In 75–74 P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, a quaestor, was sent to Cyrene (pro praetore), perhaps at the suggestion of L. Lucullus. But Badian suggests that regular governors may not have been sent until the time of Pompey, i.e. Cyrene did not become a regular province until then, since in 67 we find Cn. Lentulus (probably Publius’ brother) sent to Cyrene as Pompey’s legate and acting in a manner scarcely consonant with the presence there of a regular governor. Thus Publius will have gone not as a regular governor (he was only a junior magistrate), but on a special mission to obtain money and restore peaceful conditions. A series of inscriptions referring to Cn. Lentulus has been discussed by J. Reynolds, JRS, 1962, 97 ff. [p. 77]
6 CLUENTIUS. Oppianicus, who was condemned, died in 72. In 66 his son charged Cluentius with murder. Cicero’s defence probably secured his acquittal. The Pro Cluentio throws a lurid light on life in an Italian country town at this period. [p. 77]
7 POMPEY’S THREAT. E. Badian (For. Cl., 279 ff.) takes Pompey’s threat to return from Spain to Italy in 74 (p. 76 above) very seriously. The Optimates tried to build up power in the eastern provinces to prepare against intimidation: hence the two great imperia of Lucullus and Antonius (it could not be foreseen that their campaigns would miscarry and, ironically, pave the way for Pompey’s two eastern commands). [p. 78]
8 LEX TERENTIA CASSIA. The details are controversial: see Rice Holmes, RR, i, 384. It is probable that Lepidus’ corn-law had been repealed soon after 78. [p. 78]
9 SPARTACUS. Sallust in his Historiae seems to have given a full and vivid account of the revolt, which was not completely unfavourable to Spartacus. The tradition given by Livy and the writers who depend on him was less favourable. The two chief surviving sources, Appian and Plutarch’s Crassus, derive in part from Sallust. For a discussion of the discrepancies and difficulties see Rice Holmes, RR, i, 386 ff. B. A. Marshall (Athenaeum, 1973, 109 ff.) follows Badian (id., 1970, 6 ff.) in believing that Crassus held a praetorship before 72 (probably in 73) and that his command against Spartacus was a special grant of proconsular imperium to a privatus. See K. P. Korzera, Klio, 1979, 477 ff. for the treatment of Spartacus in recent Soviet historical writing. [p. 79]
10 POMPEY AND CRASSUS RETAIN THEIR ARMIES. The length of time that they did so is uncertain: see Appian, i, BC, 1, 21; Plut. Crass. 12 and Pomp. 23. For modern discussions see Rice Holmes, RR, i, 390 and F. B. Marsh, Hist. Rom. World, Appendix 5. The possibility of two reconciliations cannot be excluded. A. N. Sherwin-White (JRS, 1956, 5 ff.) argues that Appian is confused, that the armies were dismissed at the end of 71 and that the threat of force was remote since Pompey wanted the dignity of the consulship rather than a new command or a revolution. In line with this he interprets Pompey’s political actions in 70 as less anti-senatorial and as less damaging to the Sullan system than is usually supposed. However that may be, Rome must have been conscious of the personal link between the general and his army, and Pompey of the need of his veterans for land. This was probably provided under a lex Plotia agraria (70–69 B.C.: see Cicero, ad Att. 1. 18. 6) which included Metellus’ Spanish veterans also; its execution was slow: see R. E. Smith, Cl. Qu. 1957, 82 ff. and E. Gabba, Par. Pass., 1950, 66 ff. (= RR, Army, 151 ff.)
Pompey’s rise to political power and in particular his relationships with the Metelli are discussed at length and set in a framework of factional politics by B. Twyman, Aufstieg, I, i. (1972), 816 ff., in contrast to the view espoused by C. Meier in Re publica amissa (1966; 2nd ed. 1980). D. Stockton re-assesses Pompey’s consulship in 70 (Historia, 1973, 205 ff.). On Pompey’s career in general see M. Gelzer, Pompeius (in German, 1949); J. van Ooteghem, Pompée le Grand (1954); R. Seager, Pompey: a Political Biography (1979); J. Leach, Pompey the Great (1978), a slightly more general book; P. Greenhalgh, Pompey, the Roman Alexander (1980) and (continued as) Pompey, the Republican Prince (1981). See also W. S. Anderson, Pompey, his Friends and the Literature of the first Century BC (1963).
On Crassus see A. Garzetti, Athenaeum, 1941, 1 ff., 1942, 12 ff., 1944–45, 1 ff.; F. E. Adcock, Marcus Crassus, Millionaire (1966); B. A. Marshall, Crassus, a political Biography (1976); A. M. Ward, Marcus Crassus and the late Roman Republic (1977); some problems of Crassus’ career are also discussed by J. K. Davies and others, Liverpool Class. Monthly, 1978, 165 ff. [p. 81]
10a CICERO AND POMPEY. On Cicero’s early relationship with Pompey see A. M. Ward, Phoenix, 1970, 119 ff. and Latomus, 1970, 58 ff. and R. J. Rowland, Riv. stor. d’ Antichita, 1976–77, 329 ff. [p. 82]
11 TRIBUNI AERARII. This somewhat mysterious class once consisted of army paymasters. By this time they probably included men whose property qualification (300,000–400,000 sesterces) fell just below that required for membership of the Equestrian Order. At any rate their interests were equestrian rather than senatorial. See further, Rice Holmes, RR, i, 391; Last, CAH, IX, 338; C. Nicolet, L’Ordre Equestre, 1 (1966), 593 ff.; T. P. Wiseman, Historia, 1970, 71 f., 79 f. The lex Aurelia is further discussed by J. L. Ferrary, Mélanges d’arch. 1975, 321 ff., B. A. Marshall, Rhein. Mus., 1975, 136 ff. and H. Bruhns, Chiron 1980, 263 ff. [p. 82]
12 CAESAR’S EARLY CAREER. Several minor points of chronology and the reliability of some anecdotal material remain doubtful. See H. Strasburger, Caesars Eintritt in die Geschichte (1938); T. R. S. Broughton, TAPA, 1948, 63; L. R. Taylor, Cl. Ph., 1941, 121; TAPA, 1942, 1 ff.; Gr. and R., 1957, 10 ff.; R. Syme, JRS, 1944, 94 f.; E. Badian, JRS, 1959, 81 ff. = Studies, 140 ff.; T. R. S. Broughton, Suppl. to MRR (1960). 30. For biographies and other works on Caesar, see below ch. VII, n. 30. On Caesar and the flaminate see M. Leone, Studi E. Manni, 193 ff. and on his capture by the pirates (dated to 75–74), A. M. Ward, Amer. Journ Anc. Hist., 1977, 26 ff. [p. 82]
13 LEGES CORNELIAE. Cornelius carried a measure that praetors should administer justice in accordance with the edicts that they had issued on entering office (‘ex edictis suis perpetuis’). He proposed a severe law against men who distributed money at elections (apart from those who supplied it); a modified form of this was carried by the consul Piso, who had been elected only by scandalous bribery! Cornelius also managed to limit the granting of privilegia (dispensations for individuals from a law) by the Senate to meetings at which 200 members voted. With his colleague Gabinius, he secured that provincials in Rome should not, in their own interest, be allowed to borrow money, and Gabinius secured the right of foreign embassies to meet the Senate. Cornelius’ subsequent trial for maiestas was doubtless the outcome of his attack on senatorial prerogatives which angered the Optimates; he was defended by Cicero (see Asconius’ commentary In Cornelianam). On the career of Gabinius, who avoided the possibility of trouble by going to Pompey in the East, see E. V. Sanford, TAPA, 1939, 64 ff., E. Badian, Philologus, 1959, 87 ff. and R. S. Williams, Phoenix, 1978, 195 ff. On Cornelius’ tribunate and subsequent trial in 65 (when he was defended by Cicero) see R. Seager, Hommages Renard (1969), 680 ff., A. M. Ward, TAPA, 1970, 554 ff. and M. Griffin, JRS, 1973, 196 ff. [p. 82]
14 POMPEY’S IMPERIUM. The older view that he received imperium maius by land as well as sea (cf. Loader, Cl. Rev., 1940, 134) can hardly be maintained. It must have been aequum by land as stated by Velleius, 2, 31: see e.g. V. Ehrenberg, AJP, 1953, 117 ff. S. Jameson, Historia, 1970, 539 ff, after a full discussion of the evidence concludes that Pompey’s imperium was maius. [p. 82]
14a MANILIUS. On the subsequent prosecution of Manilius see E. J. Phillips, Latomus, 1970, 595 ff. and J. T. Ramsay, Phoenix, 1980, 323 ff. [p. 83]
15 SERVILIUS AND THE PIRATES. For these campaigns see H. A. Ormerod, JRS, 1922, 35 ff.; D. Magie, RRAM, 287 ff. On the status of Cilicia and Pamphylia vis-à-vis Rome from c. 102 to 74 see A. N. Sherwin-White, JRS, 1974, 1 ff. [p. 83]
16 POMPEY’S PIRATE CAMPAIGN. See H. A. Ormerod, Liverpool Annals of Arch., 1923, 46 ff. On his settlement, see A. H. M. Jones, CERP, 202 ff. For new inscriptions from Cyrene, see J. Reynolds, JRS, 1962, 97 ff. and above n. 5. On several new inscriptions which touch on the activity of the pirates
see J. Reynolds, JRS, 1976, 179. On Pompey’s legates see P. D. Breglia, Annali … Univ. di Napoli, xiii, 1970–71, 47 ff. On his settlement of Cilicia, P. D. Breglia, Rendiconti dell’Accad.d’Arch. Naples, 1972, 327 ff. [p. 84]
17 NICOMEDES’ WILL. Although Appian and the Livian tradition record that Nicomedes bequeathed his kingdom to Rome, the Scholia Gronoviana (ed. Strangl., p. 115) says that he died intestate, and this possibly represents Sallust’s view. Caution is necessary, since the former tradition might represent an official Roman version, but since Cicero in 63 referred to Bithynia as a hereditas (de leg. agr. 2, 40) and Sallust falsely suggested that Rome had forged Attalus’ will (ch. II, n. 38), the will should probably be accepted. [p. 85]
18 OUTBREAK OF THIRD MITHRIDATIC WAR. The date, whether 74 or 73, is uncertain. For a recent discussion, which favours 74, see T. R. S. Broughton, MRR, ii, 106. For a full account of the war and discussion of sources and difficulties see D. Magie, RRAM, 323 ff. [p. 85]
19 COTTA. Cotta was later ‘liberated’ by Lucullus, on whose elogium, later erected in the Forum of Augustus, is the claim: ‘conlegam suum pulsum a rege Mithridate, cum se is Calchadona contulisset, opsidione liberavit’ (Dessau, ILS, 60). Thereafter Cotta spent two years besieging Heraclea Pontica, which he sacked in 71. On his return to Rome he was accused by Carbo of appropriating booty and was expelled from the Senate. This is recorded in a fragment of a local history of Heraclea, written by Memnon (see ch. IV, n. 1): for a translation of this see Lewis and Reinhold, Rn. Civ., I, 372. [p. 85]
20 LUCULLUS. See J. M. Cobban, Senate and Provinces, 78–49 BC (1935), ch. iv; J. van Ooteghem, Lucius Licinius Lucullus (1959), with bibliography. E. Badian, who identifies Lucullus as the one officer who marched with Sulla on Rome in 88, examines his intended settlement (Rom. Imperialism in the Late Republic2 (1968), 37 ff.) and concludes: ‘Lucullus’ personal ambition is by no means a negligible phenomenon. Yet it is clear that, as far as foreign policy is concerned, he still stood firmly in the senatorial tradition of minimizing administrative responsibility. He set out to win glory and wealth for himself and (as he might argue) for the Roman People. But he did not aim to annex territory, except that of Pontus, which mos maiorum required him to do.’ [p. 86]
21 POMPEY AND THE CAUCASUS. The purpose of Pompey’s advance here is uncertain: possibly it was to seek a new water-frontier for the empire, but more likely the desire to add the names of unknown peoples to his battle role of victories. The view that he wanted to develop the trans-Caspian trade route to the Far East must be abandoned if this trade route had never existed as Sir W. Tarn has cogently argued (The Greek in Bactria and India, 112). [p. 87]
22 POMPEY AND PALESTINE. One of the chief authorities is the Jew Josephus, Antiquit. Jud. xiv, 1–5. See also, E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ2, I (1973, revised by G. Vermes and Fergus Millar), 233 ff. For possible reference to Pompey in the Dead Sea Qumran Commentary on Habakkuk, see Schürer, 241 f. [p. 87]
23 PETRA AND ARETAS. On Petra see M. Rostovtzeff, Caravan Cities, ch. ii. Scaurus later issued coins depicting Aretas kneeling as a suppliant beside a camel: see E. A. Sydenham, CRR, n. 912 and Crawford, RRC, n. 422. [p. 88]
24 POMPEY’S EASTERN SETTLEMENT. See especially Plut. Pomp. 38; Appian, Mithr. 114–15; Dio Cassius, 37, 7a. Cf. A.H.M. Jones, CERP, 157 ff., 220 ff., 258 ff.; D. Magie, RRAM, ch. xv. For a brief summary of the various motives which have been attributed to Pompey in his settlement, see A. J. Marshall, JRS, 103, n. 3; in this article Marshall shows (from Digest, L. 1. 1. 2) that in Bithynia-Pontus Pompey conceded to cities the right to claim citizens on the basis of their mother’s (as well as father’s) status: this would help to stabilize the cities by extending their hold over those liable to taxation and other civic duties. For Pompey’s settlement of Syria see a useful monograph, F. P. Rizzo, Le fonti per la storia della conquista pompeiana della Siria (1963) and T. Frankfort, La frontière orientale dans la politique exterieure de la république romaine (1969). On Pompey as a founder of cities see A. Dreizehnter, Chiron, 1975, 213 ff. When Pompey refounded Soli in Cilicia as Pompeiopolis he placed his own portrait on the coinage (B. V. Head, Historia Numorum (1911), 729). [p. 88]
CHAPTER VI
1 SOURCES FOR 66–50 B.C. The narrative for these years is given by Appian (BC, 2. 1–35) Dio Cassius (books 36–40), Livy’s Periochae (102–9), and writers in the Livian tradition, as Orosius, Valerius Maximus and Velleius Paterculus (2. 40–8). Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae deals with one episode: see below n. 4. The major source is Cicero, both Orations and Letters: these provide a more intimate picture of Roman life during these years than survives for any other period of Roman history. The more important speeches are mentioned below. The standard editions of the Letters are by R. Y. Tyrrell and L. C. Purser, The Correspondence of Cicero (6 vols. and Index, 1885–1933), with many introductory essays; here the letters are arranged chronologically, and those written down to 50 B.C. (nos. 1–300) are in vols. I–III, and by D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, 7 vols. (1965–70), Cicero, Epistulae ad familiares, 2 vols. (1977) and Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem et M. Brutum (1981). Shackleton Bailey has also provided translations in the Penguin Classics, Letters to Atticus (1978) and Letters to his Friends (1980). See also W. W. How and A. C. Clark, Cicero, Select Letters (2 vols., 1925–6). Fragments of some of Cicero’s lost speeches are preserved in a commentary (itself fragmentary) by Q. Asconius Pedianus, written between A.D. 54 and 57; some information is also provided by the Scholia Bobiensia to several speeches. Cicero’s philosophical works also are important for his political thought (see also pp. 135, 170, 174 f.). Plutarch’s Lives include those of Pompey, Caesar (Italian edition by A. Garzetti, 1954), Crassus, Cicero (Italian edition by D. Magnino, 1963), and Cato Minor. Another biographer begins to contribute to the historiography of Rome, C. Suetonius Tranquillus (c. A.D. 69–140), with his life of Divus Iulius: see the edition by H. E. Butler and M. Cary, 1927 and cf. C. Brutscher, Analysen zu Suetons Divus Julius und der Parallelüberlieferung (1958). Suetonius, who was secretary to Hadrian, read widely and used both scandalous and more sober sources; he provides much valuable information, although his chronology is not always clear. For Caesar’s own writings see the next chapter. For modern biographies and other works on Cicero see n. 5 to chapter VIII below. [p. 90]
2 THE FIRST CATILINARIAN CONSPIRACY. See E. G. Hardy, The Catilinarian Conspiracy (1924), ch. ii. Suetonius (Iul. 9) reports a rumour that by a coup d’état Crassus was to become dictator and Caesar his Magister Equitum; this is very improbable. Details about any supposed plot are extremely uncertain, and the existence of a conspiracy is denied by many scholars, e.g. by H. Frisch, Cl. et Med., 1947, 10 ff.; P. A. Brunt, Cl. Rev., 1957, 193 ff.; R. Seager, Historia, 1964, 338 ff. For a defence of the ancient tradition, C. E. Stevens, Latomus, 1963, 397 ff. The story might have arisen from the rioting, supported by Catiline and Cn. Piso, at the trial of Manilius for repetundae (cf. also B. Marshall, Cl. Ph., 1977, 318 ff.). Another unlikely view of Suetonius (Iul. 8) is that Caesar hoped to start a rising among the Transpadanes: in fact he probably only showed sympathy with their desire for full citizenship (cf. p. 82). The fact, however, that by an alien act, lex Papia, some Transpadanes were expelled from Rome suggests that many had come to the city to agitate. See also n. 8 below. [p. 91]
3 EGYPT. Because of some dynastic uncertainties the numeration of the Ptolemies varies between I–XIV and I–XV. Ptolemy X Alexander I, after intermittent joint rule with his brother Ptolemy IX Lathyrus, was killed in battle soon after 88. E. Badian has argued (Rhein. Mus., 1967, 178 ff.) that it was he who made the testament and not, as usually believed, Ptolemy XI Alexander II in 80. The remarkable aspect is that the Senate made no attempt to accept the legacy and to annex one of the richest lands in the world. [p. 91]
4 SALLUST AND CATILINE. Sallust (Cat. 16, 4 ff.) wrongly assigns Catiline’s revolutionary schemes to 64. This is possibly due to carelessness, as Sallust w
as often weak on chronology, but more probably derives from the political bias of his Bellum Catilinae. This was published soon after Caesar’s death as a pro-Caesarian pamphlet. Sallust wished to show that Caesar was not implicated in the main conspiracy of 63: he may therefore have ante-dated the beginning of the plot to 64 when Caesar could hardly be suspected of implication in it. (Caesar may have favoured Catiline’s election in 64, but as a potential tool, not as a revolutionary.) Cf. also L. A. MacKay, Phoenix, 1962, 181 ff. [p. 92]
5 CICERO’S ELECTION. Some fragments of Cicero’s In Toga Candida are preserved in Asconius’ Commentary (A. C. Clark, O.C.T.). Advice on electioneering methods was given to Cicero in a pamphlet De Petitione Consulatus or Commentariolum Petitionis, ascribed to his brother Quintus (see e.g. Tyrrell and Purser, Correspondence of Cicero, i, Ep. 12). This ascription is doubted by some (e.g. M. I. Henderson, JRS, 1950, 8 ff., and R. G. M. Nisbet, JRS, 1961, 84 ff.), but is accepted by others (as F. Münzer, H. Last and recently R. Till, Historia, 1962, 415 ff.). Mrs. Henderson’s arguments are countered by J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Cl. Qu., 1963, 242 ff. Even if not by Quintus, it may contain contemporary material. The Commentariolum is discussed by J. M. David and others, Aufstieg, I, 3 (1973), 239 ff. [p. 92]
6 RULLUS’ LAW (lex Servilia). On Cicero’s speeches De lege agraria see E. G. Hardy, Some Problems of Roman History, 68 ff.; A. Afzelius, Cl. et Med., 1940, 214 ff. G. V. Sumner, TAPA, 1966, 569 ff., argues that the measure was partly designed to meet Pompey’s needs: Caesar probably supported it as Pompey’s amicus, Crassus was inactive, and Cicero opposed because he disliked agrarian distribution. A. M. Ward, Historia, 1972, 244 ff. supports the more traditional view that in the proposal to annex Egypt in the Rullan land bill Crassus and Caesar were working together against Cicero and Pompey. [p. 92]
From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 Page 57