province), on the day before the Nones of March, in Gangra in the agora,
5 the oath completed by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the Romans who are
in business among them.
I swear by Zeus, Earth, Sun, all the gods and goddesses, and Augustus himself,
that I will bear goodwill towards 10 Caesar Augustus and his children and descend-
ants through my whole life in word and deed and thought, regarding as friends those
whom they regard as friends and considering as enemies those whom they judge as
enemies, and that with regard to their interests 15 I will spare neither my body nor
my soul nor my life nor my children, but that in every way with regard to whatever

718
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
affects them I will undergo all dangers; and whatever I might perceive or hear 20
being said or plotted or done against them I shall report it, and be the enemy of who-
ever says or plots or engages in any of these; and those whom they judge to be their
enemies I shall pursue and repel by land and by sea with weapons and 25 sword.
If I do anything contrary to this oath or not in agreement with what I have
sworn, I will call down upon myself and my body and soul and life and 30 upon
my children and all my family and property destruction and total obliteration until
the end of my bloodline and all of my descendants, and may neither land nor 35
sea receive the bodies of my family or my descendants, nor bear fruit for them.
In these same words the oath was sworn by all those in the land, in the (tem-
ples) of Augustus throughout the districts at the altars of Augustus; and likewise
the Phazimonians, residing at what is now called 40 Neapolis, all of them swore
the oath in the temple of Augustus at the altar of Augustus.

15.56 SEG 32.1243: A prytanis at Kyme, 2 BC–AD 2

This eulogistic record of the career of the prytanis (chief magistrate) Kleanax from Kyme
in Asia Minor includes his making sacrifices at the games of the imperial family put on by
the koinon of Asia in honour of Augustus and his grandsons Gaius and Lucius.

The strategoi proposed the motion and three chosen by lot wrote it down:
Asklapon, son of Dionysios, Hegesandros, son of Herakleides, Athenagoras, son
of Dionysos, as well as the secretary of the people Heraios, son of Antipatros.
Since Kleanax, son of Sarapion and natural son of Philodemos, our prytanis
(magistrate), 5 who has well-born ancestors on both sides of his family and unsur-
passable devotion to love of glory towards his country, has throughout his entire
life achieved many great things for his city, surrendering at no time to a neglect
of care for the people, and conducting himself in public life most advantageously
for the city in both word and deed, and consequently, in the present circumstances
of his 10 love of glory suitable for a prytanis, the praise of the people has at pre-
sent born witness on his behalf, while the gratitude of the people has responded
to his actions through earlier decrees, when as priest of Dionysios Pandemos he
performed his duties for the Mysteries founded by the city, paying the expenses
towards the fourth-yearly organisation of the Mysteries, when 15 the proportion
of the expenditure showed his outstanding love of glory and piety, alone and first
taking on the office and having invited by announcement the citizens and Romans
and residents and foreigners to a banquet in the precinct of Dionysos and having
entertained them sumptuously, organising the feast every year, and having given a
banquet for the multitude at the marriage of his daughter; 20 for these reasons, the
people, having the recollection and appreciation of these good deeds, forgot none
of his other activities to which they had become accustomed.
For this reason also the prytanis Kleanax is to be praised and honoured because
he became the father of handsome children, and took thought for his son’s educa-
tion in letters, and presented the people with Sarapion, a man worthy of his family,
a protector and helper and who in many respects 25 has already demonstrated his

719
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
zeal towards the city through his brave deeds, a father-loving man who deserves
this name officially, who also bears witness to his affection towards his father by
public decree in perpetuity; for all these reasons the people acknowledge Kleanax
the prytanis and praises him for constantly preserving 30 his goodwill towards the
people. He has performed all his duties as prytanis, on the one hand at the first
day of the New Year with sacrifices to the gods according to ancestral custom,
and has treated with sweet wine everyone in the city and hosted the spectacles
luxuriously and made the sacrifices for prosperity according to ancestral custom
and entertained in the town hall for several days many of the citizens and Romans,
while on the other hand he has made sacrifices 35 for the departed on the accus-
tomed day according to ancestral custom and distributed porridge to all the free
and slaves in the city, and at the Lark festival was the first and only person to
invite by proclamation the citizens and Romans and residents and foreigners to
dinner in the town hall, and he performed the Throwing ceremony in the same
way as other prytaneis, and made the processions of the Laurel, and to the priests
and 40 triumphant athletes and magistrates and many of the citizens he gave a
banquet; and in the games of the imperial family given by (the koinon) of Asia,
as he announced, he performed the sacrifices and festivities, sacrificing oxen to
Imperator Caesar Augustus and his two sons and the other gods, after which sacri-
fice he also entertained . . . in the agora, by proclamation, Greeks and Romans and
residents and foreigners . . . 45 after performing this public service and completed
the other rites . . . because of this the council and people have decreed to crown
him at the Dionysia at the altar of Zeus after the sacrifice . . . .

15.57 Moretti IAG no. 60: A pentathlete from Kos, c. AD 5

Festivals were widely established in honour of members of the imperial family, including
games in honour of Agrippa held at the Isthmus of Corinth; for the Actian games established
by Augustus, see doc. 15.19. This stele commemorates the victories of a certain young
athlete from Kos. The different festivals in honour of the imperial family clearly extended
the annual athletic circuit for committed participants. ‘Pythian’ boys were between 12 and
14 years, ‘Isthmian’ from 14 to 17, youths from 17 to 20.

. . . victor at the Nemean games in the men’s pentathlon; at the imperial family’s
Great Actian games in the young men’s pentathlon, first of the Koans (to win
this); 5 at the games of Roma and Augustus established by the Koinon of Asia
in Pergamum at the Pythian boys’ pentathlon; at the Great games of Asklepios in
the Isthmian boys’ pentathlon; at the imperial family’s games 10 established for
Julius Caesar in the Isthmian boys’ stadion and pentathlon on the same day; at the
games of Agrippa in the Isthmian (boys’) pentathlon; at the games of Apollo at
Myndos in the Isthmian boys’ 15 stadion; at the Dorian games at Knidos in the
Pythian boys’ pankration; at the imperial family’s games at Halikarnassos in the
Isthmian boys’ pentathlon; at the games of Herakles at Iasos 20 in the Isthmian
boys’ pentathlon; at the games of Dionysos at Teos in the Pythian (boys’) pen-
tathlon; at the imperial family’s games at Sardis in the Isthmian boys’ pentathlon.

720
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
15.58 ILS 112: An altar to Augustus at Narbonne, AD 12–13
Narbo, founded as a Roman colony in 118 BC, was under Augustus the capital of all the
Gallic provinces, not merely of Gallia Narbonensis. This inscription is from a marble altar
dedicated to the numen (divine power) of the emperor, re-engraved in the second century AD.

A In the consulship of Titus Statilius Taurus and Lucius Cassius Longinus (AD
11), on the tenth day before the Kalends of October (22 September), a vow 5 to the
divine spirit of Augustus taken by the people of the Narbonensians in perpetuity:
May it be good, auspicious and fortunate for Imperator Caesar, son of the god,
Augustus, father of the county, pontifex maximus, in the 34th year of his tribuni-
cian power, and for his wife, children and gens, and for the senate 10 and Roman
people, and for the colonists and residents of the colony of Julia Paterna Narbo
Martius who have bound themselves to worship his divine spirit in perpetuity.
The people of the Narbonensians have set up an altar at Narbo in the forum, at
which each year on the ninth day before the Kalends of October (23 September), on
which day 15 the Good Fortune of the age produced him as the ruler of the world,
three Roman equites from the people and three freedmen shall each sacrifice a vic-
tim and shall provide on that day incense and wine 20 at their own expense for the
colonists and residents for supplication of his divine spirit; and on the eighth day
before the Kalends of October (24 September) they shall likewise provide incense
and wine for the colonists and residents; and on the Kalends of January (1 January)
they shall also provide incense and wine for the colonists and residents; and also on
the seventh day before the Ides of January (7 January), on which day he first entered
upon his command (imperium) 25 of the whole world, they shall make supplication
with incense and wine and each sacrifice a victim and on that day provide incense
and wine for the colonists and residents; and on the day before the Kalends of June
(31 May), because on that day in the consulship of Titus Statilius 30 Taurus and
Manius Aemilius Lepidus (AD 11) he reconciled the judgements of the people with
the decurions, they shall each sacrifice a victim and shall provide incense and wine
for the colonists and residents 35 for supplication of his divine spirit. And from
these three Roman equites and three freedmen . . .
B The Narbonese people have dedicated this altar to the divine spirit of
Augustus . . . by the laws which are written below. 5 Divine spirit of Caesar
Augustus, father of the country, when to you on this day I will give and dedicate this
altar, I will give and dedicate it with such laws and regulations which here today I
will openly have declared to be the 10 foundation both of the altar and of its inscrip-
tions; if anyone wishes to clean, decorate or repair it as a public service it shall be
right and lawful; or if anyone makes the sacrifice of a victim, 15 but does not bring
the additional offering, that however will be properly done; if anyone wishes to give
a gift to this altar and enrich it, it shall be permitted and the same law that applies to
the altar shall apply to the gift; 20 other laws for this altar and inscriptions shall be
the same as for the altar of Diana on the Aventine. With these laws and these regula-
tions, just as I have said, this altar on behalf of Imperator 25 Caesar Augustus, father
of the county, pontifex maximus, in the 35th year of his tribunician power (AD 12),

721
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
and on behalf of his wife, children and gens, and to the senate and Roman people,
and to the colonists and residents of the colony of Julia Paterna Narbo Martius, who
have bound themselves to worship his divine spirit in perpetuity, 30 I give and dedi-
cate that you may be willingly propitious (towards us).

LEGISLATION ON SLAVES AND FREEDMEN

Out of a population of some 700,000 in Rome, there may have been 200,000 freedmen and
their families at this period. There was a 5 per cent tax on manumissions, and freedmen
who were set free informally could not make a will or receive legacies, as they were neither
slave nor citizen. However, if they married a citizen woman they could request citizenship
for themselves and their children. Through the lex Junia, probably in 17 BC, Augustus tried
to address this issue. The peculium was the slave’s personal fund which they could use to
buy their freedom and which was transferable with the slave.

15.59 Gaius Institutes 3.55–57: The Junian Latins

By this law, Junian Latins were granted rights similar to those who were members of the
Latin cities (hence the name). Slaves freed informally were now recognised and granted
freedom and certain citizen rights.

3.55 Next we consider the estates of Latin freedmen. 56 So that this part of the law
may become clearer we must remember what we stated elsewhere, that those who
are now called Junian Latins were once slaves by the laws of the Quirites but placed
in a form of freedom by the aid of the praetor, so that their property was accustomed
to pass to their patrons by the right of peculium. More recently, through the Junian
law, all of those whom the praetor had kept in freedom began to be free and were
called Junian Latins: Latins, because the law intended them to be free just like those
freeborn Roman citizens who left Rome and settled in Latin colonies and began to
be Latin colonists; Junian, because they had been made free by the Junian law, even
though they were not Roman citizens. Accordingly the author of the Junian law, as
he realised that in future the property of deceased Latins would cease to pass to their
patrons because they would not die as slaves, in which case their property would
pass to their patrons by right of peculium, while the property of a Latin freedman
would not pass to his patrons by right of manumission, thought it necessary, so that
the benefit given to them should not become a loss to their patrons, to provide that
their estates should pass to their manumitters, as if the law had not been enacted;
accordingly, by the right, as it were, of peculium, the estates of Latins under this law
pass to those who manumitted them. 57 Hence it happens that there is a considerable
difference between the rights which pertain to the estates of Latins under the lex
Junia and those observed with regard to inheritance from citizen Roman freedmen.

15.60 Gaius Institutes 1.42–44, 46: Lex Fufia Caninia, 2 BC

The lex Fufia Caninia restricted the number of slaves from a household that could be
manumitted by will (never more than 100 at a time), though owners were still able to free
as many as they wished in their lifetime.

722
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
1.42 Moreover, by the lex Fufia Caninia a certain limit is laid down with regard
to slaves manumitted by will. 43 For a person who has more slaves than two and
fewer than ten is permitted to manumit up to half that number; one who has more
than ten and fewer than 30 is permitted to manumit up to a third of that number;
authority is given to one who has more than 30 and fewer than 100 to manumit
up to a quarter of that number. Finally one who has more than 100 and up to 500
is not permitted to manumit more than a fifth; and however many someone pos-
sesses he is not permitted to manumit more than this number, for the law lays
down that no one is allowed to manumit more than 100. But if a person has only
one slave or two, the law does not apply and he has unlimited power of manumis-
sion. 44 Nor does this law apply to any except those who manumit in some way
by will. Therefore persons who manumit by the form of vindicta, or by the census
registers, or in the presence of friends, are permitted to free their entire household,
provided that no other cause prevents the grant of freedom. . . . 46 If freedom
should be granted by will to more slaves, with their names in a circle so that no
order of manumission can be discovered, none of them shall be free, because the
lex Fufia Caninia has declared void any actions designed to evade the law.

15.61 Gaius Institutes 1.13, 18–20, 28–30, 36–41: Lex Aelia Sentia
The consuls under whom this legislation was passed in AD 4 were Sextus Aelia Catus and
Gaius Sentius Saturninus. The law laid down minimum age limits both for the owners
before they were able to manumit slaves (20 years) and for the slaves who were to be
manumitted (30 years). There were also provisions for slaves who had been manumitted
informally to become citizens.

13 It is laid down by the lex Aelia Sentia that slaves who have been put in chains
by their masters, or have been branded, or have been examined with torture and
convicted, or have been delivered up to fight with others or wild beasts or sent to
a gladiatorial school or a public prison, if later manumitted by the same or another
owner, shall acquire by manumission the status of enemies who have surrendered
at discretion (peregrini dedicitii).
18 It was introduced by the lex Aelia Sentia that a certain age of the slave
is requisite, for that law lays down that slaves less than 30 years of age can-
not when manumitted become Roman citizens unless manumitted by the form
vindicta, with the reasonable motive for the manumission previously approved
before the council. 19 There is a reasonable motive for manumission if, for
example, someone presents for manumission before the council a natural son or
daughter or brother or sister, or foster child, or pedagogus, or a slave who is to
be a steward, or female slave for the sake of matrimony. 20 The council in the
city of Rome consists of five senators and five equites of the age of puberty, and
in the provinces of 20 magistrates who are Roman citizens and who meet on the
last day of the session. In Rome, however, manumissions take place before the
council on fixed days. Slaves older than 30 years can be manumitted at any time,
and can even be manumitted in the streets when the praetor or proconsul is on
his way to the bath or theatre.

723
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
28 Latins have many ways of acquiring Roman citizenship. 29 For, by the lex
Aelia Sentia, when slaves less than 30 years of age are manumitted and become
Latins, if they marry wives who are either Roman citizens or Latin colonists, or
someone of their own condition, and prove this by the testimony of not fewer than
seven Roman citizens of the age of puberty, and they have a son: when that son
reaches the age of one year, authority is permitted them by that law to go before
the praetor, or in the provinces before the governor, and to prove that they have
married a wife in accordance with the lex Aelia Sentia and have had by her a son
who has reached the age of one year; and if the magistrate before whom the case
is proved pronounces that this is true, then both the Latin and his wife, if she is of
the same condition, and their son are declared to be Roman citizens.
36 Not every owner who wishes is permitted to manumit. 37 An owner who
is manumitting to defraud his creditors or his patron does so in vain, because the
lex Aelia Sentia prevents the granting of freedom. 38 Likewise, by the same law,
an owner who is less than 20 years of age is not permitted to manumit except
by the form vindicta, after a reasonable motive for manumission has been previ-
ously proved before the council. 39 Reasonable motives for manumission are,
for example, if someone is manumitting his father or mother or pedagogus or
foster brother. But those motives, which were specified above with regard to a
slave of less than 30 years, may also be adduced in the case of which we speak.
And, likewise, those motives which we stated in the case of an owner less than
20 years of age may be brought forward in the case of a slave under 30 years. 40
As, therefore, a certain restriction on the manumission of slaves is laid down for
owners under the age of 20 years by the lex Aelia Sentia, it follows that, though
anyone who has completed his 14th year is permitted to make a will and in that
to nominate an heir and leave bequests, if, however, he is less than 20 years of
age, he is not able to grant liberty to a slave. 41 And even though an owner under
the age of 20 years may wish to make a slave a Latin, he must, however, prove
his motive for doing so before the council and afterwards manumit him in the
presence of friends.

15.62 Legislation on the torture of slaves in cases of adultery

Following the lex Julia (18 BC) adultery was a public crime, with serious penalties in place
for both parties (doc. 15.25). As a result in such cases slaves could be tortured for their
testimony, and Augustus ensured that such slaves could be sold either to him or the state so
that they would be able to give evidence against their owner.

(i) Justinian Digest 48.1.6 (Papinian On Adultery)

When a father or a husband brings an accusation of adultery and they demand that
torture be used on the slaves of the accused party, if an acquittal should result after
the case has been argued and the witnesses produced, an estimate must be made
of the value of the slaves who have died; but in the case of a conviction the slaves
that have survived shall be confiscated.

724
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
(ii) Justinian Digest 48.1.8 (Paulus On Adultery)

Edict of the Divine Augustus, which he proposed in the consulship of Vibius

Habitus and Lucius Apronius (AD 8), is as follows: ‘I do not think that inquiry by
torture should be used in every case and on every person; but, when capital and
atrocious crimes cannot be detected and investigated except through the torture of
slaves, I consider this to be the most effective way of determining the truth and I
hold that it should be employed.’

(iii) Dio Roman History 55.5.3–4

3 In the case of candidates for magistracies he demanded a sum of money from

them in advance of the elections as a surety, which they would forfeit if they did
anything illegal. 4 Everyone approved of this measure. But it was not so with
another of his laws: as it was not possible for a slave to be tortured to give evi-
dence against his owner, he commanded that, however often the need for this
might arise, the slave should be sold either to the state or to himself, so that he
might be examined as someone unconnected with the defendant. Some people
criticised this on the grounds that the change of masters would invalidate the law,
but others stated it to be essential, as many were using this to conspire both against
Augustus and against the magistrates.

FAMILY LIFE
Augustus had no qualms about insisting that members of his family divorce and remarry
according to his political agenda. He had been married to Clodia Pulchra (the daughter
of Mark Antony and Fulvia) and Scribonia (Sextus Pompeius’ closest female relative:
Scribonia’s brother was Pompeius’ father-in-law) before his own marriage to Livia took
place when she was six months’ pregnant by her first husband. His daughter Julia was
married to her cousin Marcellus, then to Augustus’ friend and compeer Agrippa, and finally
to Livia’s son Tiberius, a relationship which was not altogether happy. The passage below,
like Julia’s conduct in her third marriage, suggests the problems which such dynastic
divorces and marriages could cause.

15.63 Suetonius Life of Tiberius 7.2–3: Tiberius and Julia

Following the deaths of Marcellus and then Agrippa, Augustus turned in 12 BC to his
stepson Tiberius to support his regime, although he considered Julia’s sons, his adopted
children, as his own successors. This involved a further marriage for Julia, this time with
Tiberius, who had to divorce his existing wife, Vipsania Agrippina, by whom he already
had a son, Drusus.

Tiberius married (Vipsania) Agrippina, daughter of Marcus Agrippa and grand-

daughter of Caecilius Atticus, a Roman knight, to whom Cicero wrote his letters.
After he had acknowledged a son by her, Drusus, and despite the fact that the mar-
riage was harmonious and she was again pregnant, he was compelled to divorce

725
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
her and quickly marry Julia, Augustus’ daughter – not without great mental dis-
tress, for he was living happily with Agrippina and disapproved of Julia’s con-
duct, as he realised that she had a passion for him, even in her former husband’s
lifetime, as was certainly the general belief. 3 But even after the divorce he was
unhappy at the separation, and on the only time that he happened to see Agrippina
he followed her with such eager and tearful eyes that care was taken that she
would never come into his sight again.

15.64 Macrobius Saturnalia 2.5.2–6, 8: ‘Caesar’s daughter’

Julia, Augustus’ only child, had married her cousin Marcellus in 25 BC, when she was 14
years of age. After his death, in 21 BC she married Agrippa, who was nearly 25 years her
senior, who died in 12 BC. By him she had five children: Gaius, Julia the Younger, Lucius,
Agrippina and Agrippa Postumus. Augustus had adopted Gaius and Lucius as his sons and
heirs in 17 BC. Julia was exiled for adultery and treachery in 2 BC: her mother, Scribonia,
whom Augustus had divorced the day Julia was born, went into exile on the island of
Pandateria with her. For Claudia, see docs 3.61, 7.30.

2 Julia was 38 years of age and was at that period of life which, if she had been
sensible, she would have realised to be verging on old age, but she misused both
the indulgence of her father and her own good fortune. She had a love of letters
and considerable learning, an easy thing to come by in her home, and moreover
had a gentle humanity and a warm-hearted nature, which won her high regard,
though those who knew of her faults marvelled at such a great discrepancy in
her character. 3 On many occasions her father had urged her, in words pitched
between indulgence and gravity, to moderate her extravagant style of dress and
the notoriety of her entourage. At the same time he noted the similarity of his
crowd of grandchildren to Agrippa, and blushed that he should have doubts about
his daughter’s chastity. 4 And so Augustus flattered himself that his daughter’s
high spirits were harmless, even if they gave the impression of shamelessness,
and dared to believe her to be a modern Claudia. Accordingly, among his friends
he used to say that he had two spoilt daughters whom he had to put up with – the
state and Julia!
5 On one occasion she came into her father’s presence with a rather immodest
dress which offended her father’s eyes, though he said nothing. On the following
day, she changed the style of her dress and embraced her delighted father with
assumed gravity. Although he had repressed his disapproval on the day before, he
was unable to contain his pleasure, making the remark, ‘How much more appro-
priate this dress is for Augustus’ daughter!’ But Julia did not hesitate to come to
her own defence with the words, ‘Today I dressed myself for my father’s eyes,
yesterday for my husband’s!’ 6 Here is another well-known saying: at a gladiato-
rial spectacle, the dissimilarity between the attendants of Livia and of Julia caught
the people’s eye, with serious men surrounding Livia and a crowd of young and
extremely elegant men seated round Julia. Her father sent to her in writing, that
she should look at how marked a distinction there was between the two princi-
pal ladies of Rome. She neatly wrote back, ‘These will be old when I am.’ . . . 8

726
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Moreover, when Julia heard one of her serious-minded friends trying to persuade
her that it would be better for her to conform to the pattern of her father’s austere
ways, she responded, ‘He forgets that he is Caesar, but I remember that I am
Caesar’s daughter!’

15.65 Suetonius Life of the Deified Augustus 71.1–4, 75–76.2: Fun and
games at dinner
December was the month associated particularly with gambling because of the games
played at the Saturnalia; the Quinquatria was a five-day festival in honour of Minerva,
20–25 March. Criticism of Augustus focused on his love of gambling: doc. 14.49.

71.1 He did not concern himself with the gossip about his love of dice and played
simply and openly for fun even as an old man, not only in the month of December
but on other holidays and even on working days. 2 There is no doubt about this
as, in a letter in his own handwriting, he says, ‘I had dinner, my dear Tiberius,
with the same people; we were joined by Vinicius and the older Silius as guests.
We played like old men do during the dinner, both yesterday and today; for when
the dice were thrown, whoever threw the “dog” (two aces) or a six put a denarius
in the pool for each of the dice, and the person who threw Venus (different num-
bers) took the lot.’ 3 And again, in another letter, ‘My dear Tiberius, we spent the
Quinquatria very pleasantly, for we played all day long and kept the gaming table
red-hot. Your brother (Drusus) made a terrible row about his luck, but in the end
did not lose much, for after heavy losses he unexpectedly clawed his way back
little by little. I lost 20,000 sesterces for my part, but that’s because, as usual, I
was lavishly sportsmanlike in my play. If I had demanded that everyone paid me
the stakes they owed, or not handed over all that I gave away, I would have won at
least 50,000. But I’m happier that way – for my munificence will earn me immor-
tal glory!’ 4 To his daughter he writes, ‘I’ve sent you 250 denarii, the amount I
gave each of my guests, in case they wanted to play during dinner at dice or odds
and evens.’
75 Festivals and holidays he usually celebrated lavishly, but sometimes only
light-heartedly. At the Saturnalia, and at other times when he felt like it, he would
sometimes give as gifts clothes or gold and silver, at others coins of every sort,
even old ones from the time of the kings or from foreign parts, and sometimes
nothing but goat’s-hair cloth, sponges, pokers and tongs and similar items under
misleading and mysterious names. At dinner he used to auction off tickets for
items of very different values and paintings with their backs turned, thus by the
whim of fate either frustrating or fulfilling the hopes of the purchasers, with all
the guests having to take part in the bidding and share in the loss or profit. 76.1 As
for food – for I would not even leave that out – he was a light eater and generally
of plain food. He liked best coarse bread, little fishes, and moist cheese pressed by
hand and twice-bearing green figs, and would eat even before dinner at any time
or place that he felt hungry. These are his comments in some of his letters . . . : 2
‘While coming home from the Regia I devoured an ounce of bread and some firm-
skinned eating grapes.’ And again, ‘No Jew, my dear Tiberius, keeps his fast so

727
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
diligently on the Sabbaths as I have today, as it was only in the bath after the first
hour of the night that I ate two mouthfuls before I began to be anointed.’

15.66 Macrobius Saturnalia 2.4.10–11, 13–14, 31: The last laugh

As he does for Julia, Macrobius records some well-known witticisms of Augustus to
demonstrate his quick-wittedness in debate, though he emphasises that Augustus’ humour
was always decent and that he never resorted to buffoonery. Both father and daughter had
a sharp wit. 11: the joke was made in Greek with the play on words ‘hus’ (pig) and ‘hyios’
(son); from his experiences in the East, Augustus was obviously aware of Jewish dietary
requirements (cf. doc. 15.65).

10 A certain Vettius had ploughed up a memorial to his father, at which Augustus

remarked, ‘That is certainly a good way of cultivating your father’s memory.’ 11
When he heard that Herod, king of the Jews, had ordered boys in Syria under the age
of two to be put to death and that the king’s son was among them, he said, ‘Better to
be Herod’s pig than Herod’s son.’ 13 He seldom refused an invitation, and when he
was once entertained to a very poor and so to say ‘day-to-day’ dinner, he whispered
to his host as he was saying farewell after this miserable and ill-provisioned meal, ‘I
didn’t think I was so intimate a friend of yours.’ 14 When he had occasion to complain
that some cloth of Tyrian purple which he had ordered was too dark, the vendor told
him to hold it up higher to look at it. This inspired the witty comeback, ‘Do I have to
walk on my roof garden so that the Roman people can say that I am well-dressed?’ 31
As he was going down from (his house on) the Palatine, a poor Greek frequently tried
to offer him an honorific epigram with no success, so when Augustus saw him about
to attempt it again he wrote a short epigram in Greek on paper with his own hand and
sent it to the Greek as he came up to him. The Greek read it and praised it, showing
his appreciation in both words and facial expression, and then, coming up to the impe-
rial litter, he put his hand in a shabby purse and drew out a few denarii to give to the
princeps, with the words (in Greek), ‘I swear by your good fortune, Augustus, if I had
more I would give you more.’ Everyone around laughed, and Augustus summoned his
steward and ordered him to pay the Greek 100,000 sesterces.

15.67 Dio Roman History 55.10.12–16: Julia’s misbehaviour, 2 BC

Despite the ill-sorted match between Julia and Tiberius, there is the possibility that the
episode covered up more than just adultery (which was a convenient excuse), and Julia’s
‘lovers’, who were exiled, had political motivations. It may have been the case that there
was a plot to replace Tiberius with Iullus Antonius (son of Mark Antony and husband
of Augustus’ niece Marcella: see doc. 15.42), who committed suicide. Scribonia was
Augustus’ second wife; she was older than he was and reported to be a shrew (he had
divorced her on the day Julia was born). A few years earlier (8 BC), Julia had figured on
Augustus’ coinage as Diana, so the scandal was something of an embarrassment.

12 When Augustus finally discovered that his daughter Julia was so dissolute
that she partied and revelled at night even in the forum and on the rostra itself, he

728
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
was furious. 13 Even before this he had gathered that her lifestyle was not blame-
less, but however he had not believed it – for those in positions of power know
everyone else’s affairs better than their own and, while their own actions do not
escape the notice of their intimate friends, they have no accurate knowledge of
what these friends are doing. 14 So when at this point Augustus learnt what was
going on, he was so enraged that he was unable to keep this to himself privately
but actually published it to the senate. Consequently Julia was banished to the
island of Pandateria off the coast of Campania, and her mother, Scribonia, vol-
unteered to accompany her. 15 Of the men who had associated with her, Iullus
Antonius (along with other distinguished men) was executed on the grounds that
in so behaving he had designs on the monarchy, while the rest were banished to
islands. Since one of them was a tribune he was not put on trial until he had com-
pleted his term of office. 16 As a result of this, many other women were accused
on similar charges, but he would not accept all the law-suits, and instead laid
down a specific date so that actions prior to that could not be looked into. Though
he showed no moderation in his daughter’s case, he showed leniency to the others,
remarking that he wished he’d been Phoebe’s father, not hers – Phoebe had been
a freedwoman of Julia’s and her accomplice and had voluntarily killed herself
before she could be punished, hence Augustus’ praise of her.

15.68 Pliny the Elder Natural History 7.75: Dwarfish rivalry

Dwarfs and other physically challenged persons were considered amusing not only within
the household; they were also featured at entertainments: Suet. Aug. 43.3 mentions a dwarf
only 2 feet high, weighing 17 pounds, whom Augustus exhibited at the games. He also put
on show a rhinoceros, a tiger and a snake 50 cubits long. For the ‘little naked prattlers’ that
matrons such as Livia had in their entourage, see doc. 14.39.

When the same man (Augustus) was ruling, the smallest person was 2 feet and
a hand high, called Conopas, the pet of his granddaughter Julia, and the smallest
female was Andromeda, a freedwoman of Julia Augusta (Livia).

15.69 Tacitus Annals 5.1.1–4: Livia and Augustus

Livia died on 28 September AD 29. She had been married to Augustus for more than
50 years. She was the daughter of M. Livius Drusus Claudianus (praetor 50 BC), who
committed suicide at the battle of Philippi, and wife of Tiberius Claudius Nero, her cousin,
who supported the liberators, Fulvia and Lucius Antonius, and then Sextus Pompeius.
She divorced Tiberius in order to marry Octavian in 39, when six months’ pregnant (doc.
14.39). She was mother of Tiberius, Augustus’ successor, and through her second son,
Drusus, grandmother of Claudius (who deified her in AD 42), great-grandmother of Gaius
(Caligula) and great-great-grandmother of Nero.

1.1 In the consulship of Rubellius and Fufius, whose cognomens were both
Geminus, Julia Augusta (Livia) died in extreme old age. She was of the highest
nobility through her own Claudian family and through her adoption into the Livii

729
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
and Julii. Her first marriage, by which she had children, was to Tiberius Nero,
who went into exile during the Perusian war but returned to the city when peace
was made between Sextus Pompeius and the triumvirs. 2 Caesar, captivated by
her beauty, took her from her husband (it is unclear whether this was against her
wishes) in such haste that he took her to his house even though she was pregnant,
not allowing time for the birth. She had no other children, but, connected as she
was to Augustus’ bloodline through the marriage of Agrippina and Germanicus,
they had great-grandchildren in common. 3 In the decency of her home she fol-
lowed traditional values, though her graciousness exceeded that of women of ear-
lier times, and she was a domineering mother, a compliant wife, and quite equal to
coping with the cleverness of her husband and the dissimulation of her son. 4 Her
funeral was simple and the execution of her will long delayed.

15.70 Dio Roman History 58.2.4–5: The decent thing to do

Mark Antony’s propaganda against Augustus included a list of the women with whom
he was having affairs, including Terentilla, the wife of Maecenas (doc. 14.49). As part of
Augustus’ return to traditional values, the imperial couple lived modestly. Livia made his
clothes and avoided ostentatious dress or jewellery, though she had her own circle of clients
and was an ambitious mother (docs 14.54, 15.117). Compare the behaviour of Aemilia, the
discreet wife of Scipio Africanus (doc. 7.29).

4 Other reported sayings of Livia are as follows: once when some naked men met
her and were about to be put to death as a result, she saved their lives by saying
that, 5 to decent women, such men are no different from statues. When someone
asked her how and by what actions she had gained her influence over Augustus,
she replied that it was by being totally chaste herself and happily complying with
whatever pleased him, by not interfering in any of his affairs, and by neither hear-
ing nor seeing the objects of his passion.

15.71 Suetonius Life of Claudius 4.1–6: A problem grandchild

Augustus is writing to Livia about Claudius (the future emperor), Livia’s grandson, the son
of Drusus and Antonia Minor, who was born in 10 BC. He was the younger brother of the
talented general Germanicus, and since he had a slight deafness and limped he was excluded
from public life and spent much time with his grandmother Livia. This letter contains an
extensive number of Greek terms, here rendered in italics. The ludi Martiales were connected
with the dedication of the temple of Mars Ultor in 2 BC and held on 12 May.

4.1 ‘I have talked with Tiberius, as you told me, my dear Livia, about what is to be
done about your grandson Tiberius (Claudius) at the ludi Martiales. Both of us were
in agreement that we must decide once and for all what strategy we should follow
with regard to him. For if he is, so to speak, totally normal, for what reason should
we hesitate to bring him forward by the same stages as we did with his brother? 2
But if we feel that he is deficient and damaged both in physique and in soundness of
mind we should not give those persons accustomed to mock and sneer at such things
the opportunity of making fun of both him and us. We will always be vacillating if

730
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
we have to debate on each separate occasion without having first agreed in principle
whether we think he is able to hold down magistracies or not. 3 For the moment,
however, regarding the matter on which you’re asking my advice, I do not mind his
presiding at the triclinium of the priests at the ludi Martiales, as long as he allows
himself to be advised by Silanus’ son, his relative, so that he doesn’t behave in such
a way as to cause himself to be stared or laughed at. But I don’t think he should
watch the games from the imperial box, as he will be exposed to view in the very
front of the theatre. I don’t think he ought to go to the Alban Mount or be in Rome
during the Latin festival (Feriae Latinae). For if he is up to following his brother to
the Mount, why should he not be made prefect of the city? 4 These, my dear Livia,
are my thoughts on the matter. In my view we ought to settle the question once and
for all, so as not to be always wavering between hope and fear. If you wish, you may
give this part of my letter to our dear Antonia to read.’ And in another letter: ‘While
you are away, I will invite young Tiberius (Claudius) to dinner every day, so that he
does not dine alone with Sulpicius and Athenodorus. I do wish he would pick out for
himself more carefully and less casually someone whose manners and appearance
and way of walking he might copy. The poor lad is unhappy, as the nobility of his
mind is quite apparent in his serious studies when his mind is not wandering. And
in a third letter, ‘May I perish!, my dear Livia, if I’m not amazed at how much the
declaiming of your grandson Tiberius delighted me. For I can’t see how he, who
talks so badly, should be able to declaim so clearly what is to be spoken.’

15.72 Reynolds Aphrodisias no. 13: Livia and freedom for Samos
Other inscriptions on Samos honour Livia’s family, and the temple of Hera on the island
contained statues of her. This inscription cannot be precisely dated, but it makes clear that
Livia could act as patron of a community and present its case to the emperor; Augustus here
publicly apologises for being unable to accede to her request.

Imperator Caesar, son of the god Julius, Augustus wrote to the Samians under-
neath their petition: you yourselves can see that I have given the privilege of free-
dom to no people except that of the Aphrodisians, who supported me in the war
and were taken prisoner because of their goodwill towards us. For it is not right
to grant the greatest privilege of all without reason and cause. I have goodwill
towards you and would be willing to do a service for my wife who is enthusiastic
on your behalf, but not so far as to contravene my custom. For it is not the money
I care about which you pay into our taxes, but I am not willing to have the most
valued privileges given to anyone without cause.

15.73 Marcellus Burdigalensis De medicamentis 15.6: Recipe for a sore

throat
Hostile historians, such as Suetonius and Tacitus, suggested that many of the deaths leading
to the succession of her son Tiberius were the results of deliberate poisoning by Livia. Her
recorded interest in compounding medicaments may have encouraged this rumour. The one
reported here by Marcellus of Bordeaux in the early fifth century AD would have been very
serviceable, not just to Augustus but to many other family members.

731
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
This medicine has proved beneficial to many. 2 denarii of each of the following:
costus, opium, anis, aromatic rush; 1 denarius of coriander, 2 victoriati of amomum,
2 denarii of seed of hazelwort, 1 denarius of split alum, 5 grains (chick-pea size)
from the centre of an oak apple, 2 denarii of saffron, 1 victoriatus of saffron residue,
1 victoriatus of myrrh, 4 denarii of Greek birthwort, 3 denarii of cinnamon, 5 denarii
of the ash of baked chicks of wild swallows, 1 victoriatus of a grain of nard.
Grind all these thoroughly and mix with skimmed Attic honey. Livia always
had this to hand, stored in a glass jar, for it is exceptionally effective against
quinsy and inflammation of the throat.

15.74 Pliny the Elder Natural History 15.136: Livia and ‘the white
chickens’
Livia’s villa ‘ad Gallinas albas’ (‘to the white chickens’), north of Rome, which may have
been part of her dowry, is under excavation. Its magnificent frescoes are on display at the
National Museum of Rome, and the statue Augustus ‘of Prima Porta’ was discovered in the
grounds. The laurel grove was the source of triumphal crowns until the trees died shortly
before the death of Nero.

136 There are some remarkable incidents relating to the deified Augustus. For
Livia Drusilla, who later took the name Augusta on her marriage, when she was
betrothed to him was seated when an eagle dropped from on high a brilliantly
white hen unharmed into her lap, and as she viewed it unalarmed, a further marvel
occurred, as it held in its beak a laurel branch laden with berries. The haruspices
ordered that the bird and her issue should be carefully looked after and the branch
planted and tended religiously. 137 This was done at the Caesars’ villa situated on
the River Tiber near the ninth marker on the Flaminian Way, and consequently the
road has since been called the ‘ad gallinas’ (to the chickens). Quite remarkably a
grove has grown there from that branch, and later on, when Caesar was celebrat-
ing a triumph, he held a branch of it in his hand and wore a wreath of it on his
head, and since then all succeeding emperors have done the same.

AUGUSTUS AS ADMINISTRATOR
15.75 RDGE 67: An appeal from Knidos, 6 BC
Knidos was a free city in south-west Asia Minor. The Knidians in this case brought their
case directly to Augustus. C Asinius Gallus (cos. 8 BC), currently in Rome and here acting
as ‘Augustus’ friend’ and one of his council, was proconsul of Asia in 5 BC. He was married
to Vipsania, first wife of Tiberius.

Kairogenes son of Leukatheos was demiourgos. Imperator Caesar Augustus, son

of the god, pontifex maximus, consul-designate for the 12th time, holder of tribu-
nician power for the 18th time, 5 to the magistrates, council and people of the
Knidians, greetings.
Your envoys, Dionysios and Dionysios II, son of Dionysios, have appeared
before me in Rome, and having presented your decree have accused Eubulus,

732
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
son of Anaxandrides now deceased, and his wife Tryphera, who was present, 10
of the killing of Eubulus, son of Chrysippus. When I ordered Gallus Asinius, my
friend, to examine with torture their slaves who were included in the charge, I
learnt that Philinus, son of Chrysippus, had gone three nights running to the house
of Eubulus 15 and Tryphera with insults and in the manner of a siege, and on the
third night was accompanied by his brother Eubulus. Eubulus and Tryphera, the
owners of the house, since they had no dealings with Philinus, and even though
they barricaded themselves against the attacks, 20 were unable to find safety in
their own home, ordered one of their slaves not to kill him, as perhaps one might
be inclined to do through not unreasonable anger, but to drive them off by pour-
ing faeces over them. But the slave – whether deliberately 25 or accidentally, for
he persisted in denying this – along with the contents let go of the container, and
Eubulus was killed, though it would have been more just if he had been saved
instead of his brother. I have sent you their testimonies.
I might wonder why 30 the defendants so greatly feared your examination of
their slaves, unless you appeared very harsh towards them, and hating, on the con-
trary, as rascals not those who deserved to suffer anything – who had three times
at night attacked a private house with arrogance and violence, and in their rage
endangered the common safety of you all – 35 but those who suffered misfortune
when trying to defend themselves and who had committed no crime whatsoever.
Accordingly you will act correctly in my judgement if you take notice of my
opinion of this affair and acknowledge my letter in your public records. Be well.

15.76 Justinian Digest 48.12.2.1 (Ulpian): Lex Julia on the grain

supply
This law, dating probably to 18 BC, prevents the raising of market prices or other unfair
practices in the sale and transportation of grain. The grain supply was critical for the
stability of Rome even under Augustus. Sextus Pompeius’ blockade of Italy had caused
serious grain shortages and famine in Rome in 40 BC, and Augustus’ resignation of the
consulship in 23 was highly unpopular because he was associated in the popular mind with
the security of the grain supply (the cura annonae). In 22 he accepted formal responsibility
for the cura annonae and in 18 established a commission of four ex-praetors to supervise
the grain distribution. According to Augustus himself, in 23 BC he distributed 12 rations to
at least 250,000 people, and in 2 BC grain was distributed to just over 200,000 citizens (RG
15.1, 4: doc. 15.1). One of the reasons why Augustus kept the control of Egypt in his own
hands was its ability to feed Rome.

By the lex Julia about the annona a penalty is fixed against those who act or form
an association by which grain shall become dearer. In the same law it is laid down
that no one should delay a ship or sailor or act with malice aforethought to detain
them longer; and the penalty is fixed at 20 gold coins.

15.77 Guérard 1950: Transport of grain to Alexandria, 2 BC

The grain supply was so important that the ships transporting grain down the Nile were
officially escorted by Roman legionaries. This text is on a terracotta grain jar, found at

733
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Oxyrhynchus, which carried a sample of the grain carried by two ships to Alexandria;
the sample would be compared with the cargo when they reached their destination. The
sitologos was the collector of the grain tax at the local granary. 433¼ artabae would be
approximately 22,529 litres. The XXII legion was the Deiotariana, stationed at Alexandria.
1 Egyptian artabe = 4.5 modii Italici = 38.78 litres and would hold 30.28 kg of Egyptian
wheat.

From the Oxyrhynchite nome. Ammonios, son of Ammonios, pilot of a public ves-
sel, of which the emblem is A . . . through the agency of Lucius Oclatius, soldier
on marine escort duty of the legion XXII, cohort II, century of Maximus Stoltius,
and Hermias son of Petalos, pilot of another vessel of which the emblem is Egypt,
through the agency of Lucius Castricius, soldier on marine escort duty of the
legion XXII, cohort IV, century of 5 Titus Pompeius. This is a sample of what we
have put on board from the harvest of the 28th year of Caesar (3 BC); Ammonios
(loaded) up to the bulwarks with 433¼ arbatai of wheat, and Hermias similarly
with 433¼ arbatai of wheat, all this loaded through the agency of Leonidas and
Apollonias, the sitologoi of the eastern part of the lower toparchy (of the nome):
866½ arbatai of wheat, and we added for every hundred arbatai of wheat ½ of
an arbate (as tax). We accomplished the loading from 2nd Hathyr to 4th of the
same month, and we have sealed (this jar) with both our seals, that of Ammonios,
whose image is Ammon, and of Hermias, whose image is Harpokrates. (Year) 29
of Caesar, 4 Hathyr.
10 (Another hand) We, Hermias and Ammonios, have sealed the samples.
(Year) 29 of Caesar, 4 Hathyr.

15.78 CIL 3.6687: The census in Syria, AD 6

A marble stele from Syria, in Latin. P. Sulpicius Quirinius (cos. 12 BC) had served on the
staff of Gaius Caesar and, after his death, on that of Tiberius. He was governor of Syria
AD 6–12, when he carried out a census of Judaea for taxation purposes (cf. Luke 2.1–5).

Quintus Aemilius, son of Quintus, (of the tribe) Palatina, Secundus, in the camp
of the deified Augustus under Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, legate 5 of Caesar in
Syria: decorated with honours, prefect of Cohort I of Augustus, prefect of Cohort
II Classica. Also by order of Quirinius I conducted the census 10 of the city of
Apamea of 117,000 citizens; I was also sent by Quirinius against the Ityraeans
on Mount Lebanon and I captured their fortress; and before 15 this service, I
was prefect of the fabri and was transferred to the treasury. In my colony I was
quaestor, twice aedile, twice duovir, and pontifex. 20 Here are placed Quintus
Aemilius, son of Quintus, (of the tribe) Palatina, and Aemilia Chia, freedwoman.
This monument will not pass any further in the possession of an heir.

15.79 Justinian Institutes 4.18.8–9, 11: Violence and embezzlement

Augustus also passed laws on violence, embezzlement, bribery and extortion; the dates of
these are not known.

734
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
8 The lex Julia on violence, public or private, is directed against those who use
violence either with or without weapons. If armed violence is proved, the penalty
laid down by the lex Julia on public violence is deportation; if unarmed, con-
fiscation of a third of the offender’s property. But if, however, the rape of a girl
or widow or religious, veiled or otherwise, is perpetrated, then both the offenders
and those who assisted the crime suffer capital punishment as laid down in our
constitution, from which the details may be learnt more clearly. 9 The lex Julia on
embezzlement punishes those who appropriate money or other property of the state,
or that intended for the purposes of religion. But if judges, in their period of office,
embezzle public funds, they are punishable with death, and not only these but also
those who are their accomplices in this or who receive such money knowing it to
be stolen: others who contravene this law suffer deportation . . . 11 Moreover, other
public prosecutions can be brought under the lex Julia on bribery and the lex Julia on
extortion and the lex Julia on the grain supply and the lex Julia on arrears of public
money, which deal with specific offences and do not involve loss of life, but subject
to other punishments those who contravene their injunctions.

15.80 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 2.24.14–15: Sumptuary laws

Like Caesar (doc. 13.66), Augustus legislated against luxury, particularly with regard to
public and private banquets. C. Ateius Capito was a Roman jurist under Augustus and
Tiberius and consul in AD 5.

14 Finally the lex Julia went to the people when Caesar Augustus was ruling,
under which 200 sesterces was the limit for expenditure on ordinary days, 300 on
the Kalends, Ides, Nones and other holidays, and at weddings and the subsequent
banquets 1,000. 15 Ateius Capito also states that there was another edict – I can-
not remember whether of the divine Augustus or Tiberius Caesar – under which
on various sacred days expenditure on dinners was raised from 300 to 2,000 ses-
terces, so that the rising tide of luxury might be restrained at least by this limit.

15.81 Suetonius Life of the Deified Augustus 28.3–30.1: ‘From brick to

marble’
RG 20.4: Augustus boasted that in one year alone (28 BC) he had restored 82 temples, and
temples and sanctuaries were his first priority. Many of the amenities of Rome were due to
Agrippa (docs 15.39–40); Augustus’ construction included the Curia Julia and the temple of
divus Julius (dedicated 29), his mausoleum (28) the temple of Jupiter Tonans (‘the Thunderer’,
dedicated 22), the Forum Augustum and the temple of Mars Ultor (dedicated 2 BC).

28.3 The city, which was not adorned to match the dignity of the empire and was at
risk from floods and fires, he beautified to such an extent that he could justly boast
that he had left it in marble, though he had found it in brick. Indeed he also made
it safe for the future, in so far as this can be provided for by human foresight. 29.1
He constructed many public works, most notably the following: his forum with the
temple of Mars the Avenger (2 BC), the shrine of Apollo on the Palatine (28 BC)

735
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
and the temple of Jupiter the Thunderer on the Capitol (22 BC). His rationale for
building the forum was the huge number of people and law-suits, which seemed to
require a third, since two were no longer sufficient. So it was opened to the public
in some haste, before the temple of Mars was completed, and it was arranged that
the public trials be held there separately as well as the selection of jurors by lot. 2
He vowed the temple of Mars in the war at Philippi which he undertook to avenge
his father (Julius Caesar); he therefore decreed that the senate should meet here to
discuss wars and triumphs, that it was from here that those going off with imperium
to their provinces should be escorted, and when victors returned it was to here that
they should bring the tokens of their triumphs. 3 He erected the shrine of Apollo
in that part of his house on the Palatine, which, after being struck by lightning, the
soothsayers declared to be the choice of the god; he added colonnades with Latin
and Greek libraries, and when he was getting old often held senate meetings there
and revised the lists of jurors. He dedicated the temple to Jupiter the Thunderer after
an escape from danger, when on his Cantabrian expedition during a night march
a bolt of lightning grazed his litter and killed the slave who was lighting the way.
4 He also erected some works in the names of others, such as his grandsons and
wife and sister, like the colonnade and basilica of Gaius and Lucius (12 BC), as well
as the porticoes of Livia and Octavia (15 and 33 BC) and the theatre of Marcellus
(13 BC). Moreover he often encouraged other leading men to adorn the city with
new monuments or ones that were restored and embellished, according to what they
could afford. 5 Many buildings were erected by numerous people, such as the tem-
ple of Hercules and the Muses by Marcius Philippus (cos. 38), the temple of Diana
by Lucius Cornificius (cos. 35), the hall of Liberty by Asinius Pollio (cos. 40), the
temple of Saturn by Munatius Plancus (cos. 42), a theatre by Cornelius Balbus (cos.
40), an amphitheatre by Statilius Taurus (cos. 37), and many spectacular edifices by
Marcus Agrippa in particular.
30.1 He divided the area of the city into districts and neighbourhoods and
arranged that the former should be under the supervision of annual magistrates cho-
sen by lot and the latter under ‘masters’ elected by the people of each neighbour-
hood. To combat fires he devised night-watches and watchmen; to keep the floods
under control he widened and cleared the channel of the Tiber, which had for a
while been filled with rubbish and narrowed by extensions to buildings. Moreover,
to make it easier to approach the city from every direction, he himself undertook to
restore the Flaminian Way as far as Ariminum and allocated the rest to those who
had celebrated triumphs to pave from their money from spoils. 2 He restored sacred
buildings that were either dilapidated through old age or had been destroyed by fire,
and adorned these and others with the most magnificent gifts, as when for example
in a single offering he deposited in the shrine of Jupiter Capitolinus 16,000 pounds
of gold as well as gems and pearls worth 50,000,000 sesterces.

15.82 ILS 4966: Musicians at public rites

This funerary inscription from Rome for the guild of bandsmen who performed at religious
ceremonies is evidence for the fact that Augustus laid down through a lex Julia, probably in

736
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
AD 7, that every club had to be sanctioned by the senate or emperor. In practice, these clubs met
once a month to pay their funeral contributions, though they also engaged in social activities.

To the departed spirit. For the association of those who sing in choirs, who per-
form at public sacrifices, to whom 5 the senate has given permission to hold meet-
ings, to be convened, to be gathered under the lex Julia by authority of Augustus
for the sake of the games.

SENATORS AND NEW MEN

When Augustus resigned his consulship on 1 July 23, having held it for 11 years in succession,
one of the motives was to give more senators the chance to reach high office and be available
for proconsular duties such as provincial government. He held the consulship on only two
more occasions, to introduce his grandsons to public life. There was often more than one
set of consuls in a year, especially from AD 5, so that four men could reach the pre-eminent
position (the second set were known as suffect consuls). Higher-ranking senators were given
the roles of administering the military treasury and being in charge of the water supply, public
buildings and roads. Augustus also formed a consilium, consisting of the consuls, one each
of the other magistracies, and 15 others chosen by lot from the rest of the senators, to act as a
personal consultative group before measures went before the senate. He revised the senatorial
role three times, with the membership reduced to 600 in 18 BC, and by 13 BC he had fixed
the minimum qualification for senators as 1 million sesterces. While there were more senators
from Italian towns in Augustus’ senate, the consulship still remained highly competitive, and
before AD 3 very few consuls were ‘new men’ from non-senatorial families.

15.83 ILS 915: A new man in the senate

In this inscription, from Histonium on the Adriatic coast, Paquius displays his pride in
his Italian lineage (he was married to his cousin). While he failed to reach the consulship,
he held two provincial governorships in Cyprus and various administrative positions, as
well as a priesthood as one of the fetials (cf. doc. 3.14). His second governorship was
decided not by the lot, as normal, but by direct appointment by Augustus. Possibly this was
a special appointment to organise Cyprus following the earthquake of 15 BC.

Publius Paquius Scaeva, son of Scaeva and Flavia, grandson of Consus and Didia,
great-grandson of Barbus and Dirutia, quaestor, one of the Ten for the settling of
disputes by senatorial decree after his quaestorship, one of the Four for executions
by senatorial decree after his quaestorship, and member of the Ten for settling dis-
putes, tribune of the plebs, curule aedile, court judge, praetor of the treasury, gov-
erned the province Cyprus as proconsul, curator of roads outside the city of Rome
by senatorial decree for five years, proconsul for the second time outside the lot by
authority of Augustus Caesar and decree of the senate, and sent to restore the state
of the province of Cyprus for the future, fetial, cousin and also husband of Flavia,
daughter of Consus, granddaughter of Scapula, great-granddaughter of Barbus,
buried together with her.
Flavia, daughter of Consus and Sinnia, granddaughter of Scapula and Sinnia,
great-granddaughter of Barbus and Dirutia, cousin and also wife of Publius

737
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Paquius Scaeva, son of Scaeva, grandson of Consus, great-grandson of Barbus,
buried together with him.

15.84 ILS 921: Triumphal ornaments for Plautius

The last triumph held by a non-member of the imperial family was that of Cornelius Balbus
in 19. From this point it was normal instead, often even for members of the imperial family,
to receive triumphal ornaments. Plautius’ mother, Urgulania, was a friend of Livia and
grandmother of Plautia Urgulanilla, first wife of the emperor Claudius, and responsible for
her son’s successful career. He was co-consul with Augustus in 2 BC and later proconsul of
Asia, after which he served with Tiberius in Pannonia and Dalmatia.

Marcus Plautius Silvanus, son of Marcus, grandson of Aulus, consul (2 BC), one
of the Seven for feasts. To him the senate decreed triumphal ornaments for suc-
cessful achievements in Illyricum. Lartia, daughter of Gnaeus, his wife. Aulus
Plautius Urgulanius, son of Marcus, lived nine years.

15.85 ILS 932: The ‘first of his town’

Varius, from Superaequum of the Paeligni (now Castelvecchio Subequo) in central Italy,
was very obviously a novus homo (new man), being the first of his town to enter the senate
as well as holding a proconsulship. He was a patron of his home community, and this
inscription was set up at public expense by his proud townsfolk.

To Quintus Varius Geminus, son of Quintus, legate of the god Augustus for two years,
proconsul, praetor, tribune of the plebs, quaestor, court judge, prefect for the distribu-
tion of grain, one of the Ten for settling disputes, curator for the supervision of sacred
buildings and public monuments. He was the first of all the Paeligni to become a sena-
tor and to hold these magistracies. The Superaequani at public expense to their patron.

15.86 ILS 938: A Titian sodalis

An inscription from Epidaurus in Dalmatia. The Titii sodales were a college of priests,
supposedly established by the Sabine king Titus Tatius and revived by Augustus.

To Publius Cornelius Dolabella, consul (AD 10), one of the Seven for feasts,
Titian sodalis, propraetorian legate of the god Augustus and Tiberius Caesar
Augustus of the states of the upper province of Illyricum.

15.87 ILS 9483: Reviewer of the equites

From Ipsus in Asia. One of the new positions set up by Augustus was for reviewing the
companies of the equites when necessary. The sodales Augustales were an order of priests
whose duties were to attend to Augustus’ cult.

To . . . Favonius, consul (date unknown), proconsul of Asia, one of the Fifteen

for the performance of sacred rites, sodalis Augustalis, triumvir for the review

738
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
of the centuries of equites with censorial powers, legate of the god Augustus and
Tiberius Caesar Augustus . . .

MAECENAS AND AUGUSTAN LITERATURE

Gaius ‘Cilnius’ Maecenas was one of Octavian’s closest friends and also one of the most
committed supporters of his regime. He was of distinguished birth, being descended from
two ancient Etruscan families: the name Cilnius, which he is sometimes given, appears to
be a matronymic. In Octavian’s absences, Agrippa and Maecenas acted as his deputies, and
Maecenas’ first recorded diplomatic undertaking was to negotiate the marriage to Scribonia
in 40 BC. Maecenas’ role, from the period of the triumvirate, had been to keep an eye on
affairs at Rome in Octavian’s interests and to act as an unofficial advisor and negotiator. He
always refused official honours, even to not becoming a member of the senate. As well as
an author in his own right (Augustus criticises his prose style: doc. 15.92) he was a generous
patron of literature and encouraged poets such as Vergil and Horace towards themes that
would reflect glory on the regime. Maecenas was fabulously wealthy, partly as a result of
Augustus’ generosity, and, according to Suetonius, Augustus, whose living conditions were
deliberately frugal, would stay at Maecenas’ splendid villa on the Esquiline when he was ill.

15.88 Velleius Paterculus Compendium of Roman History 2.88.1–3:

Maecenas’ efficiency
After Actium, or possibly after the fall of Alexandria in 30 BC, Lepidus’ son appears to
have stirred up a conspiracy against Augustus in his absence. Although there were consuls
in office, it was Augustus’ unofficial friend the eques Maecenas who dealt with the issue.
Members of the equestrian order had a narrow purple stripe, as opposed to the broad
senatorial one, on their toga.

1 While Caesar was putting the last touches to the war at Actium and Alexandria,
Marcus Lepidus, a young man of better appearance than intelligence, son of that
Lepidus who was a triumvir for restoring the state and of Junia, Brutus’ sister, had
made plans for assassinating Caesar as soon as he returned to the city. 2 Gaius
Maecenas was at that point in charge of the city’s guards, a man of equestrian rank
but of splendid lineage, a man who was literally sleepless when matters required vigi-
lance, and quick to see what needed doing, and knowing how to do it, though when it
was possible to relax at all from business he would abandon himself to ease and luxury
almost more than a woman would. He was no less dear to Caesar than Agrippa was
but awarded fewer honours – since he was thoroughly satisfied to live with just the
narrow stripe – not that he wasn’t capable of achieving as much but had less desire
for it. 3 He investigated the plans of the rash youth very quietly and cleverly, and by
overcoming Lepidus with amazing speed and no disturbance either to affairs or men
he extinguished the dread beginnings of a new and renascent civil war.

15.89 Pliny the Elder Natural History 37.10: A frog in the post
While deputising for Octavian, Maecenas had the right to use Octavian’s seal and send
dispatches in his name even to altering the contents as appropriate, and he was obviously
skilled at extracting tax payments.

739
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
The deified Augustus at first used a seal engraved with a sphinx, as he had found
two of them among his mother’s rings that were remarkably similar. During the
civil war, when he was absent, his friends used one of these to seal those letters
and edicts which the circumstances of the times made it necessary to issue in his
name – it was a pointed joke among those who received them that the sphinx had
come with its riddles. And the frog as well on the seal of Maecenas was an object
which brought great terror with it, because it meant that a monetary contribution
was being demanded.

15.90 Aelius Donatus Life of Vergil 20–41: Vergil, Maecenas and

Augustus
Maecenas may have played a role in helping Vergil to recover the family farm in the
confiscations of 41–40, and it was he who commissioned Vergil to write his Georgics. He
also procured a pardon for Horace, who fought on the liberators’ side at Philippi, and gave
him a farm from which he could acquire a livelihood and devote himself to poetry. Plotius
Tucca and Varius Rufus were poets and the executors named to oversee the publication of
Vergil’s poetry. For Vergil’s description of Marcellus, see doc. 15.36.

20 After that, Vergil published the Georgics in honour of Maecenas, who had
assisted him (though only slightly acquainted with him) against the violence
of a veteran, who all but killed him in an argument over his land . . . . 25 The
Eclogues he finished in three years, the Georgics in seven, the Aeneid in eleven.
The Eclogues were so successful on their first appearance that singers frequently
recited them, even on stage. 27 When Augustus was returning after his victory at
Actium and stayed at Atella to rest his throat, Vergil read the Georgics to him con-
tinuously for four days; Maecenas took over reading from him whenever his voice
failed. 28 Nonetheless, Vergil’s reading was sweet and strangely seductive . . . .
30 Even when the Aeneid was scarcely begun, its reputation was such that Sextus
Propertius (Odes 2.34.65) did not hesitate to predict in these words:

Give way, Roman authors; give way, Greeks:

Something greater than the Iliad is being born.

31 Indeed, Augustus (for, as it happened, he was away on an expedition in

Cantabria) jokingly demanded of him in his letters, with threats as well as prayers,
that he should send him (to employ his own words) ‘something from the Aeneid,
either your first draft or any section, it does not matter which’. 32 But it was not
until much later, when he had finally put the finishing touches to his subject mat-
ter, that Vergil read out to him three books in all: the second, fourth and sixth, this
last from his well-known affection for Octavia, who was present at the recitation
and at these verses about her son, ‘ . . . You shall be Marcellus!’ [Aen. 6.884] is
said to have fainted and been revived only with difficulty.
35 In his fifty-second year he decided to retire to Greece and Asia, to put the
finishing touches to the Aeneid, and after doing nothing but revise it for three
straight years to give the remainder of his life to philosophy. But, after setting out

740
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
for Athens, he met up at Athens with Augustus, who was returning to Rome from
the East. He then resolved not to leave him, and even to return with him, but while
he was visiting the nearby town of Megara under a scorching sun he was taken
with a fever and made this worse by not breaking his journey. As a result on his
arrival at Brundisium his condition was more serious, and after a few days he died
there, on the eleventh day before the Kalends of October (21 September 19 BC),
in the consulship of Gnaeus Sentius and Quintus Lucretius. 36 His bones were
taken to Naples, and buried on the Via Puteolana, only 2 miles from the city, in a
tomb for which he composed the couplet:

Mantua gave birth to me, Calabria slew me, and now

Parthenope holds me. I have sung pastures, fields, generals.’ . . .

39 Before leaving Italy, he had arranged with Varius that, if anything should hap-
pen to him, he would burn the Aeneid, but Varius had refused to do so. So, when
he was very ill, he kept calling for his scroll-cases, intending to burn them up
himself, but since no one came forward it did not happen, even though he gave pre-
cise directions about this. 40 He left his writings to the above-mentioned Varius and
Tucca, on the condition that they publish nothing which he himself had not revised.
41 Nevertheless, Varius published them, acting under the authority of Augustus,
after only minor revisions, even leaving the unfinished lines just as they were.

15.91 Seneca Letters 114.4–7: Maecenas’ literary style

Seneca the Younger here makes a blistering attack on Maecenas’ prose style, which he sees
as reflecting his effeminate and pretentious lifestyle, though this criticism of his conduct is
not entirely borne out by earlier contemporary accounts. He wrote a natural history, referred
to by Pliny, apparently focusing on fish and gems, and may have written a biography of
Augustus, as well as a Symposium, featuring Horace, Vergil and Messalla. For the ‘king of
the grove’, see doc. 3.11.

4 How Maecenas lived is too well known for there to be any need to describe how
he walked, how effeminate he was, and how he desired to be stared at, as well as
how he did not want his vices to escape notice. What, then? Does not the loose-
ness of his speech match his ungirt style of dress? Are not his words as remarkable
as his habits, his retinue, his house, his wife? He would have been a man of great
talent had he gone there by a straighter path, had he not avoided making himself
understood, had he not been so diffuse in his style of speech as well. You will
therefore see that his eloquence was that of an intoxicated man – intricate, wan-
dering, full of licence.
5 What is more disagreeable than ‘a stream and a bank with long-haired
woods’? And see how ‘men plough the channel with boats and in turning up the
shallows leave behind gardens’; or ‘he waves his love locks, and bills and coos
with his lips, and begins to sigh, like a king of the grove who offers prayers with
bent neck’; or ‘an unregenerate crew, they rummage for food at feasts, and assail
households with a flagon, and, by hope, exact death’; or ‘a Genius can hardly be

741
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
witness to his own festival’; or ‘threads of fine wax tapers and creaking meal’; or
‘mothers or wives clothe the hearth.’
6 When you read these, doesn’t it immediately occur to you that this was the
man who always paraded through the city with a flowing tunic? – for even when
he was performing duties for the absent emperor, he was always ungirt when they
asked him for the password. Or that this was the man who, on the judge’s bench or
the rostra, or at any public gathering, appeared with his head wrapped in his cloak,
with only his ears exposed, like a rich man’s runaway slave in a mime? Or that this
was the man who, at the time when the state was riven with civil war, when the
city was in a panic and under arms, was attended in public by two eunuchs – bet-
ter men than he was? Or that this was the man who was married countless times
but had one wife? 7 These words of his, badly arranged, thrown off so casually
and set out in such contrast to the usual practice, show that the writer’s character
was equally unusual, debased and outlandish. Of course, we grant him praise for
his humanity – he was sparing with the sword and refrained from bloodshed –
and he made a show of his power in nothing other than his loose living; but he
spoiled this praise by such convolutions of his quite unnatural style, for these
show that he was not considerate, but effeminate.

15.92 Macrobius Saturnalia 2.4.12: Augustus and Maecenas

Augustus is here playing on Maecenas’ Etruscan origins. His mother’s family, the Cilnii,
had been prominent at Arretium; Lars Porsena was the Etruscan king known for his war
against Rome; Iguvium is modern Gubbio in Etruscan territory; and Medullia was one of
the towns in Latium captured by Tarquinius Priscus.

Knowing that his friend Maecenas wrote in a loose, effeminate and decadent style,
he would often write in the same way in the letters he sent to Maecenas and, in
contrast to the restrained way of expressing himself which he used in writing other
letters, an intimate letter to Maecenas would include as a joke an outpouring of
phrases such as: ‘Farewell, my ebony from Medullia, ivory from Etruria, silphium
of Arretium, diamond of the Adriatic, pearl of Tiber, Cilnian emerald, jasper of
the Iguvians, beryl of Porsenna, Adriatic carbuncle – or, in short, softener-up of
adulterous wives!’

15.93 [Suetonius] Life of Horace 1–3: Horace and Augustus

Q. Horatius Flaccus was a leading Roman lyric poet during Augustus’ reign. Initially a
Republican, on returning to Italy after defeat at Philippi (where he depicts himself running
away) he found that, like Vergil, he had lost his father’s estate through the confiscations,
but he gained employment in the treasury. Again like Vergil, he joined Maecenas’ literary
circle, and the two poets accompanied Maecenas in 37 when he travelled to Brundisium to
arrange the treaty of Tarentum. Maecenas’ gift of a farm allowed Horace to be independent,
and in his poems he increasingly referred to public affairs, including wars and military
victories, and was commissioned by Augustus to write the Carmen Saeculare for the ludi
Saeculares in 17 BC (doc. 15.33). Ninnius is unknown.

742
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
1 Horace served as a military tribune in the war at Philippi under Marcus Brutus
as general; when his side was conquered, he received pardon and obtained the
position of a quaestor’s clerk. He won the favour first of Maecenas, and shortly
afterwards of Augustus, and held a central place among the friends of both. How
much Maecenas loved him is shown in this well-known epigram:

‘Unless more than life itself, my Horace,

I love you, then see your intimate friend
More thin and wasted than Ninnius!’

But he wrote far more strongly in his will with this comment to Augustus, ‘Be
as mindful of Horatius Flaccus, as of myself!’ 2 Augustus offered him the posi-
tion of secretary, as the remark in a letter to Maecenas shows: ‘Previously I was
able to write letters to my friends, but now I am so overwhelmed with work and
in poor health that I would like to take our friend Horace from you. He will then
come from your parasitical table to my imperial one and will help me write my
letters.’ Even when he refused, Augustus was not at all resentful and continued
his attempts to win his friendship. There are letters from which I will add some
extracts to prove it: ‘Enjoy any rights at my house, as if you were living there
with me; you will do so both rightly and reasonably, as that was the relationship I
wished to have with you had your health permitted.’ . . . 3 As regards his writings,
Augustus valued them so highly and was so sure that they would be immortal
that he chose him to compose not only the Secular Hymn but also the victory of
his stepsons Tiberius and Drusus over the Vindelici, and so forced him to write a
fourth book of Odes after a long period of silence. Also after reading several of
his Epistles he queried why there was no mention of him at all, with the words:
‘You should not fear that I am cross with you, since in your numerous writings
of that kind you do not dialogue with me; are you afraid that your name will be
disreputable to posterity, because you’ll be seen to be my friend?’ And he obliged
him to write the collection which begins:

‘Since you alone bear the weight of tasks so many and so great,
Protecting Italy’s affairs with arms, improving it with morals,
Reforming it by laws: I would sin against the public good,
Were I to waste your time with long discourse, Caesar.’ (= Epistle 2.1)

15.94 Horace Epistle 1.13: A package for Augustus

In this humorous epistle, Horace envisages his volume of poetry (perhaps Odes 1–3)
delivered to Augustus by a clumsy and over-enthusiastic messenger.

As you were setting out I told you often and at length:

Deliver these volumes sealed to Augustus, Vinnius,
If he’s well and if he’s happy and if finally he asks for them;
Don’t blunder in your zeal for me and have dislike for my books

743
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
5 Caused by the over-eagerness of an over-enthusiastic servant.
If you find the heavy burden of my pages irksome,
Toss them away, rather than go throwing down the pack-saddle
Where told to take it, like a wild thing, making a joke
Of your father’s name Asina and a good story to be told of you.
10 Use your strength to conquer mountains, rivers, marshes,
But when you’ve made it and arrive there,
Don’t hold your parcel so as to carry the book package
Under your arm, like a countryman a lamb,
Or tipsy Pyrria her stolen ball of wool,
15 Or a dinner guest of a fellow tribesman his cap and slippers.
And don’t tell everyone how much you’ve sweated,
Carrying poems, that could engage the eyes and ears
Of Caesar! Entreated by many prayers, press on,
Go, farewell – and do not trip and damage your precious charge!

15.95 Propertius Elegies 3.4: Augustus conquers India

Sextus Propertius (died c. 15 BC), perhaps the greatest Roman elegiac poet, produced four
books of elegies, the first of which was devoted to a lady known as Cynthia and which was
published c. 28 BC. This brought Propertius to the attention of Maecenas, after which he
joined his circle. In his first two volumes, love is his primary philosophy and the reason for
existence, but from book 3, which appeared c. 23, he starts to handle wider themes relating
to Augustus’ regime, including a lament for Marcellus (3.18). In this poem, while he calls
Augustus a god and incites him to war on Parthia and even to the ends of the earth, this
enthusiasm cannot be taken seriously. The martial thrust of the poem is deftly undercut at
line 15, where he explains that his only interest will be to view the victory procession while
relaxing with his ‘girl’. Others can win the booty – his only concern is to applaud it while
safely at home.

Caesar, our god, plans war on the rich Indes,

Cleaving with his fleet the straits of the pearl-bearing sea.
Romans, rewards are great: the ends of the earth prepare triumphs;
Tigris and Euphrates will flow under your laws.
5 Too late, but the province will come under Italian fasces –
Parthia’s trophies will come to know Latin Jupiter.
Go now!, experienced prows in warfare, set sail!,
And armour-wearing horses do your usual service!
I sing auspicious omens. Avenge the Crassi and disaster!
10 Go and be mindful of Rome’s history!
Father Mars, and fatal lights of holy Vesta,
I pray that day will come before I die,
That I may see Caesar’s axles laden with spoils
His horses halting often for the mob’s cheers –
15 Then resting on the bosom of my girl I’ll start
To look and survey the captured cities’ names,

744
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
The shafts of fleeing cavalry, the bows of trousered soldiers,
And captive leaders seated beneath their weapons.
Venus, preserve your own descendants; let it be immortal,
20 This head you see surviving from Aeneas’ line.
Let booty go to those whose labours deserve it –
Enough for me that I can applaud them on the Sacred Way.

15.96 Ovid Fasti 5.545–98: The Temple of Mars Ultor

O. Ovidius Naso (43 BC–AD 17/18) was a prolific and popular poet who, for some
unknown reason, was exiled by Augustus to the Black Sea in AD 8 (perhaps because of
a connection with the scandal of Julia the Younger, though there is no evidence for this).
Much of his early poetry has erotic themes, such as his Amores and Art Amatoria (The
Art of Love), but he also eulogises Augustus’ regime and buildings, sometimes tongue-in-
cheek, as when he describes the porticoes of Octavia and Livia as a good place to pick up
girls. More seriously, in this treatment of the temple of Mars Ultor (the ‘Avenger’), built to
commemorate the defeat of Caesar’s assassins and to mark the recovery of the standards
from Parthia, Ovid describes statues of the mythical ancestors of Augustus and ancient
heroes as being placed in the apses, including Aeneas and Romulus. The date of dedication
was 12 May 2 BC.

But why are Orion and the other stars

Hastening to leave the sky, and why is night shortening its course?
Why does bright day, from the liquid ocean, lift
Its radiance more swiftly, preceded by the Morning Star?
Do I mistake, or was there a sound of arms? I’m not, there was –
550 Mars comes and coming gives the sign for war!
The Avenger himself descends from heaven
To see his honours and his temple in Augustus’ forum.
Both god and shrine are mighty: Mars ought
To dwell nowhere but in the city of his son.
555 The temple is worthy of trophies won from Giants;
From here Mars the ‘Marcher’ initiates fierce wars,
When an impious enemy attacks us from the East, or
Those from the setting sun who must be conquered.
Strong in his arms he views the summit of the building
560 And approves of unconquered gods dwelling on the heights.
He sees the doors arrayed with weapons of every kind
And arms from countries conquered by his soldiers.
Here he sees Aeneas weighed down with his dear burden,
And many forefathers of the Julian noble family;
565 There he sees Romulus bearing the weapons of a general on his shoulders,
And famous heroes’ deeds named below their statues.
He sees Augustus’ name on the temple’s front,
And with reading ‘Caesar’, the work seems greater still.
He vowed it in his youth, when dutifully taking up his arms –

745
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
570 With such deeds a Princeps came into being.
Stretching out his hand, loyal troops are here –
There conspirators – and spoke these words,
‘If my father, priest of Vesta, is my cause for war,
I prepare to avenge both godheads:
575 Mars, come!, and glut the sword with criminal blood
And may your favour stand with the better side;
You’ll win a temple, and (if I am victor) be called Avenger.’
He vowed, and joyfully returned from the routed enemy,
Not satisfied to have earned Mars that name –
580 But seeks the signals kept in Parthian hands,
That people guarded by plains, cavalry, archers,
Inaccessible behind their encircling rivers . . . .
589 He removed that well-known, old disgrace:
The regained standards knew their proper hands.
What use the arrows fired customarily in retreat,
Your deserts, and your swift horses,
Parthians? You bring the eagles home, and offer unstrung bows;
Now you no longer possess the pledges of our shame.
595 Rightly the god has his temple and twice title of Avenger,
The honour earned has paid the vowed debt.
Quirites, celebrate solemn festival in the Circus,
The stage seems hardly fitting for a mighty god.

15.97 Ovid Fasti 2.127–44: Augustus versus Romulus

Earlier in his career Augustus had rejected the name Romulus for the less martial and more
pious one of Augustus (doc. 14.65), though this did not mean that Romulus was not revered
as son of Mars, ancestor of the Romans and founder of Rome. In this passage Ovid draws
a witty contrast between Augustus as benign father and ruler of the whole world with the
petty murderous rapist Romulus. While eulogising Augustus, Ovid at the same time is
quietly undercutting the traditional values which were so important to Augustus in his
social and religious reforms.

Holy father of your country!, to you the plebs and senate gave the name
And we the equites gave you this as well.
Already granted by events, you received the title late.
130 The name, you – long since father of the world –
Possess on earth, which Jupiter has in lofty heaven
– You’re father of men, he of the gods.
Romulus, give way! Caesar by his care has made your walls
Mighty, the ones you constructed Remus could jump over!
135 Tatius, and poverty-stricken Cures, and Caenina knew you –
With him as leader both sides of the sun are Roman!
You possessed some tiny piece of conquered land,
Whatever lies under lofty Jupiter, Caesar holds.
You raped married women, he as leader orders them be chaste.

746
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
140 You allowed impiety in your grove, he drives it off.
You welcomed violence, under Caesar our laws flourish.
Your name was ‘Lord’, his is ‘Princeps’.
Remus accused you of murder, while he gives enemies pardon.
Your father deified you, he deified his own!

15.98 Dio Roman History 55.7.1–6: The death of Maecenas, 8 BC

Octavian’s rise to power had greatly depended on the support of his old friends Agrippa and
Maecenas, both of whom deliberately renounced overt power in his favour. Now both of
them were gone. According to Plutarch (Mor. 207), Maecenas gave Augustus a drinking cup
for every birthday and in his will requested that he look after Horace. There may have been
an awkwardness between Augustus and Maecenas in 23 or 22, when there was a conspiracy
against Augustus headed by L. Licinius Varro Murena and Fannius Caepio (it was serious
enough for the conspirators to be put to death). It appears that Maecenas’ wife, Terentia, was
Murena’s adopted sister, and Suetonius records that Maecenas had leaked details to his wife.
It was also widely known that Augustus and Terentia had had or were having an affair; Mark
Antony criticises Augustus for this in the late 30s (doc. 14.49), so it would have been ancient
history by the time of Maecenas’ death. As Augustus expected of his friends, Maecenas, who
was childless, left Augustus his vast estate, including the gardens on the Esquiline.

1 Augustus was distressed when Maecenas died. He had received many benefits
from him and, as a result, though he was only an eques, entrusted him with the
supervision of the city for a long period, and found him especially useful at those
times when his own temper was ungovernable, as Maecenas would always do
away with his anger and bring him to a milder state of mind. 2 One example is
when Maecenas was at hand when Augustus was holding court and, seeing that
he was on the point of condemning a number of people to death, tried to push his
way through the onlookers and get near to him, and when he was unable to do
this wrote on a tablet, ‘Rise at last, executioner!’ and threw this into his lap as if
concerning some other minor matter. As a result Augustus put no one to death but
stood up and left. 3 He was not only not annoyed at such actions but was actually
glad of them, since, whenever he became inappropriately irritated by his innate
disposition or by the pressure of affairs, these were corrected by the free speech
of his friends. 4 This was also the greatest proof of Maecenas’ good qualities, that
he not only endeared himself to Augustus, even though he checked his outbreaks,
but made everyone else like him as well and, while he had the greatest degree of
influence with Augustus, to the extent that he gave honours and magistracies to
many people, did not lose his presence of mind but passed his life as a member of
the equestrian order. 5 So for these reasons Augustus missed him excessively and
also because Maecenas, although upset over Augustus’ relationship with his wife,
had made him his heir and had left it in his power to dispose of the whole property,
with a very few exceptions, should he wish to give anything to any of his friends
or not. This was the sort of person Maecenas was and this was how he behaved to
Augustus. 6 He was the first person to construct a swimming pool of warm water
in the city and the first to invent a system of symbols to speed up writing, and he
had a number of people trained in this through a freedman, Aquila.

747
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
THE GOLDEN YEARS
15.99 Macrobius Saturnalia 1.12.35: Sextilis renamed, 8 BC
Although Augustus was born in September, Sextilis was the month particularly associated
with his achievements and triumphs, and the name of Sextilis was changed to August by
senatorial decree. For entries in the fasti, see docs 14.63, 15.4; the occasion on which he
led out legions from the Janiculum hill is unknown.

Whereas Imperator Caesar Augustus in the month Sextilis entered on his first con-
sulship (19 August 43), made three triumphal entries into the city (13–15 August
29), and led out his loyal legions from the Janiculum under his own auspices; and
whereas Egypt in this month was brought into the power of the Roman people
(1 August 30), and an end of civil war was made in this month; and whereas this
month is and has been most propitious to this Empire for these reasons, it is the
pleasure of the senate that this month shall be named August.

15.100 Dio Roman History 55.9.1–5, 9, 10.1: The young Gaius and
Lucius
Gaius, eldest son of Julia and Agrippa, was born in 20 and adopted by Augustus, along with
his brother Lucius, in 17 BC; in 5 BC he was designated for the consulship in AD 1 and
made princeps iuventutis (‘first of the youth’), an important new position which involved
the leadership of the equestrian order (RG 14.1–2: doc. 15.1). In 6 BC Tiberius went into
retirement on Rhodes for several years, despite the granting of tribunician power and the
renewal of his imperium.

1 The next year, in which Gaius Antistius and Laelius Balbus were consuls
(6 BC), Augustus noticed that both Gaius and Lucius, though brought up in the
princeps’ house, were by no means inclined to copy his conduct, for they not
only pursued a luxurious lifestyle but also tended to be insolent – on one occa-
sion Lucius entered the theatre without attendants. 2 They were being flattered by
everyone in the city, sometimes genuinely, sometimes to butter them up, and so
were becoming more and more spoilt (among other things, the people had elected
Gaius consul before he was even of military age), and Augustus even prayed
that no similar circumstances to his own might arise to make anyone less than
20 years a consul. 3 When they kept insisting, he said that no one should receive
this magistracy until they were able not only to avoid committing any error them-
selves but also to oppose the passionate impulses of the people. 4 After this he
gave Gaius a priesthood and the right of attending senate meetings and of viewing
spectacles and banqueting with the senators. Because he wished for some way
of sobering their behaviour, he granted Tiberius tribunician power for five years
and allocated him Armenia, which was becoming alienated from Rome follow-
ing the death of Tigranes. 5 What happened was that he needlessly upset both the
boys and Tiberius, as they thought they had been overlooked, and he was afraid
of their anger. At any rate Tiberius was sent to Rhodes on the grounds that he
needed some education, and he did not even take with him his whole retinue, the

748
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
idea being that he and his activities should be out of their way . . . . 9 The follow-
ing year (5 BC), in his twelfth consulship, Augustus put Gaius among the youths
of military age and at the same time introduced him into the senate, declared
him princeps iuventutis, and allowed him to become commander of a division of
cavalry. 10.1 After another year Lucius too received all the honours that had been
given to his brother Gaius.

15.101 RDGE 68: Honours for Gaius at Sardis, 5 BC

A stele of blueish marble found at Sardis with 12 documents relating to the notable citizen
Menogenes. The koinon of Asia and the citizens of Sardis decreed that the day on which
Gaius put on the toga virilis was to be a public holiday; in a letter Augustus replies to give
his thanks. The strategoi were annually elected civil magistrates at Sardis. In this year
Gaius was made princeps iuventutis and allowed to give his opinion in the senate.

I The association (koinon) of the Greeks in Asia and the people of the Sardians
and the Elder Citizens (gerousia) honoured 5 Menogenes, son of Isidoros and
grandson of Menogenes, by what is written below:
Metrodoros, son of Konon, Kleinias, Mousaios and Dionysios, the strategoi,
put the motion: since Gaius Julius Caesar, the eldest of the sons of Augustus, has
put on the toga most diligently prayed for and bright with every decoration in
place of the one with the purple border (toga praetexta), all men rejoice seeing the
prayers which have arisen on all sides to Augustus on behalf of his sons, and 10
our city on the occasion of such great good fortune has decided that the day which
completed his transition from child to man shall be holy, and on this day each year
everyone in their brightest clothes shall wear garlands, and the strategoi of that
year shall present sacrifices to the gods and prayers be offered by the sacred her-
alds for his safety, and on it they shall join in dedicating his statue and shall set it
up in the temple of his father; on that day too, on which the city received the good
news and this decree was ratified, 15 garlands shall be worn and magnificent sac-
rifices offered to the gods; and (as it has been decided) that an embassy regarding
this be sent to arrive at Rome and to congratulate both him and Augustus, it has
been decreed by the council and people to dispatch envoys from the foremost men
to bring salutations from the city and to give him the copy of this decree sealed
with the public seal, and to speak 20 with Augustus concerning affairs of common
interest to Asia and the city. Chosen as envoys were Iollas, son of Metrodoros, and
Menogenes, son of Isidoros and grandson of Menogenes.
II Imperator Caesar, son of the god, Augustus, pontifex maximus, holding
tribunician power for the nineteenth time (5 BC), to the magistrates, council and
people of the Sardians, greetings. Your envoys, Iollas, son of Metrodoros, and
Menogenes, son of Isidoros and grandson of Menogenes, met me in Rome and 25
gave me the decree from you through which you revealed what had been decreed
by you concerning yourselves and rejoiced (with me) at the attainment of man-
hood by the elder of my sons. Accordingly I praise your eagerness in demonstrat-
ing your gratitude to me and all my family in return for the benefits given by me.
Farewell.

749
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
15.102 Suetonius Life of the Deified Augustus 57.2–58.2: ‘Pater
patriae’
On 5 February 2 BC the senate granted Augustus, now aged 60 years, the title ‘pater
patriae’, father of his country, an honour which he specifically emphasised in the Res
Gestae as the pinnacle of his career (RG 35.1), as it completes his account of his life and
achievements. The title had earlier been given to Cicero and Caesar. The title also appears
frequently on his coinage. M. Valerius Messalla (cos. 31) had celebrated a triumph in 27
and, like Maecenas, was a noted patron of literature.

57.2 To restore his house on the Palatine which had been destroyed by fire, the
veterans, guilds of minor officials (decuriae) and the tribes, and even individuals
of all kinds, willingly contributed money according to their means, though he, to
show his gratitude, took only a little from each pile, and not more than a denarius
from any of them. When he returned from the provinces, he was greeted not only
with auspicious salutations but even with songs of joy, and it was the custom
too that whenever he entered the city all punishments were cancelled. 58.1 In a
spontaneous unanimous movement everyone offered him the title of pater patriae,
first the plebs through a deputation sent to Antium, and then, because he declined
it, by a huge crowd wearing laurel wreaths as he entered the theatre at Rome, and
finally, in the senate house, by the senate, not through a decree or acclamation but
through Valerius Messala. 2 He spoke for the whole body: ‘May good fortune and
divine favour attend you and your family, Caesar Augustus! – for in this way we
believe we are praying that our state be eternally prosperous and our city fortunate.
The senate, in agreement with the people of Rome, salutes you as Father of your
Country.’ With tears in his eyes, Augustus in these words – and I have given them
verbatim as I did for Messalla – replied, ‘Having attained my highest ambitions,
Fathers, what have I left to ask from the immortal gods than that I may be permitted
to retain the same unanimous approval of yours to the very end of my life?’

15.103 SEG 23.206: Gaius’ successes, AD 2

A stele from Messene in Greece. Gaius set out in 1 BC for the East, where he had imperium
over the whole region. In the same year he had married his step-relative Livilla, daughter of
Drusus and Antonia Minor. While in the East he entered on his consulship for AD 1, with
L. Aemilius Paullus as his colleague. After a short campaign in Arabia, he had a diplomatic
meeting with the new Parthian king, Phraataces V, on an island in the Euphrates, then
marched to Armenia to set a Roman nominee on the Armenian throne.

Philoxenidas was secretary of the council members in the magistracy of Theodoros.

Decree: since Publius Cornelius Scipio, quaestor with pro-praetorian power,
with extraordinary goodwill towards Augustus and all his family 5 has made the
greatest and most honourable vow to protect him against all harm, as shown by all
his actions, and has organised the games of the imperial family and has omitted no
expense or effort, nor on behalf of the sacrifices for Augustus spared his thanks-
givings to the gods, at the same time instructing most of the cities in the province
10 to do the same along with himself; and when he learnt that Gaius, son of

750
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Caesar, who took part in battle with the barbarians for the good of everyone, was
in good health and had escaped danger, and had taken vengeance on the enemy,
exceedingly joyful at this excellent news he instructed everyone to wear garlands
and sacrifice in uninterrupted holiday, and he personally sacrificed oxen for 15 the
preservation of Gaius and put on a variety of performances, being anxious both to
ensure that they rivalled those given in the past and to preserve (Gaius’) honoured
position. He removed two days from the days of Augustus, and made the begin-
ning of the sacrifices for Gaius from the day on which he was designated consul
for the first time and ordered us to celebrate this day every year with 20 sacrifices
and the wearing of wreaths as graciously as possible, and the council members
decreed on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of . . .

15.104 Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 15.7.1–3: A letter to Gaius

Suetonius here reveals that he had access to a volume of letters written by Augustus to
Gaius, of which this is one. It was written in September AD 2 to Gaius in Syria. Here, in
a chatty and light-hearted message to his ‘son’, Augustus shows how much he missed his
company and reveals his intention that Gaius and Lucius should be his successors, formally
continuing the principate into a new generation.

1 It has been noted of most old men, throughout much of human memory, and found
to be correct, that the sixty-third year of their life is generally marked by danger or
some disaster involving either serious bodily illness or loss of life, or mental inca-
pacity. 2 Accordingly, those who are engaged in the study of matters and terms of
that kind call that year of life the ‘climacteric’. 3 The night before last, too, when I
was reading the volume of letters which the deified Augustus wrote to his grandson
Gaius, and was led on by the elegance of the style, which was neither over-elaborate
nor punctilious, but, by Hercules!, easy and simple, in one of these letters I came
across a reference to this actual belief about the same year:
The ninth day before the Kalends of October (23 September): ‘Greetings my
Gaius, my dearest little donkey, whom I constantly miss, Heaven knows!, when
you’re away from me. But on days like today my eyes are particularly eager to
see my Gaius, and, wherever you may happen to have been today, I hope that you
are in good spirits and well enough to celebrate my 64th birthday. For, as you see,
I’ve passed the “climacteric” common to all old men, the sixty-third year. And I
pray to the gods that whatever time is left me I may to spend it with you safe and
well, and with our country prospering, while you two boys do deeds of valour and
get ready to succeed to my position.’

DISAPPOINTMENT AND DISASTER

It was unfortunate that in 2 BC, the year of the awarding of the title ‘pater patriae’ of which
Augustus was so proud, the imperial family had to withstand the blow of Julia the Elder’s
exile on grounds that struck at the heart of Augustus’ moral and social legislation. Whether
or not there were political implications as well as moral ones is unclear, but her main
lover, Iullus, committed suicide, and Julia was sent to Pandateria. The scandal must have

751
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
impacted on her two sons, who were being groomed for the succession, and accounted for
Augustus’ hard-line reaction to the daughter who was defying his own legislation on the
dignity of family life. The younger of the brothers, Lucius, died in AD 2, to be followed by
Gaius in January of AD 4. Augustus had perforce to turn to Tiberius and Julia’s youngest
son, Agrippa Postumus, both of whom he adopted in June AD 4. Tiberius was also made
to adopt his nephew Germanicus, Drusus’ elder son, who was married to Agrippina, Julia’s
daughter. Tiberius again achieved some great victories in Germany from AD 4 to 6, when
the news came that Illyricum was in revolt. He spent the next three years coping with this
rebellion against a background of rationing and rioting. In AD 7 the young Agrippa was
exiled to Planasia, and in AD 8 his sister Julia the Younger, like her mother, was banished
for adultery (with D. Junius Silanus). In AD 9 the stage was set for the triumphal return
of Tiberius and his adopted son Germanicus from Illyricum, when five days after their
arrival the news came of the disaster of Varus in Germany: three legions massacred and
everything beyond the Rhine lost. This was the most serious of all military disasters in
Augustus’ reign (that of Lollius was more a matter of disgrace). Tiberius spent another
three years consolidating the region, but without regaining the province of Germany. In AD
13 Augustus’ and Tiberius’ powers were renewed, with Tiberius having equal imperium
to Augustus. It is unclear to what extent Augustus turned to Tiberius reluctantly: his will,
which Tiberius had read out in the senate, stated: ‘Since cruel fate has snatched my sons,
Gaius and Lucius, from me, let Tiberius Caesar be heir to two-thirds of my estate’ (Suet.
Tib. 23.1). This was hardly an acknowledgement of Tiberius’ indispensability.

15.105 ILS 139: Rites for Lucius Caesar, Pisa AD 2–3

Lucius died at Massalia in Gaul on 21 or 22 February AD 2, before reaching Spain. The
Gabinian cincture (‘belting’), derived from the Etruscans, was a way of wearing a toga so
that both hands were free, as was necessary for the performance of many religious rites.
The inscription outlines the correct offerings to the spirits of the dead (dark-coloured togas
(the toga pulla), black animals, libations of milk, honey and oil).

19 September, at Pisa in the Augusteum in the forum; present when this was
drafted were: Quintus Petillius, son of Quintus, Publius Rasinius Bassus, son of
Lucius, Marcus Puppius, son of Marcus, Quintus Sertorius Pica, son of Quintus,
Gnaeus Octavius Rufus, son of Gnaeus, Aulus Albius Gutta, son of Aulus.
5 Since Gaius Canius Saturninus, son of Gaius, duumvir, proposed a resolution
to offer increased (funerary) honours to Lucius Caesar, son of Augustus Caesar,
father of the country, pontifex maximus, in the twenty-fifth year of his tribunician
power, (Lucius being) augur, consul designate, princeps iuventutis, patron of our
colony, the town council decreed as follows:
As the senate of the people of Rome among all the other numerous and great-
est honours 10 to Lucius Caesar, augur and consul designate, son of Augustus
Caesar, father of the country, pontifex maximus, in the twenty-fifth year of his
tribunician power, with the agreement of all the classes, zealously . . . the respon-
sibility has been given to Gaius Caninius Saturninus, duumvir, and the decemviri
of selecting 15 and seeing which of their two sites seems more appropriate, and
of buying with public funds from the owners the place which they have approved
as the better one. (It was also decided) that every year on 20 August sacrifices in

752
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
honour of the dead be offered at that altar to his departed spirit at public expense
by the magistrates, or those in charge of the administration of justice, clothed in
dark togas, those among them who have the right to wear such clothing on that
day; 20 a black ox and ram decorated with dark fillets are to be sacrificed to his
departed spirit, and these victims are to be burnt on that spot, and over them are
to be poured libations, a urn each of milk, honey and oil, and when that has been
done (by the city), other persons, who wish as individuals to make sacrifices to
his spirit, may do so, provided that they do not offer more than one taper or torch
or wreath, while those 25 who have made the sacrifice, girt in the Gabinian man-
ner, kindle the pile of logs and attend to it. (It was also decided) that the ground in
front of the altar, on which the pile of wood is collected and constructed, shall be
40 feet square and be fenced with oak stakes, and that every year a heap of wood
shall be constructed there for that purpose, and that this decree, together with the
earlier decrees concerning the honours paid to him, shall be inscribed or carved
on a large gravestone 30 set up alongside the altar. Regarding other ceremonies,
which they had resolved and now resolve to abstain from and avoid on that day,
the procedure should be followed as decreed by the senate and people of Rome.
(It was also decided) that at the first opportunity envoys from our order should
approach Imperator Caesar Augustus, 35 father of the country, pontifex maximus,
in the twenty-fifth year of his tribunician power, and request that he allow the
Julian colonists of the colony of Obsequens Julia Pisa to carry out and perform all
the provisions of this decree.

15.106 ILS 140: Mourning for Gaius Caesar, Pisa AD 4

In AD 3, while in Armenia, at an unknown place named Artagera, Gaius was wounded.
While he appeared to recover, his health was not good, and he died at Lycia on his journey
back to Italy. Members of his entourage were executed in Rome (doc. 6.27). The Gauls had
defeated the Romans at the battle of Allia in 390 BC. Sources hint that Livia may have been
involved in the death of both boys.

. . . at Pisa, in the Augusteum in the forum; present when this was drafted were:
Quintus Sertorius Atilius Tacitus, son of Quintus, Publius Rasinius Bassus, son
of Lucius, Lucius Lappius Gallus, son of Lucius, Quintus Sertorius Alpius Pica,
son of Quintus, Gaius Vettius Virgula, son of Lucius, Marcus Herius Priscus, son
of Marcus, Aulus Albius Gutta, son of Aulus, Tiberius Petronius Pollio, son of
Tiberius, Lucius Fabius Bassus, son of Lucius, Sextus Aponius Creticus, son of
Sextus, Gaius Canius Saturninus, son of Gaius, and Lucius Otacilius Panthera,
son of Quintus.
5 Whereas it was stated that, since there were no magistrates in our colony
because of the campaigns of candidates for election, the actions recorded below
were taken:
Since on 2 April it was reported to us that Gaius Caesar, son of Augustus
(father of the country, pontifex maximus, guardian of the Roman empire and pro-
tector of the whole world), grandson of the god, after the consulship, which he had

753
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
auspiciously concluded by waging war beyond the furthermost boundaries 10 of
the Roman people, and after administering the state well with most bellicose and
powerful nations conquered or received into our good faith, had been seized by
cruel fates from the Roman people as a result of wounds received on behalf of the
state as a result of this misfortune, at a time when he had already been designated
as princeps most just and most like his father in excellence and the only protec-
tion of our colony, and since this event, which took place when the mourning was
not yet concluded, which our entire colony had engaged in on the death 15 of his
brother Lucius Caesar, consul designate, augur, our patron, princeps iuventutis,
has renewed and intensified the grief of everyone, individually and collectively:
For these reasons the decurions and colonists, since at the time of this misfortune
there were neither duoviri or prefects nor anyone in charge of the administration
of justice, agreed among themselves, 20 because of the magnitude of so great and
unexpected a catastrophe, that from that day on which his death was reported to that
when his bones are brought back and buried and appropriate rites performed to his
departed spirit, everyone, dressed in mourning, with the temples of the immortal
gods, public baths and all shops closed, should abstain from dinner parties, and
the matrons in our colony should make lamentation; and 25 that the day on which
Gaius Caesar died, 21 February, should go down in memory as a day of mourning
like that of the Allia and be observed at the present time by the order and wish of all,
and that it shall be prohibited for the future to hold, plan or announce for that day or
on that day, 21 February, any public sacrifices, thanksgivings, weddings or public
banquets, 30 or to hold or attend on that day any theatrical performances or circus
games; that every year on that day offerings to his departed spirit are to be made
publicly by the magistrates, or by those who are in charge of the administration of
justice at Pisa, in the same place and in the same manner as the offerings established
for Lucius Caesar; that there be erected in the most frequented place in our colony
an arch 35 decorated with the spoils of the nations conquered or received into our
good faith by him, and that upon it be set up a statue of him on foot in triumphal
attire, and on each side of this two gilded equestrian statues of Gaius and Lucius
Caesar; that as soon as we shall have been able to elect legally and have in place
duovirs for the colony, the first duoviri elected shall put this decision of the decuri-
ons 40 and the whole colony to the decurions to ensure it is legally enacted through
their public authority and entered into the public records on their authorisation; and
that meanwhile Titus Statulenus Juncus, flamen of Augustus, pontifex minor of the
public rites of the Roman people, shall be requested to go with envoys to explain
the present unavoidable state of the colony and report 45 this public service, which
is desired of everyone, by delivering notification to Imperator Caesar Augustus,
pontifex maximus, in the twenty-sixth year of his tribunician power; and that Titus
Statulenus Juncus, princeps of our colony, flamen of Augustus, pontifex minor of
the public rites of the Roman people, has done this, delivering the notification as
stated above, to Imperator Caesar Augustus, pontifex maximus, in the twenty-sixth
year of his tribunician power, 50 father of the country.
It is hereby decreed by the decurions that all that was done, enacted and
decided with the agreement of all classes on 2 April in the consulship of Sextus

754
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Aelius Catus and Gaius Sentius Saturninus shall be so done, performed, kept and
observed by Lucius Titius, son of Aulus, and by Titus Allius Rufus, son of Titus,
the duovirs, and 55 by whoever for the future shall be duovirs, prefects, or any
other magistrates in our colony, and that all these things shall be done, performed,
kept and observed in perpetuity; and that Lucius Titius, son of Aulus, and Titus
Allius Rufus, son of Titus, the duoviri, shall ensure that everything recorded above
is in accordance with the decree to be entered at the first possible occasion in the
public records by the public scribe in the presence of the proquaestors. 60 Passed.

15.107 Suetonius Life of the Deified Augustus 23.1–2: Lollius and Varus
Marcus Lollius (cos. 21 BC) was governor of Macedonia in 19/18 and then of Gaul in
17/16. In the ‘Lollian disaster’ Lollius failed to guard the Rhine against Germanic tribes,
who defeated his legions and captured the standard of the Legion V Macedonica. Lollius
was, however, to remain in favour with Augustus until he accompanied Gaius to the East in
1 BC: the two fell out and Lollius, accused of taking Parthian bribes, possibly committed
suicide. Augustus himself went to Gaul in 16 and remained in the West for three years,
with his stepson Drusus taking over in 13 BC when he returned to Rome. To intimidate the
Germans and ensure that such a defeat was not repeated, more legions were assigned to the
area and forts positioned at key places along the Rhine. The defeat of Varus in AD 9 was
far more serious, with three legions annihilated in Germany.

23.1 He encountered only two serious and ignominious defeats, both in Germany,
those of Lollius and Varus, but that of Lollius (16 BC) was more a matter of dis-
grace than dangerous, while that of Varus was nearly catastrophic, as three entire
legions, their general, legates and auxiliary troops were totally slaughtered. When
this was reported, he ordered that watch be kept throughout the city in case of any
unrest and prolonged the commands of provincial governors so the allies might be
kept to their loyalty by experienced men with whom they were familiar. 2 He also
vowed great games to Jupiter Optimus Maximus should the condition of the state
improve, as had been done in the wars with the Cimbri and Marsi. In fact they say
that he was so distraught that for months on end he cut neither his beard nor his
hair, while occasionally dashing his head against the door, crying out, ‘Quinctilius
Varus, give me back my legions!’

15.108 Velleius Paterculus Compendium of Roman History

2.117.1–19.5: The Teutoberg Forest
Varus was a member of Augustus’ inner circle, married firstly to Vipsania Marcella,
Augustus’ great-niece and the daughter of Agrippa and Claudia Marcella the Elder, and
then to Claudia Pulchra, daughter of Claudia Marcella the Younger, another of Augustus’
great-nieces. Varus was consul in 13 BC, with Tiberius as his colleague, after which he
governed Africa (8/7 BC) and then Syria (7/6 BC), when he put down a revolt in Judaea.
After long campaigns in Germany waged by Tiberius, Drusus and Germanicus, Germany
was considered pacified, and in AD 6 Varus was appointed governor with a view to
organising the area as subject territory. Arminius, a Germanic prince and Roman citizen,
lured the Romans into an ambush near the Teutoberg Forest: this was the worst disaster of
Augustus’ reign, and the numbers XVII, XVIII and XIX were never used again.

755
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
117.1 Caesar had only just put the final touches to the Pannonian and Dalmatian
war when, within five days of this task being finished, awful letters from Germany
brought the news of the slaughter of Varus and the annihilation of three legions, the
same number of cavalry divisions, and six cohorts – as if fortune was at least grant-
ing this favour, that so great a calamity should fall upon us when our leader was not
otherwise occupied. 2 Varus Quinctilius, who was descended from a family which
was rather famous than noble, was a man of easy-going character, quiet in his man-
ners, as slow in mind as he was in body, and more used to the leisure of the camp
than active military service, and that he did not despise money is shown by Syria,
which he governed, which was a rich province when he entered it as a poor man and
poor when he left it rich. 3 When put in charge of the army in Germany, he believed
that they were a people who were men only in limbs and voice and that they, who
could not be conquered by swords, could be appeased by law. 4 With this precon-
ception in mind, he entered the heart of Germany as if he were going among a peo-
ple in enjoyment of the pleasures of peace and wasted summer campaigning time in
court cases and legal matters. . . . 118.2 There then appeared a young man of noble
birth, brave in action, swift in mind, possessing intelligence far beyond barbarians
in general, called Arminius, son of Sigimer, a leader of that race, who displayed his
mind’s ardour in his countenance and expression, and who had constantly accom-
panied our army on previous campaigns, been granted Roman citizenship and even
acquired the honour of equestrian rank. He made use of the idleness of the general as
an opportunity for duplicity, cleverly discerning that no one could be more swiftly
overpowered than the man who feared nothing, and that a sense of security was the
most frequent introduction to calamity . . .
119.1 The detailed facts of this most awful calamity, the most serious the
Romans had suffered in foreign territory after the disaster of Crassus in Parthia,
I shall endeavour to expound, like others, in my larger history: here I can merely
lament over the larger picture. 2 The bravest of all armies, the best of Roman
forces in discipline, valour and experience of warfare, through the indolence of its
general, the perfidiousness of the enemy, and the cruelty of fate, was surrounded,
without the opportunity which they wished for being given them of either fighting
or retreating, unless at impossible odds, with some of them even heavily punished
for bringing to bear the weapons and spirit of Romans – encompassed by woods,
marshes and ambushes, it was annihilated to the point of extermination by the
very enemy it had always before slaughtered like cattle and whose life or death
had depended on the Romans’ anger or clemency. 3 The leader had more courage
in dying than in fighting: following the example of his father and grandfather, he
ran himself through. Of the two prefects of the camp, 4 Lucius Eggius presented
an example that was as splendid as Ceionius was cowardly, who, after the greater
part of the army had fallen, proposed surrender, preferring to die by torture than
in battle. Vala Numonius, Varus’ legate, who had until then been retiring and
upright, set a frightful precedent in that he left the infantry deserted by the cavalry
and tried in flight to reach the Rhine with his cavalry squadrons. However, fate
avenged his action – he did not survive those he deserted but was killed while
deserting them. 5 The enemy’s ferocity tore apart Varus’ half-burnt corpse; his

756
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
head was cut off and taken to Maroboduus, who sent it to Caesar, and despite the
circumstances it was honoured by burial in the family tomb.

15.109 ILS 2244: Epitaph for a centurion, AD 9

The stone cenotaph, found at Castra Vetera in Germany, depicts the relief of a centurion
with cuirass and military decorations, between the busts of two freedmen, Marcus Caelius
Privatus and Marcus Caelius Thiaminus, who may have died with him in the attack.
Bononia is in Cisalpine Gaul.

Marcus Caelius, son of Titus, (of the tribe) Lemonia, from Bononia, centurion of
the Eighteenth Legion. At 53 years he fell in the Varian War. As to the bones of
his freedmen, it will be allowed to bury them here. Publius Caelius, son of Titus,
5 (of the tribe) Lemonia, his brother, made this.

15.110 Dio Roman History 56.23.1–24.1: Panic in Rome

Manpower in Rome had already been stretched thin for the campaign in Illyricum, and in
this crisis conscription was introduced, with serious penalties for those who tried to avoid
involvement. The German threat appeared so real that Augustus even sent his German
bodyguard out of Rome.

23.1 When Augustus learned of what had happened to Varus, he tore his clothes,
as some report, and lamented excessively, not only because of the soldiers who
had been lost but also because of his fear of the Germans and Gauls, and most
particularly because he expected that they would march on Italy and Rome itself.
For there were no citizens of military age left, and the allied forces that were of
any use had been badly hit. 2 Nevertheless, he made the preparations he could in
view of the situation, and when no one of military age was willing to be enlisted
he made them draw lots, confiscating the property and disenfranchising every
fifth man of those not yet 35 and every tenth man of those older than that age. 3 In
the end, as a great many people paid no attention to him even then, he had some
of them killed. He chose by lot as many as possible of those who had completed
their term of service and freedmen, and after enlisting them sent them with all
speed with Tiberius into Germany. 4 Since there were a large number of Gauls
and Germans, some of them living in Rome for various reasons and others being
in the praetorian guard, he was afraid they might start an insurrection, and so he
sent away the guard to certain islands and ordered those who were unarmed to
leave the city. 24.1 This was the way he dealt with the situation, and none of the
usual business was carried on, nor were the festivals celebrated.

15.111 Tacitus Annals 1.3.1–4.2: The succession

Having lost Marcellus, Agrippa and his two eldest grandsons, Augustus had in AD 4 to
turn to his stepson Tiberius, who had been in retirement on Rhodes for some years. He also
adopted Agrippa Postumus, Julia’s youngest son; the reason why he was later exiled to
the island of Planasia in AD 7 is unclear. At the same time Tiberius was made to adopt his

757
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
nephew Germanicus, the elder son of his dead brother Drusus. With Postumus banished,
Tiberius was the only choice as Augustus’ heir in the short term, and it was only in AD 13
that he received imperium equal to that of Augustus.

3.1 Meanwhile Augustus, to bolster his power, elevated Claudius Marcellus, his
sister’s son and still an adolescent, to the pontificate and curule aedileship, and
Marcus Agrippa, of humble birth but skilful in warfare and his associate in victory,
to two successive consulships, and shortly afterwards, on the death of Marcellus,
to the position of his son-in-law. He gave the title of Imperator to his two stepsons,
Tiberius Nero and Claudius Drusus, though his own family was still intact – 2 for
he had included Agrippa’s children, Gaius and Lucius, in the Caesarian family, and
even while they still wore the youthful toga (praetexta) had them named the princi-
pes iuventutis and had a burning desire to have them consuls designate, though
he pretended otherwise. 3 At Agrippa’s demise, premature death – or the guile of
their stepmother Livia – carried off Lucius Caesar, while on his way to the Spanish
armies, and then Gaius, returning from Armenia while sick with a wound. Drusus
had long been dead, and Nero (Tiberius) was the sole surviving stepson, with all
focusing on him: adopted as son, colleague in the empire and co-sharer of the tribu-
nician power, he was exhibited through all the armies, not as before by the hidden
artifice of his mother but openly at her urging – 4 for so tightly had she fettered
Augustus in his old age that he exiled to the island of Planasia his only remaining
grandson, Agrippa Postumus, who, though untouched by any good qualities and
doggedly violent in his bodily strength, had not been convicted of any wrongdoing.
5 But strangely he placed Germanicus, Drusus’ son, at the head of the eight legions
on the Rhine and ordered that he be adopted by Tiberius, although Tiberius had a
youthful son in his home, as an additional safeguard. 6 No war was being waged at
that time, except for the ongoing one against the Germans, more to expunge the dis-
grace of the army annihilated with Quinctilius Varus than from any desire to extend
the empire or for any worthy profit.
7 All was peaceful at home, titles of magistrates remained the same; younger men
had been born after the victory at Actium, and even most of the older men during
the civil wars: was there anyone still alive who had actually seen the Republic? 4.1
Consequently it was a very different state, with no trace left of the good, old way of
life: equality had been abolished, and everyone looked to the commands of the prin-
ceps, with no fears for the present, while Augustus in the vigour of life upheld himself,
his house and peace. 2 But afterwards, when with the advance of old age he was worn
by physical illness and an end and new hopes were at hand, some few began to talk
vainly of the good of freedom, more were fearful of war – and others desired it.

THE END OF AN AGE

15.112 Suetonius Life of the Deified Augustus 99.1, 100–1.1–4:
Augustus’ farewell
Augustus died at Nola on 19 August AD 14. Both Tacitus and Dio suggest that Livia may
have had a hand in his death. In AD 13 Tiberius had finally been granted imperium equal

758
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
to that of Augustus. He was travelling to Illyricum, and Augustus accompanied him as
far as Beneventum. Augustus then spent a few days on Capri and attended the games at
Naples. While returning to Rome, he died at Nola. His donatives reflected how important
the support of the military had been to the success of his regime.

99.1 On the final day of his life he inquired now and again whether there was any dis-
turbance outside on his account, then called for a mirror and had his hair combed and
his sagging jaw set straight. When his friends were admitted he asked whether he’d
seemed to them to have played life’s charade appropriately, and added the couplet:

‘Since my part has been played well, give me applause

and all of you joyfully send me on my way.’

After dismissing them all, while he was asking some recent arrivals from the
city about Drusus’ daughter, who was sick, he suddenly died as he was kissing
Livia, uttering the words, ‘Live mindful of our marriage, Livia, and farewell!’,
thus lucky in his easy death just as he had always wanted. . . . 100 He died in the
same bedroom as his father Octavius, in the consulship of two Sextuses, Pompeius
and Appuleius, on the 14th day before the Kalends of September (19 August) at
the ninth hour, just 35 days before his 76th birthday. . . . 101.1 He had made a will
in the consulship of Lucius Plancus and Gaius Silius (AD 13), on the third day
before the Nones of April (3 April), a year and four months before he died, in two
notebooks written partly in his hand and partly in those of his freedmen Polybius
and Hilarion, which had been deposited with the Vestals, who now produced it
together with three volumes sealed in the same way. All these were opened and
read out in the senate. 2 He named as his main heirs Tiberius, to take two-thirds of
the estate, and Livia, one-third, and instructed that they should also take his name.
The heirs in the second degree were Drusus, son of Tiberius, to take one-third,
while the remainder would go to Germanicus and his three male children. In the
third degree he named many of his relations and friends. To the Roman people he
left 40,000,000 sesterces; to the tribes 3,500,000; to the soldiers of the praetorian
guard 1,000 each; to the city cohorts 500; and to the legionaries 300. This money
he ordered to be paid at once, as he had always kept the money ready and at hand.
3 He made other bequests to various people, some as large as 20,000 sesterces,
which were not to be paid until a year after his death, giving the reason for this as
the small size of his property, and stating that not more than 150,000,000 would
go to his heirs, for though he had received 14 hundred millions over the last 20
years from the wills of his friends, he had spent nearly all of it, as well as the
patrimonies of his two fathers and those of others, for the good of the state. He
gave instructions that the Julias, his daughter and granddaughter, should anything
happen to them, were not to be placed in his mausoleum. 4 Of the three volumes,
in one he included directions for his funeral, in the second there was a record of
his achievements which he wished to have engraved on bronze tablets to stand
in front of his mausoleum, and in the third a summary of the whole empire: how
many soldiers were in service and where, and how much money there was in the

759
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
treasury and privy-purse and what revenues needed to be collected. He added
as well the names of the freedmen and slaves from whom the details could be
demanded.

15.113 Strabo Geography 5.3.8: Augustus’ mausoleum

His mausoleum was one of the first projects that Augustus began after his victory at Actium.
Located on the Campus Martius, the mausoleum was circular, planted with cypresses on
the summit of the building, and measured 90 metres in diameter and 42 metres in height.
Before those of Augustus himself, the ashes of Marcellus (the first, in 23 BC), Agrippa,
Drusus, Octavia Minor, and Gaius and Lucius were interred there. Both Julias were
specifically refused burial there by Augustus.

Considering this to be the holiest spot of all, they have erected there the tombs
of their most distinguished men and women. Most noteworthy is the one called
the mausoleum, a huge mound near the river on an elevated foundation of white
marble, covered with evergreen trees right up to the summit; at the top stands a
bronze statue of Augustus Caesar; beneath the mound are the tombs of himself
and his family and intimates; behind is a vast grove with wondrous promenades;
and in the centre of the Campus (Martius) is the wall of his crematorium, also of
white marble.

15.114 Dio Roman History 56.46.1–47.1: Augustus’ apotheosis

Julius Caesar had officially become the divus Julius (divine Julius) in 42 BC following the
comet in July 44 which was claimed by Octavian to be Caesar’s soul ascending to heaven.
From that time Octavian styled himself ‘son of the god’, and in 40 Antony took up his
position as flamen of the cult. During his lifetime Augustus has been worshipped in the
provinces, in association with the goddess Roma, though citizens were allowed to worship
his numen or genius. As there was a witness to his apotheosis, this junior senator rewarded
for his input by Livia, the senate had sufficient evidence to acclaim Augustus as a god.

46.1 These rumours began to circulate later on. At the time they declared him to
be immortal, gave him priests and sacred rites, and made Livia, already called
Julia 2 and Augusta, his priestess. They also allowed her to make use of a lictor
when engaged in her religious duties. She herself made a present of a million
sesterces to a certain senator and ex-praetor called Numerius Atticus because he
swore that he saw Augustus ascending into heaven, as is said to have happened to
Proculus and Romulus. 3 A shrine voted by the senate was built to him in Rome
by Livia and Tiberius, and many others in different places, some erected by com-
munities willingly and others unwillingly. The house at Nola, where he died, was
also dedicated as a shrine. 4 While his temple at Rome was being set up, they
placed a golden image of him on a couch in the temple of Mars and paid all the
honours to this that they were going to give to his statue. They also decreed that
no image of him should be carried in procession at anyone’s funeral, and that the
consuls should celebrate his birthday with games like those at the ludi Martiales,

760
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
and that the tribunes, being sacrosanct, were to be in charge of the Augustalia. 5
These conducted everything in the customary manner, even to wearing triumphal
dress at the chariot race, except that they did not ride in the chariot. Apart from all
this, Livia held a private three-day festival in the palace in his honour, which has
been continued up to the present day by the current emperor.
47.1 Such were the decrees passed regarding Augustus, theoretically by the
senate, but in reality by Tiberius and Livia: for when various proposals were
made, the senate decreed that Tiberius should receive them in writing and choose
the ones he preferred. I have added Livia’s name, because she was fully involved,
as if she were herself ruler.

VIEWS OF AUGUSTUS AND HIS REGIME

15.115 Nikolaos of Damascus Life of Augustus 1–2
Nikolaos’ Life seems to have been completed after AD 14. An intimate of Herod of
Judaea and tutor of the children of Antony and Cleopatra in Italy after their parents’ death,
Nikolaos was also a personal friend of Augustus and travelled with him to Syria in 20 BC.
His account is clearly eulogistic and politically correct.

1 Men gave him this name because of his claim to honour and worshipped him with
temples and sacrifices, distributing these over islands and continents and through
cities and nations, in this way recompensing him for the greatness of his virtue and
his benefactions towards themselves. For this man, after attaining the utmost power
and wisdom, ruled over the greatest number of people within human memory,
established the most distant boundaries for the Romans’ empire, and settled not only
the tribes of Greeks and barbarians but also their dispositions, at first with arms but
afterwards even without arms, by attracting them of their own free will and by per-
suading them to obey him by making himself known through benevolence. Some of
their names men had never heard before, nor had they been subject to anyone within
living memory, but he pacified all of them that live as far as the Rhine and beyond
the Ionian Sea and the Illyrian peoples. These are called Pannonians and Dacians. 2
To demonstrate the full extent of this man’s wisdom and pre-eminence, both in the
government which he exercised in his own country and in his direction of great wars
both civil and foreign, is a subject for competition in speech and writing, that men
may become famous through their excellent presentations. I myself shall relate his
achievements, so that everyone may know the truth.

15.116 Pliny the Elder Natural History 7.147–50: Augustus’

chequered fortunes
Pliny, in his discussion of the workings of fate, is here presenting all the difficulties,
disappointments and dangers that Augustus had to face. Apart from Tacitus (doc. 15.117),
Pliny gives the most negative appraisal of Augustus’ reign. He focuses primarily on
Augustus’ early years and his ambition, though every episode is deliberately presented to
give the worst possible slant on his motives.

761
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
147 In the case of the deified Augustus, too, whom all of humanity ranks in this
[fortunate] category, immense revolutions of the wheel of human destiny would
be revealed if all facts were rigorously appraised: his disappointment with his
uncle regarding the position of magister equitum when the opposing candidate
Lepidus was chosen, the ill-will caused by the proscriptions, his association in
the triumvirate with the worst of citizens – and that not even as an equal member,
but with Antony as the foremost – 148 his flight at the battle of Philippi, when
he was sick and spent three days lying low in a marsh (as Agrippa and Maecenas
admitted) though ill and in a swollen dropsical state, his shipwreck off Sicily
and another period there of hiding in a cave, his prayers to Proculeius to kill him
in the naval defeat when an enemy troop was close at hand, the anxiety of the
conflict at Perusia, the trepidation of the battle at Actium, his fall from a tower
in the Pannonian wars, 149 all the mutinies of his soldiers, his serious illnesses,
the doubtful loyalty of Marcellus, the ignominious exile of Agrippa, the many
conspiracies against his life, the accusations of causing the death of his children;
and the griefs that were not due to bereavement – the adultery of his daughter, the
revelation of her plans for parricide, the disrespectful withdrawal of his stepson
Tiberius, the further adultery of his granddaughter, then a long series of disasters –
lack of funds for the army, rebellion in Illyricum, enlistment of slaves, shortage
of young men, plague in the city, famine in Italy, decision to commit suicide with
death over half achieved by four days’ hunger-strike; 150 then that disaster of
Varus’ and disgraceful affront to his dignity, the disowning of Postumus Agrippa
after his adoption, the yearning for him after his banishment, then his suspicion
with regard to Fabius and the betrayal of secrets, and afterwards the plots of his
wife and Tiberius, which caused him unease in his final days. In short, this god –
whether divine through effort or merit, I am unsure – expired leaving his enemy’s
son his heir.

15.117 Tacitus Annals 1.9.3–10.8: Tacitus’ judgement

Tacitus is giving the reactions of two factions to Augustus’ death and his reign. By
leaving the damning critique of Augustus’ motives and failures until last, the impression
that remains is one of overall failure and despondency. Like Pliny (doc. 15.116), Tacitus
focuses his attention on events during the lawless period of the triumvirate, while he sees
Augustus’ last years overall as ones of disappointment. For Vedius Pollio, see doc. 6.26.

9.3 Among men of intelligence, his life was praised or criticised from various
points of view. Some considered that ‘duty (pietas) towards a father and the needs
of the state, which at that point had no place for laws, had driven him into civil
war – which can never be planned or carried on by honourable methods. 4 He
had had to make many concessions to Antony and many to Lepidus in order to
take revenge on his father’s assassins. After Lepidus grew old and inactive and
Antony had succumbed to debauchery, there was no other cure for the dysfunc-
tional state than rule by one man. 5 However, he instituted neither a monarchy
nor dictatorship but rule under the name of a princeps; the empire was protected

762
 THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
by the Ocean and distant rivers; legions, provinces, fleets were all part of the
same organisational structure; there was law for the citizens, respectful treatment
of allied communities; the city of Rome was marvellously beautified; little had
been dealt with by violence and then only to ensure peace and quiet for every-
one else.’ 10.1 Against this it was said that ‘duty towards his father and the state
crisis had been put forward as a pretext; it was his desire for power which led to
mobilising the veterans through hand-outs, raising an army while still a youth and
private citizen, enticing away a consul’s legions, and pretending support for the
Pompeian side. 2 Soon afterwards by a senatorial decree he assumed the fasces
and powers of a praetor; with Hirtius and Pansa killed, whether by the enemy or,
in Pansa’s case, through poison being administered to his wound, and in Hirtius’
murder by his own soldiers, with Caesar stage-managing the treachery and taking
over the armies of both; a consulship was extorted from an unwilling senate, and
the weapons which he had received to deal with Antony turned against the state;
while the proscriptions of citizens and allocations of land had not been approved
even by those who carried them out. 3 Even if Cassius and the Brutuses had met
their deaths because of enmities inherited from his father – although properly
private hatreds should give way to the needs of the state – Pompey was deceived
by the pretence of a peace, Lepidus by the appearance of friendship; then Antony
was entrapped by the treaties of Tarentum and Brundisium and marriage with his
sister and paid with his life the penalty of that treacherous relationship. Certainly
that was followed by peace, but a bloody one – 4 the disasters of Lollius and
Varus, the executions at Rome of a Varro, Egnatius, Iullus.’ 5 Nor was his private
life spared: the theft of Nero’s wife (Livia) and the charade of the query to the
pontiffs as to whether, with a child already conceived, a legal marriage could take
place; the extravagance of Vedius Pollio; finally Livia – as a mother a disaster for
the state, as a stepmother a disaster to the house of Caesar. 6 ‘There was no scope
left for the worship of the gods, while he wished to be venerated by flamens and
priests in temples and statues. 7 Even the choice of Tiberius as his successor was
not motivated by affection or concern for the state, but when he had appreciated
Tiberius’ arrogance and cruelty he had sought to add to his own glory by this atro-
cious contrast.’ For Augustus, a few years earlier, when requesting an extension
of Tiberius’ tribunician potestas, had in his speech, though complimentary, made
comments on his dress, demeanour and lifestyle which, while apparently excuses,
were actually criticisms. 8 However, his funeral was according to tradition and he
was decreed a temple and divine rites.

763
 16

The Ancient Sources

There are various ancient sources of evidence for the history of the Roman
Republic. This collection has, for obvious reasons, concentrated on literary
sources, whether the works of historical writers, such as Polybius, Livy, Sallust
and Appian, or of biographers, notably Suetonius and Plutarch. There are also
valuable excerpts from works now lost given in the writings of antiquarians and
scholars (Varro, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Pliny the Elder, Aulus Gellius and
Macrobius), while useful light on issues in political and social history can be
cast by poets: Ennius, Lucilius, Catullus and the comic dramatists. There are,
of course, in addition, speeches delivered in the law-courts, notably by one of
the most prolific of Roman writers and orators, Cicero, although it is important
to be aware that Cicero’s speeches give only one side of the case, and that a
very biased one. Similarly, the reader should be aware that his Letters are pri-
vate communications which convey much contemporary gossip information on
family matters and often contradict his public statements. However, this col-
lection has also attempted to provide access to other sources, most importantly
information recorded on stone (epigraphy), as well as to historians whose work
survives only in ‘fragments’, phrases, sentences or paragraphs quoted or para-
phrased by other ancient historians or commentators. Relevant archaeological
and numismatic evidence (evidence from artefacts, excavations and coins) has
been referred to wherever possible. The notes below are intended as a general
introduction to Roman historiography (historical writing), whether in Latin or
Greek, and are aimed at helping the reader to understand the aims and methodol-
ogy of the ancient authors.

EPIGRAPHY
Epigraphy is the study of texts which have been inscribed, generally on stone
or bronze or on some less durable material such as pottery. There are often
problems of dating with inscriptions, and many are partially damaged and hence
difficult to read or interpret. Such texts are often ‘impersonal’, such as state
decrees, treaties or laws (docs 3.66, 5.22, 15.32, for example), but inscriptions
can be personal, as when they record a funerary epitaph (the largest group of

764
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
Latin inscriptions, in which the deceased or their relatives reveal important
information about the family and about the members’ perceptions of each other
and their domestic role); they can also record a dedication or personal gift: see
docs 7.23–25, 31–33, 37, 66. Inscriptions may detail the achievements of indi-
viduals, particularly generals or public benefactors, whether commissioned by
themselves or by communities in their honour: in either case the account is not
necessarily objective (docs 4.10, 5.33, 5.42–43, 12.18, 14.25, 14.56, 15.43–46,
83–87). Epigraphy can act as a valuable supplement to literary sources: inscribed
slingshots reveal the insults that were being traded during the Social War and
in the siege of Perusia in 41 BC (docs 10.16, 14.31). Inscriptions are essential
evidence for Augustus’ constitutional position, for the question of whether or
not he possessed maius imperium (docs 15.9, 15.10) and for the development of
imperial cult during his reign (docs 15.53–58), as well as for the details of the
organisation and government of colonies and of municipalites in Italy as laid
down in Julius Caesar’s legislation as dictator (docs. 2.80, 13.59–60). Augustus’
Res Gestae (doc. 15.1), the lengthy document which enshrined his imperial ide-
ology and recorded what he chose to see as his greatest triumphs, including his
massive expenditure on behalf of Rome, was inscribed on bronze pillars in front
of his mausoleum. This version is lost, but the account survives in three copies,
all from Galatia in Asia Minor, one of which preserves the full text of the Latin
alongside a Greek translation, and which was set up at the temple of Roma and
Augustus in Ancyra (modern Ankara).

THE ROMAN ANNALISTIC TRADITION

The pontifex maximus used to keep an annual record called the annales maximi,
which was posted on a whitened board outside the Regia, his official residence;
it contained the names of magistrates and of important events such as triumphs,
treaties, wars, the building of temples, eclipses, plagues, earthquakes and por-
tents. It was continued until the pontificate of P. Mucius Scaevola (pontifex
maximus 130–115 BC) and was a valuable source for historians of early Rome,
when it comprised some 80 books. While some of the earlier books were reflec-
tions of legendary characters and themes, the records from 400 BC (an eclipse
of the sun on 21 June 400: Cic. Rep. 1.25) seem to have been genuine, though
their content was of course limited. Cato the Elder, in his Origines (HRR I2 77),
stated: ‘I do not choose to copy out what is on the pontifex maximus’ tablet:
how many times grain became dear, how many times the sun and moon were
obscured or eclipsed.’ The pontiffs also kept the libri pontificales, which con-
tained instructions for cult formulae and rituals and recorded the dedication
dates of temples, while the libri lintei (‘Linen Books’) were preserved in the
temple of Juno Moneta and apparently contained lists of magistrates and other
historical information. Early historians also had access to lists of Republican
consuls (or other chief magistrates) called fasti, which were kept as records for
chronological purposes, since these magistrates gave their name to the year (see
docs 3.30, 14.63, 15.4).

765
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
HISTORIANS AND ANNALISTS
16.1 Fabius Pictor and the early historians
Quintus Fabius Pictor, who wrote in Greek, was the first Roman historian and went
on an embassy to Delphi during the Second Punic War in 216 BC. He makes use of
the history of Timaeus of Tauromenium (c. 350–260), whom Polybius criticises in
book 12 of his Histories for factual errors and inappropriate methodology. Polybius
makes use of Fabius, though aware of his pro-Roman bias (as in his belief that the
Barcid family was responsible for the outbreak of the Second Punic War): see docs
4.5, 4.25, 4.36 for Polybius’ comments on Fabius Pictor and Philinus of Acragas in
Sicily. It is not clear whether Livy knew Fabius’ work at first-hand.
Fabius dwelt at length on the legendary foundation of Rome: SEG 26.1123, F2,
col. A (from Taormina, second century BC), ‘Quintus Fabius, called Pictorinus,
a Roman son of Gaius, who related the arrival of Heracles in Italy and the return
of Lanoeus, an ally of Aeneas and Ascanius; much later there were Romulus and
Remus and the foundation of Rome by Romulus, who was the first to be king.’
L. Cincius Alimentus, another pioneer historian, was a contemporary of Fabius
Pictor and was at one stage Hannibal’s prisoner; praetor in 210, he also wrote in
Greek, as did the philhellene A. Postumius Albinus, whose history was published
before Cato’s death in 149. Among Latin writers were M. Porcius Cato (cos. 195),
L. Cassius Hemina (first half of the 2nd century BC), L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi
(cos. 133 BC), C. Sempronius Tuditanus (cos. 129), L. Coelius Antipater (c. 120
BC), Q. Claudius Quadrigarius (a contemporary of Sulla), C. Licinius Macer
(tr. pl. 73 BC) and Valerius Antias (first century BC). The documentary sources
from which they drew their information could include the annales maximi and
pontifical records, the libri lintei, public records from the state archives, and pri-
vate family records and oral traditions, as well as the writings of earlier annalists.

16.2 Cato the Elder (234–149 BC)

Cato was consul in 195 BC (when he served in Spain: doc. 5.46) and censor in
184 (doc. 1.17). His Origines (Beginnings), which he started in 168, was the first
full-scale history in Latin dealing with the origins of various peoples in Italy (from
Aeneas to 149 BC). He claimed Greek descent for the settlers of Italy and drew
heavily on Fabius Pictor. He was also the pre-eminent orator of his time, with
more than 150 speeches known to Cicero: for his style, see Cicero Brutus 65–69;
Sallust Histories 1 F1 calls him ‘disertissimus’, ‘most eloquent’. Cato was also
the author of a work on morals, one of advice to his son, a book of sayings, one on
priestly law, and a manual on soldiering.
With regard to his history, Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1.11.1 classes Cato
among the most learned of Roman historians and (1.74.2) praises his care in the
collection of data. Cornelius Nepos (Cato 3.2–4) relates that the first of the seven
books of the Origines contained the deeds of the kings of the Roman people, the
second and third the origin of each of the Italian states, the fourth book the narra-
tive of the First Punic War and the fifth that of the second. He dealt ‘with the other
wars’ in the same way down to the praetorship of Servius Sulpicius Galba, who

766
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
robbed the Lusitanians (doc. 5.48). His comment on Cato as an historian is that
‘He displays great industry and diligence, but no learning’ (3.4).
In his Origines, Cato stressed the collective role of the Roman people rather
than individual ‘heroes’. Pliny Nat. Hist. 8.5 states that Cato removed the names
of military commanders but recorded that the elephant in the Carthaginian army
which was the bravest in battle was called the Syrian and that it had one broken
tusk. Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 3.7.18–19 (HRR I2 80–1) cites Cato on the military
tribune Caedicius in the First Punic War in Sicily, who engaged the Carthaginians
with 400 men, allowing the rest of the army to retreat. Cato compared him with
the Spartan king Leonidas, who ‘was honoured by all Greece with especial glory
and gratitude through monuments of the most illustrious renown’, whereas Cato
in contrast makes clear that this military tribune acted simply as a normal Roman.
Docs 2.15–17, 6.34–36 come from Cato’s De agri cultura (On Farming) of
c. 160 BC, which gives detailed, practical advice on the running of a villa estate
and on the treatment of slaves on such a property; docs 3.23, 3.28, 3.34–35 refer
to religious rites appropriate on such a farm, while docs 2.17 and 3.70 prescribe
medical treatments. At doc. 5.62 Cato gives advice ‘to his son’ or to a more general
readership; at docs 5.57–58 he is cited by Diodorus Siculus and Polybius regarding
his criticism of ‘modern’ luxurious tastes. Gellius cites Cato’s speeches on several
occasions: doc. 5.37 (in support of the Rhodians), 7.11 (in support of the Voconian
law) and 7.18 (on the relationship between adultery and alcohol in women). Livy
puts a speech into his mouth against the repeal of the Oppian law (doc. 7.67), but
this should not be taken as reflecting anything actually said on the occasion by Cato.

16.3 Polybius of Megalopolis (c. 200–c. 118 BC)

Polybius, a prominent Achaean from the region in the north-east of the Pelo-
ponnese, served as hipparch of the Achaean confederacy in 170/69. Following
Rome’s victory at Pydna in 168 he was deported to Italy with 1,000 other Achaeans
and released only in 150. After being lucky enough to become a close friend of
Scipio Aemilianus (Polyb. 31.23.1–25.1) he was allowed to stay in Rome during
this period and went to Spain and Africa with Scipio. He assisted after 146 in
the Roman settlement of Greece, where many statues were erected in his hon-
our: Pausanias Description of Greece 8.37.2 quotes an inscription at Lycosoura:
‘Greece would never have come to grief had she obeyed Polybius in all things,
and, having come to grief, she found succour through him alone.’
The greater part of his history, which was in 40 books, is lost; only books
1–5 are complete. The work was concerned with events from 220 to 167 BC in
particular: later Polybius continued the history in a further ten books down to
146 (Hist. 3.4); unfortunately the Penguin translation is not complete and omits
many significant passages. Polybius wrote what he titled ‘pragmatike historia’,
pragmatic history, or military and political history with a practical, didactic
bias. His work is a systematic historical treatise (‘pragmateia’) covering world
history, not just isolated events or geographical areas (1.4.1–7), and he stresses
the importance of accurate research and information rather than history’s use as
entertainment.

767
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
As an Achaean, Polybius has certain pro-Achaean and anti-Aeolian biases, and
he idealises the character of his friend Scipio Aemilianus and the rest of his fam-
ily (such as Scipio’s father, L. Aemilius Paullus). He has an intimate knowledge
of the Scipiones and Aemilii and discusses the character of Scipio Africanus at
doc. 4.51 (cf. doc 6.8; Hist. 10.2.2–13) and that of Scipio Aemilianus at docs 5.58,
7.70. As a Greek living in aristocratic circles in Rome, he gives a detailed view as
an outsider of Roman institutions and customs, providing information so central
to Roman life that the Roman accounts do not mention them; especially important
are docs 1.59 on the Roman constitution; 3.76–77 on Roman religious and funer-
ary practices; and 7.70 on women’s festival paraphernalia.
Polybius is given to cite treaties verbatim, or at least to paraphrase them closely:
for treaties in the Punic Wars, see docs 4.1–3, 17, 45, 58; for those relevant to the
conquest of the Mediterranean: docs 5.23, 28, 30–31, 38; at doc. 4.19 he shows
that he has used official figures for troop numbers before the Second Punic War.
At Hist. 1.1.5–6 he gives his reasons for writing:

for who is there so indifferent or frivolous that he does not wish to know by
what means and under what system of government nearly the whole inhabited
world has in less than 53 years been subjugated and fallen under a single rule,
that of the Romans – an entirely unprecedented state of affairs – or who is so
dedicated to other spectacles or studies as to consider anything more important
than this knowledge?

He is concerned to explicate his use of sources and methodology: docs 4.1–5, 21,
31; gives his reasons for concentrating on the First Punic War: doc. 4.5; uses logic
to back up his statements: doc. 4.8; shows an interest in underlying causation:
docs 4.21, 23–24 (the Second Punic War); is fair in assigning responsibility: doc.
4.27; and personally tests the truth of statements (crossing the Alps in Hannibal’s
footsteps): doc. 4.31. At Hist. 31.22.8–11 he makes it clear that he expects his
most interested readers to be Romans, who can check most of his facts.
On the importance of truth Polybius states, Hist. 12.11a, that the greatest fault
in history is falsehood and that (12.12.3), just as a living creature when deprived
of its eyes is totally incapacitated, so, when history is deprived of truth, nothing
is left but an unprofitable tale (cf. doc. 4.5). He sees dramatisation of history as a
serious fault; Hist. 2.56:

it is not a historian’s business to startle his readers with sensational descriptions,

nor should he try, as the tragic poets do, to represent speeches which might have
been delivered . . . it is his task first and foremost to record with fidelity what
actually happened and was said, however commonplace this might be.

16.4 Julius Caesar (100–44 BC)

Caesar’s Gallic War is an account of his campaigns in Gaul in seven books;
an eighth continuing the account is by Aulus Hirtius (cos. 43), one of Caesar’s

768
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
officers. Caesar’s narrative is impersonal (written in the third person) and
dispassionate, while intended to keep him before the eyes of the Roman world
during his absence in Gaul, and he provides information on Gallic and British cus-
toms as well as military campaigns (see docs 3.46, 12.90). The title Commentarii
(Notebooks) which he gave to his work on the Gallic War implies that they were
later to be written up in a more sophisticated style. Caesar also wrote three books
on the Civil War which give his perspective on events. Needless to say, they are
not entirely objective, particularly with regard to his motive for invading Italy (see
esp. docs 13.24, 13.27, 13.42, 13.44), and his justification of events differs from
the account in Cicero’s letters and Asinius Pollio’s quotation of Caesar’s words
after the battle of Pharsalus: ‘They wanted it like this; with all my great achieve-
ments, I, Gaius Caesar, would have been condemned if I had not looked to my
army for help’ (Suet. Jul. 30.4: doc. 13.28). The Alexandrian War, Spanish War
and African War dealing with the campaigns in 48–45 are not by Caesar (Hirtius
may have written the Alexandrian War: Suet. Jul. 56.1).
Caesar was also the author of light-hearted poetry (Pliny Letters 5.3.5), and
Plutarch Caes. 2 records that, while a captive of the Cilician pirates (cf. doc. 6.13),
he wrote and recited poetry. In oratory Caesar believed in the use of analogy (on
which he wrote a treatise) and ordinary, not high-flown, words: Gell. 1.10.4. His
oratory was highly praised by Cicero (doc. 2.68). His brief letters to Oppius and
Cornelius Balbus and to Cicero (docs 13.37, 13.39) show his command of terse,
lucid expression while in action. For his literary talents, see doc. 13.64, where
Suetonius cites Asinius Pollio as believing that Caesar intended to revise and cor-
rect his work.

16.5 Sallust (86–c. 35 BC)

Gaius Sallustius Crispus was tribune in 52 and expelled from the senate in 50;
as tribune he opposed Cicero and Milo and was supposed to have had an affair
with Milo’s wife. He commanded a legion for Caesar in 49 and was praetor in
46 and governor of Africa. After being accused of extortion he withdrew from
politics to write history. He was very wealthy: the horti Sallustiani (Sallustian
gardens) belonged to him. He was said to have married Cicero’s divorced wife,
Terentia (Jerome adversus Jovinianum 1). His Bellum Catilinae (Catiline’s War,
or Catilinarian Conspiracy), written c. 42, deals with the career of Catiline and
events in Cicero’s consulship (63 BC) and afterwards (docs 12.14–16, 19–23,
2.44). In this work he stresses Rome’s moral decline and polarises the figures of
Caesar and Cato the Younger, his ‘heroes’, as exempla of moral excellence (doc.
13.62). Cicero must have been one of his main sources, but he also spoke directly
to participants: at Cat. 48.9 he personally overheard Crassus blaming Cicero for
trying to implicate him in the conspiracy. His reasons for writing on Catiline he
gives as follows (Cat. 3.2, 4.3–4):

Although the narrator and doer of deeds win by no means equal renown,
I myself still consider the writing of history as one of the most difficult of

769
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
undertakings; in the first place, because your words have to be equal to the
deeds narrated; and in the second place because most people will think your
criticisms of misdeeds to be inspired by malice and jealousy; when you com-
memorate the great merit and reputation of good men, people will happily
accept the things they think they could easily do themselves, but dismiss any-
thing beyond this as fictitious – if not untrue . . . So I shall give a brief account
of the conspiracy of Catiline as truthfully as I can; for I consider that villainy
to have been especially memorable on account of the unprecedented nature of
the crime itself and the danger to which it gave rise.

Sallust’s second work, the Jugurthine War, was written c. 41/40 and con-
cerns Jugurtha’s war with Rome under the command of Metellus Numidicus and
Marius (docs 9.2, 6–7, 9–10); Sulla is also given considerable space (doc. 9.12).
The author is here emphasising again the decline of Rome, particularly within the
nobility and its values, and the war is a good subject through which to show a bril-
liant novus homo (Marius) contrasted with the corrupt and incompetent nobility.
Sallust’s rationale for writing is as follows (BJ 4.1, 5.1–2):

But among intellectual pursuits, one of the most important is the recording of
historical events . . . I am going to write of the war which the Roman people
waged with Jugurtha, king of the Numidians, first because it was a long and
bloody conflict, with victory alternating between the two sides, and second
because it was then for the first time that resistance was made to the arrogance
of the nobles – a struggle which was to throw everything, divine and human,
into confusion and reach such a frenzied pitch that civil strife was ended only
by a war and the devastation of Italy.

Sallust comments (BJ 17.7) that, regarding the original inhabitants of Africa, his
account varies from tradition but was translated for him from the Punic books said
to have been written by King Hiempsal. His main sources were probably the auto-
biographies of Aemilius Scaurus (cos. 115), Rutilius Rufus (cos. 105) and Sulla.
Sallust also wrote a history beginning in 78, the death of Sulla, which is extant
only in fragments: one important fragment from this work is Pompey’s dispatch
from Spain to the senate (doc. 12.3). The Histories were perhaps a continuation of
the work of L. Cornelius Sisenna, praetor in 78. Sallust criticises him for speaking
of Sulla with ‘insufficient frankness’: BJ 95.2 (doc. 9.12); Cicero speaks of him
highly (Brut. 228). An invective against Cicero and two letters to Caesar attributed
to Sallust appear not to be genuine. Sallust was a Caesarian, and Suetonius (Gram.
15) records that he was satirised for his criticisms of Pompey; his Histories tend
to be censorious where Pompey is concerned. He was a popularis earlier in his
career, and his sympathies tend that way: his view of the Gracchi (doc. 8.40) is
very positive and in marked contrast to Cicero’s negative portrayals. While, how-
ever, his criticisms are reserved primarily for the corrupt nobility (docs 9.3, 9.7),
he is also disparaging about irresponsible tribunes in 110 BC (BJ 37.1).

770
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
16.6 Diodorus Siculus (c. 80–c. 29 BC)
Diodorus of Agyrium in Sicily (hence ‘Siculus’, the Sicilian) wrote a Bibliotheke
(Library of History), in 40 books, covering universal history from the earliest
times down to 60 BC. It was probably completed in Rome in 30 BC. At 40.8 he
states that ‘The subject matter is contained in 40 books, and in the first six I have
recorded the events and legends before the Trojan War; I have not given dates in
these with any precision since no chronological record for them was at hand . . . ’
Only books 1–5 and 11–20 (covering the period 480–302 BC) survive, with others
preserved in fragments. For the Roman period Diodorus follows the narrative of
Polybius and then Posidonius (from 146 BC). His account of the second-century
Sicilian slave rebellions, which depends greatly on Posidonius (c. 135–51 BC),
is the main source for these revolts (see doc. 6.48, and 6.30 for conditions in the
Spanish silver mines, for which he cites Posidonius). His narrative also helps to
shed light on the events leading up to the Social War, in particular the tribunate of
M. Livius Drusus and the oath supposedly taken in his name by the Italians (docs
10.7–8, cf. 10.12). In addition he records the divine vengeance taken on a mocker
of the Great Mother’s priest (doc. 3.63).

16.7 Livy (59 BC–AD 17)

Titus Livius came from the city of Patavium (Padua) and was criticised for his
Patavinitas (Paduanism) by Asinius Pollio. He wrote an annalistic history, his Ad
urbe condita (From the Foundation of the City), which dealt with the period from
the foundation of the city to 9 BC. The work consisted of 142 books, of which
only books 1–10 and 21–45 survive (with some additional fragments), though
there is an Epitome (summary) for books 37–40 and 48–55 and a series of fourth-
century AD summaries (the Periochae) for all books except 136 and 137. Some
of these summaries do not entirely reflect the contents of the extant books, and
they may have been made from an earlier précis, not directly from Livy’s work.
Livy’s history is based on literary sources, particularly in books 31–145 on the
work of Polybius, with some additions from later writers such as Valerius Antias
and Claudius Quadrigarius, now lost. While he cites other authors, it appears
that often, though not always, his references to second-century writers such as
Calpurnius Piso and Fabius Pictor may have been derived at second-hand from
first-century authors. His use of Polybius is so close that gaps in the latter’s nar-
rative can be supplied from Livy’s account (as in doc. 5.28: the peace treaty with
the Aetolian League, 189 BC). At doc. 4.42 he prefers not to refer there to an
early Latin demand for one of the magistracies because ‘Coelius and other writ-
ers’ have with some reason omitted it. He therefore does not set it down as cer-
tain. Similarly, in doc. 7.42 he affects to disbelieve the account of aristocratic
women as mass poisoners in 331 BC as not all accounts mention it, though he
still proceeds to give a narrative of events. However, he can show some critical
awareness, as with the false genealogies created for the aggrandisement of various
families, which have falsified the historical record (doc. 2.28).

771
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
Livy had access to earlier histories, the researches of antiquarians (such as
Varro) and original records (inscriptions, paintings, documents, lists of consuls,
and records of priesthoods). He made little use of non-literary sources and has
been criticised for not directly consulting the ‘linen rolls’ (libri lintei), which con-
tained the lists of magistrates, when his sources were at variance (4.23.1–3):

I find in Licinius Macer that the same consuls were re-elected the follow-
ing year (434 BC) . . . Valerius Antias and Quintus Tubero state that Marcus
Manlius and Quintus Sulpicius were the consuls for that year. But, despite
such a great discrepancy, both Tubero and Macer give the Linen Rolls as their
authority; neither conceals the fact that older writers had recorded that there
were military tribunes in office for that year. Licinius prefers to follow the
Linen Rolls without hesitation; Tubero is uncertain of the truth. Along with all
the other matters buried in antiquity, this also should remain undecided.

At 6.1.1–3, Livy explains that, for the history of early Rome (books 1–5), sources
were few and far between, with only the commentaries of the pontiffs and other
public and private records available – and that these were nearly all lost when
the city was fired by the Gauls (c. 390 BC), while he admits (pref. 6) that ‘events
belonging to the time before the city was founded or was about to be founded,
with their adornment of poetic legends rather than irrefutable historical record, it
is my intention neither to affirm nor to deny.’ On the other hand, his recording of
Augustus’ statement that he had personally seen the linen breastplate from 437
BC which incontrovertibly provided the evidence that M. Licinius Crassus could
not be awarded the spolia opima in 30 BC by its very nature leads the reader to
question the evidence that supported Augustus’ wish to restrict triumphs to within
the imperial family (doc. 15.14).
Livy shows awareness of alternative versions, as on casualty numbers at
Cynoscephalae in 197 (33.10.7–10); similarly, Cornell 1995: 356 points out that,
at 10.17.11–12, he is aware of four different accounts of a campaign in 296 BC.
He is, however, often inclined to let the reader decide on the truth of variant
versions. In his account of events in 362, when Marcus Curtius devoted himself
to death after an earthquake in Rome (cf. doc. 3.18), Livy states that the Lacus
Curtius could have been named for him, or for Mettius Curtius, a soldier of Titus
Tatius in the time of Romulus (7.6.5–6). Here he seems to suggest that the Lacus
Curtius was named after M. Curtius (though in 1.13.5 he seems to accept that it
was named after Mettius Curtius). He states, ‘I would have spared no effort had
there been any way a researcher could reach the truth; as it is, tradition must be
adhered to where antiquity makes certainty impossible, and the name of the pool
is better known from this more recent legend.’ In contrast, Varro (On the Latin
Language 5.148–50) shows himself aware of three different versions of the story
and cites four authors as his authorities: Procilius (tr. pl. 56 BC?), L. Calpurnius
Piso Frugi (cos. 133), Q. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 102) and an unknown Cornelius.
Livy’s objectivity is praised in Tacitus (Ann. 4.34): Aulus Cremutius Cordus,
who was prosecuted in AD 25 for praising Brutus and calling Cassius ‘last of

772
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
the Romans’ in his History, mentions Livy as an exemplum; foreseeing condem-
nation, Cremutius starved himself to death, stating, ‘I am charged with having
praised Brutus and Cassius, of whose deeds many have written and no one without
respect. Titus Livius, outstanding for eloquence and objectivity, praised Pompey
to such a degree that Augustus called him a Pompeian: but their friendship did not
suffer.’ Livy sees a grave moral decline in his own time compared with the virtues
that enabled Rome to defeat Hannibal, and his aim in his writing is ostensibly a
moral one (pref. 9–10):

These are the points to which I would like all my readers to direct their attention –
the lifestyle and behaviour of our ancestors, the men and the means by which in
both politics and war the empire was first acquired and then increased; then let
him see how, as the old teaching gradually lapsed, morals at first declined and
then sank lower and lower and finally began the headlong plunge, bringing us to
the present day, when we can tolerate neither our vices nor their remedies. What
makes the study of history especially salutary and profitable is that you behold
instances of all kinds of human experiences set forth on a conspicuous monu-
ment; from this you may find for yourself and your state things to imitate, as well
as things – rotten in the conception and outcome – to avoid.

He is above all a conservative and is uniformly hostile to all popular politicians,

depicting a unified senate responding to provocation.
Livy is an invaluable source on early Rome: see doc. 1.11 on the first con-
suls; 1.15 on the censorship; 1.25 on the first secession; 1.30 on the decemvirate;
1.46–56, 2.46 on the conflict of the orders; 1.61–68, 70–72, 2.33, 5.2–3, 5.8, 6.7
on the struggle for Italy; 2.9 on public works; 5.11 on the early Roman army; and
7.15 on magisterial duty vis-à-vis family life. For religious rituals and practices in
early Rome, see docs 3.6, 3.14–16, 3.18, 3.33, 3.56–57, 3.72, 7.77 and 7.85; he is
especially detailed on augury and portents: 3.41, 3.50, 3.52; for the importation of
foreign cults, see docs 3.59, 3.61, 3.38. At doc. 3.25 he gives the formula for the
declaration of war established by the fourth king of Rome, Ancus Marcius, in a
form which, though it may be an antiquarian reconstruction, he seems to consider
an accurate transcription of an ancient formula. Livy (books 21–30) is an essential
source for the Second Punic War, especially doc. 4.20 on Roman manpower in
217 BC. He is a patriotic writer, and his account is intended to put Roman actions
in the best possible light – and Hannibal’s in the worst: see docs 4.22, 4.25, 4.28–
29, though at doc. 4.54 he admits to praise for Hannibal at Zama. He gives useful
information on war loans by businessmen: docs 4.40, 4.60. Books 31–45 of his
History deal with Rome’s conquest of the Greek East down to 167 BC (see docs
5.34, 5.55–56), and doc. 5.9 on the centurion Spurius Ligustinus gives valuable
information regarding the number of campaigns in which a centurion in 171 could
have been engaged. His speeches are rhetorical additions to his History, often
intended to drive home his message of moral decline: the call for the repeal of the
Oppian law is, for example, a good chance for him to put a suitably moralising
speech into the mouth of Cato the Elder (doc. 7.67).

773
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
Livy’s fame was certainly well established by AD 79: Pliny the Younger, luck-
ily for himself, preferred not to accompany his uncle to observe the eruption of
Vesuvius, staying behind to read a volume of Livy, and he records the anecdote
of the ‘man from Cadiz’ who ‘was so excited by the famous name of Livy that he
came from his far corner of the earth to have a look at him and then went home
again’ (Letters 6.20, 2.3).

16.8 Flavius Josephus (AD 37–c. AD 100)

A Jewish priest and Pharisee who, despite his pro-Roman leanings, was involved
in the Jewish revolt of AD 66–70, Josephus became the translator and advisor of
Titus (eldest son of the emperor Vespasian) and was granted Roman citizenship and
given a residence in Rome. Once there, he dedicated himself to writing history, in
particular his Antiquities of the Jews, which, in 20 books, covered the period from
the creation of the world to AD 65; it was published in AD 93 and was directed
towards a wide Greco-Roman readership. In this work he makes considerable use
of the writings of Nikolaos of Damascus. Though Josephus is an able apologist for
Judaism and its culture, his work on the Jewish War, written between 75 and 79,
was intended to discourage rebellion against the Romans, and in writing this he may
have had access to the diaries of Vespasian and Titus. His Autobiography, written
c. AD 99, also defended his own less than committed conduct during the revolt:
he considered that God was at that moment on the Romans’ side. While his works
flatter the Romans and their empire, he is a valuable source for Jewish affairs and
the Romans’ administration of subject peoples, and he cites numerous edicts and
letters relating to the Jews in the Roman empire. He cites at length Antony’s letter
to the high priest Hyrcanus after the battle of Philippi, outlining his plans for the
East and ensuring that any Jews who had been reduced to slavery under the admin-
istration of Cassius should be freed; a letter and edict to Tyre (a similar letter went
to other cities such as Antioch) makes clear that all confiscated Jewish possessions
and property should also be returned to their owners. Josephus comments that this
is a good example of the consideration shown the Jews by the Romans (doc. 14.33).
A further document, a letter of Iullus Antonius as governor of Asia in 7 BC to the
Ephesians, confirms that Augustus and Agrippa protected Jewish laws and customs
(doc. 15.41). There has been considerable debate about the authenticity of refer-
ences to Jesus, John the Baptist and early Christianity in the Antiquities: ‘about this
time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man’: 18.3.3).
Current scholarship believes this reference to be an interpolation, but that other ref-
erences to John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus, are authentic.

16.9 Tacitus (AD c. 55–120)

Publius(?) Cornelius Tacitus is one of the most outstanding of Roman historiogra-
phers. He was a lawyer by training, and one of his many works, Dialogue on Oratory,
written perhaps in AD 101, discusses the decline of public speaking during the impe-
rial period. It owes much to Cicero’s De oratore. Tacitus engaged in a political career

774
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
under Vespasian, Titus and Domitian and reached the praetorship in AD 88, when he
was also a member of the priesthood of Fifteen (the quindecemviri). He was suffect
consul in 97 and in 112 held the governorship of the province of Asia.
His first work in AD 98 was a biography of his father-in-law, Gnaeus Julius
Agricola, governor of Britain for seven years from 77 or 78, which both eulogises
Agricola and reflects hostility to the regime during which he was writing, that of
Domitian (he speaks of the latter ‘draining the life-blood of the state’: Agricola
44). Written in the same year, his Germania discusses the institutions and customs
of the Germanic tribes in comparison to those of Rome and describes in detail
individual tribes and their practices. These were followed by his two major works:
the Annals and the Histories. The Annals comprise 18 books covering the period
AD 14–68, while his Histories, perhaps in 12 volumes, continued the Annals and
dealt with the years AD 69–96. These works have suffered in transmission, with
only four volumes of the Histories and ten complete volumes of the Annals extant.
However, Tacitus is also critical of prominent figures in the Republican period.
In his Histories he blames the tribunes generally (doubtless referring to the Gracchi,
Saturninus and Livius Drusus), as well as consulars such as Marius and Sulla, for
the demise of the Republic. From the time of Pompey (‘who was no better, though
cleverer in concealing his aims’) every prominent politician aimed at autocracy, and
Roman armies had no scruples about fighting each other (doc. 12.1).
Tacitus accurately records facts while interweaving them with innuendo and
rumour for entertainment value, as in his portrayal of Livia: her marriage to
Octavian when six months’ pregnant and the deliberate gaffe made by her ‘little
chatterer’; he hints at the suspicion that she had been responsible for the deaths
of Gaius and Lucius Caesar, and he considers her ‘as a mother a disaster for the
state, as a stepmother a disaster to the house of Caesar’ (docs 14.39, 15.69, 111,
117). Philosophically opposed to monarchy, and in favour of an aristocratically
controlled republic, he views the imperial court with a satirical eye and an under-
lying pessimism. In his Annals he depicts Augustus as appropriating the functions
of the senate, magistrates and laws. Following this, once wars and proscriptions
had taken their toll, the remaining aristocrats ‘found that, the more one welcomed
slavery, the quicker one was raised to wealth and office, and, having flourished
on revolution, preferred safety and the current state of things to the old system
and instability’ (doc. 14.66). In the preface to his Histories he expands on this,
stating that policy was known only to the emperor, while the former ‘ruling class’
had now polarised into those who flattered and those who (silently) hated autoc-
racy (Histories 1.1). In summing up Augustus’ reign, it is significant that Tacitus
gives the hostile viewpoint last, so that the impression left with the reader is of an
ambitious, dissembling, treacherous, incompetent ruler. Even so, while at the end
of Augustus’ reign ‘equality had been abolished’, and the good old way of life
gone forever, there were still fears (and hopes) that the current stability might not
last and that his death might usher in either freedom or further wars as his legacy
to Rome (doc. 15.117). This reflects his tendency to give both good and critical
accounts of Rome’s rulers and prominent men without conclusively stating his
own opinion, thus leaving it to his readership to draw their own conclusions.

775
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
Tacitus’ view of history is generally pessimistic, writing as he was during the
reign of an emperor who was corrupt and tyrannical, and he deplores the fact that
the balance of power was shifting continually towards the emperor as opposed to
the senate as the empire grew in wealth and autocracy. His pessimism stems from
his realisation that the senatorial order is condemned to insignificance and apathy,
with freedom of speech a lost cause, although he hopes that history will record and
remember the evil deeds of which mankind is capable.

16.10 Velleius Paterculus (c. 20 BC–after AD 30)

Following a successful military career, Velleius was a candidate for the prae-
torship of AD 15. At doc. 10.18 he relates that his great-grandfather, Minatius
Magius of Aeculanum, served in the Social War; the Roman people granted him
citizenship as a reward and made his sons praetors. In his brief Compendium of
Roman History, in two books, he covers the period from mythological times down
to AD 29 (the death of Livia); most of book 1 is lost. As a senator and an official
(quaestor in AD 8 and praetor in AD 15), he took part in or witnessed many events
that he described, being present at the meeting between Augustus’ grandson Gaius
and the Parthian king Phraataces and serving for eight years in Germany and
Pannonia under Tiberius. Despite his summary treatment of a lengthy period and
his relentlessly flattering portraits of the emperors Augustus and Tiberius (see
docs 14.51, 58), he is still the only source for certain important historical details
(such as for the Social War, in which he had a family interest, and the Teutoberg
Forest defeat in AD 9: docs 10.13, 18, 20; 15.108) and is the only Latin historical
writer on Roman affairs between Livy and Tacitus whose work has survived.

16.11 Appian of Alexandria (AD c. 95–c. 165)

Appian was an Egyptian Greek who lived in the mid-second century AD (he
died in the 160s) and wrote a history of Rome to the conquest of Egypt in 30
BC. At BC pref. 15 he describes himself as ‘having reached the highest place in
my own country and acted as advocate at Rome in front of the emperors, until
they considered me worthy of being made a procurator’. Appian was a friend
of the orator M. Cornelius Fronto, whose letter to Antoninus Pius, requesting
the appointment of Appian as procurator, survives (Fronto Letter to Antoninus
9). He comments at BC 1.6: ‘I have written and compiled this work, which is
valuable for those who wish to see men’s immeasurable ambition, their terrible
love of power, their untiring perseverance, and the forms taken by innumerable
evils.’ In his preface, Appian states that he will deal with the Romans’ history in
terms of their dealings with various peoples and regions. The first three books will
cover Rome’s expansion into Italy, and the following books will cover Rome’s
enemies arranged chronologically. He will end with the civil wars, the annexation
of Egypt and the establishment of the monarchy. Of his 24 books, only the preface
and books 6–9 (Spanish, Hannibalic, Punic and Macedonian Wars) and 11–17
(Syrian, Mithridatic and Civil Wars) survive intact.

776
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
Appian uses reliable sources, such as Polybius, Asinius Pollio, Caesar, and the
work of Hieronymus of Cardia (323–c. 272). He may also be following the nar-
rative of Posidonius, who continued the history of Polybius. He often conflates
events when summarising in his attempt to cover 1,000 years of history but pro-
vides a useful chronological framework within which to fit other sources. His
work is especially valuable as many of the sources he employed are now lost.
Appian begins his Civil Wars, books 13–17 of his history, where Romans are
fighting Romans, with the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus. His Celtica 13, now only
fragmentary, presumably dealt with Marius’ campaigns; see also 9.28, 9.31–33 on
Saturninus and Glaucia and events late in Marius’ career. The five books entitled the
Civil Wars cover the period of Sulla (book 13), Caesar (14), the war of Mutina (15),
the war against Brutus and Cassius (16) and the war against Sextus Pompeius (17). His
work is an important narrative for Drusus and the Social War, as well as for Sulla, and
he provides an invaluable framework for the fall of the Republic in chapters 12 and 13.
He is one of the few historical sources for the period of the Second Triumvirate down
to Octavian and Agrippa’s defeat of Sextus Pompeius in 36 and Pompeius’ death in
the East at the hands of Antony’s legate in 35. The four succeeding volumes on the
Egyptian war, against Cleopatra and Antony, are lost. At docs 4.13, 4.15, 4.63 Appian
provides crucial information on the Punic Wars, especially on the sack of Carthage;
docs 5.46, 48, 52–53 are essential for the Roman conquest of Spain; doc. 6.48 is a
valuable source on the revolt of Spartacus (cf. 6.50 on the plebs at Rome).

16.12 Cassius Dio (AD 164–after 229)

Cassius Dio, a Greek from Bithynia, was prominent in Roman politics in the early
third century AD and was suffect consul c. AD 204 and consul again in 229 with the
emperor Severus Alexander. His father had been governor of Cilicia and Dalmatia.
Dio’s history of Rome in 80 books, from its beginnings to AD 229, is generally
well preserved for the period 69 BC to AD 46, though the first 36 books, beginning
with the arrival of Aeneas in Italy, are only fragmentary, and large sections of his
work are known only through Byzantine summaries and excerpts. His history took
22 years of research and writing and was inspired, he tells the reader, by a dream of
the goddess Fortune, which came to him after the emperor Severus had approved a
short book concerning the dreams and omens relating to his accession (73.23.3–5):

I then felt the wish to compose an account of everything else that concerned the
Romans; consequently I resolved not to leave the first account separate but to
include it in the current history, in order that I might compose and leave behind
me in a single treatise a narrative of everything from the beginning down to a
point to be determined by Fortune . . . She, it appears, is fated to be the guard-
ian of the course of my life, and in consequence I have dedicated myself to her.
I took ten years to collect the material for all Roman history from its beginning
down to the death of Severus, and I spent 12 more years in the composition
of the work; as for later events, they shall be recorded down to whatever point
may be possible.

777
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
As a senator under Commodus and governor of Asia, Africa and Dalmatia and
Upper Pannonia, as well as consul on two occasions, Dio was able to observe
events and personalities at first-hand, though in the last third of his account he is
very circumspect in his judgements, stating that, with the accession of Commodus,
the golden age of his history has to give way to one of iron. His narrative is ana-
lystic, dealing with one year at a time.
Dio’s stylistic model was Thucydides, and, except for his own time, he uses
literary sources which are often impossible to identify, but he does comment at
53.19 that it is easier to find sources for the period before 27 BC because every-
thing was reported to the senate and people and historians generally had access
to material. He is a very valuable source for the period following Pompey and
Crassus’ first consulship – though, as a monarchist, he sees all participants in
the conflicts of the first century BC as aiming at autocracy – and is one of the
most important sources for the reign of Augustus, since Appian’s account of the
period after 35 BC is lost. He does refer to the memoirs of Augustus, Hadrian
and Severus and appears to have consulted them. Inaccuracies (as at doc. 12.76)
may be due to the fact that he was working from notes which he made during his
initial ten years of study. Like Thucydides, Dio puts speeches into the mouths
of his protagonists, which are often lengthy and heavily rhetorical and take up a
considerable portion of the narrative. The most extensive of these are the speeches
to Augustus put in the mouths of Agrippa and Maecenas regarding the relative
merits of republic and monarchy, which take up the whole of book 52. In the fol-
lowing book, he presents a version of the address that Augustus made to the senate
which resulted in the ‘first settlement’ of January 27 BC, when Augustus offered
in his seventh consulship to resign his powers and restore authority to the senate
but was ‘compelled’ by the senators to accept absolute power (doc. 14.64).

CICERO
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BC) is one of the most important sources for
Roman history of the first century BC. He was not, of course, an historian, but
as consul in 63 he was responsible for dealing with the Catilinarian conspiracy,
and from that point he was deeply involved in politics down to the period of the
Second Triumvirate and his own death in 43 BC. His speeches and letters pro-
vide very important information on the society and politics of the period. In his
voluminous letters, to friends (16 books), to Atticus (16 books), to his brother
Quintus and to Brutus, Cicero expresses privately his personal feelings and doubts
on politics and society at Rome, often on a daily basis, alongside more official let-
ters of business and patronage. Much of what he reports in his personal letters is
often trivial gossip, with news on trials and politics mixed up with reports on his
personal health and current literary pursuits (see, for example, doc. 12.86). While
he may have considered publishing a small selection of these letters (Att. 16.5.5),
the Letters to his Friends were not published (by his freedman Tiro) until after
his death (see doc. 6.52), and the others considerably later, and because of their
private and personal nature they often present Cicero in a very ‘unheroic’ light;
he is very much aware of his own status and importance (see, for example, docs
2.49, 12.32, 12.34, 12.61, 12.66) and can be beset by indecision as to the political

778
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
course to take (docs 12.40, 12.70, 13.35), while in some letters he gives his real
views on a situation, which contradict the stance he has maintained in public (docs
12.35, 12.37, 12.74, 12.77, 13.54).
Some 58 speeches of Cicero survive, his first major trial being the defence of
Roscius of Ameria for parricide in 80 BC (docs 2.56, 11.25). In his ‘courtroom’
speeches (generally for the defence, except for the prosecution of Verres: doc.
5.68) he is of course giving a partisan viewpoint intended to convince a jury of his
client’s innocence. In addition, the speeches, often delivered mostly ex tempore,
were actually polished up after the event for publication, although the actual con-
tent (as opposed to the style) presumably could not be altered to any great extent
from what was actually delivered. Asconius states that Cicero’s speech on behalf
of Milo in 52 was extremely weak and hesitant, due to the threat of violence, and
so the speech that is extant bears no relation to that actually given at the trial (doc.
13.5); similarly, the second series of speeches against Verres, though they were
prepared, were not delivered in court, because Verres went into exile after the
first. Cicero discusses his forensic training and early experience in doc. 2.67 and
gives general advice in his On Duties on the rationale for undertaking prosecution
or defence (doc. 2.65). His attack on Catiline before the people (In Catilinam II:
doc. 12.18), delivered on 9 November 63, is a grand set-piece of insult and abuse
which bears little relation to the actual past deeds of Catiline and his supporters –
nor was it meant to; Cicero was drumming up opposition to the revolt in any
way possible and using every conceivable form of vilification to achieve his aim.
Furthermore, his views, as on the Gracchi, can vary depending on his audience
(docs 8.37–39). Without his letters to Atticus and friends, little detail would be
known about the 18 months following the assassination of Caesar. He considered
himself to be a statesman advising and mentoring the young Octavian and was
unaware that the young man had agendas of his own which were very different
to Cicero’s. Cicero sent Atticus bulletins, often daily, of his conversations and
encounters with the protagonists (docs 14.4, 14.9, 14.12), as well as writing what
he considered to be good advice to his friends such as Decimus Brutus, M. Iunius
Brutus and Trebonius (docs 14.9, 14.14, 14.16–17). The letter collections also
contain correspondence from his friends (docs 14.11, 14.18), but, despite their
clearer view of events, Cicero continued to rely on the goodwill of Octavian.
Cicero was also a philosopher, and particularly relevant to the study of the his-
tory of this period is his Republic, a dialogue between Scipio Aemilianus and his
friends on the ideal state (cf. doc. 1.4). At On Divination 2.6–7 he explains why
he turned to the study of philosophy:
The state’s serious crisis was the cause of my expounding philosophy, since
during the civil war I was able neither to protect the state as I was accustomed
to do, nor to remain inactive, nor to find anything that I preferred to do that
was worthy of me. Therefore my fellow citizens will pardon me – rather they
will be grateful to me – because, when the state was in the power of one man,
I neither hid myself, deserted my post, was cast down, nor behaved like one
enraged at the man or the times . . . Accordingly it was in my books that I
delivered my opinion to the senate or harangued the people, believing that I
had exchanged care of the state for philosophy.

779
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
Cicero’s contribution to the theory of Latin rhetoric comprises his De oratore,
Orator and Brutus (see docs 2.67, 7.22, 8.12, 26, 34), while his De inventione is
a treatise expounding certain rhetorical techniques. He was also a poet, writing,
among other things, a poem on his consulship (doc. 12.26, cf. 12.33, 12.86).

STRABO
The Greek scholar Strabo (c. 64 BC–c. AD 21), from Amaseia in Pontus, near
the Black Sea, wrote his Geography, in 17 books, under the Roman emperors
Augustus and Tiberius. He studied philosophy in Rome, having moved there in 44
BC. He travelled extensively and is the most important source for ancient geog-
raphy, with useful material too on political and economic history. Aelius Gallus,
prefect of Egypt, was his patron, and Strabo spent some time in Egypt during
his governorship. The whole of Strabo’s first book (1.1.1–4.9) is worth reading
for an account of his methodology and the work of his predecessors, such as the
third-century geographer Eratosthenes. He also wrote Historical Sketches in 47
books, which took Polybius’ work down to the end of the Republic, but this is now
almost entirely lost. In his writing he demonstrates that an awareness of geogra-
phy is essential to an understanding of the demands of empire:

The usefulness (of geography) is of various kinds, in respect both of the actions
of politicians and commanders and of the knowledge of the heavens and the
things on land and sea, animals and plants and fruits and everything else that
can be seen in each, and indicates that the geographer is a philosopher, one who
is concerned with the art of life and happiness. (1.1.1)

At 1.1.16 Strabo emphasises why his work is of especial use to statesmen and
generals – ‘those who unite cities and peoples into a single empire and politi-
cal government’ – and he comments that the audience he is addressing consists
of ‘those in high positions’. He compares his work to a colossal construction or
statue, more important in its overall effect than in small details: ‘explaining the
facts relating to large things, and wholes, unless some petty detail too is able to
stir the interest of the man who is fond of learning or the man of affairs’ (1.1.23).
He provides useful accounts of Rome’s site, amenities and early fortifications,
engineering projects, and Augustus’ mausoleum (docs 1.2, 2.1, 15.2), as well as
of ritual practices at specific sites, such as the priest at Diana’s grove at Aricia,
who was a fugitive slave who had killed the previous priest and succeeded to his
position.

BIOGRAPHERS
16.13 Cornelius Nepos (c. 110–24 BC)
Nepos is the first Latin biographer whose work survives. Originally from
Cisalpine Gaul, he lived in Rome from about 65 BC and was a correspondent of

780
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
Cicero and a personal friend of Atticus. His biography of Atticus (doc. 12.27, cf.
14.38) is of immense value for the importance and interests of wealthy equites,
as well as providing useful material on Cicero and other personalities with whom
he was intimate. Catullus dedicated a book of his poems to Nepos (poem 1). He
wrote some 16 books On Famous Men, grouped according to categories (such
as generals, kings and historians), and, like Plutarch later, he compared Greeks
with Romans. His Lives of Famous Foreign Generals, which is extant, includes
Hamilcar and Hannibal, though they were apparently not in the first edition, which
appeared c. 34 BC, only in the second (c. 27 BC). Of the lives of historians, only
those of M. Porcius Cato and Atticus (doc. 12.27) are extant. Nepos also wrote
a universal history, a geography, and several books of anecdotes, plus a life of
Cicero (Gell. 15.28.2). The Lives are not intended for a scholarly readership and
are both entertaining and moralising, though the author does not always use first-
hand sources, especially for his Greek subjects. He provides an interesting com-
parison of Roman and Athenian women (doc. 7.28) and, in one of the fragments
of his work on Latin historians, quotes a letter purporting to be from Cornelia to
her son Gaius Gracchus (doc. 8.25).

16.14 Suetonius (AD c.69–c. 150)

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus was of equestrian rank. He was known by Pliny the
Younger, who mentions him in his Letters, and probably accompanied Pliny to
Bithynia (c. 110) when Pliny governed that province. A high-ranking bureaucrat,
he wrote numerous categories of biographies of literary figures (grammarians,
rhetoricians, poets, historians, and so on), of which those on grammarians and
rhetoricians are extant (see docs 2.66, 6.18, 6.58 and 6.59 for his Life of Terence).
A biography of the poet Horace is also attributed to him (doc. 15.93). His best-
known work is the Lives of the Caesars, the biographies of the 12 emperors from
Julius Caesar to Domitian; these survive except for the first few chapters of the
Life of the Deified Julius. Suetonius avoids a chronological structure, instead
presenting the achievements and characters of these emperors under a series of
topics, illustrated with anecdotes from their lives. He obviously had access to
archival material in his Life of Julius Caesar, which is one of the longest and
most detailed, and he frequently quotes from documents or cites earlier authors.
Passages from Suetonius’ Life of the Deified Julius have been extensively used in
chapters 12 and 13. In his Life of Augustus he gives information about Augustus’
private life, sometimes citing archived letters for this purpose, giving details of his
subject’s literary efforts (doc. 15.3), family life and background (docs 14.2, 15.65,
67, 71, 107) and the scene at his death-bed (doc. 15.112). One of the most sen-
sational sections is where he repeats the propaganda circulated by Antony about
Octavian, particularly the gossip about Octavian’s love affairs and passion for
gambling (doc. 14.49). He also provides corroborative details of Augustus’ reli-
gious reforms (doc. 15.20), his building programme (doc. 15.81), and some valu-
able information on the battle of Teutoberg and the defeat of Varus in Germany
(doc. 15.107).

781
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
16.15 Plutarch (AD c. 46–c. 126)
Plutarch of Chaeronea is best known as a biographer, despite his many works
on rhetoric and moral philosophy. He was also the author of antiquarian works,
‘Greek Questions’ and ‘Roman Questions’ (see docs. 2.36, 5.64), concerned pri-
marily with traditional religious practices. He travelled widely, to Egypt as well as
to Italy and Rome, and was a priest at Delphi for 30 years. For the study of Roman
history, his most important work is his 23 pairs of Parallel Lives, 19 of which
have comparisons. The comparisons (omitted in the Penguin translation) are an
important part of the text, though Plutarch’s deliberate pairing of Lives can lead to
distortion in focus and misleading overviews and generalisations. Often he leaves
his final conclusion and summing-up of the biography until the comparison, as in
doc. 8.41 (the Gracchi compared to Agis IV and Cleomenes III of Sparta).
Plutarch is unashamedly a biographer, not an historian, and in his study of
great political and military figures he is concerned primarily with the revelation
of character through action and with demonstrating exempla of virtues and vices.
In his work he conflates information from different sources and concentrates on
anecdote rather than ‘fact’. For Plutarch’s source methodology, see Plutarch Life
of Numa 1.1–7, where he admits that there is a ‘vigorous debate about the time at
which King Numa lived’ and proceeds to cite various views on the subject. After
noting that the chronological problems are insurmountable, he then proceeds any-
way with Numa’s life (1.6–7):

So it is difficult to be accurate about the chronology, and especially that based

on the names of Olympic victors, the list of which is said to have been pub-
lished at a late date by Hippias of Elis, who had no authoritative basis for his
work; I shall, therefore, start from a suitable point and recount the facts which
I have found most worthy of mention in Numa’s life.

Plutarch sees character as determining destiny; for him characters are an unchang-
ing constant in any biography, determining vice or virtue and not swayed by or
developing through events. This leads to sweeping statements and judgements
of earlier motives extrapolated from later actions. Plutarch, for example, sees
Caesar as unnaturally ambitious and as planning world domination from his earli-
est youth, not driven to it by the opposition of the optimates (Life of Caesar 58.2):

As Caesar was naturally possessed of ambition and the ability to succeed, his
numerous achievements did not make him stop and enjoy what he had laboured
for, but instead inspired him with confidence for future deeds and gave rise to
plans for greater successes and a passion for new glory, as though he had used
up his earlier stock. What he felt was exactly like competitive rivalry with
himself, as if he were someone else, and a desire that his future achievements
should surpass his old ones . . .

The same methodology can be seen in other descriptions, such as that of Marius
(doc. 9.1), Crassus (doc. 2.21) or the young Pompey (doc. 11.17), where he presents

782
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
his ‘heroes’ as stereotypes of their most marked characteristics. Similarly, rather
than seeing rivalry as gradually developing between colleagues, he tends to predate
hostility to an early point in their careers: see especially doc. 9.13 (Marius and
Sulla), 12.5, 12.42, 12.82 (Pompey and Crassus) and 12.79 (Pompey and Caesar).
Plutarch has a great love of anecdote, believing it to reveal character (‘Those
who are sketching, as it were, a portrait of a soul ought not to leave out even tiny
marks of character’: Life of Cato the Younger 24.1). On these grounds he leaves
Caesar and Cato squared off in the senate house over the Catilinarian issue to
give the history of Caesar’s love affair with Cato’s sister Servilia, the immorality
of Cato’s womenfolk, and Cato’s own divorce and remarriage to Marcia (who in
the meantime he had permitted to marry Hortensius, his best friend, on the lat-
ter’s request: Life of Cato the Younger 24.1–25.4, 25.8–13). For some of his most
memorable anecdotes, see docs 2.14, 2.63, 4.61, 5.61, 6.38, 7.20–21, 7.58 (Cato
the Elder), 2.22, 2.64, 7.64 (Lucullus), 9.1, 7.59 (Marius), 11.1 (Sulla), 2.21,
12.82 (Crassus), 10.4 (Cato the Younger) and 8.33 (the death of Gaius Gracchus).
Plutarch provides detailed descriptions of incidents, which flesh out the more
prosaic accounts in other sources: note particularly the Lives of Fabius Maximus
and Marcellus for the Second Punic War (docs 4.47–48, 4.52) and his Life of the
Gracchi (especially docs 8.1, 8.3, 8.9, 8.29, 8.33), as well as his account of the death
of Pompey (doc. 13.46). As a Greek, and because of his interest in Roman religious
practices, he gives valuable information on the lifestyle and punishments of the
Vestal Virgins and on the Bona Dea cult (docs 7.86–87, 7.90). He sees Fortune as
playing an important role in men’s lives and makes moralising judgements on that
basis. On Crassus’ death in Parthia, he states (Life of Pompey 53.9–10):

How small a thing is Fortune when compared with human nature! For she can-
not satisfy its desires, since the entire extent of the empire and huge immensity
of space was not enough for two men, who had heard and read that the gods
‘divided everything in existence into three parts and each received his share’
yet did not consider Rome’s dominion sufficient for themselves, though there
were only two of them.

16.16 Nikolaos of Damascus (b. c. 64)

A scholar, historian, statesman, philosopher and dramatist from Damascus in
Syria, Nikolaos was one of the best-educated men of his time. He was the tutor
of the children of Antony and Cleopatra after their deaths, when they were
raised by Augustus’ sister Octavia, and, as the friend, advisor and historian of
Herod the Great from 14 BC, he went on diplomatic missions for Herod and
represented his interests in Rome. His literary output was voluminous: he wrote
a Universal History in 144 books, from the beginnings of history (the Assyrians,
Medes and Persians) to the death of Herod; some of this material on the latter is
preserved in the works of Josephus, in particular the description of his rule and
kingdom in The Jewish War (book 1) and Antiquities of the Jews (books 15–17).
As well as an ethnographic work on the customs of various races, he wrote a
Life of Augustus, based on Augustus’ own autobiography, which covered the

783
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
period down to c. 23 BC (see doc. 14.7): two lengthy sections of Nikolaos’
work are extant, on Caesar’s assassination and Octavian’s youth, and his
account of Octavian’s education and early life are invaluable in reconstructing
sections of his subject’s lost Autobiography. He provides detailed information
on events during 44 BC which help to flesh out the accounts of other writers –
for example, his information on Octavian’s access to state assets on arrival in
Italy and his relations with Antony during 44 BC (doc. 14.10). Nikolaos also
wrote his own autobiography, works of philosophy (especially commentaries
on Aristotle), and a series of tragic and comic dramatic works. He acted as
Herod’s representative to Marcus Agrippa in 14 BC, when the Jews of Asia
Minor submitted their complaints against the inhabitants of the Greek cities.
His close connection with Herod allows him to record intimate details of events
in the East, as when Julia and her entourage were nearly drowned crossing the
River Scamander near Troy, Agrippa’s reaction to this danger of his wife’s, and
Herod’s role in ameliorating Agrippa’s anger against the inhabitants of the city
(doc. 15.47). He also recounts the episode involving the envoys sent from India
to Augustus and the immolation of one of the party, an Indian priest, in Athens
(doc. 15.15)

ANTIQUARIANS AND SCHOLARS

16.17 M. Terentius Varro (116–27 BC)
Varro studied firstly at Rome with L. Aelius ‘Stilo’, the great Roman scholar born
c. 150 BC who was responsible for a commentary on the XII Tables, and then at
Athens. Although a Pompeian, who served with Pompey in Spain and against the
pirates, as well as on Caesar’s 20-person land commission in 59, Caesar com-
missioned him in 45 to organise Rome’s first public library (Suet. Jul. 44.2). His
41 books of Human and Divine Antiquities no longer survive, but books 5–10 of
his 25-book De lingua Latina (On the Latin Language) are partly extant; books
5–25 were dedicated to Cicero and probably published in 43 BC. They parentheti-
cally provide valuable information on customs and traditions in their discussion
of grammar and language: see, for example, doc. 3.17, which, in providing the
etymology of ‘pomerium’, also describes the Etruscan ritual for founding a town
(cf. doc. 3.19 on priesthoods; 1.13 on the magistracies; 3.2 on early deities). At
docs 3.24 and 3.49 he quotes from the Censors’ Records and the augural books
to illustrate his analysis of the terms inlicium and templum. His De re rustica (On
Farming), written for his wife in 37 BC, is also extant: see doc. 6.39. He was
Rome’s greatest scholar and a prolific writer: Gellius records that he had written
490 books by the age of 78 (Gell. 3.10.17).

16.18 Dionysius of Halicarnassus (c. 60–after 7 BC)

Dionysius of Halicarnassus came to Rome in 30 BC, after the end of the civil
wars, where he taught rhetoric and published his 20 books of Roman Antiquities

784
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
(which covered the period from Rome’s origins down to the beginning of the First
Punic War). At 1.3.7 he states that he began his work in 30 BC and completed it in
7 BC. Most of the first 11 books (down to 441 BC) survive, presenting, along with
Livy’s history, a coherent account of Rome’s early history, and his material was
used extensively by Plutarch in his Lives of Camillus and Coriolanus. His descrip-
tions of Rome’s political development provide valuable information about early
Roman institutions (for example, docs 1.20, 23, 25), as well as of the XII Tables
and decemvirates and the city’s relationships with its Italian neighbours (1.26–28,
30, 43). As a Greek, Dionysius describes much in Roman society of which we
would otherwise know little, and his work is a very useful source for the constitu-
tion and customs of early Rome. Particularly important are his descriptions and
criticism of manumission procedures and his discussion of non-Greek religious
practices, such as the Aegei thrown into the Tiber by the Vestals on 14 May,
the celebration of the Feriae Latinae, the consultation of the Sibylline Books, the
Vestals, and the nature of Roman worship generally (docs 3.7–9, 32, 38, 48, 67,
88–89). While writing for a Roman as well as a Greek readership, one of his main
aims was to assist the Greeks in accepting Roman rule, and he attempts to prove
that Rome was essentially in origin a Greek city, as at 7.70.1–71.1:

I promised at the end of my first book, which I wrote and published concerning
the Romans’ background, that I would confirm this theory with innumerable
proofs by bringing in ancient customs, laws and practices, which they preserve
down to my own time, just as they received them from their forefathers; for
I do not believe that it is sufficient for those who write the ancient history of
other countries to recount it in a trustworthy fashion as they received it from
the country’s inhabitants, but consider that it also needs numerous and indis-
putable pieces of supporting evidence if it is going to appear reliable . . . I shall
use Quintus Fabius as my authority, without needing any further confirmation;
for he is the most ancient of all Roman historians, and provides proof not only
from what he has heard from others but also from his own knowledge.

His work has been extensively employed in chapters 1 and 2. He was also the
author of a number of works on the theory of rhetoric and the Attic orators, includ-
ing Demosthenes.
While his work is full of lengthy rhetorical and moralising speeches, Dionysius
is, however, concerned with questions of accuracy and authenticity and attempts
to make sense of the quasi-legendary material with which he is working, as with
the family relationships of the Tarquinii (4.6.1): ‘These children were not his sons
but his grandsons. Due to their total lack of thought and laziness, the authors
have published this historical account of them without having examined any of
the impossibilities and irrationalities which undermine it, each of which I will try
to make clear in a few words . . . ’. At 1.7.2–3 he lists as his sources ‘men of the
greatest learning’ with whom he associated and histories written by the approved
Roman authorities: Cato, Fabius Maximus, Valerius Antias, Licinius Macer, the
‘Aelii, Gellii and Calpurnii’ and ‘many other renowned writers’.

785
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
16.19 Valerius Maximus (fl. AD 30)
Valerius Maximus composed his anecdotal compilation Memorable Deeds and
Sayings in the reign of the emperor Tiberius (AD 14–37), and it was probably
published shortly after AD 31. It comprises various series of short anecdotes, with
both Roman and foreign examples, under a series of moral headings. Valerius
uses his sources uncritically, borrowing from Livy and Cicero in particular.
Though entertaining on issues such as imperious fathers, women who represented
themselves in court, punishments dealt out to adulterers, and wife-beating (e.g.,
docs. 7.14, 17, 29, 41, 43, 76), his work is valuable mainly when he borrows from
authors now lost.

16.20 Pliny the Elder (AD 23–79)

The antiquarian and miscellanist Pliny the Elder, who died at the eruption
of Vesuvius on 24 August 79, is best known for his 37-book encyclopaedia
the Natural History, which aimed at including all the knowledge of his time
– astronomical, geographical, physiological, biological, botanical, metallurgi-
cal, and so on. In his preface (17), Pliny states that he has collected 20,000
important facts through reading approximately 2,000 volumes written by 100
authors. Few of these works had ever been handled by scholars, he tells us,
because of the recondite nature of their contents. The value of these ‘facts’ is
considerably enhanced because he usually cites his source for each. Much of
the information he imparts helps to add new dimensions to our knowledge of
Roman life and customs: see especially docs 3.26, 7.92 (for religious rites),
1.28 (colossal art), 6.3, 6.12, 6.16 (the treatment of slaves), 7.65 (life expectan-
cies) and 7.71 (for the price of lampstands and a very lucky hunchback slave).
The Natural History is a rich source for enhancing the detail of what is known
more generally from other sources, and Pliny provides valuable snippets of
information from Augustus’ time, such as Antony’s work ‘On his own drunken-
ness’, Agrippa’s public benefactions and art collection, his map of the known
world, dwarfs belonging to imperial women, Livia’s laurel grove, and some of
the embarrassing vicissitudes encountered by Augustus himself (docs 14.47,
15.40–41, 51, 74, 116).

16.21 Aulus Gellius (AD c. 123–c. 169)

Gellius was born in the early second century AD and apparently spent much of
his life at Rome. The 20 books of his Attic Nights, which were probably published
c. AD 180, are concerned particularly with matters of Latin grammar and expres-
sion; the work is arranged in short chapters based on notes which Gellius had
made on various texts, referring to philosophy, history, religion, grammar and
literary and textual criticism, and the depth of his reading, especially in Latin,
enables him to comment on numerous erudite works that are now lost. His preface
states that he decided to write up these notes into a readable form while in Attica

786
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
(hence the title) and completed them later for the instruction and entertainment
of his children (pref. 1): this needs be no more than a literary device, as is the
frequent dialogue-setting between Gellius and his teachers and friends. His dis-
cussion of literary usages often includes valuable citations, often quite lengthy,
of passages of texts no longer extant. Some of the most notable of these are
extracts from speeches of well-known political figures and orators, such as Gaius
Gracchus (tr. pl. 123, 122; docs 8.22–24, 8.27), Cato’s On the Voconian Law
and On the Dowry (docs 7.11, 18) and his support for the Rhodians in 167, taken
from Tiro’s criticism of this speech (doc. 5.37), and Scipio Aemilianus’ attack as
censor on P. Sulpicius Gallus and other effeminate men (doc. 7.57). Gellius also
gives definitions of ancient terms, such as pomerium, plebiscite, capite censi and
the various assemblies (docs 1.3, 1.21, 1.58, 9.11), and cites the exact wording
of military oaths dating from 190 BC, taken from Cincius’ On Military Science
(doc. 5.21), and the details of sumptuary legislation in 161 and 81 BC (docs 5.59,
11.37). One of his most important and lengthy citations is from Fabius Pictor On
the Pontifical Law, where he informs the reader of the taboos which hedged the
flamen dialis (doc 3.21).
Gellius’ love of reading shines through the fragmented structure of his miscel-
lany (pref. 22–23):

To this day I have already made 20 volumes of notes. Whatever longer life
remains to me by the gods’ will and leisure from managing my affairs and
seeing to the education of my children, I shall spend all that remaining spare
time in gathering brief and amusing memoranda of the same type. And so the
number of books, with the help of the gods, will keep pace with the years of
life itself, however few or many there may be, nor do I wish to be granted a life
which will outlast my capacity to write and take notes.

16.22 Macrobius (c. 400)

Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius was a high-ranking senator in the fifth century
AD. His Saturnalia is set in the form of a series of dialogues at the Saturnalia of
(perhaps) AD 383, beginning the night before the festival (which commenced on
17 December) and lasting through the holiday. The guests include great pagan
literary and political figures of the time, whose discussion ranges through vari-
ous topics both serious (a great deal of space is given to the poet Vergil) and
more trivial, such as facts about types of food and drink. Like Gellius’ Attic
Nights, Macrobius’ main value for the Roman Republic is in his citation of works
no longer extant: these include a speech of Scipio Aemilianus against Tiberius
Gracchus’ judiciary law (doc. 8.20), Sulla’s sumptuary laws (doc. 11.37), the
formula for an evocatio in 146 BC, calling the gods from Carthage (doc. 3.58),
numerous witticisms of Cicero (doc. 12.25) and the menu of a pontifical banquet
c. 69 BC (doc. 2.23). He also records numerous witty comments, puns and jokes
made by Augustus and his daughter Julia (doc. 15.64, 66)

787
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
POETS
16.23 Quintus Ennius (239–169 BC)
Born in southern Italy, Q. Ennius was brought by Cato the Elder to Rome in 204
from Sardinia, where he was serving with a Calabrian regiment (Nepos Cato 1.4).
He was thus trilingual, in Oscan, Greek and Latin, and Gellius describes him as
having three hearts: Gell. 17.17.1. He naturalised various Greek metres and consid-
ered himself a ‘poeta’, writing poemata (poems), not carmina (songs). At Rome he
was on friendly terms with the Cornelii Scipiones, Sulpicii, Fulvii and Caecilii, and
Fulvius Nobilior took him to the East with him in 189 (for which he was criticised
by Cato: Cicero Tusc. Disp. 1.3). Ennius chronicled the campaign and wrote a play,
the Ambracia, on the capture of that town in Aetolia. He was given Roman citizen-
ship in 184 by Nobilior’s son. According to L. Aelius Stilo (Gell. 12.4.4), the friend
portrayed in Ennius’ portrait of Servilius Geminus (doc. 2.51) was Ennius himself.
Ennius wrote at least 20 tragedies, many freely adapted from Greek works,
three comedies, some four or more books of satires (saturae), a gastronomic
poem, an account of the gods (the Epicharmus), epigrams, and a prose work, the
Euhemerus, on the gods as men of olden times. His best-known work was, how-
ever, his Annals, originally in 15 books, to which three more were later added, in
which he attempted to improve on Naevius’ Song of the First Punic War (doc.
4.18, cf. 4.57). Homer, seen by Ennius in a dream on Mount Helicon, was suppos-
edly the source of the poetic inspiration for his Annals, and in it Homer tells how
his soul migrated into Ennius’ body (1.4–15; Skutsch 1985: 70–1, as lines 2–11).
Ennius provides some useful maxims on Roman customs and tradition, all the
more valuable because they are cited as significant in other later works: doc. 1.9
(on custom); 1.10 (on kingship); 2.51 (on friendship and the values of the nobiles);
5.63 (on Roman views of nudity). He also records details of traditional religious
practices and beliefs: doc. 3.1 (the 12 Olympians in council), 3.5 (Numa and reli-
gious institutions) and 3.47 (Romulus and divination). He was frequently cited on
Hannibal and the Second Punic War (docs 4.30, 4.34, 4.37), while his epigram on
Scipio Africanus (d. 184) accorded the latter semi-divine status (doc. 4.58).

On his own satires, Ennius wrote:

Greetings, poet Ennius, you who pledge mortal men

In flaming verses from your inmost marrow. (Sat. 6–7)

On himself (Epigrams 7–10), he wrote (for his imago, funerary mask):

Look, O citizens, on the portrait of Ennius in his old age.

It was he who depicted the greatest deeds of your ancestors.

And for his tomb:

Let no one grace me with tears or make a funeral with weeping.

Why? Because I wing my way alive from one man’s mouth to another’s.

788
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
16.24 Gaius Lucilius (c. 180–102/1 BC)
Lucilius was of equestrian rank and the great-uncle of Pompey the Great (Vell.
2.29.2). He served with Scipio Aemilianus at Numantia (docs 5.52–53), and there
are many allusions in his poetry to this campaign. He was on friendly terms with
Scipio and C. Laelius. Some 1,400 lines of his satires are extant, and his work
contains many personal attacks, perhaps modelled on the Greek poet Archilochus,
on noted political figures and on moral decline generally. At Satires 26.1.632–4
he writes:

. . . (I don’t want) that by the very uneducated

Or the extremely learned, I should be read; Manius Manilius
Or Persius I don’t want to read these lines, I want Junius Congus to.

Manilius was consul in 149, Persius a well-born orator; Congus clearly is the ideal
reader – not overly well informed but sufficiently educated to appreciate the work.
Cicero De orat. 2.25, who gives Laelius Decumus, not Congus, explains as the
reason for this that the one would understand nothing and the other understand
perhaps more than Lucilius did himself.
Lucilius presents a satirical view of life in the second century: doc. 1.7 (on life
in the forum); 4.55 (on Hannibal); 5.4 (on Rome’s invincibility); 5.59 (on sumptu-
ary legislation). He is particularly enlightening on social issues: 6.4–5 (the slaves
owned (or not owned) by rich and poor in Rome); 6.19 (his own favourite slave);
6.34 (a prominent gladiatorial match); 6.45 (the runaway slave’s dog-collar); 7.38
(a ‘good’ wife); 7.56 (on the ways noble women are idealised as beautiful); and
7.62 (the charges for an aging prostitute).

16.25 Gaius Valerius Catullus (c. 84–c. 54 BC)

Catullus came from a wealthy family in Verona and as a young man served on the
staff of C. Memmius, who was governor of Bithynia in 57–56 BC. He seems to have
died in 54 BC at the age of only 30: at least there is no mention of events after 55 in
his writing. He was the author of numerous works of invective against Caesar and
his engineer Mamurra (docs 7.49, 12.89, 13.63; Caesar refused to take offence) and
was part of a cultivated literary circle which modelled itself on Hellenistic culture.
Much of what he produced (some 114 poems) is taken up with the theme of a love
affair with ‘Lesbia’, perhaps a poetic construct rather than Clodia, the sister of the
tribune Clodius, with whom she has been identified (docs 7.47–49, 51), and he does
address himself to other loves as well (see especially doc. 7.61). In doc. 7.46 he
satirises conventional morals in Roman aristocratic society.

16.26 Publius Vergilius Maro (70–19 BC)

Vergil was arguably the greatest poet of the Augustan Age, rivalling the best
works of archaic and classical Greek poetry in his output. He came from Mantua
in Cisalpine Gaul, and it was later thought that his family had been dispossessed

789
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
from its estate as part of the settlement of the triumvirate’s veterans, and that
this was rescinded after Vergil appealed to Octavian. This event and Octavian’s
involvement is immortalised in Vergil’s First Eclogue (doc. 14.28), written
perhaps in 41 BC, which refers to ‘that youth . . . in whose praise twelve days
a year my altars will give smoke’. Vergil’s Life is found in a commentary to
his works by the grammarian Aelius Donatus but may well have originally been
part of Suetonius’ Lives of Famous Men, which included a number of poets such
as Horace (doc. 15.93). Wealthy and talented patrons, such as Asinius Pollio
and Cornelius Gallus, recommended Vergil to Octavian, and one of his earliest
patrons was Gaius Maecenas, Octavian’s friend and cultural arm. The Georgics
were written in honour of Maecenas, and Vergil himself recited them to Octavian
over a four-day period in 29 BC on his return from Actium (doc. 15.90).
Vergil’s works comprise the Eclogues, pastoral poems idealising the rural life-
style (heavily dependent on the Greek pastoral poet Theocritus), the Georgics,
which celebrate agriculture in Italy, and his epic in 12 books, the Aeneid, which
competes with the Homeric poems in terms of subject and scope. While Vergil’s
poems do on occasion reflect the unpleasant political realities of life at Rome
under the principate, the Aeneid in particular also disseminates the values and ide-
als promoted by Augustus, including the realisation of national unity, the impor-
tance of ancestral values, and the world empire destined for Rome. Similarly, the
Eclogues, though praising the simple rustic lifestyle, also highlight the impact of
political turmoil and civil strife in Italy when farmers were evicted to make way
for veterans being settled on the land:

Some godless soldier will now possess my well-tilled fallow,

A foreigner these crops! What misery civil strife
Has brought us! For these we have sown our fields! (doc. 14.28)

The Georgics, too, which appeared in 29 BC, speak of Octavian restoring peace
and stability to a ‘shipwrecked era’, that of the triumvirate, when:

So many wars abound,

And crimes have many faces: the plough
Is given little honour, with farmers removed, the neglected fields rot,
And curved sickles are beaten into unyielding swords.
There the Euphrates rises, here Germany’s at war;
Neighbouring cities, treaties broken, against each other
Bear arms; wicked Ares rages through the entire world. (Georg. 1.505–11)

While Vergil clearly had some reservations about the principate, he flattered
Augustus and the imperial family in fulsomely praising Marcellus, Augustus’
nephew, heir and son-in-law, who died in 23 BC at the age of 19. Immortalised
in the Aeneid, Marcellus is shown at the summit of Rome’s future power and dig-
nity. His mother, Octavia, was present when Vergil read book 6 of the Aeneid to
Octavian, and famously she fainted at the culminating line of the passage describ-
ing this ‘youth of outstanding beauty and with shining arms’ at the end of a long

790
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
procession of great Romans, with the ‘prophetic’ words ‘You shall be Marcellus!’
(doc. 15.34). The Aeneid also has set-pieces glorifying Octavian and Rome’s
future under his government. The shield made by Vulcan for Aeneas features the
defeat of Antony and his Eastern consort (Cleopatra) and depicts Octavian’s triple
triumph of August 29 BC as the epitome of Rome’s future successes (doc. 15.11).
Furthermore, at the start of the epic, Jupiter prophesies to Venus (the ancestor
of Julius Caesar and Augustus) the future military success of Rome, an empire
limited by no boundaries or time which wields a worldwide dominion without
end (doc. 5.6). According to Donatus’ Life (doc. 15.90), Vergil died in 19 BC
after meeting Augustus at Brundisium. At the age of 52, he had decided to retire
to the East for three years to complete the Aeneid, but, on meeting Augustus in
Athens, returned to Italy with him. He was suffering at this point from an illness
contracted at Megara and died after arriving at Brundisium.

16.27 Quintus Horatius Flaccus (65–8 BC)

Horace, born at Venusia in southern Italy, was of relatively lowly birth, being
the son of a freedman, but became the leading lyric poet of Augustus’ age. His
father ensured that he was well educated, taking him to Rome for that purpose,
and Horace later continued his studies at Athens at the Academy. It was in Athens
that he met Brutus, whom he joined as a military tribune, and as a ‘Republican’
he served under Brutus at Philippi, later humorously recounting the fact that he
ran away without his shield. Following the victory of Octavian and Antony he
accepted the amnesty offered by Octavian and from that point eschewed politics
and devoted himself to literature. His family estate, like that of Vergil’s, was con-
fiscated for the settlement of veterans, and it was Vergil who introduced him to
Maecenas in 38 BC. Like Vergil he became an integral part of the literary circle
which Maecenas orchestrated and Octavian encouraged. To ensure him a liveli-
hood he was given the position of quaestor’s clerk in Rome, while later Maecenas
made him a gift of a Sabine farm which features markedly in his poetry. His
poems deal with love, philosophy and politics, as well as the nature of poetry itself
(the Ars Poetica) and many are autobiographical, or purport to be so. Much of the
anecdotal information about his life is found in the Suetonian biography of him
(doc. 15.93), which details the background to many of the incidents and personali-
ties that are reflected in his poetry.
His first works, the Satires (or ‘Sermons’) and Epodes (c. 35–30), are relatively
apolitical, although in Sat. 1.5 Horace gives a lengthy description of his journey to
Brundisium with Maecenas, who was organising the treaty of Tarentum between
Octavian and Antony (doc. 14.40). He may also have been with Maecenas at
Actium, and in Epodes 9 (doc. 14.52), which is addressed to Maecenas, he cel-
ebrates Octavian’s triumph over the effeminate Egyptians (with their eunuchs and
mosquito nets). He increasingly became a spokesperson for Augustus’ regime,
and his works, which are heavily autobiographical, or at least purport to be so,
give a valuable picture of the social and intellectual life of the first half of the
Augustan period. From 30 BC his writing begins to show political sensitivity to
the regime’s developing ideology (e.g., Odes 1.2), and from 27 to 24 he alludes

791
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
to foreign wars in Arabia, Britain, Parthia and Spain (1.29, 1.35, 2.2, 3.8). The
first three books of the Odes were apparently published together in 23 BC, the
earliest dateable poem in the collection being 1.37, which deals with the defeat of
Cleopatra at Actium. In Horace’s depiction Cleopatra is not so much demonised,
as in the works of Propertius and Vergil (docs 14.48, 15.11), as honoured for her
courageous suicide:

But boldly gazing on her desolate palace,

Calm of countenance, unflinchingly
She handled the murderous serpents
So her body could drink down the deadly venom,

More savage than ever, in her chosen death;

By cruel Liburnians, was she to be paraded
Dethroned, in an arrogant triumph? –
Too proud a woman she! (Odes 1.37)

Horace was disappointed with the reception of the Odes, and a fourth book fol-
lowed only at Augustus’ instigation (c. 11 BC), in which the poet overtly promotes
the values of the Augustan age and includes odes commissioned by Augustus cel-
ebrating the victories of his stepsons Tiberius and Drusus (Odes 4.4, 4.14). The
eulogising tone of Odes book 4 resembles that of the Carmen Saeculare, which
Horace was commissioned to write for the ludi Saeculares celebrated in 17 BC,
and which portrays the regime as a period of peace and moral reform and as a
golden age (doc. 15.33). This official hymn of the festival, sung by chorus of girls
and boys, highlights Rome’s greatness and praises Augustus’ moral and social
legislation which will underpin the next 110-year cycle. Before producing the
Carmen Saeculare, Horace had returned to the more relaxed approach of his early
satires in a collection entitled the Epistles, letters in verse presenting philosophical
reflections on the ideal lifestyle, which appeared in 20 or 19 BC. This collection
was perhaps his most innovative work, and in 1.13 he describes the presentation
of his volume of Odes to Augustus by a clumsy messenger (doc. 15.97). Though
a friend of Augustus, he declined the position of secretary when Augustus offered
it to him, preferring to remain independent. He died in November 8 BC, leaving
Augustus as his heir, and his work greatly influenced that of his younger contem-
poraries Propertius and Ovid.

16.28 Sextus Propertius (c. 50–before 2 BC)

Propertius was born between 54 and 47 BC at Asisium in Umbria. Like Vergil
and Horace, his family property was affected by Octavian’s confiscations for his
veterans in 41–40, and in two poems in book 1 of his Elegies he identifies with
those affected by Octavian’s defeat of Fulvia and Lucius Antonius at the siege
of Perusia (docs 14.29–31). Little, however, is known of his life except what can
be deduced from his works. His poems are best known for their love interest and

792
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
are addressed to a mistress called Cynthia, portrayed as an educated courtesan,
perhaps a poet herself, who dominates the poems in book 1 in particular, with the
first line stating the poet’s obsession with this relationship (‘Cynthia first cap-
tured me – poor me! – with her eyes, I who had never before been touched by
romantic love’). While he addresses poems to Maecenas (the opening poem of
book 2 refuses to comply with his request for a poem on a specific theme), a tone
of political independence persists throughout his work, and apparent eulogies of
Augustan triumphs are often undercut by an irreverent aside at the conclusion of
the poem. Elegies 3.4 (doc. 15.95), which incites Augustus to war against Parthia
and even ‘India’, enthuses about avenging Crassus and his son, the conquest of
the Tigris and Euphrates, and the booty and prisoners to be paraded in Augustus’
triumph but ends with the poet’s declaration that his only interest in these is in
viewing the triumph on the Via Sacra while relaxing with his ‘girl’. Similarly,
in 2.14 he compares himself to Agamemnon, seeing himself as having achieved
even more than the conquest of Troy, or in contemporary terms a triumph over
Parthia, in having his ‘girl’ accept him for the entire night as a lover:

Agamemnon did not so rejoice at his Trojan triumph! . . .

The girl, at her ease, laid her head next to mine.
This victory means more than defeating the Parthians,
She is my plunder, my kings, my chariot!
I will place great gifts, Cytherea, on your columns
And this will be the verse under my name:
Goddess, I, Propertius, place before your temple
These spoils, for being accepted as a lover for a whole night.

The focus of much of Propertius’ poetry is on his position as slave of his mistress,
and his love affairs are depicted as of greater importance to him than contempo-
rary politics. His celebration of passionate love suggests that he would not have
been in tune with Augustus’ moral and social legislation, with its emphasis on the
importance of the marriage tie and the procreation of children (docs 15.23–27).
He did, however, compose a lament on the death of Augustus’ nephew Marcellus
(Elegies 3.18), as well as a celebration of Cleopatra’s defeat, written some ten
years after the event, in which she is satisfactorily demonised as an embodiment of
all Eastern luxury and self-indulgence, ‘that harlot queen of incestuous Canopus’
(doc. 14.48, cf. 14.52, 15.11).

16.29 Publius Ovidius Naso (43 BC–AD 17)

Born at Sulmo into an equestrian family of long standing, Ovid was educated at
Rome. A younger contemporary of Vergil and Horace, from an early period in his
career he devoted himself to poetry and became, like Tibullus, one of the circle of
M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus, a rival patron to Maecenas who supported his own
group of young poets. His early poetry includes the Amores, ‘Loves’, three books
detailing the tribulations of a young poet with his mistress Corinna; the Heroides,

793
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
‘Heroines’, letters or monologues written from the point of view of tragic heroines
such as Phaedra and Ariadne; the Ars Amatoria, ‘Art of Love’, which deals with
courtship and intrigue, advising men, and women, how to approach the opposite
sex; and the Remedia amoris, ‘Remedies for love’, counselling the reader how to
extricate himself from a relationship. While focusing on erotic themes and fre-
quently eulogising the princeps, Ovid subtly undercuts the tone of the Augustan
regime with its imposing constructions by describing the porticoes of Octavia and
Livia as a good place to pick up girls.
His Metamorphoses, ‘Transformations’, ostensibly an epic in 15 books, deals
with more than 250 myths from the classical and Near Eastern past which feature
the transformations of humans, animals and inanimate objects into new entities,
often under the power of love. By AD 8 Ovid was one of the leading poets in
Rome, but in that same year he was banished by Augustus to Tomis (modern
Constanta), a backwoods town on the western coast of the Black Sea. In an auto-
biographical poem in his five-book Tristia, ‘Lamentations’, written in exile, Ovid
refers to a mistake (‘error’) which led to his banishment, and elsewhere to a poem
which was viewed with disapproval (presumably the Ars Amatoria, or ‘Art of
Love’, books 1–2 of which appeared c. 1 BC). He was obviously implicated in
some kind of scandal which involved the imperial family, and significance has
been attached to the fact that his exile in AD 8 occurred in the same year as the
banishment of the younger Julia, Augustus’ granddaughter, for adultery and pos-
sible treason (doc. 15.31). His own account of his exile is given in the Tristia
(4.10.85–90, 95–102):

But if anything other than our names survive for those of us deceased,
If some slight shade escapes the funeral pyre,
If news of me, my parental ghosts, has reached you
And my crimes are being judged in the Stygian court,
Know, I beg you, that the reason (for I should not deceive you)
For my banishment was for a mistake and not a crime . . .
Since my birth the victorious Olympian charioteer crowned with olive
Had ten times taken the Olympian prizes
When – to Tomis on the west of the Black Sea –
The wrath of the princeps banished me.
The reason for my ruin is known to all –
No need for words of mine.
Why talk of the duplicity of comrades and deceitful servants?
I had much to bear as bad as exile!

Ovid remained at Tomis until his death, probably in AD 17, despite many pleas
to Augustus for his recall, suggesting that Augustus was firmly opposed to his
presence in Rome. It was at Tomis that Ovid revised his Fasti, ‘Calendar’, an
antiquarian work on religious rites and folklore, which discusses the months of the
calendar year and the festivals celebrated in each: only the first six books survive.
Augustus features throughout as the embodiment of traditional Roman religion,

794
 THE ANCIENT SOURCES
not always without subtle irony (see doc. 15.97 for the comparison of Augustus
with Romulus), and the anniversaries of his foundations such as the Ara Pacis and
the temple of Mars Ultor feature prominently in Ovid’s work (docs 15.16, 96). A
valuable source for Roman festivals, Ovid describes the role of both matrons and
prostitutes on occasions such as the Matronalia (1 March), Veneralia (1 April),
Vinalia (23 April) and Matralia (11 June) (docs 7.79, 81–83), while among other
celebrations he gives the details of the Caristia, held in honour of the household
deities, and the Robigalia, when a dog sacrifice was made to propriate the deity of
Mildew and protect the crops (docs 15.21, 3.74).
His Tristia, like his Letters from Pontus, were addressed from exile to his wife
and other recipients detailing the miseries of his situation, but Ovid was unable
to effect a reconsideration of his banishment. In Tristia 3.3 he presents his own
epitaph:

I who lie here, the poet Naso, skilled virtuoso of the tender passions,
Was undone by my own wit.
You who pass by, if you have ever been in love, be kind enough
To say, ‘May Naso’s bones lie softly’. (Tristia 3.3.73–76)

795
 Abbreviations of Personal Names
and Magistracies
A. Aulus
App. Appius
C. Gaius
Cn. Gnaeus
D. Decimus
L. Lucius
M. Marcus
M’ Manius
P. Publius
Q. Quintus
Ser. Servius
Sex. Sextus
Sp. Spurius
T. Titus
Ti. Tiberius
Aed. aedile
Cos. Consul
Cos. suff. Suffect (or substitute) consul
Procos. Proconsul
Tr. pl. tribune of the plebs

796
 Abbreviations of Journals,
Editions of Inscriptions, Commentaries
and Frequently Cited Works
AC Antiquité Classique
AE L’Année Epigraphique
AHB Ancient History Bulletin
AHR American Historical Review
AJAH American Journal of Ancient History
AJPh American Journal of Philology
AncSoc Ancient Society
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, Berlin.
BGU Berliner griechische Urkunden
BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
Bruns FIRA Bruns, C.G. 1919, Fontes iuris Romani antiqui, seventh
edition, Tübingen.
Brunt 1988 Brunt, P.A. 1988, The Fall of the Roman Republic and
Related Essays, Oxford.
CAH The Cambridge Ancient History
C&M Classica et Mediaevalia
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin.
ClAnt Californian Studies in Classical Antiquity
CPh Classical Philology
CQ Classical Quarterly
Crawford RRC Crawford, M.H. 1974, Roman Republican Coinage, vols I–II,
Cambridge.
Crawford Statutes Crawford, M.H. (ed.) 1996, Roman Statutes, vols I–II, London.
EJ Ehrenberg, V. and Jones, A.H.M. (eds) 1976, Documents
Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, second
edition, Oxford.
EMC/CV Echos du Monde Classique/Classical Views
FGrH Jacoby, F. 1954–64, Die Fragmente der griechischen
Historiker, with Supplements, Leiden.
FIRA Riccobono, S. 1941, Fontes iuris Romani antejustiniani, part 1,
second edition, Florence.
G&R Greece and Rome

797
 ABBREVIATIONS
Grueber Grueber, H.A. 1910, Coins of the Roman Republic in
the British Museum, vols I–III, London.
Guérard 1950 Guérard, O. 1950, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 4: 106–111.
HRR Peter, H. 1906, 1914, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, vol. 1,
second edition (1914), vol. 2, first edition (1906), Stuttgart.
HSCPh Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
IG Inscriptiones Graecae
IGRR Cagnat, R. 1927, Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas
Pertinentes, vol. 4, Paris.
ILLRP Degrassi, A. 1963–65, Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae,
vol. 1, second edition, 1965, vol 2, first edition,
1963, Florence.
ILS Dessau, H. 1892–1916, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, Berlin,
vols I–III.
Inscr. Ital. Degrassi, A. 1937–63, Inscriptiones Italiae, Rome.
JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology
JRMES Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
LSAG2 Jeffrey, I. 1990, Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, second
edition, Oxford.
MH Museum Helveticum
Moretti IAG Moretti, L. 1953, Iscrizione agonistiche greche, Rome.
MRR Broughton, T.R.S. 1951–60, The Magistrates of the Roman
Republic, vols 1–3, New York.
OGIS Dittenberger, W. 1903–5, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones
Selectae, vols 1–2, Leipzig.
ORF4 Malcovati, H. 1976, Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta.
Liberae Rei Publicae, fourth edition, Turin.
P&P Past and Present
PBSR Papers of the British School at Rome
PCPhS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society
P. Köln Gronewald, M. et al. 2001, Kölner Papyri, Cologne.
Raubitschek Raubitschek, A.E. with Jeffrey, L.H. 1949, Dedications from
the Athenian Acropolis. A Catalogue of the Inscriptions of
the Sixth and Fifth Centuries BC, Cambridge, MA.
RDGE Sherk, R.E. 1969, Roman Documents from the Greek East,
Baltimore.
Reynolds Aphrodisias Reynolds, J. 1982, Aphrodisias and Rome. Documents from
the Excavation of the Theatre at Aphrodisias, London.
RG Cooley, A.E. 2009, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, Cambridge.
RhM Rheinisches Museum
RIDA Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité
Scullard GN Scullard, H.H. 2010, From the Gracchi to Nero. A History
of Rome from 133 BC to AD 68, sixth edition, London.
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
SIG3 Dittenberger, W. 1915–24, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum,
vols I–IV, Leipzig.
TAPhA Transactions of the American Philological Association
WS Wiener Studien
ZSS Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte
romanistische Abteilung

798
 Bibliography

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY AND

BACKGROUND READING
Listed immediately below are works which serve as a useful introduction to Roman history.
The books in this list generally do not appear in the chapter bibliographies which follow.

Adkins, L. & Adkins, R.A. 1994, A Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome, New York.
Alföldy, G. 1988, The Social History of Rome, Baltimore.
Beard, M. & Crawford, M.H. 1999, Rome in the Late Republic, second edition, London.
Blois, L. de & Spek, R.J. van der 1997, An Introduction to the Ancient World, London.
Boardman, J., Green, J. & Murray, O. 1986, The Oxford History of the Classical World,
Oxford = 2001, The Oxford History of the Roman World.
Boatwright, M.T., Gargola, D.J., Lenski, N. & Talbert, R. 2012, The Romans. From Village
to Empire, second edition, Oxford.
Boatwright, M.T., Gargola, D.J., Lenski, N. & Talbert, R. 2014, A Brief History of the
Romans, second edition, Oxford.
Boren, H.C. 1977, Roman Society. A Social, Economic, and Cultural History, Lexington.
Christiansen, E. 1995, A History of Rome, Cambridge.
Cornell, T. & Matthews, J. 1982, Atlas of the Roman World, revised edition, Oxford.
Crawford, M. 1992, The Roman Republic, second edition, London.
Dupont, F. 1992, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, Oxford.
Grant, M. 1978, A History of Rome, New York.
Grant, M. 1992, Greeks and Romans. A Social History, London.
Hornblower, S. & Spawforth, A. (eds) 1996, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, third edi-
tion, Oxford.
Jones, P. & Sidwell, K. 1997, The World of Rome. An Introduction to Roman Culture,
Cambridge.
Kamm, A. 1995, The Romans. An Introduction, London.
Lintott, A. 2000, The Roman Republic, Stroud.
Ogilvie, R.M. 1976, Early Rome and the Etruscans, London.
Rosenstein, N. & Morstein-Marx, R. (eds) 2006, A Companion to the Roman Republic,
Malden & Oxford.
Scarre, C. 1995, The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome, Harmondsworth.
Scullard, H.H. 1980, A History of the Roman World 753–146 BC, fourth edition, London.
Scullard, H.H. 2010, From the Gracchi to Nero, sixth edition, London.
Starr, C. 1990, A History of the Ancient World, Oxford.

799
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Swain, H. & Davies, M.E. 2010, Aspects of Roman History 82 BC–AD 14. A Source-Based
Approach, London.
Ward, A.M, Heichelheim, F.M. & Yeo, C.A. 1998, A History of the Roman People, third
edition, Upper Saddle River.

SOURCE BOOKS AND ANTHOLOGIES

Aicher, P.J. 2004, Rome Alive. A Source-Guide to the Ancient City, Wauconda, IL.
Beard, M., North, J. & Price, S. 1998, Religions of Rome, vol. 2. A Sourcebook, Cambridge.
Braund, D. 1985, Augustus to Nero. A Source Book on Roman History 31 BC–AD 68, London.
Carter, J.M. 1970, Sallust. Fragments of the Histories and Pseudo-Sallust. Letters to
Caesar, Lactor 6, London.
Cherry, D. 2001, The Roman World. A Sourcebook, Malden, MA.
Chisholm, K. & Ferguson, J. 1981, Rome. The Augustan Age, Oxford.
Cooley, M.G.L. 2003, The Age of Augustus, Lactor 17, London.
Dudley, D.R. 1967, Urbs Roma. A Source Book of Classical Texts on the City and its
Monuments, London.
Ferguson, J. 1980, Greek and Roman Religion. A Source Book, Park Ridge.
Gardner, J.F. & Wiedemann, T.E.J. 1991, The Roman Household. A Sourcebook, London.
Grant, F.C. 1957, Ancient Roman Religion, New York.
Humphrey, J.W., Oleson, J.P. & Sherwood, A.N. 1998, Greek and Roman Technology. A
Sourcebook, London.
Lacey, W.K. & Wilson, B.W.J.G. 1970, Res Publica. Roman Politics and Society According
to Cicero, Oxford.
Lefkowitz, M.R. & Fant, M.B. 1992, Women’s Life in Greece and Rome. A Source Book in
Translation, second edition, Baltimore.
Levick, B. 2000, The Government of the Roman Empire. A Sourcebook, second edition, London.
Lewis, N. & Reinhold, M. (eds) 1990, Roman Civilization. Selected Readings, vol. I. The
Republic and the Augustan Age, third edition, New York.
Lomas, K. 1996, Roman Italy, 338 BC–AD 200. A Sourcebook, London.
Luck, G. 1985, Arcana Mundi. Magic and the Occult in the Greek and Roman World. A
Collection of Ancient Texts, Baltimore.
McDermott, W.C. & Caldwell, W.E. 1970, Readings in the History of the Ancient World,
second edition, New York.
Meijer, F. & Nijf, O. van 1992, Trade, Transport and Society in the Ancient World, London.
Mellor, R. 1998, The Historians of Ancient Rome. An Anthology of the Major Writings, London.
Plant, I.M. 2004, Women Writers of Ancient Greece and Rome. An Anthology, London.
Rawson, B. 1978, The Politics of Friendship. Pompey and Cicero, Sydney.
Ridley, R.T. 1987, History of Rome. A Documented Analysis, Rome.
Sabben-Clare, J. 1971, Caesar and Roman Politics 60–50 BC. Source Material in
Translation, Oxford.
Shaw, B.D. 2001, Spartacus and the Slave Wars. A Brief History with Documents, Boston.
Shelton, J. 1988, As the Romans Did. A Sourcebook in Roman Social History, New York.
Sherk, R.K. 1984, Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus, Cambridge.
Sherk, R.K. 1988, The Roman Empire. Augustus to Hadrian, Cambridge.
Stockton, D.L. 1981, From the Gracchi to Sulla. Sources for Roman History, 133–80 BC,
Lactor 13, London.
Thorpe, M.A. 1970, Roman Politics, 80–44 BC, Lactor 7, London.
Treggiari, S. 1996, Cicero’s Cilician Letters, Lactor 10, second edition, London.

800
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Wiedemann. T.E.J. 1981, Greek and Roman Slavery, London.
Wilkinson, L.P. 1966, Letters of Cicero. A Selection in Translation, revised edition, London.
Yavetz, Z. 1988, Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Rome, New Brunswick.

CHAPTER ONE: EARLY REPUBLICAN ROME: 507–264 BC

Alföldi, A. 1965, Early Rome and the Latins, Ann Arbor.
Aubet, M.E. 2001, The Phoenicians and the West. Politics, Colonies and Trade, second
edition, Cambridge.
Brunt, P.A. 1971, Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic, London.
Cornell, T.J. 1995, The Beginnings of Rome. Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the
Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 BC), London.
Develin, R. 1985, The Practice of Politics at Rome, 366–167 BC, Brussels.
Drummond, A. 1989, ‘Rome in the fifth century I: the social and economic framework’ in
CAH VII.22: 113–71.
Drummond, A. 1989a, ‘Rome in the fifth century II: the citizen community’ in CAH VII.22:
172–242.
Eckstein, A.M. 2006, Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome, Berkeley.
Gabba, E. 1991, Dionysius and ‘The History of Archaic Rome’, Berkeley.
Grandazzi, A. 1997, The Foundations of Rome. Myth and History, Ithaca and London.
Gruen, E.S. 1992, Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome, London.
Kunkel, W. 1973, An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History, second
edition, Oxford.
Lintott, A.W. 1999, The Constitution of the Roman Republic, Oxford.
Lomas, K. 1993, Rome and the Western Greeks 350 BC–AD 200, London.
Miles, G.B. 1995, Livy. Reconstructing Early Rome, Ithaca and London.
Mitchell, R.E. 1990, Patricians and Plebeians. The Origin of the Roman State, Ithaca.
Momigliano, A. 1989, ‘The origins of Rome’ in CAH VII.22: 52–112.
Mouritsen, H. 2001, Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic, Cambridge.
Ogilvie, R.M. & Drummond, A. 1989, ‘The sources for early Roman history’ in CAH
VII.22: 1–29.
Palmer, R.E.A. 1970, The Archaic Community of the Romans, Cambridge.
Patterson, J.R. 2000, Political Life in the City of Rome, Bristol.
Raaflaub, K.A. (ed.) 1986, Social Struggles in Archaic Rome. New Perspectives on the
Conflict of the Orders, Berkeley.
Salmon, E.T. 1967, Samnium and the Samnites, Cambridge.
Salmon, E.T. 1982, The Making of Roman Italy, London.
Sandberg, K.A.J. 2001, Magistrates and Assemblies. A Study of Legislative Practice in
Republican Rome, Rome.
Scullard, H.H. 1973, Roman Politics, 220–150 BC, second edition, Oxford.
Seager, R. 1977, ‘Populares in Livy and the Livian tradition’ CQ 27: 377–90.
Smith, C.J. 1996, Early Rome and Latium: Economy and Society c. 1000–500 BC, Oxford.
Staveley, E.S. 1972, Greek and Roman Voting and Elections, London.
Staveley, E.S. 1989, ‘Rome and Italy in the early third century’ in CAH VII.22: 420–55.
Stewart, R. 1998, Public Office in Early Rome. Ritual Procedure and Political Practice,
Ann Arbor.
Taylor, L.R. 1966, Roman Voting Assemblies from the Hannibalic Wars to the Dictatorship
of Caesar, Ann Arbor.
Watson, A. 1975, Rome of the XII Tables, Princeton.
Westbrook, R. 1988, ‘The nature and origins of the Twelve Tables’ ZSS 105: 74–121.

801
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
CHAPTER TWO: THE PUBLIC FACE OF ROME
Astin, A.E. 1978, Cato the Censor, Oxford.
Beacham, R.C. 1999, Spectacle Entertainments of Early Imperial Rome, New Haven.
Beard, M. 2007, The Roman Triumph, Cambridge, MA.
Brunt, P.A. 1966, ‘The Roman mob’ P&P 35: 3–27.
Brunt, P.A, 1982, ‘Nobilitas and Novitas’ JRS 72: 1–17.
Brunt, P.A. 1988, ‘Amicitia in the Roman Republic’ in Brunt 1988: 351–81.
Brunt, P.A. 1988a, ‘Clientela’ in Brunt 1988: 382–442.
Brunt, P.A. 1988b, ‘Factions’ in Brunt 1988: 443–502.
Crook, J.A. 1967, Law and Life of Rome, London.
Develin, R. 1985, The Practice of Politics at Rome, 366–167 BC, Brussels.
Drummond, A. 1989, ‘Early Roman clientes’ in Wallace-Hadrill, A. (ed.) Patronage in the
Ancient World, London: 89–116.
Eisenstadt, S.N. & Roniger, L. 1984, Patrons, Clients and Friends, Cambridge.
Epstein, D.F. 1987, Personal Enmity in Roman Politics 218–43 BC, London.
Flower, H.I. 1996, Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture, Oxford.
Flower, H.I. 2004, ‘Spectacle and political culture in the Roman Republic’ in Flower, H.I.
(ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic, Cambridge: 322–43.
Gelzer, M. 1969, The Roman Nobility, Oxford.
Gruen, E.S. 1968, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149–78 BC, Cambridge, MA.
Gruen, E.S. 1992, Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome, London.
Hall, U. 1964, ‘Voting procedure in Roman assemblies’ Historia 13: 267–306.
Higginbotham, J. 1997, Piscinae. Artificial Fishponds in Roman Italy, Chapel Hill.
Keaveney, A. 1992, Lucullus, a Life, London.
Kleijn, G. de 2001, The Water Supply of Ancient Rome, Amsterdam.
Kyle, D.G. 1998, Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome, London.
Laurence, R. 1999, The Roads of Roman Italy, London.
Lintott, A. 1990, ‘Electoral bribery in the Roman republic’ JRS 80: 1–16.
Lintott, A. 1999, Violence in Republican Rome, revised edition, Oxford.
Mackie, N. 1992, ‘Popularis ideology and popular politics at Rome’ RhM 135: 49–73.
Mouritsen, H. 2001, Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic, Cambridge.
Nippel, W. 1995, Public Order in Ancient Rome, Cambridge.
Patterson, J.R. 2000, Political Life in the City of Rome, Bristol.
Plass, P.C. 1995, The Game of Death in Ancient Rome, Madison.
Rosenstein, N. 1992, ‘Nobilitas and the political implications of military defeat’ AHB 6:
117–26.
Rosenstein, N. 1993, ‘Competition and crisis in mid-Republican Rome’ Phoenix 47: 313–38.
Seager, R. 1972, ‘Factio: some observations’ JRS 62: 53–8.
Seager, R. 1972a, ‘Cicero and the word popularis’ CQ 22: 328–38.
Shackleton Bailey, D.R. 1986, ‘Nobiles and novi reconsidered’ AJPh 107: 255–60.
Stone, S. 1994, ‘The toga: from national to ceremonial costume’ in Sebesta, J.L. &
Bonfante, L. (eds) The World of Roman Costume, Wisconsin: 13–45.
Taylor, L.R. 1960, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic, Ann Arbor.
Toner, J.P. 1995, Leisure and Ancient Rome, Cambridge.
Ulrichs, R.B. 1994, The Roman Orator and the Sacred Stage, Brussels.
van Sickle, J. 1987, ‘The elogia of the Cornelii Scipiones and the origin of epigram at
Rome’ AJPh 108: 41–55.
Vanderbroeck, P.J.J. 1986, ‘Homo novus again’ Chiron 16: 239–42.
Veyne, P. 1990, Bread and Circuses, Harmondsworth.

802
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Vishnia, R.F. 1996, State, Society and Popular Leaders in Mid-Republican Rome 241–167
BC, London.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1989, ‘Patronage in Roman society: from republic to empire’ in
Wallace-Hadrill, A. (ed.) Patronage in the Ancient World, London: 63–87.
Wallinga, T. 1994, ‘Ambitus in the Roman world’ RIDA 41: 411–42.
Wiseman, T.P. 1971, New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 BC–AD 14, Oxford.
Wiseman, T.P. 1985, Roman Political Life 90 BC to AD 69, Exeter.
Yacobsen, A. 1992, ‘Petitio et largitio: popular participation in the centuriate assembly of
the late republic’ JRS 82: 32–52.
Yacobsen, A. 1995, ‘Secret ballot and its effects in the late Roman Republic’ Hermes 123:
426–42.
Yacobsen, A. 1999, Elections and Electioneering in Rome. A Study in the Political System
of the Late Republic, Stuttgart.

CHAPTER THREE: RELIGION IN THE ROMAN REPUBLIC

Beard, M. 1988, ‘Roman priesthoods’ in Grant, M. & Kitzinger, R. (eds) Civilization of the
Ancient Mediterranean, vol. II, New York: 933–9.
Beard, M. 1990, ‘Priesthood in the Roman Republic’ in Beard, M. & North, J. (eds) Pagan
Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient World, London: 19–48.
Beard, M. 1994, ‘Religion’ in CAH IX2: 729–68.
Beard, M. 1994a, ‘The Roman and the foreign: the cult of the “Great Mother” in imperial
Rome’ in Thomas, N. & Humphrey, C. (eds) Shamanism. History and the State, Ann
Arbor: 164–90.
Bispham, E. & Smith, C. 2000, Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy, Edinburgh.
Burkert, W. 1987, Ancient Mystery Cults, Cambridge, MA.
Burton, P.J. 1996, ‘The summoning of the Magna Mater to Rome’ Historia 45: 36–63.
Feeney, D. 1998, Literature and Religion at Rome. Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs,
Cambridge.
Flower, H.I. 1996, Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture, Oxford.
Gabba, E. 1991, Dionysius and ‘The History of Archaic Rome’, Berkeley.
Goar, R.J. 1972, Cicero and the State Religion, Amsterdam.
Goodman, M.D. & Holladay, A.J. 1986, ‘Religious scruples in ancient warfare’ CQ 36:
151–71.
Gordon, R. 1999, ‘“What’s in a list?” Listing in Greek and Graeco-Roman malign magical
texts’ in Jordan, D.R., Montgomery, H. & Thomassen, E. (eds) The World of Ancient
Magic, Bergen.
Graf, F. 2000, ‘The rite of the Argei – once again’ MH 57: 94–103.
Harmon, D.P. 1978, ‘The public festivals of Rome’ ANRW II.16.2: 1440–68.
Kragelund, P. 2001, ‘Dreams, religion and politics in Republican Rome’ Historia 50:
53–95.
Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. 1979, Continuity and Change in Roman Religion, Oxford.
Linderski, J. 1986, ‘The augural law’ ANRW II.16.3: 2146–312.
Lindsay, H. 2000, ‘Death-pollution and funerals in the city of Rome’ in Hope, V.M. &
Marshall, E. (eds) Death and Disease in the Ancient City, London: 152–73.
North, J.A. 1976, ‘Conservatism and change in Roman religion’ PBSR 44: 1–12.
North, J.A. 1979, ‘Religious toleration in Republican Rome’ PCPhS 205: 85–103.
North, J.A. 1980, ‘Novelty and choice in Roman religion’ JRS 70: 186–91.
North, J.A. 1989, ‘Religion in Republican Rome’ in CAH VII.22: 573–624.

803
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
North, J.A. 1990, ‘Diviners and divination at Rome’ in Beard, M. & North, J. (eds) Pagan
Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient World, London: 51–71.
North, J.A. 1995, ‘Religion and rusticity’ in Cornell, T.J. & Lomas, K. (eds) Urban Society
in Roman Italy, London: 135–50.
North, J.A. 2000, Roman Religion, Oxford.
Orlin, E.M. 1997, Temples, Religion and Politics in the Roman Republic, Leiden.
Parke, H.W. 1988, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity, London.
Rawson, E. 1991, ‘Religion and politics in the late second century BC at Rome’ in Rawson,
E. Roman Culture and Society, Oxford: 149–68 = 1974, Phoenix 28: 193–212.
Rüpke, J. 2004, ‘Roman religion’ in Flower, H.I. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the
Roman Republic, Cambridge: 179–95.
Scheid, J. 1992, ‘The religious roles of Roman women’ in Schmitt Pantel, P. (ed.) A
History of Women, vol. I. From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints, Cambridge,
MA: 377–408.
Scheid, J. 2003, An Introduction to Roman Religion, Edinburgh.
Stambaugh, J.E. 1978, ‘The functions of Roman temples’ ANRW II.16.1: 554–608.
Takács, S.A. 2000, ‘Politics and religion in the Bacchanalian affair of 186 BCE’ HSCPh
100: 301–10.
Turcan, R. 1996, The Cults of the Roman Empire, Oxford.
Turcan, R. 2000, The Gods of Ancient Rome, Edinburgh.
Walsh, P.G. 1996, ‘Making a drama out of a crisis: Livy on the Bacchanalia’ G&R 43:
188–203.
Wiedemann, T. 1986, ‘The fetiales: a reconsideration’ CQ 36: 478–90.
Wildfang, R.L. 2001, ‘The Vestals and annual public rites’ C&M 52: 223–55.
Witt, R.E. 1997, Isis in the Ancient World, London (a republication of 1971, Isis in the
Greco-Roman World, London).

CHAPTER FOUR: THE PUNIC WARS:

ROME AGAINST CARTHAGE
Astin, A.E. 1967, ‘Saguntum and the origins of the Second Punic War’ Latomus 26:
577–96.
Astin, A.E. 1978, Cato the Censor, Oxford.
Bagnall, N. 1990, The Punic Wars. Rome, Carthage and the Struggle for the Mediterranean,
London.
Bagnall, N. 2002, The Punic Wars 264–146 BC, Oxford.
Bernstein, A.H. 1994, ‘The strategy of a warrior-state: Rome and the wars against Carthage,
264–201 BC’ in Murray, W., Knox, M. & Bernstein, A. (eds) The Making of Strategy.
Rulers, States, and War, Cambridge: 56–84.
Briscoe, J. 1989, ‘The Second Punic War’ in CAH VII.22: 44–80.
Caven, B. 1980, The Punic Wars, London.
Cornell, T.J., Rankov, B. & Sabin, P. (eds) 1996, The Second Punic War. A Reappraisal,
London.
Daly, G. 2002, Cannae. The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War, London.
Dorey, T.A. & Dudley, D.R. 1971, Rome Against Carthage, London.
Eckstein, A.M. 1982, ‘Human sacrifice and fear of military disaster in Republican Rome’
AJAH 7: 69–95.
Eckstein, A.M. 1987, Senate and General. Individual Decision Making and Roman Foreign
Relations 264–194, Berkeley.

804
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Edwards, J. 2001, ‘The irony of Hannibal’s elephants’ Latomus 60: 900–5.
Erdkamp, P. 1992, ‘Polybius, Livy and the “Fabian Strategy”’ AncSoc 23: 127–47.
Erskine, A. 1993, ‘Hannibal and the freedom of the Italians’ Hermes 121: 58–62.
Goldsworthy, A. 2000, The Punic Wars, London.
Goldsworthy, A. 2001, Cannae, London.
Harris, W.V. 1979, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327–70 BC, Oxford.
Hoyos, B.D. 1983, ‘Hannibal: what kind of genius?’ G&R 30: 171–80.
Hoyos, D. 1994, ‘Barcid “proconsuls” and Punic politics, 237–218 BC’ RhM 137: 246–74.
Hoyos, D. 2003, Hannibal’s Dynasty. Power and Politics in the Western Mediterranean,
London.
Hoyos, D. (ed.) 2011, A Companion to the Punic Wars, Malden, MA.
Khader, A. & Soren, D. (eds) 1987, Carthage: A Mosaic of Ancient Tunisia, New York.
Lancell, S. 1995, Carthage. A History, Oxford.
Lancell, S. 1998, Hannibal, Oxford.
Lazenby, J.F. 1978, Hannibal’s War. A Military History of the Second Punic War, London.
Lazenby, J.F. 1996, The First Punic War. A Military History, London.
Lazenby, J.F. 2004, ‘Rome and Carthage’ in Flower, H.I. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion
to the Roman Republic, Cambridge: 225–41.
Palmer, R.E.A. 1997, Rome and Carthage at Peace, Stuttgart.
Peddie, J. 1997, Hannibal’s War, Stroud.
Picard, G.C. & Picard, C. 1987, Carthage, second edition, London.
Rich, J. 1996, ‘The origins of the Second Punic War’ in Cornell, Rankov & Sabin 1996:
1–37.
Richardson, J.S. 1986, Hispaniae. Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism,
218–82 BC, Cambridge.
Ridley, R.T. 1986, ‘To be taken with a pinch of salt: the destruction of Carthage’ CPh 81:
140–46.
Ridley, R.T. 2000, ‘Livy and the Hannibalic war’ in Bruun, C. (ed.) The Roman Middle
Republic. Politics, Religion, and Historiography c. 400–133 BC, Rome: 13–40.
Samuels, M. 1990, ‘The reality of Cannae’ Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 47: 7–29.
Scullard, H.H. 1970, Scipio Africanus, Soldier and Politician, London.
Scullard, H.H. 1989, ‘Carthage and Rome’ in CAH VII.22: 486–569.
Scullard, H.H. 1989a, ‘The Carthaginians in Spain’ in CAH VIII2: 17–43.
Shean, J.F. 1996, ‘Hannibal’s mules: the logistical limitations of Hannibal’s army and the
Battle of Cannae, 216 BC’ Historia 45: 141–87.
Smith, P.J. 1993, Scipio Africanus and Rome’s Invasion of Africa. A Historical Commentary
on Titus Livius, Book XXIX, Amsterdam.
Steinby, C. 2000, ‘The Roman boarding-bridge in the First Punic War: a study of Roman
tactics and strategy’ Arctos 34: 193–210.
Walbank, F.W. 1967–79, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. I, Oxford.
Wise, T. & Healy, M. 1999, Hannibal’s War with Rome. The Armies and Campaigns, 216
BC, Oxford.

CHAPTER FIVE: ROME’S MEDITERRANEAN EMPIRE

Adams, C.E.P. 2001, ‘Feeding the wolf: logistics and the Roman army’ JRA 14: 465–72.
Astin, A.E. 1967, Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford.
Astin, A.E. 1989, ‘Roman government and politics, 200–134 BC’ in CAH VIII2: 163–96.
Astin, A.E. 1989a, ‘Sources’ in CAH VIII2: 1–16.

805
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Badian, E. 1968, Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic, second edition, Ithaca.
Badian, E. 1970, Titus Quinctius Flamininus. Philhellenism and Realpolitik, Cincinnati.
Balsdon, J.P.V.D. 1967, ‘T. Quinctius Flamininus’ Phoenix 21: 177–90.
Bishop, M.C. & Coulston, J.C.N. 1993, Roman Military Equipment from the Punic Wars
to the Fall of Rome, London.
Carrié, J.-M. 1993, ‘The Soldier’ in Giardina, A. (ed.) The Romans, Chicago: 100–37.
Connolly, P. 1989, ‘The early Roman army’ in Hackett, J. (ed.) Warfare in the Ancient
World, London: 136–48.
Connolly, P. 1989a, ‘The Roman army in the age of Polybius’ in Hackett, J. (ed.) Warfare
in the Ancient World, London: 149–68.
Connolly, P. 1997, ‘Pilum, gladius and pugio in the late Republic’ JRMES 8: 41–57.
Couston, J.C.N. 1998, ‘How to arm a Roman soldier’ in Austin, M., Harries, J. & Smith,
C. (eds) Modus Operandi. Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Rickman, London: 167–90.
Crawford, M.H. 1978, ‘Greek intellectuals and the Roman aristocracy in the first century
BC’ in Garnsey, P.D.A. & Whittaker, C.R. (eds) Imperialism in the Ancient World,
Cambridge: 193–207, 330–38.
Curchin, L.A. 1991, Roman Spain: Conquest and Assimilation, Routledge.
Derow, P.S. 1979, ‘Polybius, Rome and the East’ JRS 69: 1–15.
Derow, P.S. 1989, ‘Rome, the fall of Macedon and the sack of Corinth’ in CAH VIII2:
290–323.
Eckstein, A.M. 1987, Senate and General. Individual Decision Making and Roman Foreign
Relations 264–194, Berkeley.
Eckstein, A.M. 2006, Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome,
Berkeley.
Erdkamp, P. 1998, Hunger and the Sword. Warfare and Food Supply in Roman Republican
Wars (264–30 BC), Amsterdam.
Errington, R.M. 1989, ‘Rome against Philip and Antiochus’ in CAH VIII2: 244–89.
Erskine, A. 2010, Roman Imperialism, Edinburgh.
Gabba, E. 1976, Republican Rome, the Army and the Allies, Oxford.
Gilliver, C.M. 1999, The Roman Art of War, Stroud.
Goldsworthy, A.K. 1996, The Roman Army at War, 100 BC–AD 200, Oxford.
Goldsworthy, A.K. 2000, Roman Warfare, London.
Gruen, E.S. 1984, ‘Material rewards and the drive for empire’ in Harris, W.V. (ed.) The
Imperialism of Mid-Republican Rome, Rome: 59–82.
Gruen, E.S. 1986, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley.
Habicht, C. 1989, ‘The Seleucids and their rivals’ in CAH VIII2: 324–87.
Hanson, V.D. 1995, ‘From phalanx to legion 350–250 BC’ in Parker, G. (ed.) The Cambridge
Illustrated History of Warfare. The Triumph of the West, Cambridge: 32–49.
Harris, W.V. 1979, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327–70 BC, Oxford.
Harris, W.V. 1989, ‘Roman expansion in the West’ in CAH VIII2: 107–62.
Keay, S. 2001, ‘Romanization and the Hispaniae’ in Keay, S. & Terrenato, N. (eds) Italy
and the West. Comparative Issues in Romanization, Oxford: 115–44.
Keppie, L. 1989, ‘The Roman army of the later Republic’ in Hackett, J. (ed.) Warfare in
the Ancient World, London: 169–91.
Lintott, A.W. 1993, Imperium Romanum. Politics and Administration, London & New York.
MacMullen, R. 1991, ‘Hellenizing the Romans (2nd Century BC)’ Historia 40: 419–38.
McColl, J.B. 2002, The Cavalry of the Roman Republic, London.
North, J.A. 1981, ‘The development of Roman imperialism’ JRS 71: 1–9.

806
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pollitt, J.J. 1978, ‘The impact of Greek art on Rome’ TAPhA 108: 155–74.
Potter, D. 2004, ‘The Roman army and navy’ in Flower, H.I. (ed.) The Cambridge
Companion to the Roman Republic, Cambridge: 66–88.
Richardson, J.S. 1976, Roman Provincial Administration, Basingstoke.
Richardson, J.S. 1986, Hispaniae. Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism,
218–82 BC, Cambridge.
Richardson, J.S. 2000, Appian. Wars of the Romans in Iberia, Warminster.
Rosenstein, N. 2004, Rome and War. Farms, Families and Death in the Middle Republic,
Chapel Hill and London.
Roth, J.P. 1999, The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 BC–AD 235), Leiden.
Roth, J.P. 2009, Roman Warfare, Cambridge.
Sabin, P. 2000, ‘The face of Roman battle’ JRS 90: 1–17.
Sabin, P.,van Wees, H. & Whitby, M. (eds) 2007, The Cambridge History of Greek and
Roman Warfare, 2 vols, Cambridge.
Saunders, C. 1944, ‘The nature of Rome’s early appraisal of Greek culture’ CPh 39: 209–17.
Scullard, H.H. 1973, Roman Politics, 220–150 BC, second edition, Oxford.
Sherwin-White, A.N. 1984, Roman Foreign Policy in the East 168 BC to AD 1, London.
Stephenson, I.P. 1997, ‘Roman Republican training equipment: form, function and the
mock battle’ JRMES 8: 311–15.
Vishnia, R.F. 1996, State, Society and Popular Leaders in Mid-Republican Rome 214–167
BC, London.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1998, ‘To be Roman, go Greek: thoughts on Hellenization at Rome’
in Austin, M., Harries, J. & Smith, C. (eds) Modus Operandi. Essays in Honour of
Geoffrey Rickman, London: 79–91.
Walsh, J.J. 1996, ‘Flamininus and the propaganda of liberation’ Historia 45: 344–63.
Zhmodikov, A. 2000, ‘Roman Republican heavy infantrymen in battle (IV–II centuries
BC)’ Historia 49: 67–78.

CHAPTER SIX: SLAVES AND FREEDMEN

Astin, A.E. 1978, Cato the Censor, Oxford.
Balsdon, J.P.V.D. 1979, Romans and Aliens, London.
Bradley, K.R. 1979, ‘Holidays for slaves’ SO 54: 111–18.
Bradley, K.R. 1985, ‘The early development of slavery at Rome’ Historical Reflections/
Réflexions Historiques 12: 1–8.
Bradley, K.R. 1987, Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire. A Study in Social Control,
New York.
Bradley, K.R. 1989, Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, 140 BC–70 BC, Indiana.
Bradley, K. 1992, ‘“The regular, daily traffic in slaves”: Roman history and contemporary
history’ CJ 87: 125–38.
Bradley, K.R. 1994, Slavery and Society at Rome, Cambridge.
Dalby, A. 1998, Cato. On Farming. De Agricultura, Devon.
Finley, M.I. 1980, Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology, Harmondsworth.
Finley, M.I. 1987, Classical Slavery, London.
Forrest, W.G. & Stinton 1962, ‘The First Sicilian Slave War’ P&P 22: 87–92.
Green, P. 1961, ‘The First Sicilian Slave War’ P&P 20: 10–29.
Harris, W.V. 1980, ‘Towards a study of the Roman slave trade’ MAAR 36: 117–40.
Hopkins, K. 1978, Conquerors and Slaves, Cambridge.

807
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jones, A.H.M. 1960, ‘Slavery in the Ancient World’ in Finley, M.I. (ed.) Slavery in Classical
Antiquity. Views and Controversies, Cambridge: 1–15 = 1956, The Economic History
Review 9: 185–99.
Jongman, W. 2003, ‘Slavery and the growth of Rome: the transformation of Italy in the sec-
ond and first centuries BCE’ in Edwards, C. & Woolf, G. (eds) Rome the Cosmopolis,
Cambridge: 100–22.
Konstan, D. 1975, ‘Marxism and Roman slavery’ Arethusa 8: 145–69.
Libourel, J.M. 1973, ‘Galley slaves in the Second Punic War’ CPh 68: 116–19.
Lintott, A. 1999, Violence in Republican Rome, second edition, Oxford.
McCarthy, K. 2000, Slaves, Masters, and the Art of Authority in Plautine Comedy, Princeton.
McDermott, W.C. 1972, ‘M. Cicero and M. Tiro’ Historia 21: 259–86.
Millar, F. 1995, ‘The Roman libertus and civic freedom’ Arethusa 28: 99–105.
Parker, H. 1998, ‘Loyal slaves and loyal wives; the crisis of the outsider-within and Roman
exemplum literature’ in Joshel, S.R. & Murnaghan, S. (eds) Women and Slaves in
Greco-Roman Culture, London: 152–73.
Rathbone, D.W. 1983, ‘The slave mode of production in Italy’ JRS 73: 160–68.
Raymer, A.J. 1940/1, ‘Slavery – the Graeco-Roman defence’ G&R 10: 17–21.
Rei, A. 1998, ‘Villains, wives and slaves in the comedies of Plautus’ in Joshel, S.R. &
Murnaghan, S. (eds) Women and Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture, London: 92–108.
Rubinsohn, Z.W. 1982, ‘Some remarks on the causes and repercussions of the so-called
“Second Slave Revolt” in Sicily’ Athenaeum 60: 436–51.
Shaw, B.D. 2001, Spartacus and the Slave Wars. A Brief History with Documents, Boston.
Taylor, L.R. 1961, ‘Freedmen and freeborn in the epitaphs of imperial Rome’ AJPh 82: 113–32.
Thalmann, W.G. 1996, ‘Versions of slavery in the Captivi of Plautus’ Ramus 25: 112–49.
Thébert, Y. 1993, ‘The slave’ in Giardina, A. (ed.) The Romans, Chicago: 138–74.
Thompson, F.H. 2003, The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Slavery, London.
Treggiari, S.M. 1969, Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic, Oxford.
Vogt, J. 1974, Ancient Slavery and the Ideal of Man, Oxford.
Watson, A. 1987, Roman Slave Law, Baltimore.
Wiedemann, T.E.J. 1981, Greek and Roman Slavery, London.
Wiedemann, T.E.J. 1985, ‘The regularity of manumission at Rome’ CQ 35: 162–75.
Wiedemann, T.E.J. 1997, Slavery: Greece and Rome, revised edition, Oxford.
Yavetz, Z. 1988, Slaves and Slavery in Ancient Rome, New Brunswick.
Ziolkowski, A. 1986, ‘The plundering of Epirus in 167 BC: economic considerations’
PBSR 54: 69–80.

CHAPTER SEVEN: WOMEN, SEXUALITY AND THE FAMILY

Bauman, R.A. 1992, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome, London.
Beard, M. 1980, ‘The sexual status of vestal virgins’ JRS 70: 12–27.
Beard, M. 1990, ‘Priesthood in the Roman Republic’ in Beard, M. & North, J. (eds) Pagan
Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient World, London: 19–48.
Beard, M. 1995, ‘Re-reading (Vestal) virginity’ in Hawley, R. & Levick, B. (eds) Women
in Antiquity. New Assessments, London: 166–77.
Champlin, E. 1991, Final Judgements. Duty and Emotion in Roman Wills 200 BC–AD 250,
Berkeley.
Clark, G. 1981, ‘Roman women’ G&R 28: 193–212.
Clarke, J.R. 1998, Looking at Lovemaking. Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art 100
BC–AD 250, Berkeley.

808
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Crook, J.A. 1967, ‘Patria potestas’ CQ 17: 113–22.
Crook, J.A. 1986, ‘Women in Roman succession’ in Rawson, B. (ed.) The Family in
Ancient Rome. New Perspectives, London: 59–82.
Dixon, S. 1983, ‘A family business: women’s role in patronage and politics at Rome 80–44
BC’ C&M 34: 91–112.
Dixon, S. 1985, ‘Polybius on Roman women and property’ AJPh 196: 147–70.
Dixon, S. 1985a, ‘The marriage alliance in the Roman elite’ Journal of Family History 10:
353–78.
Dixon, S. 1988, The Roman Mother, London.
Dixon, S. 1992, The Roman Family, Baltimore.
Dixon, S. 2001, Reading Roman Women. Sources, Genres and Real Life, London.
Dixon, S. (ed.) 2001a, Childhood, Class and Kin in the Roman World, London.
Fantham, E. 1991, ‘Stuprum: public attitudes and penalties for sexual offences in
Republican Rome’ EMC/CV 10: 267–91.
Fantham, E. et al. (eds) 1994, Women in the Classical World. Image and Text, Oxford.
Gardner, J.F. 1986, Women in Roman Law and Society, London.
Gardner, J.F. 1998, Family and Familia in Roman Law and Life, Oxford.
Gardner, J.F. 1999, ‘Status, sentiment and strategy in Roman adoption’ in Corbier, M. (ed.)
Adoption et fosterage, Paris: 63–80.
Golden, M. 1992, ‘Continuity, change and the study of ancient childhood’ EMC/CV 11: 7–18.
Hales, S. 2000, ‘At home with Cicero’ G&R 47: 44–55.
Hallett, J.P. 1984, Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society. Women and the Elite Family,
Princeton.
Hallett, J.P. & Skinner, M.B. (eds) 1997, Roman Sexualities, Princeton.
Harlow, M. & Laurence, R. 2002, Growing Up and Growing Old in Ancient Rome. A Life
Course Approach, London.
Harris, W.V. 1986, ‘The Roman father’s power of life and death’ in Bagnall, R.S. & Harris,
W.V. (eds) Studies in Roman Law, Leiden: 81–95.
Harris, W.V. 1994, ‘Child-exposure in the Roman Empire’ JRS 84: 1–22.
Hemelrijk, E.A. 1999, Matrona Docta. Educated Women in the Roman Elite from Cornelia
to Julia Domna, London.
Hillard, T.W. 1993, ‘On the stage, behind the curtain: images of politically active women
in the Late Roman Republic’ in Garlick, B., Dixon, S. & Allen, P. (eds) Stereotypes of
Women in Power. Historical Perspectives and Revisionist Views, New York: 37–64.
James, S.L. 2003, Learned Girls and Male Persuasion. Gender and Reading in Roman
Love Elegy, Berkeley.
Joshel, S.R. & Murnaghan, S. (eds) 1998, Women and Slaves in Greco-Roman Culture.
Differential Equations, London.
Kertzer, D.I. & Saller, R.P. 1991, The Family in Italy from Antiquity to the Present, New
Haven.
Kleiner, D.E.E. & Matheson, S.B. 1996, I Claudia. Women in Ancient Rome, New Haven.
Lefkowitz, M.R. & Fant, M.B. 1992, Women’s Life in Greece and Rome, second edition,
Baltimore.
McGinn, T.A.J. 1998, Prostitution, Sexuality and the Law in Ancient Rome, Oxford.
Plant, I.M. 2004, Women Writers of Ancient Greece and Rome. An Anthology, London.
Pomeroy, S.B. 1975, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves. Women in Classical Antiquity,
London.
Ramage, E.S. 1994, ‘The so-called Laudatio Turiae as panegyric’ Athenaeum 82: 341–70.
Rawson, B. (ed.) 1986, The Family in Ancient Rome. New Perspectives, London.

809
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rawson, B. (ed.) 1991, Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome, Oxford.
Rawson, B. 2003, Children and Childhood in Roman Italy, Oxford.
Rawson, B. & Weaver, P. (eds) 1997, The Roman Family in Italy. Status, Sentiment, Space,
Canberra.
Richlin, A. 1993, ‘Not before homosexuality: the materiality of the cinaedus and the
Roman law against love between men’ Journal of the History of Sexuality 3: 523–73.
Saller, R.P. 1986, ‘Patria potestas and the stereotype of the Roman family’ Continuity and
Change 1: 7–22.
Saller, R.P. 1999, ‘Pater familias, mater familias and the gendered semantics of the Roman
household’ CPh 94: 182–97.
Scheid, J. 1992, ‘The religious roles of Roman women’ in Schmitt Pantel, P. (ed.) A
History of Women, vol. I. From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints, Cambridge,
MA: 377–408.
Sebesta, J.L. 1994, ‘Symbolism in the costume of the Roman woman’ in Sebesta, J.L. &
Bonfante, L. (eds) The World of Roman Costume, Wisconsin: 46–53.
Shaw, B.D. 1987, ‘The age of Roman girls at marriage: some reconsiderations’ JRS 77: 30–46.
Shaw, B.D. 2001, ‘Raising and killing children: two Roman myths’ Mnemosyne 54: 33–77.
Staples, A. 1998, From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgin. Sex and Category in Roman
Religion, London.
Tatum, W.J. 1990, ‘Cicero and the Bona Dea scandal’ CPh 85: 202–8.
Treggiari, S. 1991, Roman Marriage. Iusti Coniuges from the time of Cicero to the Time
of Ulpian, Oxford.
Treggiari, S. 1999, ‘The upper-class house as a symbol and focus of emotion in Cicero’
JRA 12: 33–56.
Treggiari, S. 2002, Roman Social History, London.
Wildfang, R.L. 2001, ‘The Vestals and annual public rites’ C&M 52: 223–55.
Williams, C.A. 1999, Roman Homosexuality. Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity,
Oxford.

CHAPTER EIGHT: TIBERIUS AND GAIUS GRACCHUS

Adshead, K. 1981, ‘Further inspiration for Tiberius Gracchus?’ Antichthon 15: 118–28.
Astin, A.E. 1967, Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford.
Badian, E. 1969, ‘From the Gracchi to Sulla (1940–1959)’ in Seager 1969: 3–51 = 1962,
Historia 11: 197–245.
Badian, E. 1972, ‘Tiberius Gracchus and the beginning of the Roman Revolution’ ANRW
I.1: 668–731.
Balsdon, J.P.V.D. 1969, ‘The history of the extortion court at Rome, 123–70 BC’ in Seager
1969: 132–48 = 1938, PBSR 14: 98–114.
Bernstein, A.H. 1978, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus. Tradition and Apostasy, Ithaca.
Boren, H.C. 1958, ‘Numismatic light on the Gracchan crisis’ AJPh 79: 14–55.
Boren, H.C. 1961, ‘Tiberius Gracchus: the opposition view’ AJPh 82: 140–55.
Boren, H.C. 1968, The Gracchi, New York.
Boren, H.C. 1969, ‘The urban side of the Gracchan economic crisis’ in Seager 1969: 54–68
= 1957/8, AHR 6: 890–902.
Briscoe, J. 1974, ‘Supporters and opponents of Tiberius Gracchus’ JRS 64: 125–35.
Brunt, P.A. 1971, Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic, London.
Brunt, P.A. 1988, ‘The army and the land in the Roman Revolution’ in Brunt, P.A. The
Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays, Oxford: 240–75; revision of 1962,
JRS 52: 69–86.

810
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brunt, P.A. 1988a, ‘The equites in the Late Republic’ in Brunt, P.A. The Fall of the Roman
Republic and Related Essays, Oxford: 144–93, revision of 1962, Trade and Politics
in the Ancient World 1: 117–49 = in Seager 1969: 83–115.
Earl, D.C. 1963, Tiberius Gracchus. A Study in Politics, Brussels.
Garnsey, P. & Rathbone, D. 1985, ‘The background to the grain law of Gaius Gracchus’
JRS 75: 20–25.
Gruen, E.S. 1968, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149–78 BC, Cambridge, MA.
Hall, U. 1977, ‘Notes on M. Fulvius Flaccus’ Athenaeum 55: 280–88.
Henderson, M.I. 1951, ‘The process “de repetundis”’ JRS 41: 71–88.
Henderson, M.I. 1969, ‘The establishment of the equester ordo’ in Seager 1969: 69–80 =
1963, JRS 53: 61–72.
Horsfall, N. 1987, ‘The “letter of Cornelia”: yet more problems’ Athenaeum 65: 231–4.
Keaveney, A. 2003, ‘The tragedy of Caius Gracchus: ancient melodrama or modern farce?’
Klio 85: 322–32.
Linderski, J. 2002, ‘The pontiff and the tribune: the death of Tiberius Gracchus’ Athenaeum
80: 339–66.
Lintott, A.W. 1981, ‘The leges de repetundis and associate measures under the Republic’
ZSS 98: 162–212.
Lintott, A.W. 1992, Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic, Cambridge.
Lintott, A.W. 1994, ‘Political history, 146–95 BC’ in CAH IX2: 40–77.
Lintott, A.W. 1999, Violence in Republican Rome, second edition, Oxford.
Morley, N. 2001, ‘The transformation of Italy, 225–28 BC’ JRS 91: 50–62.
Rich, J.W. 1983, ‘The supposed Roman manpower shortage of the later second century
BC’ Historia 32: 287–331.
Richardson, J.S. 1980, ‘The ownership of Roman land: Tiberius Gracchus and the Italians’
JRS 70: 1–11.
Riddle, J.M. 1970, Tiberius Gracchus. Destroyer or Reformer of the Republic?, Lexington,
MA.
Scullard, H.H. 1960, ‘Scipio Aemilianus and Roman politics’ JRS 50: 59–74.
Seager, R. (ed.) 1969, The Crisis of the Roman Republic, Cambridge.
Sherwin-White, A.N. 1972, ‘The date of the lex repetundarum and its consequences’ JRS
62: 83–99.
Sherwin-White, A.N. 1973, The Roman Citizenship, second edition, Oxford.
Sherwin-White, A.N. 1982, ‘The lex repetundarum and the political ideas of Gaius
Gracchus’ JRS 72: 18–31.
Shotter, D. 1994, The Fall of the Roman Republic, London.
Stockton, D. 1979, The Gracchi, Oxford.
Taylor, L.R. 1962 ‘The forerunners of the Gracchi’ JRS 52: 19–27.
White, K.D. 1967, ‘Latifundia: a critical review of the evidence on large estates in Italy and
Sicily up to the end of the first century AD’ BICS 14: 62–79.
Williams, P. 2004, ‘The Roman tribunate in the “Era of Quiescence” 287–133 BC’ Latomus
63: 281–94.

CHAPTER NINE: MARIUS AND CHAPTER TEN:

THE SOCIAL WAR
Astin, A.E. 1967, Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford.
Badian, E. 1969, ‘From the Gracchi to Sulla (1940–1959)’ in Seager 1969: 3–51 = 1962,
Historia 11: 197–245.
Badian, E. 1984, ‘The death of Saturninus: studies in chronology and prosopography’
Chiron 14: 101–47.

811
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bell, M.J.V. 1965, ‘Tactical reform in the Roman Republican army’ Historia 14:
404–22.
Bishop, M.C. & Coulston, J.C. 1993, Roman Military Equipment, London.
Brunt, P.A. 1971, Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic, London.
Brunt, P.A. 1988, The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays, Oxford.
Brunt, P.A. 1988a, ‘Italian aims at the time of the Social War’ in Brunt 1988: 93–143; revi-
sion of 1965, JRS 55: 90–109.
Brunt, P.A. 1988b, ‘The army and the land in the Roman Revolution’ in Brunt 1988: 240–
80; revision of 1962, JRS 52: 69–86.
Burns, T.S. 2003, Rome and the Barbarians, 100 BC–AD 400, Baltimore.
Cagniart, P.F. 1989, ‘L. Cornelius Sulla’s quarrel with C. Marius at the time of the
Germanic invasions’ Athenaeum 67: 139–49.
Carney, T.F. 1960, ‘Cicero’s picture of Marius’ WS 73: 83–122.
Carney, T.F. 1961, A Biography of C. Marius, Assen.
Dench, E. 1995, From Barbarians to New Men, Oxford.
Evans, R.J. 1994, Gaius Marius. A Political Biography, Pretoria.
Fantham, E. 1987, ‘Lucan, his scholia, and the victims of Marius’ AHB 1: 89–96.
Gabba, E. 1976, Republican Rome, the Army and the Allies, Oxford.
Gabba, E. 1994, ‘Rome and Italy: the Social War’ in CAH IX2: 104–28.
Goldsworthy, A.K. 2000, Roman Warfare, London.
Gruen, E.S. 1968, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149–78 BC, Cambridge,
MA.
Hands, A.R. 1972, ‘Livius Drusus and the courts’ Phoenix 26: 268–74.
Kallet-Marx, R. 1990, ‘The trial of Rutilius Rufus’ Phoenix 44: 122–39.
Keaveney, A. 1983, ‘What happened in 88?’ Eirene 20: 53–86.
Keaveney, A. 2005, Sulla. The Last Republican, second edition, London.
Keaveney, A. 2005a, Rome and the Unification of Italy, second edition, Liverpool.
Last, H. 1932, ‘The wars of the age of Marius’ in CAH IX1: 102–57.
Lintott, A.W. 1971, ‘The tribunate of P. Sulpicius Rufus’ CQ 21: 442–53.
Lintott, A.W. 1994, ‘The Roman empire and its problems in the late second century’ in
CAH IX2: 16–39.
Lintott, A.W. 1994a, ‘Political history, 146–95 BC’ in CAH IX2: 40–103.
Luce, T.J. 1970, ‘Marius and the Mithridatic command’ Historia 19: 161–94.
Morley, N. 1996, Metropolis and Hinterland. The City of Rome and the Italian Economy,
200 BC–AD 200, Cambridge.
Mouritsen, H. 1998, Italian Unification. A Study in Ancient and Modern Historiography,
London.
Raven, S. 1993, Rome in Africa, third edition, London.
Salmon, E.T. 1962, ‘The cause of the Social War’ Phoenix 16: 107–19.
Salmon, E.T. 1967, Samnium and the Samnites, Cambridge.
Seager, R. (ed.) 1969, The Crisis of the Roman Republic. Studies in Political and Social
History, Cambridge.
Sherwin-White, A.N. 1969, ‘Violence in Roman politics’ in Seager 1969: 151–9 = 1956,
JRS 46: 1–9.
Sherwin-White, A.N. 1973, The Roman Citizenship, second edition, Oxford.
Shotter, D. 1994, The Fall of the Roman Republic, London.
Syme, R. 1964, Sallust, Berkeley.
Weinrib, E.J. 1970, ‘The judiciary law of M. Livius Drusus (tr. pl. 91 BC)’ Historia 19:
414–43.

812
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
CHAPTER ELEVEN: LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA ‘FELIX’
Badian, E. 1964, ‘Waiting for Sulla’ in Badian, E. (ed.) Studies in Greek and Roman
History, Oxford: 206–34 = 1962, JRS 52: 47–61.
Badian, E. 1969, ‘From the Gracchi to Sulla’ in Seager 1969: 34–9 = 1962, Historia 11:
197–245.
Badian, E. 1972, Publicans and Sinners. Private Enterprise in the Service of the Roman
Republic, Oxford.
Badian, E. 1976, ‘Lucius Sulla: the deadly reformer’ in Dunstan, A.J. (ed.) Essays on
Roman Culture. The Todd Memorial Lectures, Toronto: 35–74 = 1970, Lucius Sulla:
the Deadly Reformer, Sydney.
Baker, G.P. 1967, Sulla the Fortunate, the Great Dictator, Rome.
Balsdon, J.P.V.D. 1951, ‘Sulla Felix’ JRS 41: 1–10.
Brennan, T.C. 1992, ‘Sulla’s career in the nineties: some reconsiderations’ Chiron 22:
103–58.
Brunt, P.A. 1971, Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic, London.
Brunt, P.A. 1990, ‘Sulla and the Asian publicans’ in Brunt, P.A. (ed.) Roman Imperial
Themes, Oxford: 1–8 = 1956, Latomus 19: 17–25.
Cloud, D. 1994, ‘The constitution and public criminal law’ in CAH IX2: 491–530.
Dowling, M.B. 2000, ‘The clemency of Sulla’ Historia 49: 303–40.
Frier, B.W. 1971, ‘Sulla’s propaganda: the collapse of the Cinnan Republic’ AJPh 92: 585–604.
Garton, C. 1964, ‘Sulla and the theatre’ Phoenix 18: 137–56.
Gruen, E.S. 1968, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149–78 BC, Cambridge, MA.
Hill, H. 1932, ‘Sulla’s new senators in 81 BC’ CQ 26: 170–77.
Hillard, T.W. 1991, ‘Sulla’s early fortunes and his reputation’ Antichthon 25: 63–71.
Hillman, T.P. 1997, ‘Pompeius in Africa and Sulla’s order to demobilize (Plutarch,
Pompeius 13, 1–4)’ Latomus 56: 94–106.
Hind, J. 1994, ‘Mithridates’ in CAH IX2: 129–64.
Katz, B.R. 1975, ‘The first fruits of Sulla’s march’ AC 44: 100–25.
Katz, B.R. 1976, ‘Studies on the period of Cinna and Sulla’ AC 45: 497–549.
Katz, B.R. 1976a, ‘The siege of Rome in 87 BC’ CPh 71: 328–36.
Keaveney, A. 1982, ‘Sulla augur: coins and the curiate law’ AJAH 7: 150–71.
Keaveney, A. 1982a, ‘Sulla and Italy’ Critica Storica 19: 499–544.
Keaveney, A. 1982b, ‘Young Pompey: 106–79 BC’ AC 51: 111–39.
Keaveney, A. 1983, ‘Studies in the dominatio Sullae’ Klio 65: 185–208.
Keaveney, A. 1983a, ‘What happened in 88?’ Eirene 20: 53–86.
Keaveney, A. 1983b, ‘Sulla and the gods’ in Deroux, C. (ed.) Studies in Latin Literature
and Roman History, Brussels: 44–79.
Keaveney, A. 1984, ‘Who were the Sullani?’ Klio 66: 114–50.
Keaveney, A. 1992, Lucullus. A Life, London.
Keaveney, A. 2005, Sulla: the Last Republican, second edition, London.
Levick, B.M. 1982, ‘Sulla’s march on Rome in 88 BC’ Historia 31: 503–8.
Lintott, A.W. 1999, Violence in Republican Rome, second edition, Oxford.
Lovano, M. 2002, The Age of Cinna. Crucible of Late Republican Rome, Stuttgart.
Mackay, C.S. 2000, ‘Sulla and the monuments: studies in his public persona’ Historia 49:
161–210.
Ramage, E.S. 1991, ‘Sulla’s propaganda’ Klio 73: 93–121.
Seager, R. (ed.) 1969, The Crisis of the Roman Republic. Studies in Political and Social
History, Cambridge.

813
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Seager, R. 1994, ‘Sulla’ in CAH IX2: 165–207.
Shotter, D. 1994, The Fall of the Roman Republic, London.
Stockton, D. 1966, ‘Sulla, le monarque malgré lui’ in Kagan, D. (ed.) Problems in Ancient
History, vol. 2. The Roman World, first edition, London: 259–66.
Sumi, G.S. 2002, ‘Spectacles and Sulla’s public image’ Historia 51: 414–32.
Twyman, B.L. 1976, ‘The date of Sulla’s abdication and the chronology of the first book
of Appian’s Civil Wars’ Athenaeum 54: 271–95.

CHAPTER TWELVE: THE COLLAPSE OF THE REPUBLIC

AND CHAPTER THIRTEEN: CIVIL WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
Astin, A.E. 1968, Politics and Policies in the Roman Republic, Belfast.
Balsdon, J.P.V.D. 1967, Julius Caesar. A Political Biography (= Julius Caesar and Rome),
London.
Billows, R.A. 2009, Julius Caesar. The Colossus of Rome, London & New York.
Brunt, P.A. 1988, ‘The fall of the Roman Republic’ in Brunt, P.A. The Fall of the Roman
Republic and Related Essays, Oxford: 1–92.
Butler, S. 2002, The Hand of Cicero, London.
Chauveau, M. 2002, Cleopatra: Beyond the Myth, Ithaca.
Clarke, M.L. 1981, The Noblest Roman. Marcus Brutus and his Reputation, London.
Collins, J.H. 1972, ‘Caesar as political propagandist’ ANRW I.1: 922–66.
Corbeill, A. 1996, Controlling Laughter. Political Humour in the Late Roman Republic,
Princeton.
Crawford, M.H. 1989, ‘The lex Iulia Agraria’ Athenaeum 67: 179–90.
Crook, J.A., Lintott, A. & Rawson, E. 1994, ‘The fall of the Roman Republic’ in CAH IX2:
769–76.
Drummond, A. 1999, ‘Tribunes and tribunician programmes in 63 BC’ Athenaeum 87: 121–67.
Ehrhardt, C.T.H.R. 1995, ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ Antichthon 29: 30–41.
Everitt, A. 2001, Cicero. A Turbulent Life, London.
Fantham, E. 1975, ‘The trials of Gabinius in 54 BC’ Historia 24: 425–43.
Fuhrmann, M. 1992, Cicero and the Roman Republic, Oxford.
Gelzer, M. 1968, Caesar. Politician and Statesman, Oxford.
Goldsworthy, A. 2006, Caesar, London.
Greenhalgh, P. 1980, Pompey. The Roman Alexander, London.
Greenhalgh, P. 1981, Pompey. The Republican Prince, London.
Griffin, M. (ed.) 2009, A Companion to Julius Caesar, Malden & Oxford.
Gruen, E.S. 1969, ‘Notes on the “First Catilinarian Conspiracy”’ CPh 64: 20–24.
Gruen, E.S. 1995, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, second edition, Berkeley.
Habicht, C. 1990, Cicero the Politician, Baltimore.
Hillman, T.P. 1990, ‘Pompeius and the senate: 77–71’ Hermes 118: 444–54.
Hillman, T.P. 1998, ‘Notes on the trial of Pompeius at Plutarch, Pomp. 4.1–6’ RhM 141:
176–93.
Holland, T. 2003, Rubicon. The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic, London.
Hoyos, D. 1979, ‘Imperial Caesar?’ Ancient Society 9: 134–57.
Huzar, E.G. 1978, Mark Antony. A Biography, Minneapolis.
Jimenez, R.L. 2000, Caesar against Rome, Westport, CT.
Kamm, A. 2006, Julius Caesar. A Life, London.
Keaveney, A. 2007, The Army in the Roman Revolution, London & New York.
Lacey, W.K. 1961, ‘The tribunate of Curio’ Historia 10: 318–29.

814
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lacey, W.K. 1978, Cicero and the End of the Roman Republic, London.
Last, H. & Gardner, R. 1932, ‘The breakdown of the Sullan system and the rise of Pompey’
in CAH IX1: 313–49.
Leach, J. 1978, Pompey the Great, London.
Levene, D.S. 2000, ‘Sallust’s Catiline and Cato the Censor’ CQ 50: 170–91.
Lintott, A.W. 1999, Violence in Republican Rome, second edition, Oxford.
Marshall, B.A. 1976, Crassus. A Political Biography, Amsterdam.
Meier, C. 1995, Caesar. A Biography, New York.
Millar, F. 1995, ‘The last century of the Republic: whose history?’ JRS 85: 236–43.
Millar, F. 1998, The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic, Michigan.
Mitchell, T.N. 1979, Cicero. The Ascending Years, New Haven.
Mitchell, T.N. 1991, Cicero. The Senior Statesman, New Haven.
Morgan, L. 1997, ‘“Levi quidem de re . . . ”: Julius Caesar as tyrant and pedant’ JRS 87:
23–40.
Mouritsen, H. 2001, Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic, Cambridge.
Murphy, J. 1993, ‘Pompey’s eastern acta’ AHB 7: 136–42.
Patterson, J.R. 2000, Political Life in the City of Rome, Bristol.
Powell, A. 1998, ‘Julius Caesar and the presentation of massacre’ in Welch, K. & Powell,
A. (eds) Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter. The War Commentaries as Political
Instruments, London: 111–38.
Raditsa, L. 1973, ‘Julius Caesar and his writings’ ANRW I.3: 417–56.
Ramage, E.S. 2001, ‘The bellum iustum in Caesar’s de Bello Gallico’ Athenaeum 89:
145–70.
Ramage, E.S. 2002, ‘The Populus Romanus, imperium, and Caesar’s presence in the De
Bello Gallico’ Athenaeum 90: 125–46.
Rawson, E. 1983, Cicero. A Portrait, London.
Rawson, E. 1994, ‘Caesar: civil war and dictatorship’ in CAH IX2: 424–67.
Ridley, R.T. 1999, ‘What’s in the name: the so-called First Triumvirate’ Arctos 33: 133–44.
Seager, R. 1964, ‘The First Catilinarian Conspiracy’ Historia 13: 338–47.
Seager, R. 1965, ‘Clodius, Pompeius and the exile of Cicero’ Latomus 24: 519–31.
Seager, R. (ed.) 1969, The Crisis of the Roman Republic, Cambridge.
Seager, R. 1994, ‘The rise of Pompey’ in CAH IX2: 208–28.
Seager, R. 2002, Pompey the Great. A Political Biography, second edition, Oxford.
Sherwin-White, A.N. 1969, ‘Violence in Roman politics’ in Seager 1969: 151–9.
Sherwin-White, A.N. 1994, ‘Lucullus, Pompey and the East’ in CAH IX2: 229–73.
Shotter, D. 1994, The Fall of the Roman Republic, London.
Southern, P. 2001, Julius Caesar, Stroud.
Southern, P. 2002, Pompey, Stroud.
Stockton, D. 1971, Cicero. A Political Biography, Oxford.
Syme, R. 1939, The Roman Revolution, Oxford.
Syme, R. 1979, ‘A Roman post-mortem: an inquest on the fall of the Roman Republic’ in
Badian, E. (ed.) Ronald Syme. Roman Papers, Oxford, vol. I: 205–17.
Tatum, W.J. 1999, The Patrician Tribune. Publius Clodius Pulcher, Chapel Hill.
Tatum, W.J. 2008, Always I am Caesar, Oxford & Maldon, MA.
Taylor, L.R. 1949, Party Politics in the Age of Caesar, Berkeley.
Townend, G.B. 1983, ‘A clue to Caesar’s unfulfilled intentions’ Latomus 42: 601–6.
Ward, A.M. 1972, ‘Cicero’s fight against Crassus and Caesar in 65 and 63 BC’ Historia
21: 244–58.
Ward, A.M. 1977, Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic, Columbia.

815
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Weinstock, S. 1971, Divus Julius, Oxford.
White, P. 1997, ‘Julius Caesar and the publication of acta in late Republican Rome’ Chiron
27: 73–84.
Wiseman, T.P. (ed.) 1985, Roman Political Life 90 BC–AD 69, Exeter.
Wiseman, T.P. 1994, ‘The senate and the populares, 69–60 BC’ in CAH IX2: 327–67.
Wiseman, T.P. 1994a, ‘Caesar, Pompey and Rome, 59–50 BC’ in CAH IX2: 368–423.
Wyke, M. 2006, Julius Caesar in Western Culture, Malden, MA.
Yavetz, Z. 1983, Julius Caesar and his Public Image, London.

CHAPTER FOURTEEN: OCTAVIAN’S RISE TO

POWER AND CHAPTER FIFTEEN: THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS
Anderson, R.D., Parsons, P.J. & Nisbet, R.G.M. 1979, ‘Elegiacs by Gallus from Qasr
Ibrim’, JRS 69: 125–55.
Barrett, A.A. 2004, Livia. First Lady of Imperial Rome, New Haven.
Breed, B., Damon, C. & Rossi, A. (eds) 2010, Citizens of Discord. Rome and its Civil
Wars, Amherst.
Brenk, F.E. 1992, ‘Antony–Osiris, Cleopatra–Isis, the end of Plutarch’s Antony’ in Stadter,
P.A. (ed.) Plutarch and the Historical Tradition, London & New York: 159–82.
Brunt, P.A. 1984, ‘The role of the senate in the Augustan regime’ CQ 34.2: 423–44.
Carter, J.M. 1970, The Battle of Actium. The Rise and Triumph of Augustus Caesar, New
York.
Carter, J. 1982, Suetonius’ Life of Augustus, London.
Charlesworth, M. 1933, ‘Some fragments of the propaganda of Mark Antony’ CQ 27: 172–7.
Chauveau, M. 2002, Cleopatra. Beyond the Myth, Ithaca.
Clarke, M.L. 1981, The Noblest Roman. Marcus Brutus and his Reputation, London.
Cooley, A.E. 2000, ‘Inscribing history at Rome’ in Cooley, A.E. (ed.) The Afterlife
of Inscriptions. Reusing, Rediscovering, Reinventing and Revitalising Ancient
Inscriptions, London: 7–20.
Cooley, A.E. 2006, ‘Beyond Rome and Latium: Roman religion in the age of Augustus’ in
Schultz, C. & Harvey, P.B. (eds) Religion in Republican Italy, Cambridge: 228–52.
De Ruggiero, P. 2014, Mark Antony. A Plain Blunt Man, Barnsley.
Eck, W. 2007, The Age of Augustus, second edition, Oxford.
Edmonson, J. 2009, Augustus, Edinburgh.
Etman, A. 1992, ‘Cleopatra and Egypt in the Augustan poetry’ in Roma e l’Egitto
nell’antichità classica, Cairo 6–9, Febbraio 1989. Atti del I Congresso Internazionale
Italo-Egiziano, Rome: 161–75.
Everitt, A. 2006, The First Emperor. Caesar Augustus and the Triumph of Rome, Ann
Arbor.
Fantham, E. 2006, Julia Augusti, the Emperor’s Daughter, London & New York.
Favro, D. 1996, The Urban Image of Augustan Rome, Cambridge.
Flower, H.I. 2000, ‘The tradition of the spolia opima: M. Claudius Marcellus and Augustus’
ClAnt 19: 34–59.
Galinsky, K. 1996, Augustan Culture. An Interpretative Introduction, Princeton.
Galinsky, K. (ed.) 2007, The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, Cambridge.
Galinsky, K. 2012, Augustus. Introduction to the Life of an Emperor, Cambridge.
Garnsey, P. 1982, The Early Principate. Augustus to Trajan, Oxford.
Goldsworthy, A. 2010, Antony and Cleopatra, New Haven.
Goldsworthy, A. 2014, Augustus. First Emperor of Rome, New Haven.

816
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gradel, I. 2002, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, Oxford.
Gruen, E.S. 1995, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, second edition, Berkeley.
Gurval, R.A. 1995, Actium and Augustus. The Politics and Emotions of Civil War, Ann Arbor.
Harrison, S.J. 2006, ‘The epic and the monuments: interactions between Virgil’s Aeneid
and the Augustan building programme’ in Clarke, M.J., Curries, B.G.F. & Lyne,
R.O.A.M. (eds) Epic Interactions. Perspectives on Homer, Virgil, and on the Epic
Tradition, Oxford: 159–83.
Hjort Lange, C. 2009, Res Publica Constituta. Actium, Apollo and the Accomplishment of
the Triumviral Assignment, Leiden.
Keaveney, A. 2007, The Army in the Roman Revolution, London & New York.
Keppie, L. 1983, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy, 47–14 BC, London.
Kleiner, D.E.E. 2005, Cleopatra and Rome, Cambridge, MA.
Lacey, W.K. 1996, Augustus and the Principate. The Evolution of the System, Leeds.
Levick, B. 1967, ‘Imperial control of the elections under the early principate: commenda-
tio, suffragatio and nominatio’ Historia 16: 207–23.
Levick, B. 2014, Augustus. Image and Substance, London & New York.
Lowrie, M. 2009, Writing, Performance and Authority in Augustan Rome, Oxford.
McGinn, T.A.J. 2004, ‘Missing females? Augustus’ encouragement of marriage between
freeborn males and freedwomen’ Historia 53.2: 200–8.
Mellor, R. 1975, Thea Rome. The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World, Göttingen.
Millar, F.G.B. 1966, ‘The emperor, the senate and the provinces’ JRS 56: 156–66.
Millar, F.G.B. 1992, The Emperor in the Roman World, 31 BC–AD 337, second edition,
London.
Millar, F.G.B. 2000, ‘The first revolution: imperator Caesar, 36–28 BC’ in La révolution
romaine après Ronald Syme. Bilans et perspectives, Rome: 1–30.
Millar, F.G.B. & Segal, E. (eds) 1984, Caesar Augustus. Seven Aspects, Oxford.
North, J. 1986, ‘Religion and politics, from Republic to principate’ JRS 76: 251–8.
Osgood, J. 2006, Caesar’s Legacy. Civil War and the Emergence of the Roman Empire,
Cambridge.
Pandey, N.B. 2013, ‘Caesar’s comet, the Julian star, and the invention of Augustus’ TAPhA
143.2: 405–49.
Pelling, C.B.R. 1996, ‘The triumviral period’ in CAH X2: 1–69.
Phillips, D.A. 1997, ‘The conspiracy of Egnatius Rufus and the election of suffect consuls
under Augustus’ Historia 46.1: 103–12.
Powell, A. (ed.) 1992, Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus, London.
Powell, A. & Welch, K. (eds) 2002, Sextus Pompeius, London.
Powell, L. 2014, Marcus Agrippa. Right-Hand Man of Augustus, Barnsley.
Raaflaub, K.A. & Toher, M. (eds) 1993, Between Republic and Empire. Interpretations of
Augustus and his Principate, Berkeley.
Ramage, E.S. 1987, The Nature and Purpose of Augustus’ Res Gestae, Stuttgart.
Rawson, E. 1994, ‘The aftermath of the Ides’ in CAH IX2: 468–90.
Reinhold, M. 1988, From Republic to Principate. An Historical Commentary on Cassius
Dio’s Roman History Books 49–52 (36–29 BC), Atlanta.
Rich, J.W. 1989, ‘Dio on Augustus’ in Cameron, A. (ed.) History as Text. The Writing of
Ancient History, London: 86–110.
Rich, J.W. 1990, The Augustan Settlement (Cassius Dio, Roman History 53–55.9), Warminster.
Rich, J.W. 1996, ‘Augustus and the spolia opima’ Chiron 26: 85–127.
Rich, J.W. 1998, ‘Augustus’ Parthian honours, the temple of Mars Ultor and the arch in the
Forum Romanum’ PBSR 66: 71–128.

817
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ridley, R.T. 2003, The Emperor’s Retrospect: Augustus’ Res gestae in Epigraphy,
Historiography and Commentary, Leuven.
Roller, D.W. 2010, Cleopatra. A Biography, Oxford.
Sedley, D. 1997, ‘The ethics of Brutus and Cassius’ JRS 87: 41–53.
Sherwin-White, A. 1984, Roman Foreign Policy in the East, 168 BC to AD 1, London.
Shotter, D., 2005, Augustus Caesar, second edition, London.
Smith, C., and Powell, A. (eds) 2009, The Lost Memoirs of Augustus and the Development
of Roman Autobiography, Swansea.
Stahl, H.-P. 1985, Propertius, ‘Love’ and War. Individual and State under Augustus, Berkeley.
Stockton, D. 1965, ‘Primus and Murena’ Historia 14: 18–40.
Swan, P.M. 2004, The Augustan Succession. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s
Roman History Books 55–56 (9 BC–AD 14), Oxford.
Syme, R. 1979, History in Ovid, Oxford.
Syme, R. 1986, The Augustan Aristocracy, Oxford.
Syme, R. 2002, The Roman Revolution, Oxford.
Talbert, R.A. 1984, The Senate of Imperial Rome, Princeton.
Tarn, W.W. 1931, ‘The battle of Actium’ JRS 21: 173–9.
Thomas, R.F. 2001, Virgil and the Augustan Reception, Cambridge.
Walker, S. 2000, ‘The moral museum: Augustus and the city of Rome’ in Coulston, J. &
Dodge, H. (eds) Ancient Rome. The Archaeology of the Eternal City, Oxford: 61–75.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1981, ‘Family and inheritance in the Augustan marriage-laws’ PCPhS
207: 250–74.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1982, ‘Civilis princeps: between citizen and king’ JRS 72: 32–48.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. (ed.) 1989, Patronage in Ancient Society, London.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1993, Augustan Rome, London.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 2008, Rome’s Cultural Revolution, Cambridge.
Wardle, D. 2012, ‘Suetonius on Augustus as god and man’ CQ 62.1: 307–26.
Weigel, R.D. 1992, Lepidus. The Tarnished Triumvir, London & New York.
Wells, C.M. 1972, The German Policy of Augustus, London.
Whitehorne, J. 1994, Cleopatras, London.
Wiedemann, T. 1992, Emperors and Gladiators, London & New York.
Williams, G.W. 1962, ‘Poetry and the moral climate of Augustan Rome’ JRS 52: 28–46.
Woodman, A.J. & West, D.A. (eds) 1984, Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus,
Cambridge.
Zanker, P. 2002, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, Ann Arbor.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN: THE ANCIENT SOURCES

Bodel, J. (ed.) 2001, Epigraphic Evidence. Ancient History from Inscriptions, London.
Bucher, G.S. 1995, ‘The annales maximi in the light of Roman methods of keeping records’
AJAH 12: 2–61.
Bucher, G.S. 2002, ‘The origins, program, and composition of Appian’s Roman History’
TAPhA 130: 411–58.
Cairns, F. 1989, Virgil’s Augustan Epic, Cambridge.
Chaplin, J.D. 2000, Livy’s Exemplary History, Oxford.
Clarke, K. 1999, Between Geography and History: Hellenistic Constructions of the Roman
World, Oxford.
Coffey, M. 1995, Roman Satire, second edition, London.
Collins, J.H. 1972, ‘Caesar as a political propagandist’ ANRW I.1: 922–66.

818
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Comber, M. 1997, ‘Re-reading the Roman historians’ in Bentley, M. (ed.) Companion to
Historiography, London: 43–56.
Cooley, A.E. 2000, ‘Inscribing history at Rome’ in Cooley, A.E. (ed.) The Afterlife of
Inscriptions, London.
Cooley, A.E. 2000a, The Epigraphic Landscape of Roman Italy, London: 7–20.
Cooley, A.E. 2009, Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation and Commentary, Cambridge.
Cooley, A. 2012, The Cambridge Manual of Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge.
Cornell, T.J. 1986, ‘The value of the literary tradition concerning archaic Rome’ in
Raaflaub, K.A. (ed.) Social Struggles in Archaic Rome. New Perspectives on the
Conflict of the Orders, Berkeley: 52–76.
Cornell, T.J. 1995, The Beginnings of Rome. Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the
Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 BC), London.
Crawford, M. 1983, ‘Numismatics’ in Crawford, M. (ed.) Sources for Ancient History,
Cambridge: 183–233.
Derow, P.S. 1994, ‘Polybius and his predecessors’ in Hornblower, S. (ed.) Greek
Historiography, Oxford: 73–90.
Dorey, T.A. (ed) 1965, Cicero, London.
Dorey, T.A. (ed.) 1966, Latin Historians, London.
Dorey, T.A. (ed.) 1967, Latin Biography, London.
Dorey, T.A. 1971, Livy, London.
Edwards, M.J. 1991, Plutarch. The Lives of Pompey, Caesar and Cicero, Bristol.
Feldherr, A. 1998, Spectacle and Society in Livy’s History, Berkeley.
Forsythe, G. 1999, Livy and Early Rome. A Study in Historical Method and Judgment,
Stuttgart.
Fox, M. 1993, ‘History and rhetoric in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ JRS 83: 31–47.
Gabba, E. 1991, Dionysius and ‘The History of Archaic Rome’, Berkeley.
Geiger, J. 1985, Cornelius Nepos and Ancient Political Biography, Stuttgart.
Ginsberg, J. 1981, Tradition and Theme in the Annals of Tacitus, New York.
Gowing, A.M. 1992, The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio, Ann Arbor.
Grant, M. 1995, Greek and Roman Historians. Information and Misinformation, London.
Griffin, J. 1984, ‘Augustus and the poets: “Caesar qui cogere posset”’ in Millar, F. & Segal,
E. (eds) Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, Oxford: 189–218.
Hardie, P. 1998, Virgil, Oxford.
Henderson, J. 1989, ‘Livy and the invention of History’ in Cameron, A. (ed.) History as
Text: the Writing of Ancient History, London: 64–85.
Herbert-Brown, G. 1994, Ovid and the Fasti: An Historical Study, Oxford.
Hill, H. 1961, ‘Dionysius and the origins of Rome’ JRS 51: 88–93.
Hubbard, M. 2001, Propertius, second edition, London.
Jaeger, M. 1997, Livy’s Written Rome, Ann Arbor.
Jocelyn, H.D. 1972, ‘The poems of Quintus Ennius’ ANRW I.2: 987–1026.
Keppie, L. 1991, Understanding Roman Inscriptions, Baltimore.
Kirby, J.T. 1997, ‘Ciceronian rhetoric: theory and practice’ in Dominik, W.J. (ed.) Roman
Eloquence. Rhetoric in Society and Literature, London: 13–31.
Kraus, C.S. (ed.) 1999, The Limits of Historiography. Genre and Narrative in Ancient
Historical Texts, Leiden.
Kraus, C.S. & Woodman, A.J. 1997, Latin Historians, Oxford.
Lamberton, R. 2002, Plutarch, Yale.
Lintott, A. 1994, ‘The crisis of the Republic: sources and source-problems’ in CAH IX2:
1–15.

819
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lyne, R.O.A.M. 1995, Horace. Behind the Public Poetry, New Haven.
MacKendrick, P. 1995, The Speeches of Cicero. Context, Law, Rhetoric, London.
Mellor, R. 1999, The Roman Historians, London.
Miles, G. 1995, Livy. Reconstructing Early Rome, Ithaca.
Millar, F. 1983, ‘Epigraphy’ in Crawford, M. (ed.) Sources for Ancient History, Cambridge:
80–136.
Mitchell, T.N. 1991, Cicero, the Senior Statesman, New Haven.
Moxon, I.S. et al. (eds) Past Perspectives. Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing,
Cambridge.
Newlands, C. 1995, Playing with Time. Ovid and the Fasti, Ithaca.
Ogilvie, R.M. & Drummond, A. 1989, ‘The sources for early Roman history’ in CAH
VII.22: 1–29.
Pelling, C.B.R. 1988, Plutarch. Life of Antony, Cambridge.
Powell, A. (ed.) 1992, Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus, London.
Powell, J. & Patterson, J. (eds) 2004, Cicero, the Advocate, Oxford.
Rawson, E. 1991, Roman Culture and Society, Oxford.
Richardson, J.S. 1979, ‘Polybius’ view of the Roman empire’ PBSR 34: 1–11.
Rudd, N. (ed.) 1993, Horace 2000. A Celebration, Ann Arbor.
Sachs, K.S. 1994, ‘Diodorus and his sources’ in Hornblower, S. (ed.) Greek Historiography,
Oxford: 213–32.
Sacks, K.S. 1981, Polybius on the Writing of History, Berkeley.
Skidmore, C. 1996, Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen. The Work of Valerius Maximus,
Exeter.
Skutsch, O. 1985, The Annals of Q. Ennius, Oxford.
Stadter, P.A. (ed.) 1992, Plutarch and the Historical Tradition, London.
Starr, R.J. 1981, ‘The scope and genre of Velleius’ History’ CQ 31: 162–74.
Swain, S. 1990, ‘Plutarch’s Lives of Cicero, Cato, and Brutus’ Hermes 118: 192–203.
Syme, R. 1958, Tacitus, 2 vols., Oxford.
Syme, R. 1964, Sallust, Berkeley.
Syme, R. 1979, History in Ovid, Oxford.
Syme, R. 1984, ‘Velleius Paterculus’ in Badian, E. (ed.) Ronald Syme. Roman Papers,
Oxford, vol. 3: 1090–1104.
Titchener, F. 2003, ‘Cornelius Nepos and the biographical tradition’ G&R 50: 85–99.
Walbank, F.W. 1972, Polybius, Berkeley.
Walbank, F.W. 2002, Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World. Essays and Reflections,
Cambridge.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. (ed.) 1989, Patronage in Ancient Society, London.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1990, ‘Pliny the Elder and Man’s Unnatural History’ G&R 37: 80–96.
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1995, Suetonius, second edition, London.
Walsh, P.G. 1961, Livy, his Historical Aims and Methods, Cambridge.
Welch, K. & Powell, A. (eds) 1998, Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter. The War Commen-
taries as Political Instruments, London.
White, P. 1993, Promised Verse. Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome, Cambridge MA.
Wiseman, T.P. 1985, Catullus and his World, Cambridge.
Wray, D. 2001, Catullus and the Poetics of Roman Manhood, Cambridge.

820
 Index of Ancient Sources

Numbers here refer to documents. Abbreviations used for authors and titles are given in
square brackets: Appian [App.] Civil Wars [BC].

Accius Annals 2–7: 3.71.

AE 1971 88: 6.44.
Appian [App.] Civil Wars [BC] pref. 15: 14.11; 1.2 (4–5): 8.4; 1.6: 14.11; 1.7 (26–31):
8.5; 1.8–9 (32–7): 8.6; 1.10 (38–42): 8.10; 1.11–13 (43–57): 8.13; 1.14–17 (58–72):
8.15; 1.18 (73–7): 8.19; 1.19–20 (78–85): 8.21; 1.21–3 (86–101): 8.28; 1.24
(102–06): 8.30; 1.25–6 (107–20): 8.32; 1.27 (121–3): 8.35; 1.28–9, 31 (126–32,
138–40): 9.28; 1.32–3 (141–6): 9.31; 1.34–5 (152–61): 10.6; 1.36–7 (162–5):
10.9; 1.38–9 (169–77): 10.11; 1.48 (207–10): 10.15; 1.49 (211–15): 10.17; 1.55–6
(240–50): 9.32; 1.57–9 (250–53, 258–68): 11.5; 1.60 (269–71): 9.33; 1.76–7, 79
(347–8, 350–51, 363): 11.13; 1.80 (365–8): 11.15; 1.95–6 (440–48): 11.20; 1.98–9
(456–62): 11.26; 1.100 (465–70): 11.30; 1.103–04 (478, 480–83, 487–9): 11.40;
1.107 (501–04): 12.2; 1.116–20 (539–59): 6.50; 1.121 (560–61): 12.5; 2.8 (26–30):
12.39; 2.17 (61–3): 12.71; 2.24–5 (92, 95): 13.6; 2.25 (96–7): 13.7; 2.26 (98–100):
13.9; 2.27 (103–05): 13.15; 2.28 (107–11): 13.17; 2.29–31 (112–23): 13.23; 2.34
(134–40): 13.26; 2.38 (152): 13.31; 2.120 (505): 6.22; 3.2 (11–13): 14.6; 3.7 (45–8):
14.13; 3.12 (87–8): 14.19; 4.1 (2–11): 14.20; 4.8 (57–8): 14.3; 4.17 (137–8), 5.1 (3):
14.27; 4.5 (31–4): 7.75; 5.1 (8–11): 14.34; 5.7–8 (64–8): 14.36; 5.8 (72–4): 14.37;
5.13 (130, 132): 14.41; Hannibalic Wars [Hann.]; Macedonian Wars [Mac.] 1: 4.45;
Mithridatic Wars 20–21 (76–81): 11.3; 22–3 (85–7, 91–2): 11.4; 61–3 (250–52,
259–61): 11.9; Punic Wars [Pun.] 1.3–4: 4.13; 8.128–30: 4.63; 17.112: 4.62;
Spanish Wars [Iber.] 6.40–41 (161–70): 5.46; 6.51–2, 59–60 (215–20, 247–55):
5.48; 6.84–5 (363–70): 5.52; 6.97–8 (419–24): 5.53; Of Sicily and the other Islands
F1: 4.15.
Asconius [Asc.] Commentaries on Cicero 30–36: 13.1; 67–8: 10.3; 78, 80: 9.19.
Athenaeus [Athen.] Deipnosophistae 6.272de, 273ab: 6.2.
Augustus Res Gestae [RG]: 15.1.
BGU 4.1108: 6.20.
Bruns FIRA 102: 2.8, 13.59; 122: 2.80, 13.60; 283: 3.10.
Caecilius Statius Plocium 136–44, 151–5: 7.38.
Caesar [Caes.] Civil War [BC] 1.1.1–5.5: 13.24; 1.8.1–11.4: 13.27; 1.32.1–33.4: 13.38;
3.1.1–2.2: 13.42; 3.82.2–83.4: 13.44; Gallic War [BG] 1.29.1–3: 12.67; 1.53.5–6:
2.52; 2.15, 27–8: 12.68; 2.30–31: 5.17; 2.33.1–7: 6.10; 5.12.1–6, 14.1–5: 12.90;
6.14, 16–17, 19: 3.36; 7.1.1–8, 3.1–4.2: 12.91; 8.53.1–2: 13.11; 8.54.1–55.2: 13.21;
[Caesar] Spanish War 42.1–3: 2.61.

821
 INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
Cato the Elder On Farming [Agr.] 2.2–4, 7: 6.35; 11.1–5: 2.15; 56–9: 6.36; 75: 3.34;
134.1–4: 3.35; 135.1–3: 2.16; 139: 3.28; 141.2–4: 3.23; 143.1–3: 6.37; 156.1: 2.17;
160: 3.70; Origines (HRR I2 77): 16.
Catullus [Cat.] Poems 7: 7.47; 9: 2.53; 29: 12.89; 43: 7.49; 45: 7.50; 57: 12.89; 58: 7.51;
67: 7.46; 85: 7.48; 93: 13.63; 96: 7.34; 99: 7.61.
Cicero [Cic.] On Friendship [Amic.] 10.33–4: 2.47; In Defence of Archias [Arch.] 6–7:
10.24; Letters to Atticus [Att.] 1.13.4: 12.34; 1.17.8–9: 12.35; 1.19.2–3: 12.66;
1.19.4–7: 12.37; 2.1.6–8: 12.38; 2.3.3–4: 12.40; 2.15.1–2: 12.50; 2.16.2: 12.47;
2.18.1: 12.51; 2.19.2–3: 12.52; 2.24.2–3: 12.53; 4.1.4–5: 12.61; 4.1.6–7: 12.63;
4.5.1–2: 12.74; 4.17.2–3, 5: 12.78; 4.18.5: 12.87; 5.1.3–4: 7.39; 5.6.2: 13.35; 5.11.2:
13.8; 5.16.2: 5.71; 6.1.5–6: 5.72; 7.7.4–7: 13.20; 7.8.5: 13.35; 7.11.3–4, 7.13.1:
13.29; 8.3.1–4: 13.32; 8.11C: 13.33; 9.6a: 13.36; 9.7c: 13.34; 9.18.1: 13.37; 10.4.3:
12.58; 10.4.4: 13.41; 10.7.1: 13.39; 11.6.5: 13.47; 11.9.1: 13.50; 12.46: 7.27; 14.4.2,
14.5.2, 14.9.2, 14.10.1: 14.4; 14.11–12, 15.12: 14.9; 16.8, 16.9, 16.11, 16.15: 14.12;
Letters to Brutus [ad Brut.] 1.3: 14.17; In Defence of Balbus [Balb.] 21: 10.21; 46–9:
9.27; Brutus 89–90: 5.49; 103–04: 8.12; 125–6: 8.26; 128: 8.34; 210–11: 7.22;
305–11, 314–16, 318–19: 2.67; In Defence of Caelius [Cael.] 32–5, 47–9: 7.52;
Against Catiline [Cat.] 2.7–9: 12.18; In Defence of Cluentius [Cluent.] 175–8: 6.43;
On the Orator [De orat.] 3.225: 8.27; On Divination [Div.] 1.1: 3.37; 1.20–21:
12.26; 1.27: 3.54; 1.30–31: 3.51; 1.103–04: 3.42; 1.118–19: 13.69; 2.6–7: 16;
2.22–3: 13.70; 2.98–9: 3.46; 2.110: 3.39; On his House [Dom.] 41: 12.48; 65: 12.58;
109: 7.95; Letters to his Friends [Fam.] 1.9.7–9, 11–12: 12.70; 2.11.2: 2.77; 4.5.1,
4–6: 7.26; 5.7: 12.32; 6.6.8, 10: 13.53; 7.1.2–3: 2.73; 7.1.4: 12.77; 7.3.1–3: 13.43;
7.30.1–2: 13.54; 8.4.4: 13.10; 8.6.3–5: 13.14; 8.8.4–5, 9: 13.12; 8.10.2–3: 13.13;
8.11.3: 13.16; 8.14.2–4: 13.18; 9.9.2–3: 13.45; 9.15.3–4: 13.51; 10.18: 14.16;
10.24.3–8: 14.18; 11.7.2–3: 14.14; 11.20.1–4: 14.18; 11.28.2–6, 12.23.2–3: 14.11;
12.25: 14.16; 13.3: 2.50; 13.4.1, 4: 2.58; 13.11: 2.59; 13.34: 2.57; 13.72.1–2: 7.74;
13.77.3: 6.47; 14.1.1: 7.36; 14.20: 7.40; 15.4.2–4: 5.73; 15.5: 13.19; 15.10: 2.49;
16.11.2–3: 13.25; 16.12.2–4: 13.30; 16.16.1–2: 6.51; 16.18.1, 3: 6.52; 16.21.3,
5: 2.69; 16.21.7: 2.18; On the Responses of the Soothsayers [Har. Resp.] 43: 8.8;
57–9: 12.62; On the Laws [Laws] 2.57: 3.81; 3.7: 1.16; 3.20–22: 11.32; 3.6–9, 12:
1.18; 3.34–6: 2.42; On the Agrarian Law [Leg. Agr.] 1.21–3: 12.13; 2.1–4: 2.45;
2.10: 8.39; 2.45: 5.67; On the Command of Gnaeus Pompey (On the Manilian Law)
[Man.] 27–8: 12.12; 52–3: 12.8; In Defence of Marcellus 13, 15: 13.52; In Defence
of Milo [Mil.] 27: 13.2; 57–8: 6.54; In Defence of Murena [Mur.] 7–10: 2.48; 22:
5.5; 52–3: 12.17; 77: 2.39; On the Nature of the Gods [Nat. Deor.] 2.7–8: 3.53;
2.10–12: 3.40; 2.71–2: 3.68; On Duties [Off.] 1.25: 12.83; 1.72–3: 2.30; 1.77–8:
12.33; 1.124: 1.12; 2.49–51: 2.65; 2.73–85: 8.37; 3.47: 9.2; 3.75: 12.83; 3.79: 9.8;
In Defence of Plancius [Planc.] 64–7: 2.43; Letters to his Brother Quintus [Quint.]
1.1.8, 13, 22: 5.69; 1.1.32–3: 5.70; 1.1.43–4: 2.31; 1.2.3: 6.53; 2.3.2–4: 12.69;
2.16.4–5: 12.86; 3.1.17: 12.81; 3.3.2–3: 12.78; 3.5.4: 12.77; 3.6.1: 12.88; 3.6.3:
12.81; 3.9.4: 6.11; Philippics [Phil.] 3.2, 5.16–17, 8.8: 14.15; 12.27: 10.14; 14.10:
14.17; On the Consular Provinces [Prov.] 19: 9.24; 19, 29, 34–5: 12.73; 40–41:
12.46; In Defence of Gaius Rabirius for Treason [Rab. Perd.] 20–21: 9.30; Speech to
the Senate on His Return from Exile [Red. Sen.] 6: 1.8; Republic [Rep.] 2.10–11: 1.4;
3.17: 7.69; In Defence of Sextus Roscius of Ameria [Rosc. Am.] 5: 2.56; 21: 11.25;
77–8: 6.42; In Defence of Quintus Roscius the Comedian 28–9: 6.33; On Old Age
[Sen.] 16.55–6: 2.12; In Defence of Sestius [Sest.] 15–16: 12.49; 56: 12.58; 59–63:
12.57; 77: 2.3; 96–7, 103: 8.38; Tusculan Disputations [Tusc. Disp.] 1.1–3: 5.65;

822
 INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
2.41: 2.78; 4.70–71: 5.63; Against Vatinius [Vat.] 8.20: 3.48; Against Verres [Verr.]
1.37–40: 12.6; 1.54: 12.7; 2.3.66, 120–21, 2.4.1–2: 5.68.
[Cicero, Q.] A Short Guide to Electioneering [Comm. Pet.] 2–3, 16–18, 34–8, 41–3,
50–53: 2.38.
CIL [Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum] I2 6, 7: 1.69; 10: 2.25; 15: 2.26; 25: 4.10; 26, 28:
3.60; 64: 5.47; 206: 2.8; 365: 3.25; 412, 416: 6.28; 560: 6.14; 561: 7.66; 581: 3.66;
585: 8.36; 587: 11.33; 588: 10.25; 590: 10.22; 591: 3.78; 607: 4.33; 608, 609: 4.46;
622: 5.33; 626: 5.42; 630: 5.43; 639: 8.17; 644: 8.18; 709: 10.23; 712: 11.6; 714:
11.11; 719: 8.16; 722: 11.31; 756: 3.55; 801: 3.29; 808: 2.7; 848, 857–61, 875, 877:
10.16; 889–90: 6.29; 972: 6.55; 981: 7.72; 1210: 6.61; 1211: 7.31; 1221: 7.33; 1222:
7.25; 1319: 6.60; 1378: 6.32; 1529: 2.10; 1570: 6.65; 1578: 3.80; 1604: 6.61; 1614,
1615: 3.69; 1635: 2.11; 1641c, 1644a&c, 1656a&g, 1645a, 1665: 2.40; 1837: 7.24;
2123: 3.79; 2173–89: 3.44; 2225: 4.65; 2273: 6.59; 2487: 6.28; 2519: 6.57; 2520:
3.69; 2540a, c: 7.54; 2646: 11.41; 2662: 9.20; 2663a: 6.29; 2685: 7.73; 2.5439: 2.80,
13.60; 3.6687: 15.78; 6.930: 15.9; 6.883: 15.22; 6.1527, 31670: 7.37; 6.2104: 3.12;
6.4035: 6.67; 6.4045: 6.68; 6.10230: 7.23; 6.22355a: 6.62; 6.26192: 7.32; 11.1129 a,
c: 3.45; 11.6721.5, 7, 9a, 11, 14: 14.31; 12.4333: 15.58; 13.8648: 15.109.
C. Cornelius Gallus [Anderson et al., JRS 69 (1979) 125]: 14.57.
Cornelius Nepos Life of Atticus [Att.] 1.1–2.6, 4.3–5.2, 6.1–7.3: 12.27; 19.4–20.5: 14.38;
Great Generals of Foreign Nations pref. 6–7: 7.28; On the Latin Historians F59:
8.25.
Crawford RRC [Roman Republican Coinage] 179: 14.44; 243: 14.62; 292.1: 9.36; 322.1:
9.37; 330.1: 9.38; 351.1: 11.45; 359.1: 11.47; 367: 11.46; 381: 11.48, 11.49; 385.1:
3.82; 401.1: 6.49; 419.3: 7.94; 426.1: 11.50; 428.1–2: 7.93; 452.2: 13.71; 458.1:
13.72; 480.7a: 13.73; 508.3: 13.74; 4453: 15.18.
Crawford Statutes 14: 11.33; 50: 11.34.
Dio, Cassius Roman History 27 F94.1: 9.25; 37.49.1–50.6: 12.36; 38.1.1–7, 7.4–6: 12.44;
38.12.5–13.1, 13.6: 12.54; 38.17.1–6: 12.55; 38.30.1–4, 39.6.1–8.3: 12.60; 39.9.1–3:
12.65; 39.31.1–2: 12.72; 39.33.1–34.1: 12.76; 39.50.1–53.2: 12.85; 40.50.3–5:
13.3; 40.54.1–2: 13.5; 43.50.1–51.9: 13.57; 46.18.1–4: 7.74; 47.18.1–19.2: 14.24;
48.44.1–5: 14.39; 53.1.3–6: 15.19; 53.2.5–17.1: 14.64; 53.20.1, 21.1–22.1: 15.2;
53.26.5–27.5: 15.39; 53.30.1–32.6: 15.5; 53.30.3: 6.66; 54.10.1–6: 15.8; 54.16.1–5,
7: 15.27; 54.28.1–29.8, 31.1–4: 15.50; 55.2.5–7: 15.27; 55.5.3–4: 15.62; 55.7.1–6:
15.98; 55.9.1–5, 9, 10.1: 15.100; 55.10.12–16: 15.67; 56.3.3–5: 15.24; 56.10.1–3:
15.27; 56.23.1–24.1: 15.110; 56.46.1–47.1: 151.114; 58.2.4–5: 15.70; 73.23.3–5:
16.12.
Diodorus Siculus [Diod.] Library of History 5.36.3–4, 38.1: 6.30; 5.40.1–2: 3.4; 34.2.1–
23: 6.48; 36.13.1–3: 3.63; 37.2.4–7: 10.12; 37.3.1–6: 5.57; 37.11.1: 10.8; 37.13.1:
10.7; 38.11: 5.74; 40.4: 12.30; 40.8: 16.6.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus [Dion. Hal.] Roman Antiquities 1.38.2–3: 3.7; 2.5.1–6.2: 3.48;
2.9.1–3: 2.54; 2.10.1–4, 11.1–2: 2.55; 2.19.2–5: 3.67; 2.25.6–27.1: 7.12; 2.67.1–2:
7.88; 2.70.1–5: 3.13; 2.73.1–2: 3.20; 3.32.1, 4: 3.8; 3.44.1–4: 1.1; 3.67.4: 1.5;
3.67.5: 2.2; 3.68.1–4: 2.71; 4.6.1: 16.18; 4.20.1–5: 1.20; 4.24.1–6: 6.56; 4.49.1–3:
3.9; 4.62.4–6: 3.38; 5.47.1–3: 2.32; 5.73.1–2: 1.14; 5.77.4–6: 11.43; 6.13.4–5: 2.72;
6.89.1–3: 1.26; 6.95.1–3: 1.27; 7.70.1–71.1: 16.18; 7.72.1–73.4: 2.70; 7.72.15, 18:
3.32; 8.39.1, 8.55.3: 7.84; 8.67.9: 2.32; 8.87.6–8: 1.23; 8.89.3–5: 7.89; 9.1.4–5: 1.24;
9.59.3–5: 1.28; 10.1.1–4: 1.29; 10.17.4–6: 2.13; 10.55.4–5, 56.6–7: 1.31; 10.58.1–4,
60.5–6: 1.44.
Donatus, Aelius Life of Vergil 20–41: 15.90.

823
 INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
EJ [Ehrenberg & Jones] 374: 14.55.
Ennius [Enn.] Annals [Ann.] 60–1: 3.1; 80–100: 3.47; 125–9: 3.5; 178: 1.74; 210–27:
2.51; 256–57: 4.30; 276–77: 4.37; 360–62: 4.34; 467: 1.9; Epigrams 7–10: 16.23;
Satires 6–7: 16.23; Scipio 1–6: 4.56; Tragedies FF402–3: 1.10.
Festus On the Meaning of Words 190: 3.73.
Florus Epitome of Roman History 1.38 (3.1–6): 9.17.
Frontinus On Aqueducts 1.5: 2.4; 2.98–106: 15.52.
Gaius Institutes [Inst.] 1.13, 18–20, 28–30, 36–41: 15.61; 1.42–4, 46: 15.60; 1.48–9, 52:
7.2; 1.52: 6.41; 1.55: 7.2; 1.97–107: 7.3; 1.108–15b: 7.10; 1.116–20: 7.4; 1.136–7a:
7.10; 1.196: 7.1; 1.144–5, 194: 15.30; 2.111: 15.29; 3.42–6, 49–50: 15.28; 3.55–7:
15.59.
Gellius, Aulus [Gell.] Attic Nights pref. 22–3: 16.21; 1.11.16: 8.27; 2.24.2–4: 5.59;
2.24.11: 11.37; 2.24.14–15: 15.80; 6.3.16, 38, 48–50: 5.37; 6.12.1–7: 7.57;
10.15.1–30: 3.21; 10.3.2–5: 8.24; 10.23.1–5: 7.18; 11.10.2–6: 8.23; 13.14.1–2: 1.3;
15.7.1–3: 15.104; 15.11.1–2: 5.60; 15.12.1–4: 8.22; 15.27.4: 1.58; 15.27.5: 1.21;
16.4.2–4: 5.21; 16.10.10–11, 14: 9.11; 17.6.1, 9–10: 7.11.
Grueber Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum II.323–324.10, 327, 329:
10.29; 327.18: 10.31; 327.19–329.30: 10.30.
Guérard 1950: 15.77.
Horace Carmen Saeculare [Carm. Saec.]: 15.33; Epistles 1.13: 15.94; Epodes 9: 14.52;
Odes [Carm.] 1.37: 16.27.
IG [Inscriptiones Graecae] II2 3173: 15.53; II2 4122: 15.43; XI.4.712: 5.27; XII.2.205:
15.45; XII.3.174: 15.75.
IGRR 4.305: 13.49.
ILS [Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae] 1: 1.69; 4: 2.25; 6: 2.26; 11: 4.33; 12, 13: 4.46; 15:
5.47; 18: 3.66; 20: 5.42; 21d: 5.43; 23: 6.46; 25: 8.18; 26: 8.16; 59: 9.35; 65: 4.10;
81: 14.61; 112: 15.58; 139: 15.105; 140: 15.106; 244: 15.9; 881: 11.31; 886: 15.13;
898: 15.37; 915: 15.83; 921: 15.84; 932: 15.85; 938: 15.86; 1795: 6.69; 1877: 6.70;
1926: 6.72; 1932: 6.63; 2244: 15.109; 2683: 15.78; 3124: 3.25; 3423: 7.72; 3491:
6.55; 3833, 3834: 3.60; 4015: 3.29; 4906: 3.55; 4966: 15.82; 5039: 3.12; 5050:
15.32; 5221: 6.31; 5348: 2.10; 5706: 2.11; 5799: 2.7; 6082: 3.78; 6085: 2.8, 13.59;
6086: 10.22; 7472: 7.33; 7642: 6.61; 7888: 6.71; 8341: 6.60; 8393: 7.37; 8398: 7.32;
8394: 7.23; 8403: 7.31; 8417: 6.62; 8432: 6.64; 8562: 7.66; 8781: 15.55; 8884: 5.33;
8887: 9.20; 8888: 10.23; 8995: 14.56; 9459: 12.31; 9460: 14.25; 9483: 15.87.
Inscr. Ital. [Inscriptiones Italiae] 13.2: 3.30, 14.63, 15.4.
Josephus Antiquities of the Jews [AJ] 14.10.2.190–95: 13.58; 14.12.4.301–13, 319–23:
14.33; 16.6.172–3: 15.42.
Justinian Digest [Dig.] 4.4.37: 15.25; 17.24.1, 2, 10: 7.13; 23.1.4, 12: 7.7; 23.3.6: 7.9;
48.1.6, 8: 15.62; 48.5.4.1, 48.5.5, 48.5.23.2, 4, 48.5.26: 15.25; 48.12.2.1: 15.76;
Institutes [Inst.] 4.18.3–4: 15.25; 4.18.8–9, 11: 15.79; 50.16.195: 7.1; 50.17.2: 7.6.
Licinianus (Granius) 13–14: 9.15; 20–21: 10.27; 31: 11.18.
Livy History of Rome pref. 6: 16.7; pref. 9–10: 16.7; 1.18.6–10, 20.7: 3.50; 1.20.1–7:
3.6; 1.32.5–14: 3.14; 2.1.8–10: 1.11; 2.31.7–33.3: 1.25; 3.32.5–7: 1.30; 3.55.1–7,
13–15: 1.46; 4.1.1–3, 6.1–11: 1.47; 4.8.2–5: 1.15; 4.20.7: 15.14; 4.23.1–3: 16.7;
5.13.4–8: 3.15; 5.21.1–3, 22.3–7: 3.57; 5.21.10–13, 22.1, 22.8, 23.3: 1.61; 5.48.6–9:
1.62; 6.20.1–3: 2.46; 6.35.1–5: 1.48; 6.41.4–10: 3.52; 6.42.9–14: 1.49; 7.2.1–7: 3.16;
7.4.4–7: 7.15; 7.6.5–6: 14.9; 7.37.1–3: 5.8; 7.42.1–3, 7: 1.50; 8.6.15–16: 1.63;
8.8.3–14: 5.11; 8.9.4–8, 10.11–11.1: 3.18; 8.11.11–16: 1.64; 8.12.14–17: 1.51;
8.14.1–12: 1.65; 8.15.7–8: 7.91; 8.15.9: 1.52; 8.18.2–11: 7.42; 8.23.1–7: 1.66;

824
 INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
8.28.1–2, 5–8: 1.53; 8.40.3–5: 2.28; 9.4.10–14: 5.2; 9.7.6–12: 1.67; 9.16.16: 5.3;
9.30.5–10: 3.72; 9.33.3–6, 34.26: 1.54; 9.42.7–8: 6.7; 9.43.25: 2.9; 9.46.1–9, 12–15:
1.55; 10.1.1–2: 1.68; 10.6.3–6, 9–11: 1.56; 10.23.1–10: 7.77; 10.28.12–18: 1.70;
10.31.10–15: 1.71; 10.38.2–4, 10–13: 1.72; 10.46.2–6: 2.33; 10.47.6–7: 3.59;
21.1.3–5: 4.22; 21.2.7: 4.28; 21.4.1–10: 4.25; 21.18.1–19.5: 4.29; 21.62.1–11: 3.33;
22.36.1–4: 4.20; 22.51.1–4: 4.39; 22.57.2–6, 9–12: 4.38; 23.4.6–8, 6.5–8, 7.1–3:
4.42; 23.48.4–49.3: 4.40; 24.1.13: 4.43; 26.16.5–10, 13: 4.44; 27.37.7–15: 7.85;
27.51.11–12: 4.50; 29.14.10–14: 3.61; 29.19.10–13: 5.54; 30.35.3–5, 37.13: 4.54;
30.45.1–7: 4.59; 31.13.1–9: 4.60; 34.2.8–3.1: 7.67; 36.2.1–5: 3.56; 38.57.5–8:
7.8; 39.6.3–7.5: 5.55; 39.8.3–18.8: 3.65; 39.9.5–7: 7.63; 39.17.5–6, 18.5–6: 7.16;
41.28.8–10: 5.56; 42.34.5–14: 5.9; 43.13.1–4, 7–8: 3.41; 45.33.1, 5–7, 34.1–6: 5.34;
F10: 4.12.
Livy Periochae [Per.] 11: 1.57, 3.59; 12–14: 1.74; 54–6: 5.50, 5.51; 65, 67: 9.14; 68:
7.19, 9.26; 69: 9.29; 70–71: 10.5; 72: 10.10; 75: 10.19; 81–3: 11.7; 83–4: 11.12; 85:
11.14; 86–8: 11.16; 88: 11.19; 89: 11.28; 96–7: 12.4; 98: 12.7; 117: 14.5; 118–20:
14.23; 121–4: 14.26; 125–6: 14.29; 127–9: 14.40; 127–30: 14.42; F50: 14.22.
Lucilius Satires 4.2.172–81: 6.34; 6.2.278–81: 6.4; 9.1.359–60: 7.62; 17.1.567–73: 7.56;
22.624–5: 6.19; 26.632–4: 16.24; 26.708–11: 5.4; 29.917–18: 6.45; 29.952–3: 4.55;
30.3.1053–6: 6.5; 1145–51: 1.7.
Lucretius On the Nature of the Universe 2.610–32: 3.62; 4.1121–40, 1278–87: 7.55.
1 Maccabees 8.17–32: 5.40.
Macrobius [Macrob.] Saturnalia [Sat.] 1.11.36–40: 6.17; 1.12.35: 15.99; 2.1.10–13, 3.2,
3.5: 12.25; 2.4.10–11, 13–14, 31: 15.66; 2.4.12: 15.92; 2.5.2–6, 8: 15.64; 3.9.6–9:
3.58; 3.13.10–12: 2.23; 3.14.6–7: 8.20; 3.17.11–12: 11.37.
Marcellus Burdigalensis De medicamentis 15.6: 15.73.
Martial Epigrams 11.20: 14.30.
Melinno (‘of Lesbos’) F1: 5.35.
Moretti IAG 60: 15.57.
Naevius The Song of the Punic War 4.31–2, 6.39, 7.41–3: 4.18; Unassigned Fragment
from Comedy (fabula togata) 1–3: 4.57.
Nikolaos of Damascus [Nik. Dam.] Autobiography F134: 15.47; Histories F100: 15.15;
Life of Augustus 1.1–2.2: 15.115; 18.54–7: 14.7; 28.108–13: 14.10.
OGIS [Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae] 435: 5.45; 2.458: 15.54.
ORF4 [Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta] Cato (the Elder) FF221–2: 7.18; C. Fannius
F3: 8.28; C. Gracchus FF26–8: 8.22; F44: 8.23; F47: 8.31; FF48–9: 8.24; Ti.
Gracchus F149: 8.11; Scipio Aemilianus F17: 7.57; F30: 8.20.
Orosius History in Answer to the Pagans 5.15.25: 9.18; 5.21.1–5: 11.23.
Ovid Amores [Am.] 1.15.29–30: 14.57; Fasti 1.709–22: 15.16; 2.127–44: 15.97;
2.617–34: 15.21; 3.241–58: 7.79; 4.133–9, 145–50: 7.81; 4.863–72: 7.82; 4.905–42:
3.74; 5.545–98: 15.96; 6.463–8: 12.84; 6.475–80: 7.83; Tristia [Trist.] 3.3, 4.10:
16.29.
P. Köln 10: 15.48.
Palatine Anthology 6.161: 15.35; 6.236: 14.54.
Pausanias [Paus.] Description of Greece 7.16.1, 7–10: 5.41.
Plautus [Plaut.] Captivi [Capt.] 357: 6.45; Curculio [Curc.] 467–84; 1.6; The Two
Menaechmuses 966–84: 6.25; Pot of Gold 505–22: 7.68; Pseudolus 133–70: 6.24.
Pliny the Elder Natural History [Nat. Hist.] 3.16–17: 15.51; 3.136–7: 15.17; 7.56: 6.23;
7.75: 15.68; 7.91–4: 13.65; 7.96–9: 12.29; 7.101–06: 5.10; 7.116–17: 12.24; 7.120:
7.30; 7.128: 6.6; 7.137–8: 11.42; 7.139–40: 2.29; 7.147–50: 15.116; 7.158: 7.65;

825
 INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
14.147–8: 14.47; 15.136: 15.74; 28.12–13: 7.92; 28.10–11: 3.26; 29.14: 5.62; 33.26:
6.16; 34.11–12: 7.71; 33.47: 6.3; 34.43: 1.73; 35.26: 15.41; 35.199–200: 6.12;
36.121: 15.40; 37.10: 15.89.
Plutarch [Plut.] Life of Aemilius Paullus [Aem. Paull.] 38.2–7: 2.41; Agis and Cleomenes
and the Gracchi Compared 1.1–2, 5.4–6: 8.41; Life of Alexander [Alex.] 69.8: 15.5;
Antony [Ant.] 2.1–4.4: 14.1; 16.1–6: 14.8; 27.3–4: 14.45; 54.1–55.4: 14.43; 58.1–8:
14.50; 75.4–6: 14.53; Julius Caesar [Caes.] 5.1–5: 7.35; 9.1–10.9: 7.87; 14.1–13:
12.45; 23.5–7: 12.79; 49.10–50.4: 13.48; 58.2: 16.15; 61.1–3: 7.78; 66.4–14: 13.66;
Life of Camillus [Cam.]; Cato the Elder [Cato Mai.] 2.5–6: 5.61; 3.1–2, 4.4–6: 2.14;
4.5–5.2: 6.38; 15.3–5: 2.63; 16.1–3: 1.17; 17.1–5: 7.58; 17.7, 20.1–3: 7.20; 20.4–7:
7.21; 21.1–3, 7–8: 6.38; 21.5–7: 2.19; 22.1–23.6: 5.61; 26.1–27.5: 4.61; Cato the
Younger [Cato Min.] 2.1–4: 10.4; 24.1: 16.15; 34.3–7: 12.59; 42.1, 4–5: 3.75; Cicero
[Cic.] 3.4–6: 11.24; 19.4–5, 20.1–3: 7.86; 45.1–49.2: 14.21; Coriolanus [Cor.] 1.6:
5.1; Crassus [Crass.] 2.1–7: 2.21; 7.1–4: 12.42; 15.7–16.3: 12.82; Fabius Maximus
[Fab.] 22.5–6, 23.1: 4.48; 25.1–4, 26.2–3, 27.1: 4.52; Flamininus [Flam.] 16.7: 5.26;
Gaius Gracchus [G. Gracchus] 2.2–5, 3.1–2: 8.3; 4.1–4, 5.1–3, 6.1–5: 8.29; 7.1–4:
2.6; 17.5–9: 8.33; Lucullus [Luc.] 1.1–3: 2.64; 4.1: 11.10; 6.2–5: 7.64; 20.1–6:
11.10; 28.7–9: 12.10; 37.3–6: 2.34; 39.2–5, 42.1–2: 2.22; Marcellus [Marcell.]
30.6–9: 4.47; Marius [Mar.] 2.1–2: 9.1; 6.3–4: 9.5; 10.3–9: 9.13; 11.1: 9.16; 13.1–3:
9.22; 14.4–8: 7.59; 15.1–4, 25.2–3: 9.23; 43.4–8, 44.9, 46.6–9: 9.34; Moralia [Mor.]
274de: 5.64; 207: 15.98; Numa 1.6–7: 16.15; 9.8–10.13: 7.90; Pompey [Pomp.]
13.1–9: 11.17; 25.1–26.4: 12.9; 30.1–2: 12.11; 45.1–5: 2.60; 49.4–8: 12.64; 51.1–5:
2.62; 52.3–5: 12.75; 53.9–10: 16.15; 54.5–8: 13.4; 58.1–59.2: 13.22; 79.1–80.3:
13.46; Pyrrhus [Pyrrh.] 19.5–7: 1.75; Sulla [Sull.] 1.1–2.8: 11.1; 5.1–4: 11.2;
22.8–25.5: 11.8; 31.1–9: 11.21; 33.1–2: 11.27; 36.1–4: 11.39; 38.6: 11.44; Tiberius
Gracchus [Ti. Gracchus] 1.1–7: 8.1; 5.1–6, 7.1–7: 8.7; 8.6–10: 8.9; 9.1–6: 8.11;
13.2–14.3: 8.14; Roman Questions [Rom. Quest.] 40: 5.64; 49: 2.36.
Polybius [Polyb.] Histories 1.1.5–6: 16.3; 1.10.1–11.5: 4.7; 1.14.1–6: 4.5; 1.20.9–
21.3: 4.8; 1.22.1–11: 4.9; 1.26.1–3: 4.11; 1.39.10–12: 4.14; 1.58.9–59.8: 4.16;
1.61.8–63.3: 4.17; 2.24.2–17: 4.19; 2.56.10: 16.3; 3.6.1–8: 4.21; 3.8.1–8, 11: 4.24;
3.9.6–10.6: 4.21; 3.14.9–15.13: 4.23; 3.22.1–23.6: 4.1; 3.24.1–15: 4.2; 3.25.1–5:
4.3; 3.26.1–7: 4.4; 3.27.1–10: 4.17; 3.30.1–4: 4.27; 3.47.6–9, 48.10–12: 4.31;
3.77.3–7: 4.41; 3.83.1–84.7: 4.32; 3.113.1–118.5: 4.35; 6.12.1–14.6: 1.59; 6.14.6–8:
1.22; 6.14.9–16.5: 1.59; 6.19.1–5: 5.12; 6.19.5–21.4: 5.13; 6.22.1–23.15: 5.15;
6.27.1–3, 31.10–14, 34.1–6: 5.16; 6.34.7–12: 5.18; 6.37.1–3, 6: 5.19; 6.38.1–4: 5.20;
6.39.1–10: 5.7; 6.39.12–15: 5.14; 6.53.1–54.3: 3.77; 6.51.1–8. 52.1–6, 56.1–4: 4.6;
6.56.6–12: 3.76; 6.58.2–13: 4.36; 7.9.1–17: 4.45; 9.25.1–4: 4.26; 10.3.1–7: 4.51;
10.17.6–15: 6.8; 11.1.1–3, 3.3–6: 4.49; 15.14.1–9: 4.53; 15.18.1–8: 4.58; 18.44.1–7:
5.23; 18.46.1–47.2: 5.24; 21.32.1–15: 5.28; 21.41.6, 9–43.1–3: 5.30; 21.45.1–3,
9–11: 5.31; 29.26.1–27.11: 5.36; 30.15: 6.9; 30.32.6–12: 5.38; 31.10.1–3, 6–10:
5.39; 31.25.2–8: 5.58; 31.26.1–8, 27.1–6: 7.70.
Procopius History of the Wars 5.14.6–11: 2.5.
Propertius Elegies 2.14: 16.28; 3.4: 15.95; 3.11: 14.48.
Publilius Syrus Maxims 414, 489, 596, 616: 6.21.
Reynolds Aphrodisias 13: 15.72.
RDGE [Roman Documents from the Greek East] 18: 11.35; 23: 11.36; 49: 11.38; 60:
14.35; 61: 15.7; 63: 15.44; 67: 15.75; 68: 15.101.
Sallust [Sall.] Conspiracy of Catiline [Cat.] 3.2, 4.3–4: 16.5; 5.1–8: 12.14; 23.1–4: 12.15;
23.5–6: 2.44; 24.3–25.5: 7.44; 26.1–27.2: 12.16; 29.1–3: 1.60; 43.1–2, 44.1–3:

826
 INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES
12.19; 49.1–4: 12.20; 51.43: 12.21; 53.6–54.6: 13.62; 55.2–6: 12.22; 60.7–61.9:
12.23; Jugurthine War [BJ] 4.1: 16.5 4.5–6: 2.27; 5.1–2: 16.5; 8.1–2: 9.3; 40.2–3:
9.7; 42.1–4: 8.40; 63.1–4.6: 9.6; 73.1–7: 9.9; 75.4–5: 9.7; 84.1–2, 86.1–4: 9.10;
85.31–5: 9.2; 95.1–6.3: 9.12; 114.1–4: 9.16; Histories [Hist.] 2.98: 12.3.
SEG [Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum] 4.490: 15.54; 9.8: 15.10; 13.382: 5.22;
32.1243: 15.56; 17.75, 17.209: 14.25; 18.518: 15.49; 23.206: 15.103.
Seneca the Younger Letters [Ep.] 86.1, 4–6, 11–12: 2.20; 114.4–7: 15.91; On Anger
[De ira] 3.40.1–4: 6.26.
Servius On Vergil’s Georgics 1.21: 3.3.
SIG3 [Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum] 593: 5.25; 612: 5.29; 643: 5.32; 684: 5.44; 751:
12.31; 760: 13.49; 780: 15.75.
Stobaeus Anthology 3.7.12: 5.35.
Strabo Geography 1.1.1: 16; 1.1.23: 16; 5.3.7: 1.2; 5.3.8: 2.1, 15.113; 5.3.12: 3.11; 7.7.3:
6.9; 17.3.14–15: 4.64; 17.3.25: 15.6.
Suetonius [Suet.] Life of Claudius 4.1–6: 15.71; Life of the Deified Augustus [Aug.]
3.1–4.2: 14.2; 7.2: 14.65; 8.1–3: 14.2; 10, 11, 15: 14.49; 22: 14.60; 23.1–2: 15.107;
27: 14.49; 28.3–30.1: 15.81; 57.2–58.2: 15.102; 67.1–2: 6.27; 68–70: 14.49; 71.1–4,
75–76.2: 15.65; 99.1, 100–101.1–4: 15.112; Life of the Deified Julius [Jul.] 4.1–2:
6.13; 10.1–2: 2.76; 13: 3.22; 19.2–20.2: 12.43; 21.1–3: 15.12; 26.2–3: 2.79; 27.1:
12.80; 30.1–4: 13.28; 31.1–4: 15.20; 34.1–2: 15.23; 37.1–39.4: 2.35; 40.1–2: 3.31;
41.1–43.2: 13.56; 45.1–3: 13.61; 49.1–2, 4: 7.60; 50.1–2: 7.45; 55.1–2: 2.68; 56.1–7:
13.64; 76, 78.1–80.1: 13.55; 81.1–3: 3.43; 82.1–2: 13.67; 83.2: 13.68; 85.1–2,
89.2–3: 15.3; Life of Tiberius [Tib.] 7.2–3: 15.63; On Grammarians [Gram.] 7, 10,
13, 15, 17, 21: 6.58; On Rhetoricians [Rhet.] 1: 2.66; 27: 6.18; Life of Terence 1–5:
6.59; [Suetonius] Life of Horace 1–3: 15.93.
Sulpicia [Tibullus] 3.13: 7.53.
Tacitus [Tac.] Annals [Ann.] 1.1.1–2.2: 14.66; 1.3.1–4.2: 15.111; 1.9.3–10.8: 15.117;
3.24.2: 15.31; 14.20.1–21.1: 2.74; Histories [Hist.] 2.38: 12.1.
Terence The Mother-in-Law (Hecyra) Prologue, 20–40: 2.75.
Tibullus, see Sulpicia.
The Twelve Tables 1: 1.32; 3.1–4, 3.6: 1.33; 4: 1.34; 5.1: 1.35; 5.4, 5.5: 1.36; 5.7: 1.35;
5.8: 1.37; 6, 7: 1.38; 8.1: 1.40; 8.2: 1.39; 8.4: 1.40; 8.5, 8.6: 1.41; 8.10: 1.37; 8.12,
8.13: 1.41; 8.18: 1.42; 10: 1.43; 11, 12: 1.45.
Ulpian Epitome 13.1–2, 14, 16.1–2: 15.26; Rules 11.1, 27: 7.5.
Valerius Maximus [Val. Max.] On Memorable Deeds and Sayings 1.3.4: 3.64; 2.1.6:
7.41; 3.4.5: 10.1; 4.1.10: 3.27; 4.4.pref: 8.2; 5.8.1–3: 7.14; 6.1.12–13: 7.43; 6.3.8–9:
7.17; 6.7.1: 7.29; 6.9.14: 9.4; 7.5.2: 2.37; 7.6.1a: 6.1; 8.3.1–2: 7.76.
Varro On the Latin Language [Lat. Lang.] 5.55–6: 1.19; 5.74: 3.2; 5.80–82: 1.13; 5.83–6:
3.19; 5.87: 1.13; 5.143: 3.17; 6.13: 7.78; 6.14: 7.80; 6.86–7: 3.24; 7.8: 3.49; 8.6, 10,
21, 83: 6.15; On Farming [Rust.] 1.17.3–7: 6.39; 2.1.1–3: 5.66; 2.3.2: 9.21;
2.10.2–8: 6.40; 3.6.1, 6, 3.15.1–2, 17.2–3: 2.24.
Velleius Paterculus [Vell.] Compendium of Roman History 2.15.1–2: 10.13; 2.15.3–16.4:
10.18; 2.17.1–3: 10.12; 2.20.2–3: 10.26; 2.27.1–3: 10.28; 2.28.4: 11.22; 2.32.3:
11.29; 2.33.3: 13.40; 2.40.4–5: 12.28; 2.44.1–3: 12.41; 2.45.1–2: 12.56; 2.84.1–87.3:
14.51; 2.88.1–3: 15.88; 2.89.1–6: 14.58; 2.93.1–2: 15.38; 2.117.1–119.5: 15.108.
Vergil [Verg.] Aeneid [Aen.] 1.275–88: 5.6; 6.860–86: 15.36; 8.675–90, 714–31: 15.11;
Eclogue [Ecl.] 1: 14.28; Georgics [Georg.] 1.505–11: 16.26.
Zosimus New History [NH] 2.5.1–6: 15.34.

827
 General Index

Numbers refer to documents and their introductions. For ancient authors, see also
the index of ancient sources.
aed.: aedile Aemilia (Vestal), 7.94
cen.: censor Aemilia (Vestal, condemned 114 BC), 7.93
cos.: consul Aemilia (wife of Scipio Africanus), 7.8,
dict.: dictator 7.29, 7.70, 15.70
praet.: praetor Aemilianus, see Cornelius Scipio
pont. max.: pontifex maximus (Africanus) Aemilianus
suff. cos.: suffect consul Aemilius Lepidus, M. (cos. 187), 7.92
tr. pl.: tribune of the plebs Aemilius Lepidus, M. (cos. 78), 6.13, 7.92,
10.23, 10.25, 11.44, 12.2
Achaea (Greece), 5.37, 5.40–1, 5.43, 16.3 Aemilius Lepidus, M. (praet. 49, cos. 46,
Acilius Glabrio, M’. (cos. 191), 5.29 42), 7.37, 7.92, 13.1, 13.42, 13.57, 14.2,
Acilius Glabrio, M’. (cos. 67), 12.8, 12.11 14.5, 14.10, 14.13, 14.18, 14.20, 14.23,
Actium, battle of, 14.47–8, 14.51–2, 14.54, 14.27, 14.29, 14.36, 14.40, 14.43, 14.49,
14.58, 14.60, 14.63, 15.11, 15.16, 15.19, 14.64, 14.66, 15.20, 15.88, 15.116–17
15.88, 15.90, 15.111, 15.113, 15.116– Aemilius Lepidus, M. (conspirator), 15.88
17, 16.26, 16.27 Aemilius Lepidus Paullus, L. (cos. 50),
actresses, actors, 6.57, 6.59, 7.65, 11.1, 3.64, 13.9–10, 13.22, 14.21–2
11.38–9; see also humour, prostitutes, Aemilius Lepidus Porcina, M. (cos. 137),
theatrical performances 5.50
Adherbal of Numidia, 9.6–7 Aemilius Paullus, L. (cos. 219, 216), 4.35
adoption, 7.3, 7.70, 12.48–9, 13.6, 13.20, Aemilius Paullus, L. (cos. AD 1), 15.31
13.32; see also children, family, Octavian, Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, L. (cos.
Augustus 182, 168), 2.41, 3.42, 5.33–4, 6.9 (in
adultery, 3.65, 6.43, 7.17–18, 7.42–6, 7.52, Epirus), 5.47 (in Spain), 5.57, 7.3, 7.70,
7.55, 7.87, 12.15, 12.89, 13.56, 13.67, 16.3
15.23–30, 15.62, 15.92 Aemilius Scaurus, M. (cos. 115), 6.6, 9.7,
aediles, role of, 1.13, 1.18, 1.55, 2.76–7, 9.30, 16.5
7.42, 7.85, 11.2, 11.30, 13.14, 13.57, Aeneas (Trojan prince), 5.6, 13.72, 15.11,
15.5; 2.64 (at Arpinum), 2.80, 13.60 (at 15.16, 15.36, 15.95–6, 16.1–2, 16.12
Urso) Aequi, the, 1.25, 1.28, 1.68, 2.13
Aelius Donatus (grammarian), 15.90, Aesculapius, 3.59–60
16.26 Aetolian League, the, 5.9, 5.22, 5.25, 5.28,
Aelius Stilo, L. (scholar), 16.17, 16.23 5.32

828
 GENERAL INDEX
Afranius, C. (cos. 60), 12.36–7, 12.63, Antonius, M. (Mark Antony, tr. pl. 49, cos.
13.42 44, 34), 14.1 (his family background),
Africa, 4.62, 5.66, 9.28, 9.34, 11.12, 13.5 (prosecution of Milo), 13.22, 14.1
11.15–18, 11.20, 12.12, 12.28–9, (and Curio), 13.20, 13.24–5 (tribunate),
12.70, 12.75, 13.44, 13.46, 16.5, 16.12; 13.27, 13.37, 14.1 (Caesar’s legate),
see also Carthage, Cyrene, Egypt, 7.78, 13.55 (the Lupercalia), 13.55,
Jugurthine War, Punic Wars, Thapsus 13.57, 14.3–5, 14.11 (first consulship),
Africanus, see Cornelius Scipio Africanus 13.59–60, 14.4–6, 14.9, 14.15 (and
ager Campanus, ager publicus, 1.48, 4.60, Caesar’s acta), 13.66 (and Caesar’s
8.5–6, 8.8–10, 8.13–14, 8.20–1, 8.28–9, assassination), 7.75, 14.19–23, 15.116
8.35–9, 10.9, 12.13, 12.36–8, 12.44–5, (and the triumvirate), 14.32–5, 16.8 (as
12.52, 12.58, 12.70, 13.14, 13.20, 14.2, administrator), 14.51–2, 16.26 (defeat at
14.15, 14.18 Actium), 14.5–6, 14.8, 14.10–15, 14.36–
Agis IV of Sparta, 8.1, 8.37, 8.41 7, 14.40–1, 15.117, 16.16 (relations with
Agrippa, see Vipsanius Agrippa Octavian), 7.74, 12.24, 14.12, 14.15–18
Agrippa Postumus, see M. Julius Caesar (and Cicero), 14.28–31 (and Octavian’s
Agrippa Postumus settlement of veterans), 14.34, 14.42–6,
Agrippina ‘the Elder’, granddaughter of 14.48–52 (and Cleopatra), 12.27,
Augustus, 15.23, 15.69 14.38 (and Atticus), 14.40, 14.46,
Ahenobarbus, see Domitius Ahenobarbus 15.117 (marriage to Octavia), 14.35–6,
Alban, Mount, 3.9, 3.11, 15.50, 15.71 14.42–6, 15.12 (and Parthia), 14.42–4
Alexander Helios, son of Cleopatra and (invasions of Armenia), 14.44 (coinage
Antony, 14.43, 14.46, 15.115 of), 14.46 (takeover of Armenia), 14.47,
Allobroges, the, 12.19–20, 12.26 15.117 (his drunkenness), 14.49, 15.98
Amaeana (girl-friend of Mamurra), 7.49 (propaganda against Octavian), 14.50–4
ambitus, see bribery (battle of Actium), 14.63 (his birthday),
amicitia, 2.38, 2.46–50, 2.63, 12.70–1, 14.50 (his will), 6.12, 6.23 (slaves
12.74, 13.18, 13.19, 13.22, 13.24, 13.32, of), 16.11 (account of Appian), 16.16
13.27, 13.45; see also First Triumvirate (Nikolaos as tutor of his children), 14.66
Ancus, see Marcius, Ancus annales (appraisal by Tacitus)
maximi, 16.1, 16.7 Antonius Creticus, M. (father of Mark
Annius Milo, T. (tr. pl. 57), 2.3, 6.54, Antony), 14.1
12.60, 12.69, 13.1–2, 13.5, 13.28, 16.5 Apamea, treaty of, 5.30–1
Antiochus III, king of Syria (223–187), Apollonia, the, 5.27
3.56, 4.54, 5.9, 5.24, 5.28–31, 5.36 Apollonius Molo (teacher of rhetoric),
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria 2.67, 6.13
(175–164), 5.36, 5.40 Aponius Motylus, C. (Samnite leader),
Antonia Minor, 15.71, 15.103 10.12
Antonius, Antyllus (son of Mark Antony), Appian of Alexandria (historian), 6.22,
14.51 16.11, 16.12; and see Index of Sources
Antonius, C. (brother of Mark Antony), Appian Way, the, 1.69, 2.4–5, 3.11, 6.50,
14.17, 14.26 6.54, 13.1, 13.33
Antonius Gnipho, M. (teacher), 6.58 Appuleius Saturninus, L. (tr. pl. 103, 100),
Antonius Hibrida, C. (cos. 63), 7.44, 12.16, 9.15, 9.27–31, 9.38, 11.32, 16.9,
12.23, 12.48 16.11
Antonius, Iullus (son of Mark Antony), aqueducts, 2.10, 15.40; see also Rome,
15.42, 15.67, 15.117, 16.8 infrastructure of
Antonius, L. (brother of Mark Antony, cos. Aquillius, M’. (cos. 129), 8.23
41), 14.17, 14.29–31, 14.49, 15.69, 16.28 Aquillius, M’. (cos. 101), 6.49, 9.29, 11.3

829
 GENERAL INDEX
Ara Pacis Augustae, the, 15.1, 15.4, 15.16, Augustus (and see also Octavian): 15.1–2,
15.42, 16.29 15.5–10, 15.19, 15.97, 15.116–17
Archelaus (general of Mithridates), 11.7–8 (princeps), 15.1, 15.4, 15.20, 15.50
Archias (A. Licinius, poet), 10.24 (pontifex maximus), 15.5 (and the
Argei, the, 3.5, 3.7 ‘second settlement’), 15.5–10, 15.48
Ariobarzanes I, king of Cappadocia, 11.3, (his maius imperium), 15.1, 15.4,
11.8, 11.40 15.102 (named pater patriae), 15.4,
Ariobarzanes II, king of Atropatene, 15.1 15.31, 15.34–49, 15.63–74, 15.101,
Ariovistus (German king), 12.64–5 15.104, 15.111 (and family), 6.27, 15.5,
Aristoboulos II, king of Judaea, 14.1 15.8–9 (constitutional powers), 15.8–10,
Aristonicus, pretender in Pergamum, 5.45, 15.23–30, 15.59–62, 15.76, 15.76,
10.1 15.79–80 (his legislation), 15.75–82,
Arminius (Germanic prince), 15.108 15.112 (his administration), 15.1–2,
army, Roman, 1.13, 5.2, 5.4, 5.9, 5.11–21, 15.26–7, 15.83–5, 15.102, 15.114 (and
6.1, 7.59, 8.5–6, 8.29, 9.21–3, 10.17, the senate), 15.1, 15.11, 15.18 (his
15.1, 15.110; see also capite censi, triumphs), 15.11, 15.17–18, 15.35,
crowns for valour, Rome (early history 15.38 (military victories), 15.1, 15.8,
of), Italian allies, Punic Wars 15.19, 15.56–7 (festivals in honour of),
Arpinum, 2.59, 9.4, 9.6 15.1, 15.20 (religious reforms), 15.20
Arruntius, L. (cos. 22), 14.51 (renaming of Sextilis), 15.38, 15.88,
Arsinoe II, sister of Cleopatra VII, 14.34 15.98, 15.116 (plots against), 16.12,
art, Greek, 4.47, 5.41, 5.55, 5.57–9 16.16 (memoirs of), 16.14 (portrayal
art, Roman, 1.73, 2.20, 5.56; see also by Suetonius), 16.14 (letters of), 16.14
Augustus, M. Vipsanius Agrippa (family life), 16.14 (love affairs), 14.2,
Arval brothers, the, 2.23, 3.12, 3.19, 15.1 14.49, 16.14 (propaganda against),
Asclepiades of Clazomenae, 10.25 16.14 (religious reforms), 15.1, 15.4,
Asculum, see Picenum 15.11, 15.18, 15.81, 15.117, 16.14,
Asinius Gallus, C. (cos. 8 BC), 15.32, 15.75 16.29 (building programme), 15.1
Asinius Pollio, C. (historian, praet. 45, cos. (expenditure), 15.112, 16.14 (his death),
40), 6.58, 13.28, 13.64, 14.10, 14.13, 15.112 (his will), 15.1, 15.81, 15.112–
14.23, 15.81, 16.4, 16.7, 16.11, 16.26 13 (his mausoleum), 15.53–8, 15.87,
assembly, see comitia, forum 15.114, 15.117 (and imperial cult),
astrology, 3.46, 6.12, 6.58 15.1, 15.114 (the Augustalia), 16.16
Atia, mother of Octavian, 14.2, 14.6–7 (Life by Nikolaos), 16.16 (embassy
Atilius Regulus, M. (cos. 267, suff. cos. from India), 15.65–6, 16.22 (sense of
256), 4.12, 4.13, 4.18 humour), 15.1 (his Res Gestae), 15.1,
Atius Balbus, M. (grandfather of 15.3 (other literary works), 16.26–9 (and
Octavian), 14.2 Augustan poets), 16.29 (banishes Ovid),
Attalus II, king of Pergamum (158–138), 6.26–7 (treatment of slaves), 15.4,
5.41 15.114, 15.117 (deification), 14.41,
Attalus III Philometor, king of Pergamum 14.49, 15.1, 15.18, 15.39, 15.74 (statues
(138–133), 5.45, 8.14, 8.28 of), 15.18, 15.67, 15.102 (coinage of),
Atticus (T. Pomponius, friend of Cicero), 14.66, 15.115–17, 16.9, 16.10, 16.12
7.39, 7.74, 16.13 (appraisals of his reign)
augurs, 1.56, 3.40, 3.47–54, 7.89, 11.28, Aurelia (mother of Julius Caesar), 7.87
11.47, 12.43, 12.45, 12.54, 12.62, 12.78, Aurelia Philematium (epitaph of), 7.33
14.65, 15.1, 15.19, 15.32, 15.105–6; see Aurelius Cotta, L. (praet. 70, cos. 65),
also auspices, divination, haruspices, 12.3–4, 12.6, 12.27, 13.55
obnuntiatio Aurelius Hermia, L. (epitaph of), 7.33

830
 GENERAL INDEX
Aurelius Orestes, L. (cos. 126), 8.22 Caecilius Metellus, L. (cos. 251, 247; pont.
auspices, 1.47, 3.40, 3.48–50, 3.52, max.), 2.29
3.75, 12.43, 12.45, 12.47, 12.49, 12.54, Caecilius Metellus ‘Numidicus’, Q. (cos.
12.62, 12.78, 13.28, 13.32, 13.54, 14.7, 109), 9.3, 9.4, 9.6–9, 9.28–9, 9.32, 16.5
15.1, 15.12–14, 15.17, 15.99; see also Caecilius Metellus Celer, Q. (cos. 60),
augurs, chickens (sacred), haruspices, 7.52, 12.23, 12.35–7, 12.48, 12.64
obnuntiatio Caecilius Metellus Creticus, Q (cos. 69),
12.28, 12.66
Bacchanalia, the, 3.65–6, 3.67, 5.63, 7.16, Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, Q. (cos.
7.63 143), 15.3
Balbus, see Atius Balbus, Cornelius Caecilius Metellus Nepos, Q. (tr. pl. 62,
Balbus cos. 57), 12.60, 12.63, 12.71
ballot, secret, 2.42; see also elections Caecilius Metellus Pius, Q. (cos. 80; pont.
banquets, 2.21, 2.23, 2.35, 2.76, 5.55, max.), 2.23, 9.6, 10.18, 10.27–8, 11.12,
5.57–9, 7.52, 11.37, 16.22; see also 11.15, 11.16, 11.40, 12.3, 12.5
dormice, luxury, peafowl, piscinarii, Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, Q. (cos.
sumptuary legislation 52), 7.22, 7.44, 12.80, 13.1, 13.3, 13.6,
baths, 2.20, 7.81, 8.24, 11.39, 15.39, 15.41, 13.24, 13.27, 13.44, 13.46, 13.65
15.50, 15.106 Caecilius Statius (dramatist), 7.38
Battaces (priest of the Magna Mater), Caelius Rufus, M. (tr. pl. 52, aed. 50),
3.63 7.52, 13.1, 13.10, 13.12–14, 13.16,
Bestia, see Calpurnius Bestia 13.18
Betilienus Varus, L., censor of Aletrium, Caepio, see Servilius Caepio
2.10 Caerellia (friend of Cicero), 7.74
betrothals, 7.7–8, 7.13, 15.23, 15.27; see Caesar, see Julius Caesar
also marriage Caesarion (Ptolemy XV), 13.48, 14.43
Bibulus, see Calpurnius Bibulus calendar, the, 1.55, 3.30–31, 13.55, 15.54,
Bithynia, 2.35, 2.50, 7.60, 9.32, 11.3, 15.99, 15.103; see also fasti, pontiffs
11.7–8, 12.8, 12.10–11, 12.30, 13.48, Calidius, M. (praet. 57), 13.24
16.12, 16.25 Callicrates of Achaea, 5.38
Blossius (Stoic philosopher), 8.9 Calpurnia (wife of Julius Caesar), 3.43,
Bocchus of Mauretania, 9.13. 11.2, 11.50 12.45
Bona Dea, the, 7.86–7, 12.56, 12.62, 13.1, Calpurnius Bestia, L. (tr. pl. 121, cos.
16.15 111), 8.34, 9.7
boni, the, see optimates Calpurnius Bestia, L. (tr. pl. 62), 12.19
booty, see spoils of war Calpurnius Bestia, L. (aed. 57), 7.52
bribery, 2.39, 2.48, 3.22, 4.6, 8.23, 8.28, Calpurnius Bibulus, L., 14.41
8.33–4, 9.3–4, 9.7, 9.29, 11.2, 12.6, Calpurnius Bibulus, M. (cos. 59), 7.60,
12.17, 12.38, 12.39, 12.75–8, 13.1, 12.43, 12.45, 12.47, 12.50, 12.52–3,
13.5, 13.7, 13.15, 13.42, 14.2; see also 12.69, 13.1, 13.3–4, 13.13, 13.19
elections Calpurnius Piso Caesonius, L. (cos. 148),
Britain, 12.71, 12.79, 12.85–90, 16.2 4.62
Brundisium, treaty of, 14.36, 15.117 Calpurnius Piso Caesonius, L. (cos. 58),
Brutus, see Junius Brutus 12.45, 12.50, 12.54, 13.22
bulla (amulet worn by freeborn children), Calpurnius Piso Frugi, C. (first husband of
8.20 Tullia), 7.26
businessmen, Roman, 4.40, 4.60, 11.6, Calpurnius Piso Frugi, L. (cos. 133 BC),
11.11, 12.8, 12.10, 12.35, 12.38, 12.44; 8.36, 16.1, 16.7
see also equites, publicani Calpurnius Piso, C. (cos. 67), 12.9, 12.20

831
 GENERAL INDEX
Calvinus, see Domitius Calvinus Catilinarian conspiracy, the, 2.44, 7.44,
Calvus, see Licinius Calvus 7.86, 12.14–26, 12.32–3, 12.53,
Camillus, see Furius Camillus 12.55–6, 12.58, 16.5
Campus Martius, the, 1.21, 2.35, 3.24, Catiline, see Sergius Catilina
3.73, 11.44, 12.2, 12.16–17, 12.79, Cato, see Porcius Cato
13.10, 14.2, 15.1, 15.4, 15.16, 15.32, Catullus, see Valerius Catullus
15.34, 15.39, 15.50, 15.113; see also Catulus, see Lutatius Catulus
comitia centuriata, elections Caudine Forks, the, 1.67, 5.2–3; see also
Canidius Crassus. P. (suff. cos. 40), 14.51 Samnites
Caninius Rebilus, C. (suff. cos. 45), 13.53 celibacy, 1.18, 15.23–30
Cannae, battle of, 2.51, 4.35–8, 6.1, 7.67; censors, census, 1.13, 1.15–17, 1.54, 2.41,
see also Second Punic War 3.24, 3.27, 5.60, 8.22, 12.7, 12.15,
Canuleian laws, the, 1.47 12.35, 12.54, 12.62, 15.1, 15.78; see
Canuleius, C. (tr. pl. 445), 1.47 also Cato the Elder, census, lustrum,
capite censi, the, 1.20, 6.1, 9.10–11 public works
Capua, 1.64–5, 2.4–5, 2.16, 2.78–9, 4.42, Censors’ Records, 3.24, 16.17
4.44, 6.46, 6.50, 12.13, 12.52, 13.23, Cethegus, see Cornelius Cethegus
13.27, 13.29, 13.31 Chalcis (Euboea), 5.26
Carbo, see Papirius Carbo chariot races, see games
Carfania (wife of Licinius Buccio), 7.76 Charops of Epirus, 5.38
Carmen Saeculare, the, 15.33, 15.93, chickens, sacred, 3.52–4, 5.50; 15.74
16.27; see also Augustus, Horace (portent for Livia)
Caristia, the, 15.21, 16.29 children, 1.34, 7.1–5, 7.12, 7.14–15, 13.12,
Carneades (Greek philosopher), 5.60–1 15.24; see also bulla, education, family,
Carthage, 1.4, 1.74, 2.29, 3.7, 3.58, 4.1–64, women
8.30, 16.3, 16.5; see also Africa, Punic Chilon (slave of Cato the Elder), 7.21
Wars Chrysogonus (freedman of Sulla), 2.56,
Carvilius Maximus, Sp. (cos. 293, 272), 6.12, 6.42, 11.24–5
1.73 Chyretiae (Thessaly), 5.25
Carvilius Ruga, Sp., 7.12 Cicero, see Tullius Cicero
Cassius Dio (historian), 16.12; and see Cilicia, 5.71–3, 11.13, 12.3, 12.11, 12.29–
Index of Sources 30, 12.54, 12.69–70, 13.13, 13.19
Cassius Hemina, L. (historian), 16.1 Cilnius, see Maecenas
Cassius Longinus Ravila, L. (tr. pl. 137), Cimbri, the, 9.4, 9.11, 9.14–19, 9.23, 9.26,
2.42 9.28, 9.35, 11.13, 15.107
Cassius Longinus, C. (tr. pl. 49, praet. 44, Cincinnatus, see Quinctius Cincinnatus
assassin of Caesar), 6.58, 13.13, 13.20, Cincius Alimentus, L. (historian), 16.1
13.46, 13.53, 13.66, 14.3, 14.6, 14.10, Cinna, see Cornelius Cinna
14.15, 14.20–3, 14.25–6, 14.33–4, Civil War, the, (Caesar and Pompey), 2.35,
14.36, 14.51, 14.66, 15.12, 15.117, 16.8 2.61, 13.26–50
Cassius Longinus, L. (tr. pl. 104), 9.19 Claudia (epitaph of), 7.31
Cassius Longinus, Q. (tr. pl. 49), 13.20, Claudia Marcella Major, 15.42, 15.48,
13.24–5 15.67, 15.108
Cassius Parmensis, C. (assassin of Caesar), Claudia Quinta, 3.61, 7.30, 15.64
14.2 Claudius (emperor AD 41–54), 7.65, 15.9,
Cassius Vecellinus, Sp. (cos. 502, 493, 15.69, 15.71, 15.84
486), 1.14, 1.27, 7.14 Claudius Caecus, App. (cos. 307, 296; cen.
Castor and Pollux, temple of, 1.6, 2.72, 312), 1.54, 1.74–5, 2.4, 2.5, 7.52
2.76 Claudius Caudex, App. (cos. 264), 4.7, 4.8

832
 GENERAL INDEX
Claudius Crassinus Inregillensis Sabinus, Clodia Metelli (wife of Q. Metellus Celer,
App. (cos. 471, decemvir 451/450), cos. 60; sister of Clodius), 7.51–2,
1.31 12.69, 16.25
Claudius Drusus Germanicus, Nero Clodia Pulchra (first wife of Octavian),
(second son of Livia), 14.39, 15.8, 14.20, 14.30
15.17, 15.23, 15.27, 15.65, 15.71, 15.93, Clodius Pulcher, P. (tr. pl. 58), 2.3, 7.87,
15.103, 15.107–8, 15.113 12.10, 12.37, 12.48–50, 12.54–64,
Claudius Drusus, Nero (son of Tiberius), 12.69, 12.71, 12.91, 13.1–2, 13.5, 13.32,
15.63, 15.112 14.1, 16.25
Claudius Marcellus, C. (cos. 50), 2.49, Coelius Antipater, L. (historian),
12.80, 13.9–10, 13.12, 13.15, 13.19, 16.1, 16.7
13.21–3, 13.51, 14.9 Coelius Caldus, C. (tr. pl. 107), 2.42
Claudius Marcellus, C. (cos. 49), 13.24, coinage, 82, 6.49, 7.93–4, 9.36–8, 10.12,
13.43 10.29–31, 11.1, 11.45–50, 13.71–4,
Claudius Marcellus, M. (cos. 222, 214, 14.14, 15.18, 15.102
210, 208, suff. cos. 215), 4.46, 4.47, collegia, 2.38, 6.57, 7.73, 11.6, 11.38,
4.60, 13.65, 15.36, 16.26 12.54, 13.56, 15.82
Claudius Marcellus, M. (cos. 166, 155, colonies, 1.56, 1.65–6, 1.68, 2.40, 2.80,
152), 5.48 8.5, 8.28–30, 9.18, 9.27, 10.6, 10.9,
Claudius Marcellus, M. (cos. 51), 13.5, 11.49, 12.13, 13.59–60, 14.5–8, 14.14,
13.7–9, 13.11–13, 13.24, 13.32, 14.19–20, 14.17–28, 15.1, 15.13, 15.58,
13.52–3 15.59, 15.61, 15.78, 15.105–6
Claudius Marcellus, M. (nephew of comitia centuriata, 1.20–21, 1.31, 11.5,
Augustus), 5.6, 6.66, 14.37, 15.5, 15.31, 12.60–1, 12.72, 13.54; see also elections
15.35–9, 15.50, 15.63–4, 15.90, 15.95, comitia curiata, 1.21, 12.49
15.111, 15.113, 15.116, 16.26, 16.28; comitia tributa, 1.21–2, 8.13–14, 9.36,
14.63, 15.1, 15.81 (theatre of) 10.17, 10.26, 11.12, 12.45, 13.54
Claudius Nero, Ti. (praet. 42, first husband Compitalia, the, 6.36, 15.20
of Livia), 14.39, 15.69, 15.117 concordia ordinum, the, 12.35, 12.38
Claudius Pulcher, App. (cos. 143), 8.11, confarreatio, 3.21, 7.10; see also marriage
8.13, 8.16–17, 8.19 Conflict of the Orders, the, 1.25–6,
Claudius Pulcher, App. (cos. 54), 5.71, 1.29–58, 3.52, 7.77; see also
6.58, 12.60, 12.63, 12.71 decemvirate, Twelve Tables
Claudius Pulcher, P. (cos. 249), 3.53, 6.54 consuls, duties of, 1.11, 1.13, 1.18,
Claudius Quadrigarius, Q. (historian), 1.47–50, 1.59, 2.49, 2.50, 3.40, 12.44–5,
16.1, 16.7 13.3–4, 13.6, 15.5–6, 15.8
Cleomenes III of Sparta, 8.1, 8.41 Corinth, 1.4, 5.41–3
Cleopatra VII Philopator (queen of Egypt, Coriolanus, see Marcius Coriolanus
69–30), 13.48, 14.34, 14.42–6, Cornelia (‘mother of the Gracchi’), 5.39,
14.48–52, 15.11, 15.19, 15.115, 16.11, 7.8, 7.22, 7.29, 7.70, 8.1–2, 8.9, 8.12,
16.16, 16.26, 16.27, 16.28 8.15, 8.21, 8.25, 8.29, 8.33, 16.13
Cleopatra Selene, daughter of Cleopatra Cornelia (daughter of Cinna, wife of Julius
and Antony, 14.43, 15.115 Caesar), 7.35
Clesippus Geganius (hunchback), 7.71 Cornelia (wife of P. Licinius Crassus and
clientela, 2.38, 2.54–62, 12.11, 12.70–1, Pompey the Great), 12.80, 13.46
12.74, 12.88; see also freedmen, Cornelius Balbus, L. (suff. cos. 40), 3.43,
freedwomen 9.27, 10.21, 12.40, 13.20, 13.34, 13.50,
Clodia (wife of L. Licinius Lucullus, sister 13.55, 14.9, 15.13, 15.81, 15.84, 16.4
of Clodius), 12.10 Cornelius Cethegus, P., 7.64

833
 GENERAL INDEX
Cornelius Cinna, L. (cos. 87–84), 7.35, Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, L. (cos. 190),
9.34, 10.26–27, 11.5, 11.7, 11.12–13, 5.21, 5.55
11.15, 12.27, 12.70, 13.20, 14.66 Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus, L. (cos. 83),
Cornelius Dolabella, P. (tr. pl. 47, suff. 11.12, 11.14, 11.20
cos. 44), 7.26, 7.60, 13.45, 13.57, 14.3, Cornelius Scipio Asina, Cn. (cos. 260), 4.9
14.10, 14.15–16, 14.19, 14.23, 14.26, Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, L. (cos. 298;
14.33 cen. ?280), 1.69
Cornelius Dolabella, P. (cos. AD 10), Cornelius Scipio Calvus, Cn. (cos. 222),
15.86 4.40, 4.44
Cornelius Gallus, C. (poet), 14.55–7, Cornelius Scipio Hispanus, Cn. (praet.
16.26 139), 2.26
Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus, Cn. (cos. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, P. (praet. 194),
72), 12.4, 12.7 3.61
Cornelius Lentulus Crus, L. (cos. 49), Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio, P. (cos.
13.22, 13.24, 13.43–4 138, pont. max.), 2.37, 8.14–15, 8.19
Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, Cn. (cos. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio, P.
56), 12.70–2 (cos. 111), 2.37
Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, L. (cos. 57), Cornelius Sisenna, L. (historian), 16.5
12.60, 12.69–70, 13.44, 14.9 Cornelius Sulla ‘Felix’ (Epaphroditus),
Cornelius Lentulus Sura, P. (cos. 71), L. (cos. 88, 80), 3.81 (cremation),
12.19, 12.22, 12.55, 14.1 9.12–13, 11.2, 11.50, 16.5 (in Africa),
Cornelius Merula, L. (suffect cos. 87), 9.32, 11.3–10, 11.35, 11.38, 11.47 (and
10.26 Mithridates), 9.32–3, 11.12–16, 12.27,
Cornelius Nepos (historian), 6.18, 6.59, 13.31, 13.39 (marches on Rome), 9.34
8.25, 16.2, 16.13; and see Index of (defeats Marius the Younger), 10.18–20,
Sources 10.28 (and the Social War), 11.1,
Cornelius Rufinus, P. (cos. 290, 277), 11.41 (family background), 11.17–18
10.20, 11.1 (and Pompey), 11.19–25, 12.14, 13.57
Cornelius Scipio, P. (cos. 218), 4.40, 4.44 (proscriptions), 11.26–38, 12.5–6, 13.23,
Cornelius Scipio, P. (son of Africanus), 13.57 (dictatorship and legislation),
2.25, 8.1 11.39–40 (retirement), 11.30, 11.40 (his
Cornelius Scipio, P. (quaestor in Greece), Cornelii), 11.20, 11.30, 11.40, 12.16
15.103 (veterans), 7.75, 11.42–4, 12.1, 13.20,
Cornelius Scipio Africanus, P. (cos. 205, 13.29, 13.31, 13.34, 13.39 (later views
194), 2.20, 4.51–4, 4.56, 4.57, 4.59, of Sulla), 11.46–50 (coinage), 13.1
5.27, 5.54, 6.8, 7.8–9, 7.29, 7.70, 8.33, (daughter), 13.61 (warnings against
8.37, 12.32, 14.19 Caesar), 16.5 (his autobiography),
Cornelius Scipio (Africanus) Aemilianus, 14.66, 16.9 (criticised by Tacitus), 16.11
P. (cos. 147, 134), 4.62, 14.19 (first (appraisal by Appian)
consulship), 5.51 (second consulship), Cornelius Sulla, Faustus, 11.50, 12.45,
2.41, 3.27 (and censorship), 5.38, 16.5 12.80
(supports Achaean exiles), 3.58, 4.61–4, Cornelius Tacitus, P.? (praet. AD 88),
9.9, 14.52 (destroys Carthage), 5.9, 16.7, 16.9; and see Index of Sources
5.51–3, 7.56, 8.7, 9.3–4 (in Spain), Cornificius, L. (cos. 35), 15.81
5.57–8, 6.2, 16.24 (his lifestyle), 5.58, Cornificius, Q. (quaest. 48), 14.11,
6.59 (patron of writers), 7.3 (adoption), 14.16
7.57, 16.21 (on homosexuals), 7.70 corvus, see raven
(generosity), 8.1–2, 8.7, 8.9, 8.21, 16.22 Cornelius Cossus, A. (military tribune),
(and the Gracchi) 15.14

834
 GENERAL INDEX
Cotta, see Aurelius Cotta dignitas, 2.25–31, 13.24, 13.27, 13.36,
courts, see law-courts 13.38, 13.40, 13.44, 13.55
Crassus, see Licinius Crassus Dindia Macolnia, 7.66
crowns for valour, 1.43, 2.70, 5.7–10, 7.59, Dio, see Cassius Dio
12.28, 14.41, 14.63 Diodorus Siculus, 16.2, 16.6; and see
curia Julia, the, 14.24, 15.81 Index of Sources
Curio, see Scribonius Curio Diogenes (Stoic philosopher), 5.61
Curius Dentatus, M’. (cos. 290, 284, 275, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (antiquarian),
274; cen. 272), 2.12 16.2, 16.18; and see Index of Sources
curses, see witchcraft Diophanes of Miletus (orator), 8.9, 8.12
Cursor, see Papirius Cursor divination, 3.4, 3.6, 3.33, 3.37–54, 4.38,
cursus honorum, the, 1.9, 4.62, 5.51, 5.52, 7.85, 12.45, 13.69–70, 14.65, 15.2,
9.4, 9.6, 11.18, 11.30, 12.5; see also 15.50, 15.74; see also augurs, auspices,
magistracies chickens (sacred), haruspices
Cybele, see Magna Mater divorce, 7.12–13, 7.18, 7.70, 7.87, 12.36,
Cynthia (‘beloved’ of Propertius), 16.28 13.56, 15.23, 15.63
Cyprus, 5.36, 5.39, 5.72, 12.57–9, 15.6, dogs, 3.42, 3.74, 6.38, 16.29
15.83 Dolabella, see Cornelius Dolabella
Cyrene, 5.39, 7.47, 15.10 Domitian (emperor), 16.9, 16,14
Domitius Ahenobarbus, Cn. (cos. 96), 5.60
Dalmatia, 14.46, 14.58, 15.12, 15.84, Domitius Ahenobarbus, L. (cos. 54),
15.108, 16.12 12.70, 12.72, 12.78, 13.30, 13.42, 13.34,
Damophilus of Enna (slave-owner), 6.48 13.44, 14.36–7, 14.51
death, see funerary practices Domitius Calvinus, Cn. (cos. 53), 12.78,
debt-slavery, 1.33–4, 1.42, 1.48, 1.53, 7.12 13.48
Decemvirate, the First, 1.29–30; the dormice, 2.24
Second, 1.44–7 dowries, 6.17, 7.9, 7.11, 7.13, 7.85, 8.33
decimation, 5.20, 6.50 dress, 3.13, 6.22, 7.57, 7.91, 13.56, 13.61,
Decimus Brutus, see Junius Brutus Albinus 14.43–4, 15.64, 15.70, 15.91, 15.105;
Decius Mus, P. (cos. 340), 1.64, 3.18, 5.8 Greek: 4.57, 5.54, 7.55, 7.57, 14.34; see
Decius Mus, P. (cos. 312, 308, 297, 295; also toga
cen. 304), 1.55, 1.70 Druids, 3.36
dedications, 1.55, 2.9, 3.25, 3.55, 3.60, Drusus, see Claudius Drusus, Livius
4.33, 4.46, 4.65, 5.33, 5.42–3, 6.55, Drusus
9.20, 11.31, 11.35, 11.41, 12.28–31, Duilius, C. (cos. 260), 4.9, 4.10
12.55, 12.75, 14.60; see also devotio, duumvir, duumviri, 1.74, 2.80, 13.59–60
supplicatio, temples Dymae, 5.44
Delos, 5.27, 11.6, 11.11
Delphi, 4.5, 5.27, 5.29, 5.32–3, 9.20, education, 2.67, 2.69, 5.60–2, 6.13, 6.18,
15.37, 16.1, 16.15 6.58, 7.15, 7.21–2, 7.44, 7.53, 8.1–2,
Demetrius (freedman of Pompey), 6.12 8.9, 8.12, 8.20, 8.41, 9.1–2, 9.6, 12.27,
Demetrius I Soter, king of Syria (187–150), 16.21; see also children, literature
5.40 (Greek), oratory
Demosthenes, 2.38, 14.15 Egnatius Mecennius, 7.17
Dentatus, see Curius Dentatus Egnatius Rufus, M. (conspirator), 15.38,
devotio, 1.70, 3.18, 7.92 15.117
dictatorship, the, 1.13, 1.14, 1.18, 2.12–13, Egypt, 5.36, 5.39, 7.47, 12.46, 12.69,
11.26–7, 13.3–4, 13.51–8; see also 13.46–8, 13.70, 14.34–5, 14.45, 14.53,
C. Julius Caesar, L. Cornelius Sulla 14.55–8, 14.62–4, 15.1–2, 15.76–7,

835
 GENERAL INDEX
15.99, 16.11, 16.15; see also Cleopatra, Fabius Maximus, Paullus (cos. 11), 15.54,
Isis, Ptolemy 15.116
elections, electioneering, 2.36–43, 2.48, Fabius Maximus Rullianus, Q. (cos. 322,
2.79, 4.62, 5.51; see also bribery, 310, 308, 297, 295; cen. 304), 1.55, 6.7,
magistracies 7.42
elephants, 1.74, 2.29, 2.35, 2.73, 4.14, Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, Q.
4.30–1, 4.49, 4.54, 4.58, 4.64, 5.23, ‘Cunctator’ (cos. 233, 228, 215, 214,
5.51, 14.13, 14.15, 16.2; see also Punic 209; dict. ?221, 217), 4.29, 4.33, 4.34,
Wars 4.48, 4.52, 5.54, 12.50
emancipation, 7.4; see also freedmen Fabius Pictor (antiquarian), 3.3, 3.21,
Ennius, Q. (poet), 2.51, 3.47, 4.18, 5.63, 16.21
5.65, 12.24, 12.52, 14.65, 16.23; and see Fabius Pictor, Q. (historian), 4.5, 4.19,
Index of Sources 4.21, 4.24, 4.38, 16.1–2, 16.7
epigraphy, see dedications, epitaphs Fabius Vibulanus, Q. (cos. 467), 1.28, 1.44
Epirus, 5.34, 5.38, 6.9, 6.39, 13.29, 13.31, family, the Roman, 7.1–76; see also
13.33; see also Pyrrhus adultery, children, household, slaves,
epitaphs, 1.69, 2.25–6, 6.19, 6.60–5, women
7.23–5, 7.31–4, 7.37 Fannius Caepio (conspirator), 15.38, 15.98
equites, the, 1.20, 5.3, 8.28–9, 9.6–7, farming, 2.15–16, 2.18, 2.24, 3.3, 3.28,
9.30, 10.5–6, 10.9, 11.28–9, 12.4, 12.6, 3.74, 6.35–6; see also ager publicus,
12.24, 12.27, 12.35, 12.38, 12.44, 12.52, Cato the Elder
12.54, 15.23–4, 15.87; see also Atticus, fasces, the, 1.11, 2.13, 2.62, 2.80, 3.4,
businessmen, concordia ordinum, 8.15, 11.28, 12.43, 12.60, 12.71, 14.13,
publicani 14.63, 15.1, 15.8, 15.95, 15.117
Equitius (‘son’ of Ti. Gracchus), 9.30–31 Fasti, the, 14.63, 16.29; see also calendar
Erotarion, wet-nurse, 6.20 Fausta (daughter of Sulla), 13.1
Etruscans, 1.10–11, 1.19, 1.61, 1.69–72, Favonius, M. (aed. 53, praet. 49), 12.63,
1.74, 3.4, 3.16–17, 3.40, 3.57, 4.19, 12.76, 14.49
16.17; see also fasces, haruspices Feriae Latinae, the (Latin festival), 3.9,
Eudemus of Pergamum, 8.14 13.14, 13.42, 13.55, 15.27, 15.50, 15.71
Eumenes II, king of Pergamum (197–158), festivals, 3.8–9, 3.23, 3.71–74, 5.35, 6.17,
5.30–31 7.39, 7.70, 7.77–86, 11.37, 12.28, 12.52,
eunuchs, 14.52 (Egyptian), 3.62, 14.49 (of 12.69, 12.84, 14.10, 14.63, 15.1, 15.110,
Magna Mater), 15.91 15.114, 16.29; see also aediles, games,
Eunus (leader of slave revolt), 6.48 Bona Dea, Caristia, Compitalia, Feriae
evocatio, 3.57–8, 14.53, 16.22; see also Latinae, Fortuna Muliebris, Liberalia,
religious practices Lupercalia, Matralia, Matronalia,
extortion, 2.64, 5.48, 5.55, 5.68–9, 5.71–2, Melinno of Lesbos, Parilia, Pudicitia,
6.13, 8.28, 9.28, 10.5, 12.6, 12.20, Quirinalia, Robigalia, Saturnalia,
12.25, 12.48, 12.60, 13.54; see also supplicatio, Titeia, Veneralia, Vinalia,
provincial government, Verres ludi Apollinares, ludi victoriae Caesaris
fetials, the, 3.14, 15.1, 15.83
Fabius Hadrianus, C. (governor of Africa Fifteen, the, 15.1, 15.19, 15.32–4, 15.87,
84–82), 5.74 16.9
Fabius Maximus, Q. (aed. 331), 7.42 Fimbria, see Flavius Fimbria
Fabius Maximus Aemilianus, Q. (cos. First Secession, the, see Conflict of the
145), 5.50, 7.3 Orders
Fabius Maximus Eburnus, Q. (cos. 116), ‘First Triumvirate’, the, 12.38–42, 12.70,
5.44 12.74, 12.76

836
 GENERAL INDEX
fish-breeding, see lampreys, piscinarii Furius Camillus, L. (cos. 338, 325), 1.65,
Flaccus, see Fulvius Flaccus, Valerius 3.58
Flaccus Furius Crassipes (second husband of
flamen dialis, 2.25, 3.19, 3.21, 15.20 Tullia), 7.26
flamines, 2.23, 3.6, 3.19, 3.74, 7.10, Furnius, C. (tr. pl. 50, ?praet. 42), 13.13,
13.1–2, 13.55, 15.106, 15.114, 15.117 13.36, 14.18
Flamininus, see Quinctius Flamininus
Flaminius, C. (cos. 223, 217), 3.53, 4.32 Gabinius, A. (tr. pl. 139), 2.42
flautists, 2.80, 3.26, 3.72 Gabinius, A. (tr. pl. 67, cos. 58), 12.8–9,
Flavius Cn. (aed. 304), 1.55 12.50, 12.52–4, 12.60, 12.77–8, 14.1,
Flavius, L. (tr. pl. 60), 12.36–8, 12.44, 14.34
12.60 Gabinius, Catilinarian conspirator, 12.19,
Flavius Fimbria, C. (cos. 104), 10.27, 12.22
11.7–8 Gaius, see C. Julius Caesar
foedus Cassianum, the, 1.27 Galba, see Sulpicius Galba
Fonteius (adoptive father of Clodius), Gallic sack of Rome, 1.2, 1.62, 5.2, 5.10,
12.62 7.90, 16.7
foreign cults, 3.57–67 Gallic War, the, 2.31, 2.52, 2.61–2, 5.17,
Fortuna Muliebris, 7.84, 15.22 6.10–11, 12.45–6, 12.65–69, 12.71,
Fortuna Redux, altar of, 15.1, 15.4, 15.8 12.73, 12.82, 12.85–91, 13.7, 13.10–12,
forum Boarium, 1.2, 3.33, 4.38, 7.85 13.26, 13.71, 16.4; see also Britain, C.
Forum Gallorum, battle of, 14.17 Julius Caesar, Gaul
forum Julium, the, 2.79, 15.81 Gallus, see Cornelius Gallus
forum Romanum, the, 1.2, 1.5–8, 2.3, 2.43 Games, 2.8, 2.35, 2.39, 2.69–70, 2.73,
freedmen, freedwomen, 1.37–8, 1.55, 2.75–7, 2.80, 3.56, 3.58, 3.61, 3.73,
6.2, 6.17, 6.18, 6.51–65, 7.1, 7.5, 7.13, 5.59, 12.7, 12.28–9, 12.52, 12.60, 13.59,
7.24, 7.29, 7.33, 7.39, 7.50, 7.63, 7.73, 14.32, 15.1, 15.5, 15.11, 15.13, 15.19,
7.75, 10.17, 11.12, 11.30–1, 11.40, 15.32–4, 15.38, 15.40, 15.56–7, 15.68,
12.58, 13.46, 13.55, 15.28, 15.59–61, 15.71, 15.82, 15.103, 15.106–7, 15.112,
15.67–8, 15.78, 15.109, 15.112, 16.27; 15.114; see also aediles, festivals,
freedmen’s ‘liberty cap’, 4.59, 6.56, gladiators, ludi
13.74; see also Chrysogonus, Publilius Gauda (grandson of Masinissa), 9.7
Syrus, Statius, Terence, Tiro Gaul, Gauls, 1.62, 1.70–71, 4.49–50, 5.32,
Fufius Calenus, Q. (cos. 47), 7.74 6.10–11, 7.38, 7.61, 7.75, 9.14–19,
Fulvia (informant of Cicero), 12.15–16 12.19–20, 12.26, 12.66–8, 12.73, 12.82,
Fulvia (wife of Clodius, Curio and Mark 12.85–91, 13.7–8, 13.10–11, 13.16,
Antony), 7.75, 14.20–1, 14.29–31, 13.20–1, 13.26–30, 13.32, 13.34–5,
14.40, 14.43, 14.49, 15.42, 15.69, 16.28 13.38, 13.52–3, 13.55, 13.64, 13.71,
Fulvius Flaccus, M. (cos. 125; tr. pl. 122), 14.13, 14.15, 14.20, 14.27, 15.6, 15.17,
8.18, 8.19, 8.28, 8.30, 8.32–3, 8.40, 15.58, 15.106, 15.110, 16.26; see also
10.2, 10.6 Allobroges, Gallic War, Helvetii, Nervii
Fulvius Nobilior, M. (cos. 189), 16.23 Gegania (a wealthy and impressionable
funerary practices, 1.43, 1.69, 2.79, 3.77– woman), 7.71
81, 12.77, 13.1, 13.46, 13.59, 15.82, Gellius, Aulus (antiquarian), 16.2, 16.17,
15.109, 16.23, 16.29; funerary eulogies, 16.21, 16.23; and see Index of Sources
2.28–9, 3.76, 7.23, 7.35, 7.37; funerary Gellius Publicola, L. (cos. 36), 14.26
feasts, 2.79, 3.80; games, 2.3, 2.75, Genetiva Julia, Caesarian colony, see Urso
2.78–80, 3.80, 6.34; see also gladiators, Genucian laws, the, 1.50
imagines Genucius, L. (tr. pl. 342), 1.50

837
 GENERAL INDEX
German tribes, see Gallic War, Gauls haruspex, haruspices, 3.4, 3.40, 3.43, 7.85,
Germanicus, see Julius Caesar, 8.30, 9.6, 12.26, 12.62, 13.69, 15.74; see
Germanicus also divination
Germans, Germany, 16.9, 15.107–11, Hasdrubal (Carthaginian commander
16.10, 16.26 149–146), 4.63–4
Glabrio, see Acilius Hasdrubal (son of Gisgo), 4.44
gladiators, gladiatorial spectacles, 2.3, Hasdrubal (son-in-law of Hamilcar,
2.35, 2.39, 2.75–6, 2.78–80, 3.79, 6.34, commander in Spain 229–221 BC),
6.50, 7.58, 9.21, 12.18, 12.52–3, 12.60, 4.17, 4.23, 4.24, 4.25, 4.27, 4.28
12.79, 13.1, 13.59, 15.1, 15.19, 15.61, Hasdrubal Barca (brother of Hannibal),
15.64 4.44, 4.49, 4.50
Glaphyra, mother of Archelaus IV of Helvetii, the, 12.66–7; see also Gallic
Cappadocia), 14.30 War
Glaucia, see Servilius Glaucia Herennius, C. (tr. pl. 60), 12.6, 12.37,
gloria, 2.25–31, 2.38, 3.77, 4.47, 8.9, 8.12, 12.48
9.12–13, 12.3, 12.12, 12.30–1, 12.33, Herennius (centurion and executioner of
12.40–2, 12.70, 12.73, 12.85, 13.24, Cicero), 14.21
13.27, 13.36, 13.38, 13.40, 13.44, 13.55; Herod the Great (king of Judaea 37–4 BC),
see also triumph 14.33, 15.47, 15.66, 15.115, 16.16
gods, worship of, see Argei, augurs, Hiempsal of Numidia, 9.6–7, 11.15
Augustus (and imperial cult), auspices, Hiero, tyrant of Syracuse (c. 271–216),
dedications, devotio, divination, 4.7, 4.8, 4.17, 5.68
evocatio, flamines, foreign cults, Hieronymus of Cardia (historian), 16.11
haruspices, pontiffs, priesthoods, Hirtius, A. (cos. 43), 13.64, 14.4, 14.9,
religious practices, Salii, temples, 14.17, 14.21, 14.23, 14.49, 14.63, 15.1,
Vestals 15.117, 16.4
Gracchus, see Sempronius Gracchus Hispala Fecenia (freedwoman), 3.65, 7.63
graffiti, 2.40, 7.54, 8.9, 8.33, 10.16; and Homeric poems, the, 15.90, 16.23, 16.26
see sling-shots homosexuality, 1.6, 3.65, 5.63, 6.59,
grain distribution, grain supply, 8.28–9, 7.57–61, 8.22, 12.18, 12.89, 14.49,
9.28, 9.38, 11.35, 11.45, 12.2, 12.27, 15.25; see also luxury, prostitutes
12.52, 12.54, 12.56, 12.63–5, 12.70, Horatius Barbatus, M. (cos. 449), 1.46
13.56, 13.59, 14.66, 15.1, 15.76–7, Horace (Q. Horatius Flaccus, poet),
15.85 15.32–3, 15.42, 15.90–1, 15.93, 15.98,
Granius Stabilio, A. (freedman), 6.63 16.14, 16.26, 16.27, 16.28, 16.29
Gratidianus, see Marius Gratidianus Hortensia (daughter of Q. Hortensius
Greek cities in Italy, 1.66, 1.73–4, 4.43, Hortalus), 7.75–6
4.48, 10.22 Hortensius, Q. (dict. 287), 1.57, 1.58
groves, sacred, 3.10–11, 3.28, 3.74; 15.74 Hortensius Hortalus, Q. (cos. 69), 2.24,
(for triumphal crowns) 2.67, 7.75, 10.18, 12.6, 12.8, 12.11,
guardianship, 1.35, 1.38, 7.5, 7.10, 7.37, 12.27, 12.55
7.63, 7.67, 7.90, 15.30 Hortensius Hortalus, Q. (praet. ?45),
guilds, see collegia 14.25–6
hospitium, 2.56–7
Hamilcar Barca (father of Hannibal), 4.16, Hostilius Mancinus, C. (cos. 137), 5.50,
4.17, 4.18, 4.21, 4.22, 4.25, 16.13 8.7–8
Hannibal, (Carthaginian general 247– Hostilius, Tullus (third king of Rome,
183/2), 4.21–55, 5.4, 5.10, 5.30, 5.54, 672–641), 3.8
6.1, 16.1, 14.48, 16.7, 16.13 Hostius Pamphilus, C. (freedman), 6.60

838
 GENERAL INDEX
household, housing, 2.20, 5.66, 6.14–16, Julia (daughter of Julius Caesar), 2.79,
6.18–24, 6.39, 7.95; see also family, 12.41, 12.45, 12.79, 12.81, 12.89
slaves Julia ‘the Elder’ (daughter of Augustus),
humour, Roman, 2.76, 2.77, 3.53, 4.57, 15.24, 15.31, 15.35, 15.38–9, 15.42,
5.3, 5.52, 6.27, 6.31–3, 7.20, 7.38, 7.46, 15.45–7, 15.50, 15.63–67, 15.100,
7.60, 7.74, 11.1, 12.25, 13.51, 13.54, 15.111, 15.112–13, 15.116, 16.16, 16.22
14.30, 15.64–6; see also Augustus, Julia ‘the Younger’ (granddaughter of
Lucilius, Plautus, M. Tullius Cicero Augustus), 15.31, 15.68, 15.96, 15.116,
Hyrcanus (Jewish high priest), 14.33, 16.8 16.29
hydra, Rome as, 1.75 Julius Caesar, C. (cos. 59, 48, 46–4, dict.,
pont. max.), 2.8 (lex Julia municipalis),
Ides of March, the, 3.43, 13.16, 13.66–9, 2.24 (lampreys), 2.35, 14.2 (triumphs),
13.74, 14.3, 14.11 14.14, 14.16; see also 2.52 (on friendship), 2.61–2 (as patron),
C. Julius Caesar, M. Tullius Cicero 2.62 (at Luca), 2.68 (as orator), 2.76
imagines, 2.27, 3.77, 16.23 (games as aedile), 2.79 (games held in
imperium, 1.13, 5.67–9, 11.17, 12.3, memory of Julia), 3.22, 13.73, 14.20
12.8–9, 12.11, 12.63–5, 13.10, 13.20, (pontifex maximus), 3.31 (calendar
13.38, 13.60, 13.62, 14.17; see also reforms), 3.36 (on druids), 3.43, 12.45
army (Roman), maius imperium, (omens on his death), 5.14 (and army
provincial government pay), 5.17, 6.10–11 (in Gaul), 6.2 (slave
India, 15.15, 15.95, 16.28 numbers), 6.13 (and the pirates), 6.13
Isis, 3.64, 14.43, 14.45 (prosecution of Dolabella), 6.13, 6.58
Italian allies, 4.19, 4.38, 4.41–4, 5.14, (education), 7.35 (and Marius), 7.45,
5.16, 5.68, 8.21, 8.24, 8.28–9, 8.40, 9.7, 7.60, 12.87 (sexual proclivities), 7.76
9.10, 9.12, 9.27, 10.1–3, 10.5–9, 10.26, (and kingship), 7.87 (and Pompeia),
10.29–31, 11.4, 11.12, 11.20, 12.2, 12.7, 9.30, 12.20 (and Rabirius), 11.40,
15.1, 16.4; see also Social War 13.34 (on Sulla), 12.2 (and Lepidus),
Italica, capital of Italy, 10.12, 10.18 12.20–1 (and Catiline), 12.24 (on
Italy, Rome’s conquest of, 1.27–8, 1.61– Cicero), 12.38–40 (in 60), 12.41–42
74; see also Samnites, Social War (and ‘First Triumvirate’), 12.43–53
Iulia, Iulius, see Julia, Julius (first consulship), 12.48, 12.55–6
Iunius, see Junius (and Clodius), 12.66–8, 12.71, 12.73,
ius auxilii, see tribunes of the plebs 12.85–12.91, 13.71, 16.5 (in Gaul
ius provocationis, see tribunes of the and Britain), 12.69–71 (conference
plebs of Luca), 12.70–4, 13.11 (extension
of the Gallic command from 55 BC),
Janus, temple of, 14.60, 14.63, 15.1, 15.39 12.78–91 (events of 54), 12.87, 13.34,
Jews, Judaea, 5.40, 12.11, 12.29–30, 13.49, 13.52–3, 13.62, 13.65, 14.20
12.82, 14.1, 14.33, 14.42, 15.42, 15.65– (clemency and magnanimity), 12.89,
6, 15.78, 15.108, 15.115, 16.8, 16.16 13.52, 13.63, 16.25 (invective against),
Josephus, Flavius, 16.8, 16.16; and see 13.8–9 (foundation of Novum Comum),
Index of Sources 13.7–12, 13.14–18 (opposition of
Judas Maccabaeus, 5.40 the optimates to the extension of his
Jugurtha (king of Numidia), Jugurthine command and second consulship),
War, 2.37, 5.51, 8.33, 9.3–4, 9.6–9, 13.20–5 (and the build-up to civil war),
9.12–13, 9.14, 9.16, 9.35, 11.13, 11.50, 13.26–34 (and civil war), 13.35 (loan to
12.22, 14.52, 16.5 Cicero), 13.36–7 (overtures to Cicero),
Julia (wife of C. Marius), 7.35, 9.5 13.38 (in Rome in 49), 13.42 (first
Julia, sister of Julius Caesar, 14.2 dictatorship), 13.61 (described by Sulla),

839
 GENERAL INDEX
13.45–6, 13.73 (defeat of Pompey), 13.68, 14.3, 14.10–11, 14.12–18, 14.23,
13.48 (events of 47), 13.49 (honours 14.49, 14.51
after Pharsalus) 13.50–5, 13.48, 14.43, Junius Brutus ‘Callaicus’, D. (cos. 138),
14.45 (and Cleopatra) 13.51–60, 13.73 5.50
(as dictator), 2.80, 13.60 (colony at Junius Pennus, L. (tr. pl. 126), 10.2
Urso), 13.61 (appearance), 13.62, Junius Pera, M. (dict. 216), 4.38, 4.39
16.5, 16.15 (character), 13.64 (literary Junius Silanus, M. (cos. 109), 9.14, 9.17,
abilities), 13.65 (intellect), 13.66–70, 9.19
13.74, 14.2–4, 14.6, 14.11, 14.14, 14.16, Junius Silanus, D., 15.31
14.20, 14.33, 16.16 (assassination), Juno Caprotina, festival of, 6.17
13.68, 14.1, 14.6, 14.8, 14.10, 15.1 jurors, see law-courts
(his will), 13.69 (omens on his death), Juventius (addressed by Catullus), 7.61
14.4–6, 14.9, 14.15 (his acta), 14.10,
14.24, 15.39 (posthumous honours), kings, of early Rome, 1.11, 1.29, 2.2,
14.11, 14.24 (ludi victoriae Caesaris), 16.4; fear of kings in Rome, 1.10–11,
14.24, 14.49, 15.81, 15.114 (deification 7.14, 8.14, 12.9, 13.55, 14.65; see also
and temple), 13.71–4 (coinage), 16.4, Ancus Marcius, Tullus Hostilius, Numa
16.11 (his writings); and see Octavian, Pompilius, Romulus, Servius Tullius,
Index of Sources Tarquinius Priscus, Tarquinius Superbus
Julius Caesar, C. (grandson of Augustus; king of the grove, see rex Nemorensis
cos. AD 1), 6.27, 15.1, 15.4, 15.50, Kleanax, prytanis of Kyme, 15.56
15.56, 15.63–4, 15.78, 15.81, 15.100–1, Knidos, 15.75
15.103–4, 15.106–7, 15.111, 15.113,
15.116, 16.9, 16.10 Labienus, T. (tr. pl. 63), 12.28, 14.35–6,
Julius Caesar, Germanicus (cos. AD 12), 14.42
15.23, 15.69, 15.71, 15.108, 15.111, lacus Curtius, the, 16.7
15.112 Laelia (daughter of C. Laelius, cos. 140),
Julius Caesar, L. (cos. 90), 10.13, 10.18 7.22
Julius Caesar, L. (uncle of Mark Antony, Laelius, C. (cos. 190), 5.21
cos. 64), 14.16, 14.21–2 Laelius ‘Sapiens’, C. (cos. 140), 5.49, 6.59,
Julius Caesar, L. (grandson of Augustus), 7.22, 8.6, 12.32, 16.24
15.1, 15.4, 15.50, 15.56, 15.63–4, 15.81, lampreys, 6.26
15.100, 15.104, 15.105, 15.111, 15.113, land-commission, Gracchan, 8.14,
15.116, 16.9 8.16–19, 8.21, 8.28
Julius Caesar Agrippa Postumus, M., land-commission, Julian, 12.44–7, 12.56,
15.64, 15.111, 15.116 16.17
Julius Caesar Strabo, C. (aed. 90), 2.67–8 Larcia Horaea (freedwoman), 6.65
Junian Latins, 15.59 Larcius Flavus, T. (first dictator, c. 498),
Junius Brutus, D. (cos. 77), 7.44 1.14, 11.43
Junius Brutus, L. (cos. 509), 1.11, 4.1, lares, the, 3.12, 6.36, 7.95, 15.20–1
7.14, 14.66 Latin festival, the, see Feriae Latinae
Junius Brutus, M. (praet. 44, assassin of Latins, the, 1.27–8, 1.63–4, 2.72, 3.8–9,
Caesar), 5.72, 6.58, 7.22, 7.45, 13.46, 3.18, 4.42, 8.28, 8.40, 9.7, 9.10, 9.12,
13.53, 13.66–7, 13.74, 14.3–4, 14.6, 9.27; Latin rights, 13.8–9
14.10, 14.15, 14.17, 14.20–3, 14.25–7, law-courts, 1.5–8, 2.38, 2.63–5, 2.67,
14.33, 14.36, 14.51, 14.63, 14.66, 15.3, 5.68, 6.13, 6.42, 7.6, 7.52, 7.76, 7.87,
15.5, 15.12, 15.88, 15.93, 15.117, 16.27 7.93, 8.19, 8.21, 8.28–9, 9.7, 9.15,
Junius Brutus Albinus, D. (consul 9.27–8, 10.5–6, 11.29, 11.34, 12.4,
designate for 42, assassin of Caesar), 12.6, 12.35, 12.37, 12.42, 12.44, 12.48,

840
 GENERAL INDEX
12.69–70, 12.77–8, 13.5–6, 13.28, Licinio-Sextian laws, the, 1.48
13.54, 15.10, 15.98; see also comitia, Licinius Calvus, C. (orator and poet), 7.34,
the Twelve Tables laws, see lex, 7.60
Canuleian, Genucian, Licinio-Sextian, Licinius Crassus, L. (cos. 95), 2.65, 5.60,
Valerio-Horatian 7.22, 10.2–3
lectisternium, 3.1, 3.15, 3.33, 3.56, 3.61, Licinius Crassus, M. (cos. 70, 55), 2.21,
14.63, 15.1 6.3, 11.24, 12.83 (personal wealth),
Lentulus, see Cornelius Lentulus (Crus, 6.50, 12.4–5 (and Spartacus), 11.12,
Marcellinus, Spinther, Sura) 11.15–16 (joins Sulla), 12.4–7 (first
Leonidas of Sparta, 16.2 consulship), 12.20 (and Catiline), 12.35
Lepidus, see Aemilius Lepidus (and the equites), 12.40–2, 12.44–5
Lesbia (lover of Catullus), 7.47–52, (and ‘first triumvirate’), 12.69–71
16.25 (conference of Luca), 12.72, 12.75–7,
lex annalis, see cursus honorum 12.85, 13.11 (second consulship),
lex Aelia Sentia, 15.61 12.82, 12.84, 13.13, 13.70, 15.108 (and
lex Fufia Caninia, 15.60 Parthian campaign), 16.15 (Plutarch’s
lex Gabinia, 12.8–9 view), 14.36, 15.1, 15.12, 15.95, 16.28
lex Hortensia, 1.23, 1.46, 1.51, 1.57–8 (recovery of lost standards)
lex Julia (90 BC), 10.21–3 Licinius Crassus, M. (cos. 30), 15.14
lex Julia agraria, 12.50, 12.43–7, 12.56, Licinius Crassus, P., 12.72, 12.80, 12.82,
12.70 12.84
lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, 15.23, Licinius Crassus Mucianus ‘Dives’, P.
15.25, 15.31, 15.62 (cos. 131, pont. max.), 7.69, 8.8, 8.11,
lex Julia de ambitu, 15.79 8.16–17, 8.33, 10.1
lex Julia de annona, 15.76 Licinius Lucullus, L. (cos. 151), 5.58
lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus, 15.23, Licinius Lucullus, L. (cos. 74), 2.22, 2.34,
15.26 2.64, 6.12, 7.64, 7.87, 11.5, 11.10–11,
lex Julia municipalis, 2.8, 13.59 12.3, 12.4, 12.8, 12.10–11, 12.27, 12.28,
lex Licinia Mucia, 10.2–3 12.36, 12.44, 12.51, 12.62, 12.82
lex Manilia, 2.22, 12.8, 12.10–12 Licinius Macer, C. (tr. pl. 73), 16.1, 16.7,
lex Ogulnia, 1.56 16.18
lex Oppia, 7.67, 16.7 Licinius Murena, L. (cos. 62), 5.5, 12.17
lex Papia Poppaea, 15.26, 15.28–30 Licinius Stolo, C. (tr. pl. 367, cos. 364 or
lex Plautia Papiria, 10.24 361), 1.48, 3.16, 8.6
lex Poetelia, 1.53 Licinius Varro Murena, L. (conspirator),
lex Titia, 14.20 15.38, 15.98, 15.117
lex Varia, 10.9 lictors, see fasces, magistrates (insignia
lex Villia annalis, 1.9, 9.16, 11.30 of )
lex Voconia, 7.11, 7.69, 15.27 literature, Greek, 2.22, 5.61–2, 5.65, 6.58,
Liberalia, the, 7.80, 14.4 7.44, 9.1–2, 9.6, 9.12, 12.27
liberation of Greece, the, 5.24–6 lituus, the, 3.50–1, 11.47
Libo, see Scribonius Libo Livia Drusilla (wife of Augustus), 14.38,
libri lintei, the, 16.1, 16.7 14.49, 14.63, 15.22, 15.23–4, 15.27,
libri pontificales, the, 16.1, 16.7 15.46, 15.64, 15.68–74, 15.81, 15.96,
Licinia (Vestal), 7.93 15.106, 15.111–12, 15.114, 15.117,
Licinia (wife of C. Gracchus), 7.69, 8.33 16.9, 16.10, 16.29
Licinia (wife of P. Cornelius Scipio Livilla, granddaughter of Livia, 15.103
Nasica), 7.22 Livius Andronicus, L. (poet and dramatist),
Licinia (wife of Ti. Claudius Asellus), 7.17 3.16, 5.65, 7.85

841
 GENERAL INDEX
Livius Drusus, M. (tr. pl. 122, cos. 112), Maecenas, C. ‘Cilnius’, 14.7, 14.36, 14.41,
8.3, 8.28, 8.30 14.49, 14.52, 15.70, 15.88–93, 15.95,
Livius Drusus, M. (tr. pl. 91), 8.28, 10.4–9, 15.98, 15.102, 15.116, 16.12, 16.26,
10.11, 16.6, 16.7, 16.9, 16.11 16.27, 16.28
Livius Drusus Claudianus, M. (father of magic, see witchcraft
Livia, praet. 50), 14.39, 15.69 magister equitum, see master of the horse
Livy (T. Livius), 15.14, 16.7; and see magistracies, 1.12–13, 1.50, 2.26–7, 2.30,
Index of Sources 3.48, 3.52, 11.22; insignia of, 1.10–11,
love, heterosexual, 7.47–56; see also 2.13, 3.4; see also aediles, bribery,
adultery, homosexuality, marriage consuls, dictator, fasces, imperium,
Lollius, M. (cos. 21BC), 15.32, 15.107, praetors, provincial government,
15.117 quaestors, tribunes
Luca, conference at, 2.62, 12.69–71 Magna Mater, the, 1.3, 2.37, 3.61–3, 3.67,
Lucera, Apulia, 3.10 7.30, 9.37, 14.49
Lucilius, C. (poet), 5.59, 6.4, 6.34, 6.45, Mago (brother of Hannibal), 4.44
7.56, 7.62, 16.24; and see Index of Mago (Carthaginian commander), 4.26
Sources maius imperium, 12.9, 14.3, 15.5–10,
Lucretius (T. Lucretius Carus, poet), see 15.48
Index of Sources Maharbal (son of Himilco), 4.39
Lucretius Afella, Q., 11.16 Mallius Maximus, Cn. (cos. 105),
Lucullus, see Licinius Lucullus 9.14–17
ludi, see games Mamertines, the, see First Punic War
ludi Apollinares, 14.24 Mamilius Limetanus, C. (tr. pl. 109), 8.34,
ludi Martiales, 15.71, 15,114 9.7
ludi Saeculares, the, 15.20, 16.27 Mamurra of Formiae (Caesar’s engineer),
ludi victoriae Caesaris, 14.11, 14.24 7.49, 12.89, 13.20, 13.63, 16.25
Lupercalia, the, 7.78, 13.55, 15.20 Mancinus, see Hostilius Mancinus
Lurius, M., 14.51 Manilius Antiochus (astronomer), 6.12
Lusitania, 5.47–50 Manilius, C. (tr. pl. 66), 2.22, 2.38, 12.8,
Lusius, C. (nephew of Marius), 7.43, 7.59 12.10–12
lustrum, the, 3.24, 3.27, 15.1, 15.32–3 Manlius Capitolinus, M. (cos. 392), 2.46
Lutatius Catulus, C. (cos. 242), 4.16, 4.17, Manlius Imperiosus, L. (dict. 363), 7.15
4.18, 4.27, 4.29 Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus, T. (cos.
Lutatius Catulus, Q. (cos. 102), 7.35, 9.13, 347, 344, 340), 1.9, 1.63, 1.64, 3.16,
9.23, 9.25, 11.19, 16.7 7.14
Lutatius Catulus, Q. (cos. 78), 6.12, 6.58, Manlius Vulso, Cn. (cos. 189), 5.55
10.25, 11.23, 11.42, 12.2, 12.9, 12.11, Manlius, C. (supporter of Catiline),
12.20, 13.50 12.16–17
luxury, 2.21–4, 5.57–9, 5.66, 7.67, manpower, Roman, 4.19–20, 4.38, 6.1; see
7.70–1, 8.3, 8.20, 8.22, 11.37, 12.18, also army, Roman
12.81, 12.89, 13.56; see also banquets, manumission, see freedmen
piscinarii, sumptuary legislation manus, 1.38, 7.2, 7.5, 7.9–11, 7.17, 7.37,
7.77; see also marriage, women
Macedon, 5.9, 5.22–3, 5.32–4, 5.58; see map, 5.56, 15.51
also Philip V, Perseus Marcella ‘the Elder’, see Claudia Marcella
Macedonia, Roman province, 14.2 Major
Macrobius (Ambrosius Theodosius Marcellus, see Claudius Marcellus
Macrobius), 16.22; and see Index of Marcia (Vestal), 7.93
Sources ‘Marcipors and Lucipors’, 6.16

842
 GENERAL INDEX
Marcius, Ancus (fourth king of Rome, Matius, C. (supporter of Caesar), 14.11
640–617), 1.1, 1.2, 3.14, 16.7 Matralia, the, 7.83, 16.29
Marcius Coriolanus, Cn. (conqueror of Matronalia, the, 7.79, 16.29
Coreoli, 493), 2.36, 5.1, 7.84, 8.4 Maximus, see Fabius Maximus
Marcius Philippus, L. (cos. 91), medicine, Roman, 2.17, 3.70, 5.61–2; see
10.6, 10.8 also Cato the Elder
Marcius Philippus, L. (step-father of Melinno ‘of Lesbos’, 5.35
Octavian, cos. 56), 12.70, 14.2, 14.6–7, Memmius, C. (consular candidate for 53),
14.9 12.76, 16.25
Marcius Philippus, L (step-brother of Memmius Clarus, A. (freedman), 6.64
Octavian, suff. cos. 38 BC), 15.81 Memmius Urbanus, A. (freedman), 6.64
Marius, C. (cos. 107, 104–100, 86), 2.54 Menenius Lanatus, Agrippa (cos. 503),
(as client of Herennii), 8.35, 9.10–11, 1.25, 2.32
9.21–3 (army reforms), 9.4–5, 9.22 (in Meniscus of Miletus, 10.25
Spain) 7.35, 9.5 (and Julius Caesar), Menogenes of Sardis, 15.101
7.43, 7.59 (on homosexuals), 9.1–3, Merula, see Cornelius Merula
9.8, 9.25 (background and education), Messalla Corvinus, see Valerius Messalla
9.4, 9.35, 14.48 (victories), 9.5 Corvinus
(marriage), 9.6–10, 16.5 (command in Messalla Rufus, see Valerius Messalla
Africa), 9.12–13 (and Sulla), 9.14, 9.16 Rufus
(triumph), 9.16–17, 9.23–8, 9.37, 10.20, Messius, C. (tr. pl. 57), 12.63
16.11 (and the Gauls), 9.28–31 (and Metella (wife of Sulla), 11.39
Saturninus), 9.32, 11.5 (and Mithridatic Metellus, see Caecilius Metellus (Celer,
command), 9.33 (exile), 9.34, 10.26–7, Nepos, Numidicus, Pius, Pius Scipio)
12.1 (last consulship), 9.36 (voting Metrobius (actor), 11.1, 11.39
reform), 9.36–8 (and coinage), 9.37 (and Micipsa, king of Numidia, 9.3, 9.6
Cybele), 10.18, 10.28 (and the Social Milo, see Annius
War), 16.9 (criticised by Tacitus) Minatius Magius of Aeculanum, 10.18,
Marius, C. ‘the Younger’ (cos. 82), 9.34, 16.10
10.28, 11.14, 11.16, 11.20, 11.23, 11.26, Minucia (Vestal Virgin), 7.91
12.27 Minucius Rufus, M. (cos. 221), 4.33
Marius, M. (quaestor of Teanum Minucius Rufus, M. (cos. 110), 9.14, 9.20
Sidicinum), 8.24 Misenum, treaty of, 14.37
Marius Gratidianus, M. (praet. 85, ?82), Mithridates VI of Pontus, 9.32, 10.28,
11.19 11.3–10, 11.13, 11.35, 11.47, 12.4, 12.8,
marriage, 3.42, 7.7–13, 7.20, 7.23, 12.10–11, 12.29, 12.32
7.28–34, 7.36–41, 8.1, 12.36, 12.41, Mithridatic Wars, the, 2.34, 2.60, 2.67,
12.45, 12.79–80, 15.23–30; see also 9.32, 10.18, 10.28, 11.3–10, 11.13,
betrothal, confarreatio, divorce, family, 11.35, 11.47, 12.4, 12.8, 12.10–11,
manus, women 12.29, 12.82; see also Lucullus, Pompey
Mars Ultor, temple of, 15.12, 15.18, 15.20, Mucia (wife of Pompey ‘the Great’), 7.45,
15.71, 15.81, 15.96 12.36
Marsi, the, 10.4, 10.7, 10.11–12, 10.14 Mucius Scaevola, P. (cos. 133), 8.11, 8.36
Martial (M. Valerius Martialis, poet), 14.30 Mucius Scaevola, Q. (cos. 95), 10.2–3,
Masinissa, king of Numidia (239–148), 10.5, 11.16
4.26, 4.52, 4.56, 4.58, 4.61, 9.6 Mummius ‘Achaicus’, L. (cos. 146),
master of horse, 1.13, 1.14, 1.18, 2.29, 5.41–3
4.33, 11.12, 13.57, 14.1, 14.34; see also Mummius, Q. (tr. pl. 133), 8.13, 8.14
M. Antony (‘Mucius’)

843
 GENERAL INDEX
Munatius Plancus, L. (cos. 42), 14.10, 15.38, 15.90, 15.113, 16.16, 16.26;
14.13, 14.18, 14.23, 14.50, 14.65, 15.13, 15.81, 15.90, 15.96, 15.113, 16.29
15.81, 15.112 (portico of)
Munatius Plancus Byrsa, T. (tr. pl. 52), Octavian (and see also Augustus), 14.2
13.1 (family and upbringing), 14.2 (eulogy
Munda, battle of, 13.55, 13.64 of his grandmother Julia), 13.57, 13.68,
Murdia (epitaph of), 7.23 14.2 (and Julius Caesar), 14.5–6, 14.8,
Murena, see Licinius Murena 14.10–15, 14.36–7, 14.40–1 (relations
Musa, freedman doctor, 6.66 with Antony), 14.6–7, 14.9 (takes the
Mutina, siege of, 14.17–8, 14.23 name Caesar), 13.68, 14.2, 14.6, 14.8
(Caesar’s will), 14.8–9, 14.11–12,
Naevius (poet), 16.23; and see Index of 14.14–18 (and Cicero), 14.13, 14.19,
Sources 14.21 (bounties to veterans), 7.37,
naval power, Roman, 4.6, 4.8–10, 4.16, 7.75, 14.19–23, 15.116–17 (and
10.25 the triumvirate), 14.20 (marriage to
nemus, see rex Nemorensis Clodia), 14.23, 14.25–7 (campaign
Nepos, see Cornelius Nepos against the liberators), 14.28–31,
Nervii, the, 2.31, 12.68; see also Gallic War 14.59, 15.1, 15.90, 15.93 (settlement
nexum, see debt-slavery of veterans), 14.30 (abuse of Fulvia),
Nicias of Athens, 6.2 14.38 (and Atticus), 14.39 (marriage to
Nicomedes IV of Bithynia (c.94–75/4), Scribonia), 14.39, 14.63, 16.9 (marriage
7.60, 11.3, 11.8 to Livia), 14.41 (granted tribunician
Nicopolis (mistress of Sulla), 11.1 sacrosanctity), 14.40, 15.117, 16.11
Nikolaos of Damascus, 15.3, 15.47, (defeat of Sextus Pompeius), 14.41,
15.115, 16.8, 16.16; and see Index of 14.61, 14.63, 15.4 (honours awarded),
Sources 14.49 15.98 (propaganda against),14.49
nobiles, 1.55, 2.40–44, 2.51, 3.76, 9.2–3, (love affairs), 14.50–4, 14.60 (battle
9.6, 9.24–5, 11.14, 11.16, 12.3, 12.45, of Actium), 14.58–62 (restorer of the
16.5; see also optimates republic), 14.64 (‘first settlement’ of),
nomenclator, 12.61 14.63 (triumph), 14.60, 14.63 (closing
Norbanus, C. (cos. 83), 11.12, 11.14, of temple of Janus), 16.26 (and Vergil),
11.20, 11.23 16.27 (and Horace), 14.62 (coinage),
novus homo, the, 1.55, 2.38, 2.44–45, 14.63, 14.65, 15.97 (named Augustus),
4.32, 4.35, 9.2–4, 9.6–9, 10.1, 15.83, 14.66 (assessment by Tacitus)
15.85, 16.5 Octavius, C. (father of Octavian), 14.2
Numa Pompilius (second king of Rome, Octavius, Cn. (cos. 87), 10.26
715–673), 3.5–6, 3.13–14, 3.48, 14.60, Octavius, M. (tr. pl. 133), 8.9, 8.13,
16.15 8.29
Numantia (Spain), 4.62, 5.50–3, 8.7–8, October horse, the, 3.73
9.3, 9.22, 16.24 Ogulnius Gallus, Q. (tr. pl. 300, cos. 269),
Numerius Atticus, senator, 15.114 1.56
Nymphe (epitaph of), 7.25 omens, see augurs, divination, Delphi,
haruspices
obnuntiatio, 3.75–6, 12.43, 12.45, 12.47, Opimia (Vestal), 7.89
12.54, 12.62, 12.78; see also augurs, Opimius, L. (cos. 121), 1.60, 8.28, 8.32–3,
auspices, magistracies 8.34, 9.7
Octavia Major (sister of Octavian), 14.2 Oppius, C. (tr. pl. 215), 7.67
Octavia Minor (sister of Octavian), 12.80, Oppius, C. (eques, friend of Julius Caesar),
14.2, 14.9, 14.40, 14.43, 14.46, 15.36, 13.34, 13.64, 14.12, 16.4

844
 GENERAL INDEX
optimates, 8.38, 8.40, 12.15, 12.21, pater patriae, 12.21, 12.24, 15.4; see also
12.27–8, 12.36–7, 12.41, 12.43–5, parens patriae
12.53, 13.1, 13.3–4, 13.15, 13.20, paterfamilias, 6.35, 7.1–3, 7.7, 7.9–10,
13.24, 13.43, 13.61; see also nobiles, 7.12–13, 12.27
M. Calpurnius Bibulus, M. Porcius Cato patria potestas, see potestas
(the Younger) patricians, 1.15, 1.17, 1.25, 1.29–30,
oracles, see divination 1.44–50, 1.54–56, 1.58, 2.54, 3.13, 3.52,
oratory, 2.65–9, 5.49, 5.60–1, 6.13, 6.18, 3.81, 7.77, 7.87; see also Conflict of the
8.3, 8.11–12, 8.22–3, 8.26–7, 8.29, Orders
8.31, 12.24, 13.64, 14.1; see also patrons, 1.37, 2.38, 2.50–1, 2.54–62, 7.1,
M. Tullius Cicero, Q. Hortensius 7.5, 7.13, 7.63, 15.28, 15.85; see also
Hortalus, education clientela, freedmen
Orestes, see Aurelius Orestes Paullus, see Aemilius Paullus
Ostia, 1.1–2 Pausanias (geographer), 16.3; and see
ovatio, the, 2.32, 6.50, 14.17, 14.41, 15.1; Index of Sources
see also triumph peafowl, 2.24
Ovid (P. Ovidius Naso, poet), 16.27, 16.29 pederasty, see homosexuality
Pedius, Q. (nephew of Julius Caesar, suff.
Pacideianus (gladiator), 6.34 cos. 43), 14.19
Paezon, eunuch, 6.6 Pergamum, 5.30–2, 5.41, 5.45, 8.14, 8.19,
palladium, see Trojan legend 10.1, 11.3, 11.7
Pannonia, 14.46, 16.10, 15.12, 15.50, Perperna, M. (cos. 130), 10.1
15.84, 15.108, 15.115, 15.116, 16.12 Perperna Veiento, M. (praet. c. 82), 6.50,
Pantheon, the, 15.39 12.2–4
Papiria (wife of L. Aemilius Paullus, cos. Perseus, king of Macedon (179–168),
182, 168), 7.70 5.32–4, 5.37
Papirius Carbo, C. (tr. pl. 131 or 130, cos. Perusia, siege of, 14.29–31, 14.49, 15.69,
120), 2.42, 8.6, 8.12, 8.18, 8.19, 8.20, 15.116, 16.28
8.30 Petreius, M. (Pompey’s legate), 13.42
Papirius Carbo, C. (tr. pl. 89), 10.24 Pharnaces, son of Mithridates VI, 13.48
Papirius Carbo, Cn. (cos. 85, 84, 82), Pharsalus, battle of, 13.28, 13.43–4, 13.46,
10.28, 11.12–14, 11.16–17, 11.20, 13.49–50, 13.53, 13.65, 13.72, 14.1,
11.23, 11.26 16.6; see also Civil War
Papirius Cursor, L. (cos. 326, 320, 319, philhellenism, 2.22, 2.74, 5.25, 5.54,
315, 313), 1.53, 1.67, 2.33, 5.3 5.54–66, 7.57; see also art, dress,
Papirius Paetus, L. (friend of Cicero), literature, luxury
13.51 Philinus of Acragas (historian), 4.4, 4.5, 16.1
Papius Mutilus, C. (Samnite leader), 10.18, Philip II of Macedon (359–336), 14.15,
10.29 Philip V of Macedon (238–179), 4.45, 5.9,
Papius Mutilus, M. (cos. AD 9), 15.27 5.22–24, 6.1
Paquius Scaeva, P., 15.83 Philippi, battle of, 14.26–7, 14.30, 14.33,
Parilia, the, 3.46, 3.73 14.49, 14.60, 14.63, 15.1, 15.81,
parens patriae, 13.55; see also pater patriae 15.116–17, 16.8, 16.27
parricide, 7.19, 11.24 Philippus, see Marcius Philippus
Parthia, Parthians, 2.21, 5.73, 12.75, 12.80, Philopoemen, general of Attalus II, 5.41
12.82, 12.84, 13.13, 13.18, 13.21–3, Phraates IV (king of Parthia 38–2 BC),
13.27, 13.55–7, 14.2, 14.7, 14.35–6, 15.1, 15.12, 15.18
14.41–7, 15.5, 15.12, 15.18, 15.95–6, Phraataces (Phraates V, king of Parthia, 2
15.103, 15.107–8, 16.10, 16.27, 16.28 BC–AD 4), 15.103, 16.10

845
 GENERAL INDEX
Picenum, 10.10–11, 10.13, 10.15, 10.16, republic), 12.3–4, 16.5 (and Sertorius),
11.15, 12.16, 12.36, 12.69 12.4–7, 14.19 (first consulship), 12.8–12
piracy, 1.1, 2.34, 6.13, 12.4, 12.8–9, 12.11, (extraordinary commands), 12.28
12.29–31, 12.65, 14.40, 15.1, 16.4, (honours in 63), 12.29–31, 13.65, 14.48
16.17; see also lex Gabinia, Sextus (his achievements in the east), 2.38,
Pompeius 11.32, 12.8, 12.12, 12.32–4, 12.37–40,
piscinarii, 2.22, 2.24, 12.37; see also 12.49, 12.52–3, 12.55–6, 12.58,
banquets, luxury 12.60, 12.62–3, 12.66, 12.70, 12.77
Piso, see Calpurnius Piso (and Cicero), 12.28, 12.36, 12.38–9,
Plancius, C. (aed. 54), 2.43 12.44 (and Cato), 12.36 (eastern
Plancus, see Munatius Plancus acta), 12.40–47, 12.52–3 (and ‘First
Plautius Silvanus, M. (cos. 2 BC), Triumvirate’), 12.49, 12.54–6, 12.60,
15.84 12.63 (and Clodius), 12.63–5, 12.70
Plautus (T. Maccius, dramatist), 1.6, (grain command), 12.69–71 (conference
6.24–5, 7.68, 12.25; and see Index of of Luca), 12.72, 12.53–7 (second
Sources consulship), 12.78–80 (events of 54),
plebiscites, see lex Hortensia 12.82, 13.7, 13.29–31, 13.42, 13.45
plebs, the, 1.59, 6.22, 16.11; see also (governorship of Spain), 13.1, 13.3–6,
Conflict of the Orders, populares 13.42 (sole consulship), 13.8 (patron of
Pliny the Elder (C. Plinius Secundus), the Transpadani), 13.10–12, 13.15–18
15.51, 15.91, 15.116, 16.2, 16.7, 16.20; (on the termination of Caesar’s
and see Index of Sources command), 13.20–5 (and the build-up to
Pliny the Younger (C. Plinius Caecilius civil war), 13.26–33, 13.34, 13.39–41,
Secundus), 16.7, 16.14 16.17 (and civil war), 13.40 (desire
Plotia (freedwoman), 6.62 for pre-eminence), 13.43–5 (weakness
Plutarch of Chaeronea, 16.4, 16.15; and of his forces), 13.46–7, 13.70, 14.48
see Index of Sources (death), 14.66, 16.9 (appraisal by
political alliances, see amicitia Tacitus)
Polybius of Megalopolis (historian), 4.59, Pompeius Magnus, Sex. (son of Pompey),
4.63, 5.38, 6.2, 6.30, 16.1–5, 16.6–7, 6.11, 6.12, 14.2, 14.6, 14.26–7, 14.29,
16.11; and see Index of Sources 14.36, 14.37, 14.39, 14.40–1, 14.43,
Polystratus of Carystus, 10.25 14.46, 14.49, 14.51–2, 14.66, 15.69,
pomerium, 1.3, 3.17, 3.21, 3.40, 3.64, 15.116–17
13.10, 13.57 Pompeius Rufus, Q. (cos. 88), 9.32,
Pompeia (wife of Julius Caesar), 7.87 10.19–20, 11.5
Pompeii, 2.11, 2.16, 2.40, 10.18, 15.37 Pompeius Rufus, Q. (tr. pl. 52), 13.1
Pompeius, Q. (cos. 141), 5.50 Pompeius Strabo, Cn. (cos. 89), 10.14–16,
Pompeius Magnus, Cn (Pompey ‘the 10.18–19, 10.23, 11.14, 11.15
Great’; cos. 70, 55, 52), 2.22 (comments Pompilius, see Numa Pompilius
on assets of Lucullus), 2.60 (as patron), Pomponia (wife of Q. Tullius Cicero), 7.39
2.66 (as orator), 2.73–4, 7.65 (his Pomponius Atticus, T. 12.27, 14.21, 14.38,
theatre), 3.75 (manipulates omens), 6.18 16.13; and see Index of Sources
(education), 6.50, 12.4 (and Spartacus), pons Sublicius, the, 3.7, 3.19, 8.32
6.12, 6.58 (freedmen), 6.58 (criticised pontifex maximus, the, 1.70, 2.23, 3.6,
by Sallust), 10.18, 10.23 (and Social 3.19, 3.22, 3.31, 3.56, 3.73, 4.38, 7.90,
War), 11.10, 12.10–12 (succeeds 8.15, 11.16, 12.20, 13.51, 13.58, 13.73,
Lucullus), 11.12, 11.14–17 (joins Sulla), 14.5, 14.20, 15.20, 15.50
11.18 (first triumph), 11.20 (executes pontiffs, 1.55–6, 1.70, 2.23, 2.80, 3.6,
Carbo), 12.1, 14.66 (and collapse of 3.19, 3.21, 7.75, 7.83, 7.88–91, 7.93,

846
 GENERAL INDEX
11.28, 12.63, 15.16, 15.19, 15.71, 15.78, portents, see divination
15.106; see also priesthoods Posidonius (historian), 6.2, 6.30, 16.6,
Pontius Aquila, L. (tr. pl. 45), 13.55 16.11
Pontius Telesinus (Samnite leader), 10.18, Posilla Senenia (epitaph), 7.24
10.28 Postumius Albinus, A. (historian, cos.
Popillius Laenas, C. (cos. 172, 158), 5.36 151), 16.3
Popillius Laenas, M. (cos. 139), 5.50 Postumius Albinus, L. (cos. 154), 7.17
Popillius Laenas, P. (cos. 132), 8.19, 8.29, Postumius Albinus, Sp. (cos. 186), 3.65–6
8.34 Postumius Albinus, Sp. (cos. 110), 8.34,
Popillius (executioner of Cicero), 14.21–2 9.7
Poppaedius Silo (Marsic leader), 10.4, potestas, 3.65, 6.41, 7.1–5, 7.10, 7.12–15,
10.7, 10.12, 10.18, 10.29, 11.15 7.17, 15.25
Poppaeus Secundus, Q. (cos. AD 9), 15.27 praefectus fabrum, the, 13.34, 14.55, 15.78
populares, 8.38, 12.54; see also Ti. praetors, role of, 1.13, 1.18, 1.52, 11.34,
Sempronius Gracchus (tr. pl. 133), C. 15.5; see also magistracies, Verres
Sempronius Gracchus, M. Livius Drusus prestige, see gloria
(tr. pl. 91), L. Appuleius Saturninus, L. priestesses, see Vestals
Sergius Catilina, C. Julius Caesar, P. priesthoods, 1.47, 1.56, 2.23, 3.6, 3.19–22,
Clodius Pulcher 11.28, 15.1, 15.100, 15.111; see also
Porcius Cato, C. (tr. pl. 56), 12.69, 12.72 Arval brothers, fetials, the Fifteen,
Porcius Cato, L. (cos. 89), 10.18 flamens, pontifex maximus, pontiffs,
Porcius Cato, M. ‘the Elder’ (cos. 195, Salii, Vestals
cen. 184), 1.17, 7.18, 7.20, 7.58, 7.67 princeps iuventutis, 15.1, 15.100, 15.101,
(censorship), 2.15–16, 6.35–8 (on 15.105, 15.1–6, 15.111
farming), 6.6, 6.38 (on slave prices), princeps senatus, 1.9, 2.37, 6.6, 7.58, 9.30,
2.17 (on cabbage), 2.14, 2.36, 7.58 (on 11.12, 11.26, 11.32, 15,1; see also M.
traditional values), 2.19 (mercantile Aemilius Scaurus (cos. 115), Augustus,
ventures), 2.63 (on law-suits), 3.23, M. Calpurnius Bibulus, L. Valerius
3.28, 3.34–5, 3.46, 3.54, 3.70–1 (on Flaccus (cos. 100)
religious rites), 4.61 (on Carthage), 5.9 prison, public, 9.13, 12.22, 12.36, 12.38,
(as general), 5.37 (supports Rhodians), 12.45, 12.53
5.38 (supports Achaean exiles), 5.46 Propertius, Sextus (poet), 15.90, 16.27,
(in Spain), 5.49 (attacks Galba), 16.28; and see Index of Sources
5.57–8, 7.67 (on luxury), 5.60–3, 9.1 proscriptions, 2.21, 2.56, 6.12, 6.23, 7.37,
(on Greeks), 5.62, 7.21 (on education), 7.75, 11.19–25, 11.28, 11.40, 11.42–3,
6.35–8 (on treatment of slaves), 7.11 12.2, 12.14, 12.24, 13.20, 13.34, 13.39,
(support for Voconian law), 7.18 13.57, 14.20–2, 14.36, 14.66, 15.116–17
(on wine and adultery), 7.20–1, 7.67 prostitutes, 5.52, 6.12, 7.52, 7.58–59,
(family life), 7.21 (on education), 7.57 7.62–4, 7.81–2, 8.22, 11.1, 11.39, 12.18,
(dress), 2.43, 5.49, 16.2, 16.5, 16.18 16.29; see also actresses, homosexuality
(his Origines), 16.15 (Plutarch on), 15.3 provincial government, 2.31, 2.43, 2.61,
(eulogy of); and see Index of Sources 5.67–74, 6.53, 8.22, 8.24, 8.28, 13.7,
Porcius Cato, M. ‘the Younger’ (tr. pl. 62, 13.10, 13.15, 13.19–20, 14.5, 14.64,
praet. 54), 2.36, 3.75, 5.72, 5.73, 7.13, 14.66, 15.5–6, 15.108; see also extortion
7.45, 10.4, 12.17, 12.21, 12.27, 12.28, provocatio, see tribunes of the plebs
12.35–6, 12.38–9, 12.44–5, 12.55, Prusias I, king of Bithynia (c. 230–182),
12.57–9, 12.72, 12.75–6, 13.4, 13.15, 4.54, 5.23
13.19, 13.24, 13.28, 13.38, 13.62, 13.64, Ptolemy of Cyprus, brother of Ptolemy XII
13.67, 16.5, 16.15 Auletes, 12.57–9

847
 GENERAL INDEX
Ptolemy VI Philometor (180–145), 5.36, Quinctius Flamininus, L. (cos. 192), 5.28,
5.39 7.58
Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (170–116), 5.39, Quinctius Flamininus, T. (cos. 198), 5.9,
8.1 5.24–26, 7.58
Ptolemy XII Auletes (80–51), 12.47, 12.69 quindecemvirs, see the Fifteen
Ptolemy XIII (63–47), 13.46, 14.34, 14.45 Quintilia (wife of C. Licinius Calvus), 7.34
Ptolemy XIV (47–44), 14.45 Quirinalia, the, 12.69
Ptolemy XV, see Caesarion Quirinius, see Sulpicius Quirinius
Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of Cleopatra
and Antony, 14.43, 14.46, 15.115 Rabirius, C. (defended by Cicero), 9.30
public servants, 1.55, 2.12, 2.80, 11.33, Ramnes, Luceres, Tities (tribes of early
12.57 Rome), 1.13, 1.19
public works, 2.1–11; see also Augustus, ‘raven’, the, 4.9
C. Julius Caesar, C. Sempronius Regulus, see Atilius Regulus
Gracchus, M. Vipsanius Agrippa religious practices, Roman, 3.1–82, 4.38,
publicani, 2.38, 5.70–2, 8.28, 10.5, 11.4, 6.37, 7.95, 13.55, 15.1, 15.19–22,
11.9–10, 11.36, 12.19, 12.27, 12.35, 15.32–4, 15.53–8; see also Argei, Arval
12.38, 12.44, 12.47, 13.20; see also brothers, augurs, auspices, dedications,
businessmen, equites devotio, divination, evocatio, fetials,
Publicia (wife of Cn. Cornelius), 7.72 festivals, flamens, flautists, foreign cults,
Publicius Malleolus (matricide), 7.19 games, gods, haruspices, lectisternium,
Publicola, see Gellius Publicola priests, sacrifices, Salii, suovetaurilia,
Publilia (second wife of Cicero), supplicatio, temples, Vestals
7.40, 7.74 rex Nemorensis, 3.11, 15.91
Publilius Philo, Q. (cos. 339, 327, 320, Rhodes, 5.31, 5.37
315), 1.51–2, 1.65 roads, Roman, 2.5–8, 6.46, 8.28–9, 13.1,
Publilius Syrus (mime-writer), 6.12, 6.21 13.33, 15.81; see also Appian Way,
Pudicitia, the, 7.77 Sacred Way
Pulcher, see Claudius (Clodius) Pulcher Robigalia, the, 3.74, 16.29
Punic War, the First, 3.53, 4.5–18, 16.2, Roma, goddess, 15.53–4
16.3, 16.18, 16.23 Rome, location of, 1.1–4; constitution of,
Punic War, the Second, 3.33, 4.19–60, 1.59–60; conquest of the Mediterranean,
5.10, 5.54, 6.1, 6.8, 6.59, 7.75, 12.3, 5.1–74; early history of, 1.1–75, 5.6,
12.42, 16.1, 16.3, 16.7, 16.15, 16.23; see 16.9; infrastructure of, 1.5, 2.1–4, 2.8,
also Hannibal, Scipio Africanus 8.28, 15.1, 15.39–40, 15.52, 15.81,
Punic War, the Third, 3.56, 4.61–4, 16.11 15.117; see also army, forum Romanum,
Puteoli, treaty of, see Misenum, treaty of Ostia, pomerium, roads, Servian wall,
Pydna, battle of, 3.42, 5.33, 16.3 Tiber
Pyrrhus of Epirus (319–272 BC), 1.74–5, Romulus (first king of Rome), 1.3, 1.4,
4.3, 14.48 2.54–5, 3.47–8, 4.62, 7.12, 7.14, 7.51,
12.9, 12.38, 12.89, 14.48, 14.65, 15.36,
quaestiones, see law-courts 15.50, 15.96–7, 15.114, 16.1, 16.29
quaestors, quaestorship, 1.13, 1.59, 2.7, Roscius (actor), 6.6, 6.33, 11.39
2.43, 4.4, 8.7–8, 11.33, 12.4–5, 12.9, Roscius, Sex., of Ameria, 2.56, 6.42,
12.57 11.24–5
Quinctilius, P. (cos. 13 BC), 15.48, rostra, the, 1.64, 2.29, 3.49, 3.63, 3.77,
15.107–11, 16.14 14.21, 14.41, 14.53
Quinctius Cincinnatus, L. (cos. 460; dict. Rubicon, the, 13.26–7, 14.19
458, 439), 2.12, 2.13 Rubrius, ?C. (tr. pl. 122), 8.30

848
 GENERAL INDEX
Rufus, see Caelius Rufus seers, see divination
Rullus, see Servilius Sempronia (sister of Ti. and C. Gracchus),
Rupilius, P. (cos. 132), 6.48, 8.19 8.1, 8.21
Rutilius Lupus, P. (cos. 90), 10.18 Sempronia (wife of D. Junius Brutus, cos.
Rutilius Rufus, P. (cos. 105), 8.28, 9.10, 77), 7.44. 7.76
9.15, 9.21, 9.29, 9.30, 10.5, 15.3, 16.5 Sempronia Moschis (epitaph), 7.32
Sempronius Gracchus, C. (tr. pl. 123, 122),
Sabines, the, 1.19, 1.25, 2.32, 3.2, 3.8, 4.19 2.6 (public works), 8.26–7 (as orator),
Sacra via, the, see Sacred War 5.63 (lifestyle), 5.70 (and publicani),
Sacred Way, the 1.5, 3.73, 14.36, 16.28 6.56 (grain law), 8.1, 8.31 (family), 8.3,
sacrifices, 2.72, 3.5, 3.7–10, 3.10, 8.26–7 (as orator), 8.9 (on his brother),
3.23–4, 3.26–8, 3.32–6, 3.41, 3.73–4, 8.13, 8.16–19 (land commissioner),
4.38, 4.49, 6.17, 7.10, 13.69, 14.37, 8.22–41, 10.5–6, 11.29, 11.32 (his
15.16, 15.32, 15.34, 15.56–7, 15.82, tribunates), 16.9 (appraisal by Tacitus)
15.105–6; see also divination, Druids, Sempronius Gracchus, Ti. (master of horse
festivals, flautists, haruspices, singers, 216, cos. 215, 213), 4.38, 6.1, 8.1
suovetaurilia, ver sacrum Sempronius Gracchus, Ti. ‘the Elder’(cos.
Saguntum, see Hannibal, Second Punic 177, 163), 3.40, 5.9, 5.56, 8.1, 8.7, 8.37
War Sempronius Gracchus, Ti. (tr. pl. 133),
Salii, the, 1.56, 3.5–6, 3.8, 3.13, 3.19, 3.51, 5.50 (in Spain), 8.1, 8.3–4, 8.6–15,
7.79, 15.1 8.16–19, 8.20–1, 8.25, 8.29, 8.35–41,
Sallust (C. Sallustius Crispus, historian), 16.9, 16.11
6.58, 16.5; and see Index of Sources Sempronius Tuditanus, C. (cos. 129),
Samnites, the, 1.66–74, 2.9, 2.12, 2.33, 8.20–1, 16.3
3.72, 5.2–3, 5.8, 6.7, 8.7, 10.11–12, senate, 1.11, 1.59–60, 4.40, 8.28–9,
10.16, 10.19–20, 10.27–8, 11.16; term 10.6, 11.5, 11.28–9, 13.56; see also
for gladiators, 2.78–80, 6.34; see also Augustus, magistracies, Rome (early
Social War history of)
Sardinia, 4.17, 4.21, 4.22, 4.65, 5.56, 5.66, senatus consultum ultimum, the, 1.60,
8.22, 12.2, 12.70, 16.23 8.32–3, 9.30, 12.17, 12.22, 13.1, 13.24
Saturnalia, the, 3.8, 3.71, 5.59, 6.36, 15.65, Sergius Catilina, L. (Catiline), 7.44, 7.86,
16.22 10.23, 11.19, 12.14–23, 12.32, 12.35,
Saturninus, see Appuleius Saturninus 14.2, 16.5; see also Cicero
Saufeius, C. (quaestor 99), 9.30–1 serpents, 3.59, 4.12, 8.1
Scaevola, see Mucius Scaevola Sertorius, Q. (praet. ?85, rebel in Spain),
Scaurus, see Aemilius 6.50, 11.17, 11.23, 12.2–4
Scipio, see Cornelius Scipio Servian wall, the, 1.2, 2.5
Scribonia, wife of Octavian, 14.39, 14.49, Servilia (half-sister of Cato the Younger),
15.64 7.45, 13.67, 14.26, 16.15
Scribonius Curio, C. (cos. 76), 7.60 Servilius, Q. (propraet. 91), 10.10–11,
Scribonius Curio, C. (tr. pl. 50), 2.66, 10.13
12.50–53, 12.69, 13.9, 13.13–17, 13.20, Servilius Caepio, Q. (cos. 140), 5.50
13.22–5, 14.1 Servilius Caepio, Q. (cos. 106), 9.14–19
Scribonius Libo, L. (cos. 34), 14.37 Servilius Caepio, Q. (half-brother of Cato
Second Macedonian War, the, 5.22–3; see the Younger), 10.4, 10.18
also Philip V of Macedon Servilius Caepio, Q. (quaestor 100), 9.28,
Second triumvirate, the, 1.18, 6.12, 6.23, 9.38
7.75, 14.19–54, 14.66, 15.1, 15.116–17, Servilius Casca, P. (assassin of Caesar, tr.
16.26, 16.28 pl. 43), 14.12

849
 GENERAL INDEX
Servilius Geminus, Cn. (cos. 217), 2.51, 6.24–5 (in drama); 6.27, 6.66–72 (and
4.32, 4.35, 16.23 imperial household); see also actors,
Servilius Glaucia, C. (praet. 100), 9.28–31, homosexuality, prostitutes, debt-slavery
16.11 sling-shots, 10.16, 14.31
Servilius Isauricus, P. (cos. 48), 13.42 Social War, the, 3.38, 9.34, 10.1–31,
Servilius Rullus, P. (tr. pl. 63), 5.67, 8.39, 11.16, 16.8, 16.10, 16.11; see also
12.13, 12.24, 12.42, 13.14 Italian allies
Servius, see Tullius, Servius sewers, see sodales, sodalities, 2.43, 2.48, 15.86–7
Rome, infrastructure of soothsayers, see diviners
Seven for religious feasts, the, 15.1, 15.13, Sorex (actor), 11.39
15.19, 15.84, 15.86 Sosius, C. (cos. 32), 14.37, 14.51
Sextius Sextinus Lateranus, L. (tr. pl. 367, Spain, 2.61, 4.21–9, 4.40, 4.44, 4.52, 5.9,
cos. 366), 1.48, 1.49, 3.50 5.46–53, 6.8, 10.23, 11.17, 12.2–4,
Sextus Pompeius, see Pompeius Magnus, 12.29, 12.38, 12.39, 12.71 12.75–6,
Sex. 12.82, 12.89, 13.7, 13.29–30, 13.42,
Sibylline Books, the, 3.15, 3.33, 3.38–9, 13.57, 13.60, 13.64, 14.2, 16.2, 16.3,
3.52, 3.59, 3.61, 4.38, 7.30, 11.28, 16.5, 16.11. 16.17, 16.27; see also
12.69, 13.55, 14.24, 15.20, 15.32–4; see Numantia, silver mines
also divination Sparta, 4.13
Siccius Dentatus, L. (tr. pl. 494), 1.25, Spartacus, 6.49–50, 12.4–5, 14.2, 16.11
5.10 Spoleta, Umbria, 3.10
Sicilian slave revolts, 2.64, 6.46, 6.48–9, spoils of war, 1.73, 2.33–5, 2.60, 2.62,
9.29, 16.6 2.79, 4.46, 4.59, 5.7, 5.10, 5.21, 5.34,
Sicily, 1.74, 2.43, 2.57, 4.1–4, 4.46–7, 5.41, 5.55–7, 6.8–9, 9.12, 9.25,
5.68, 10.24, 12.53, 13.20; see also Punic 12.29–30, 12.44, 12.67–8, 12.73, 12.87,
Wars, Sicilian slave revolts, Verres 13.29, 13.43–4; see also slaves, triumph
Sicinius (tr. pl. 494), 1.25 spolia opima, 4.46, 5.7, 15.14, 15.36
siege works, Roman, 5.17, 5.53 Spurinna (soothsayer), 13.69
Silanus, see Junius Silanus Spurius Ligustinus (centurion), 5.9, 16.7
silver mines, 2.21, 4.23, 6.30, 16.6; see Staberius Eros (teacher), 6.12, 6.58
also Spain Statilius Taurus, T. (suff. cos. 37), 15.81
singers (at public sacrifices), 15.82; see Statius (freedman of Q. Tullius Cicero),
also flautists 6.53, 7.39
slaves, 1.32, 1.38, 1.45, 2.20–1, 3.11, 3.36, Strabo, 15.51; and see Index of Sources
3.38, 3.6.9, 3.71, 6.1–56, 7.4, 7.11, 7.21, Suetonius (C. Suetonius Tranquillus),
7.39, 7.43, 7.63, 7.71, 7.73, 7.75, 7.92, 15.73, 16.4, 16.14, 16.26, 16.27; and see
8.5–6, 8.9–10, 8.13, 8.20, 8.22, 9.31, Index of Sources
9.34, 11.6, 11.7, 11.9–10, 11.30, 12.38, Sulla, see Cornelius Sulla
12.53, 12.72, 13.1, 13.44, 13.55, 13.74 Sulpicia (dedicator of a statue of Venus
13.69, 14.11, 14.22, 14.49, 15.1; 280 Verticordia), 7.30
(public); 2.14, 5.57–8, 6.6, 6.23, 6.33, Sulpicia (poet), 7.53
6.38, 7.29, 7.71, 7.73, 7.81, 7.89–90 Sulpicius Galba, Ser. (cos. 144), 5.48–9,
(prices of); 1.61, 4.36, 4.38, 5.34, 5.53, 16.2
5.55, 6.7–11, 6.40, 6.56 (acquired Sulpicius Gallus, P. (cos. 166), 5.49, 7.57,
in war); 6.1 (used in army); 6.41–4 16.21
(legal position of); 6.46, 6.48–50, 7.44, Sulpicius Quirinius, P. (cos. 12 BC),
9.29, 9.33, 11.4, 12.4, 14.2, 15.59–61, 15.78
16.6 (revolts of); 6.42–4, 6.54, 7.91, Sulpicius Rufus, P. (tr. pl. 88), 9.32–3,
8.21, 15.61–2, 15.75 (torture of); 10.26, 11.5, 11.12, 11.32, 12.27

850
 GENERAL INDEX
Sulpicius Rufus, Ser. (cos. 51, Terentius Varro, M. (scholar), 2.24,
correspondent of Cicero), 6.47 6.39–40 (on farming), 14.12, 16.9,
Sulpicius Rufus, Ser. (cos. 51), 7.26, 7.53, 16.17; and see Index of Sources
12.17, 13.1, 13.13, 13.53 Tertia (daughter of L. Aemilius Paullus,
sumptuary legislation, 1.17, 5.59, 7.67, cos. 168), 3.42
11.37, 13.55, 15.79, 16.22; see also Teutoberg Forest, battle of, 15.107–10,
banquets, luxury 16.10, 16.14
suovetaurilia, 3.18, 3.23–4, 3.27; see also Teutones, the, 9.17, 9.23, 9.26, 9.35
sacrifices Thalna, see Juventius Thalna
superstitio, 3.68, 3.76 thanksgiving, see supplicatio
supplicatio (of the gods), 3.33, 3.41, 3.56, Thapsus, battle of, 13.44, 13.65
3.59, 7.77, 7.84–5 theatre, theatrical performances, 2.3, 2.35,
supplicatio (thanksgiving for victory), 2.73–5, 3.16, 6.12, 6.21, 6.59, 7.65, 9.1,
2.49, 3.56, 5.73, 12.32, 12.66, 12.85, 12.24, 12.28, 12.52, 12.63, 12.65, 12.75,
12.91, 13.19, 13.55, 14.17, 14.63, 15.1, 14.10, 15.1, 15.34; see also actors,
15.54, 15.103, 15.106 games, gladiators, Livius Andronicus,
Roscius, Terence
Tacitus, see Cornelius Tacitus, 15.73, 16.7, Thorius, Sp. (tr. pl. 111), 8.35
16.9; and see Index of Sources Thucydides (Greek historian), 16.12
Tarentum, 1.73–4, 4.48, 10.22; 14.40, Tiber, river, 1.1–2, 1.33, 3.7, 3.19,
15.93, 15.117 (treaty of) 3.59–61, 3.65, 8.15, 8.32–3, 14.36,
Tarpeian rock, the, 1.32, 1.41 14.48, 15.32–4, 15.36, 15.81, 15.92; see
Tarquinius Collatinus, L. (cos. 509), 1.11 also pons Sublicius
Tarquinius Priscus (fifth king of Rome, Tiberius (emperor, AD 14–37), 14.38,
616–579 BC), 1.5, 2.2, 3.38, 3.51 15.1, 15.4, 15.8, 15.9, 15.27, 15.31,
Tarquinius Superbus (seventh king of 15.48, 15.50, 15.63, 15.65, 15.67, 15.69,
Rome, 534–510 BC), 1.10, 1.11, 3.9, 15.71, 15.73, 15.75, 15.78, 15.80, 15.84,
14.48 15.86–7, 15.93, 15.100, 15.108,
Tatius, Titus (Sabine king), 1.2, 3.2, 15.1, 15.110–12, 15.114, 15. 116–7,
15.86, 15.97, 16.7 16.10, 16.27
Tauropolos, see rex Nemorensis Tibullus, 7.53, 16.29
taxation, 1.15, 2.33, 4.15, 5.34, 5.55, 7.75, Tiburtius Menolavus, Q. (freedman), 6.61
12.27, 14.36, 14.41, 14.50, 14.59, 15.72, Tigranes II ‘the Great’, king of Armenia,
15.78; see also publicani 11.3, 12.4, 12.10–11, 12.29, 12.82
temples, 1.6, 1.16, 1.46, 1.55, 1.61, 1.64–5, Tigranes the Younger, 12.60
1.73, 2.9, 2.72, 3.6, 3.14, 3.33, 3.38, Tillius Cimber, L. (?praet. 45, assassin of
3.51, 3.55–9, 3.61, 3.63–4, 3.66–7, 3.72, Caesar), 13.66–7
3.82, 7.72, 7.83–5, 7.93, 8.15, 8.32–3, Timaeus of Tauromenium, 16.1
9.31, 12.26, 12.55, 12.61, 12.65, 13.29, Tiro, M. Tullius (freedman of Cicero),
13.55, 13.56, 51.1, 15.81; of Jerusalem, 2.18, 5.37, 6.51–2, 12.25, 13.25, 13.30,
12.82; see also Augustus, dedications, 16.21
festivals Titeia, the, 5.26; see also T. Quinctius
Terence (P. Terentius Afer, dramatist), Flamininus
6.59, 16.14; and see Index of Sources Titii sodales, 15.1, 15.86; see Tatius, Titus
Terentia (wife of Cicero), 7.36, 7.40, 7.65, Titius, M. (suff. cos. 31), 14.46, 14.50,
7.86, 12.21, 16.5 14.63
Terentilla (Terentia, wife of Maecenas), Titius, P. (tr. pl. 43), 14.20
14.49, 15.70, 15.91, 15.98 toga, 2.16, 2.22, 2.37, 3.77, 4.29, 4.61,
Terentius Varro, C. (cos. 216), 4.35 5.6, 13.46, 13.61, 13.66–7, 14.2; 2.32,

851
 GENERAL INDEX
9.14 (of triumphator); 2.36 (of candidate 5.46, 5.53, 5.55–7, 6.50, 7.60, 8.1, 9.1,
for office); 2.46, 12.53, 15.105 (of 9.12, 9.14, 9.20, 9.26, 9.35, 11.13,
mourning: toga pulla); 3.18, 15.105 11.17–18, 12.5, 12.10, 12.12, 12.22,
(cinctus gabinus); 2.47, 2.80, 3.64, 12.24, 12.25, 12.28–30, 12.33, 12.39,
12.28, 15.111 (praetexta); 2.72 (trabea); 12.42, 12.73, 12.91, 13.19–20, 13.35,
14.63, 15.101 (virilis); see also dress 13.55, 13.70, 14.17, 14.43–4, 14.61,
Tolosa treasure, the, 9.14, 9.18 15.1, 15.11, 15.13, 15.50, 15.74, 15.81,
Tomis (Black Sea port), 16.29 15.84, 15.95, 15.99, 15.102, 15.106,
Toranius, slave-dealer, 6.23 15.114; see also ovatio
Torquatus, see Manlius Imperiosus Trojan legend, Troy, 2.29, 5.6, 7.90,
Torquatus torture, 4.13, 6.44, 11.43; see 13.55, 13.72, 15.3, 15.11, 15.16, 15.36,
also slaves 15.95–6, 16.1, 16.6, 16.12, 16.28; 15.47;
trade, 1.1, 1.4, 2.12, 2.19, 3.8, 4.1–3, 4.61, see also Aeneas, Venus
12.8; see also piracy Tuccia (Vestal), 7.92
traditional values, Roman, 1.9, 2.12–17, Tuditanus, see Sempronius Tuditanus
2.20, 2.36, 5.61–2, 5.64–5, 7.20–1, 7.57, Tullia (daughter of Cicero), 6.51, 7.26–7,
9.2, 12.27 7.36, 7.39, 12.59, 14.22
Trasimene, battle of Lake, 3.33, 3.53, 4.32, Tullius Cicero, M. (cos. 63), 2.44–5, 9.4 (as
4.34 a novus homo), 2.43 (his quaestorship),
treaties, 1.27–8, 1.64–5, 4.1–4, 4.17, 4.23, 2.47–8 (on friendship), 2.56–61 (on
4.27–8, 4.45, 4.58, 5.22–3, 5.28, 5.30–1, patronage), 2.65 (on prosecution
5.40, 5.50, 8.7, 11.8, 16.1, 16.3 and defence), 2.66–7, 6.58 (on his
Trebonius, C. (tr. pl. 55, suffect cos. 45), education as orator), 2.77–8 (on public
12.73–4, 13.54, 13.66, 14.3–4, 14.16, entertainment), 3.37–40, 3.42, 3.44,
14.23 3.46, 3.51, 3.53–4, 12.26 (on divination),
tribes of early Rome, 1.18, 1.54; see also 5.1 (on courage), 5.63, 5.65 (on Roman
comitia tributa customs), 5.67–73, 6.53 (on provincial
tribunate, tribunes of the plebs, 1.13, 1.18, administration), 6.11, 6.42–4, 6.54 (on
1.22–6, 1.46–7, 1.59, 9.31, 9.36, 11.28, treatment of slaves), 6.47 (on a runaway
11.30, 11.32, 12.1, 12.4–5, 12.11, 12.13, slave), 6.51–2 (and Tiro), 7.26–7, 12.59
12.19, 12.27, 12.28, 12.36–7, 12.44–5, (affection for his daughter Tullia), 7.36,
12.47–8, 12.50, 12.52, 12.54–6, 12.57, 7.40 (relationship with Terentia), 7.39
12.60, 12.63, 12.70, 12.72, 12.75–6, (on Pomponia), 7.44, 7.86, 12.13–24,
12.79, 13.1, 13.7, 13.8–9, 13.12, 13.14, 14.1, 16.5 (and the Catilinarian
13.20, 13.22–5, 13.27–9, 13.32, 13.38, conspiracy), 7.69 (on inheritance
13.42, 13.55, 13.57, 14.8, 14.12, 14.16, law), 7.74 (and Caerellia), 7.87, 7.95,
14.20, 14.41, 15.5, 15.67, 15.114, 16.5, 11.32, 12.48–50, 12.52–60, 12.62–4
16.9; see also Rome (early history of), (and Clodius), 7.95 (on his home),
P. Clodius Pulcher, M. Livius Drusus, C. 8.8, 8.12, 8.26, 8.34, 8.37–9, 11.32 (on
Scribonius Curio, Ti. and C. Sempronius the Gracchi), 9.8, 9.24, 9.27, 9.30 (on
Gracchus, L. Appuleius Saturninus Marius), 10.14, 11.24 (army service),
tribunes, military, 1.13, 5.8, 5.9, 5.12–13, 11.12 (joins Sulla), 2.56, 11.24–5
5.16, 5.18–21, 5.34, 5.52, 13.46, 13.60, (defence of Roscius of America), 2.45,
14.21, 16.2, 16.7, 16.27 8.37–9, 12.13, 12.24, 12.37–40, 12.44
tribunii aerarii, 12.6, 13.56 (on agrarian legislation), 2.38, 11.32,
tribute, 8.28, 11.8–10, 11.36, 12.11, 12.8, 12.12, 12.13, 12.32–4, 12.36–8,
12.29–30, 12.37, 12.39, 12.44, 12.87 12.40, 12.55, 12.56, 12.60, 12.63–5,
triumphs, triumphal ornaments, 2.29, 12.69–70, 12.77, 13.32–3, 13.37, 13.41,
2.32–5, 2.60, 2.74, 4.59, 5.8–10, 5.41, 13.43, 13.47 (relationship with Pompey),

852
 GENERAL INDEX
11.32 (on Sulla), 12.6 (on judicial Valerius Catullus, C. (poet), 2.53, 7.34,
corruption), 12.24 (praised by Pliny), 7.46–51, 7.60–1, 12.89, 13.63, 16.13,
2.42, 12.25, 13.51, 13.54 (sense of 16.25; and see Index of Sources
humour), 12.26, 12.33, 12.40 (poem on Valerius Flaccus, L. (cos. 195, cen. 184),
his consulship), 12.27 (relationship with 2.14
Atticus) 12.35, 12.38 (and the equites), Valerius Flaccus, L. (cos. 100, cen. 97),
12.38, 12.40, 12.46–52, 12.55, 12.70, 11.12, 11.26
12.73, 12.81, 12.86, 12.88 (relationship Valerius Flaccus, L. (suffect cos. 86),
with Caesar), 12.50–3 (on the 11.7–8
unpopularity of the first ‘triumvirate’), Valerius Laevinus, P. (cos. 280), 1.74–5
12.21, 12.35, 12.38, 12.55, 12.57–8 (and Valerius Laevinus, M. (cos. 220, 210),
Cato the Younger), 12.60–1 (recall from 5.22
exile), 12.63–5 (and Pompey’s grain Valerius Maximus (compiler), 16.19; and
command), 12.69–70 (on the conference see Index of Sources
of Luca), 12.73–4 (on Caesar’s Gallic Valerius Messalla Corvinus, M. (suff. cos.
command), 12.7 (defends his enemies 31), 7.53, 14.26, 14.51, 15.39, 15.91,
in court), 13.5 (defence of Milo), 5.71–3, 15.102, 16.29
13.13, 13.19 (governorship of Cilicia), Valerius Messalla Rufus, M. (cos. 53),
13.32–3, 13.37 (decides to join Pompey), 12.78, 13.5
13.35 (debts), 13.36–7 (overtures from Valerius Potitus, L. (cos. 449), 1.46
Caesar), 13.39, 13.41 (Cicero’s views Varius, Q. (tr. pl. 91), 10.9
of the civil war), 13.43–4 (regrets Varius Geminus, Q., 15.85
joining Pompey), 13.50 (return to Italy), Varius Rufus, L., poet, 15.90
13.51–4 (on Caesar’s dictatorship), Varro, M. Terentius (scholar), see
14.3, 14.9, 13.66–9 (on Caesar’s Terentius Varro
assassination), 14.6, 14.8–9, 14.12 (and Varro, see Terentius Varro
Octavian), 14.12, 14.15–18 (and Mark Varus, see Quinctilius Varus
Antony), 14.21 (his execution), 14.22 Vatinius, P. (tr. pl. 59, cos. 47), 12.25,
(Livy’s view of his career), 7.26, 12.75 12.70, 12.75, 12.77, 13.8, 14.23
(as augur); and see Index of Sources Vedius Pollio, P. 6.26, 15.117
Tullius Cicero, M. (‘Junior’; cos. 30), 2.18, Veii, 1.2, 1.61, 3.57
2.30, 2.69, 12.33, 14.47 Velleius Paterculus (praet. AD 15), 16.10
Tullius Cicero, Q. (praet. 62), 1.18, 2.31, Veneralia, the, 7.81, 14.10, 16.29
2.38, 5.69–70, 6.11, 6.51, 6.53, 7.39, Ventidius Bassus, P. (suff. cos. 43), 14.20,
12.27, 12.61, 12.70, 12.73, 12.81, 14.36, 14.42
12.86–8, 14.2, 14.21; and see Index of Venus, 1.6, 2.40, 3.1, 3.30, 7.30, 7.53–5,
Sources 7.73, 7.82, 14.34, 14.63, 15.39, 11.47
Tullius, Servius (sixth king of Rome, (and Sulla); as ancestress of Julian
578–535), 1.2, 1.20, 4.62, 6.56, 7.83, 11.5 family: 2.79–80, 5.6, 13.55, 13.72–3,
Tullus, see Hostilius 14.10, 14.24, 15.11, 15.41, 15.95,
‘Turia’ (epitaph of), 7.37 16.26
Tusculum, 2.16, 2.22, 3.37, 6.52, 7.27, Vercingetorix (Gallic chieftain), 12.91
7.39, 13.20 Vergil (P. Vergilius Maro), 14.28, 14.57,
Twelve Tables, the, 1.29–45, 15.30 14.58, 15.90, 15.91, 16.26, 16.27, 16.28,
16.29
Urso, colony in Spain, 2.80, 13.60 Verginia (wife of L. Volumnius Flamma),
7.77
Valerio-Horatian laws, the, 1.46 Verres, C. (praet. 74), 2.53, 2.67, 5.68,
Valerius Antias (historian), 16.1, 16.7, 16.18 12.6–7

853
 GENERAL INDEX
Verrius Flaccus, M. (grammarian and Voconius Saxa, Q. (tr. pl. 169), 7.69
teacher), 14.63 Volsci, the, 1.25, 1.28, 1.64, 1.66, 1.68,
Vespasian (emperor), 15.9, 16.8, 16.9 2.32, 5.1
Vestal Virgins, the, 1.35, 2.8, 2.23, 3.6–7, Voltacilius Pilutus, L. (teacher and
3.47, 4.38, 7.21, 7.69, 7.86–94, 14.37, historian), 6.18
14.50, 15.1, 15.8, 15.20, 15.27, 15.30, Volumnius Flamma, L. (cos. 307, 296),
15.112, 16.15, 16.18 7.77
Vettius Scato, P. (Marsic leader), 10.14 Vonones I (king of Parthia, AD 8–12), 15.1
Vettius, L. (informer), 12.53
Vetusius, T. (cos. 494), 1.25 water-supply, see aqueducts, Rome,
Via Sacra, see Sacred Way infrastructure of
Vibius Pansa, C. (cos. 43), 14.4, 14.9, wealth, see luxury
14.12, 14.15, 14.17–18, 14.21, 14.23, weapons, Roman, 5.15; see also Roman
14.49, 14.63, 15.1, 15.117 army
Vidalicius (Picene leader), 10.15 wet-nurse, 6.20
Vinalia, the, 7.82, 16.29 witchcraft, 1.40, 3.68–69, 6.48, 7.42
Vipsania Marcella Agrippina, daughter of women, 7.12–13, 7.17–18 (and alcohol);
Claudia Marcella Major, 15.48 6.40, 7.1, 7.21–4, 8.1–2, 8.9, 8.12, 8.25,
Vipsania Agrippina, first wife of Tiberius, 8.29 (and children); 6.17, 6.37, 7.70,
15.50, 15.63, 15.75, 15.108 7.73, 7.77–93 (and religion); 1.38, 7.5,
Vipsanius Agrippa, M. (cos. 37, 28, 27), 7.90 (and guardianship); 7.37, 7.44,
14.7, 14.38, 14.40, 14.46, 14.47, 14.51, 7.64, 7.86, 12.15–6 (and politics); 7.11,
14.63, 15.1, 15.5, 15.7–8, 15.11, 15.19, 7.66–75, 7.85 (and property); 1.43 (as
15.31, 15.32, 15.16, 15.19, 15.38–52, mourners); 7.20, 7.22, 7.28–34, 7.36–41,
15.57, 15.63–4, 15.81, 15.88, 15.98, 7.67, 7.86, 8.1–2 (in the home); 7.38,
15.100, 15.108, 15.111, 15.113, 15.116, 7.68 (in drama); 7.1–6, 7.10, 7.16–18,
16.11 (defeat of Sextus Pompeius), 7.42, 7.69 (legal position); 7.76 (and
16.12 (speech recorded by Dio), 16.16 the courts); see also adultery, betrothal,
(anger with the city of Troy) divorce, dowries, manus, marriage,
Virgil, see Vergil prostitutes
Viriathus (Spanish war-leader, c.
180–139), 5.4, 5.48, 5.50 Xanthippus (Spartan general), 4.13
virtues, Roman, 5.1, 5.4–5, 5.7–10, 13.65;
see also crowns for valour, traditional Zama, battle of, 4.52–5
values (Roman) Zela, battle of, 13.48

854