The Primitive Monarchy and the Republic: From Prehistoric Times to 27 B. C (part 2)

Crassus in command, 71 B. C. In 71 B. C. the consuls displayed no enthusiasm to undertake the command against Spartacus, and so the Senate appointed as extraordinary commander the praetor Marcus Licinius Crassus, one of Sulla’s veteran officers, who volunteered his services. After restoring discipline among his troops, Crassus succeeded in penning up Spartacus in the peninsula of Bruttium. Spartacus hired some Cilician pirates to transport him to Sicily, but, after [pg 156]receiving their price, they abandoned him to his fate. He succeeded in breaking through Crassus’ lines, but his forces divided into two detachments, each of which was caught and beaten. Spartacus fell in battle; while 6000 of his following were taken and crucified. Crassus had bent all his energies to bring the revolt to a close before the arrival of Pompey, who was on his way from Spain. This he might fairly claim to have accomplished although a body of 5000 slaves who had escaped to North Italy were met by Pompey and annihilated.

IV. The Consulate of Pompey and Crassus: 70 b. c.

Pompey and Crassus consuls. Both Pompey and Crassus, flushed by their victories in Spain and in Italy, now demanded the right to stand for the consulship for 70 B. C. Both sought triumphs and under this pretext did not disband their armies. The Senate resisted their claims, for Pompey’s candidature was clearly unconstitutional, and since Crassus was praetor in 71 he was not eligible for the consulate in the following year. Furthermore both were distrusted because of their ambitious natures. In view of this opposition Crassus, in spite of mutual jealousy between himself and Pompey, made overtures to the latter and they agreed to unite their forces. They also made a bid for the support of the populares by promising to restore the tribunate to its former privileges and for that of the equestrians by promising to reinstate them in the jury courts. This combination overawed senatorial opposition, their candidatures were legalized by special bills and both were elected. In their consulate the tribunes were relieved of the restrictions which Sulla had placed upon their activities, and the jury courts were reorganized. However, the latter were not given over completely to the equestrians, but each panel of jurors was to consist of three equal sections, one drawn from the Senate, one from the equites, and one from the tribuni aerarii, the class of citizens whose assessment was next to that of the equites. The Sullan régime was at an end, and in the tribunate emancipated from the Senate’s control the ambitious general of the future was to find his most valuable ally.

Trial of Verres. In the same year, prior to the passing of the Aurelian Law which reformed the juries, occurred the trial of Caius Verres, ex-propraetor of Sicily, a case notable because the prosecu[pg 157]tion was conducted by the young Marcus Tullius Cicero, whose accusation contained in his published Orations against Caius Verres constitutes a most illuminating commentary upon provincial misgovernment under the Sullan régime. The senatorial juries after 82 B. C., had protected the interests of the provinces no better than had the equestrian juries established by Caius Gracchus. They had shown themselves shamelessly venal, and a provincial governor who made judicious disbursements could be confident that he would be acquitted of any charges of extortion brought against him. Relying upon this Verres, who was propraetor of Sicily in 73, 72 and 71 B. C., had carried off from that province money and valuables estimated at 40,000,000 sesterces ($2,000,000). He had openly boasted that he intended the profits of one year for himself, those of the second for his friends and patrons, and those of the third for his jurors. At the opening of the year 70 B. C. the Sicilian cities sued Verres for restitution of damages and chose Cicero as their advocate. Cicero was a native of Arpinum, the birthplace of Marius, and was now in his thirty-sixth year. His upright conduct as quaestor in western Sicily in 75 B. C. had earned him the confidence of the Sicilians, and his successful conduct of the defense in several previous trials had marked him as a pleader of exceptional ability. But Verres had entrusted his case to Quintus Hortensius Hortalus, regarded at the time as the foremost of Roman orators, and every conceivable device was resorted to in order to prevent the case from coming to trial. Another prosecutor appeared, who claimed to have a better right than Cicero to bring suit against Verres. This necessitated a trial to decide which could better claim to represent the Sicilians. Cicero was able to expose the falsity of the claims of his rival, who was acting in collusion with Verres. He then proceeded to Sicily where he gathered his evidence in fifty of the hundred and ten days allowed him for the purpose. Before the hearing the elections for the next year were held and Hortensius elected consul, but Cicero was returned as aedile in spite of all the efforts of his opponents to weaken his prestige by a defeat at the polls.

The trial was set for the fifth of August, and as there were fifty holidays for various festivals between that date and the end of the year, the defense hoped to drag out the trial until after January first, when a praetor friendly to Verres would preside over the court for extortion. But Cicero defeated their hopes by abstaining from any [pg 158]long formal speech of accusation and contenting himself with a brief statement of the obstacles the defense had placed in his way, a threat to punish in his capacity of aedile any attempts at corruption, and a short statement of the charge against Verres. He then called his witnesses. Hortensius found himself without any arguments to combat and could not refute the evidence. Before the hearing of the witnesses was concluded Verres went into exile. He was condemned in his absence and Cicero became the leading advocate of the day. However, it must be admitted that the condemnation of Verres was also partly due to the danger of the loss of their privileges which threatened the senatorial jurors.

The crimes of Verres. The evidence which had been brought out against Verres was afterwards used by Cicero in composing his Second Pleading against Verres (actio secunda in Verrem) which was of course never delivered, but was a political pamphlet in the form of a fictitious oration. From it we learn the devices of which the governor made use to amass a fortune at the expense of his province. By initiating false accusations, by rendering, or intimidating other judges to render unjust decisions, he secured the confiscation of property the value of which he diverted to his own pockets. He sold justice to the highest bidder. While saving himself expense by defrauding the collectors of port dues of the tax on his valuables shipped out of Sicily, he added to his profits by the sale of municipal offices and priesthoods. He entered into partnership with the decumani or collectors of the ten per cent produce tax, and ordered the cultivators to pay whatever the collectors demanded, and then, if dissatisfied, seek redress in his court, a redress which, needless to say, was never gained. He loaned public funds at usurious rates of interest, and either did not pay in full or paid nothing for corn purchased from the Sicilian communities for the Roman government, while charging the state the market price. At the same time he insisted upon the cities commuting into money payments at rates far above current prices the grain allotted for the upkeep of the governor’s establishment. At times the demands made upon cultivators exceeded the total of their annual crop, and in despair they fled from their holdings. To the money gained by such methods Verres added a costly treasure of works of art, which he collected from both individuals and cities by theft, seizure and intimidation. Even the sacred ornaments of temples were not spared. All who resisted or denounced him, even Roman citizens, [pg 159]were subjected to illegal imprisonment, torture or execution. These iniquities were carried out in defiance of the provincial charter, but there was no power in his province to restrain him, and the Senate, which should have done so, remained indifferent to the complaints which were carried to Rome. The sad truth was that after all Verres was only more shameless and unscrupulous than the average provincial governor, and consequently the sympathies of the Senate were with him rather than with his victims—the provincials.

V. The Commands of Pompey against the Pirates and in the East: 67–62 b. c.

The pirate scourge. Both Pompey and Crassus had declined proconsular appointments at the close of 70 B. C., because there were no provinces open which promised an opportunity to augment their influence or military reputation. Accordingly they remained in Rome watching for some more favorable chance to employ their talents. Pompey found such an opportunity in the ravages of the Cilician pirates. After the failure of Marcus Antonius (74–72 B. C.), Caecilius Metellus had been sent to Crete in 69 B. C. and in the course of the next two years reduced the island to subjection and made it a province. But his operations there did little to check the pirate plague. So bold had these robbers become that they did not hesitate to raid the coasts of Italy and to plunder Ostia. When finally their depredations interrupted the importation of grain for the supply of the city, a famine threatened, and decisive measures had to be taken against them.

The Gabinian Law, 67 B. C. The only way to deal with the question was to appoint a commander with power to operate against the pirates everywhere, and the obvious man for the position was Pompey. However, the Senate mistrusted him and in addition feared the consequences of creating such an extensive extraordinary command. But since 71 B. C. Pompey had stood on the side of the populares and now, like Marius, he found in the tribunate an ally able to aid him in attaining his goal. In 67 B. C. the tribune Aulus Gabinius proposed a law for the appointment of a single commander of consular rank who should have command over the whole sea within the pillars of Hercules and all Roman territory to a distance of fifty miles inland. His appointment was to be for three years, he was [pg 160]to have the power to nominate senatorial legati, to raise money in addition to what he received from the quaestors, and recruit soldiers and sailors at discretion for his fleet. This command was modelled upon that of Antonius the praetor in 74 B. C., but conveyed higher authority and greater resources. The Senate bitterly resisted the passage of the bill but it passed and the Senate had to relinquish its prerogative of creating the extraordinary commands. Although no person had been nominated for this command in the law of Gabinius, the opinion of the voters had been so clearly expressed in a contio that the Senate had to appoint Pompey. He received twenty-four legati and a fleet of five hundred vessels.

The pirates crushed. Pompey set to work energetically and systematically. In forty days he swept the pirates from the western Mediterranean. In forty-nine more he cornered them in Cilicia, where he forced the surrender of their strongholds. His victory was hastened by the mildness shown to those who surrendered. They received their lives and freedom, and in many cases were used as colonists to revive cities with a declining population. Within three months he had brought the pirate war to a triumphant conclusion, but his imperium would not terminate for three years and he was anxious to gather fresh laurels.

The Manilian Law, 66 B. C. It so happened that Pompey’s success coincided with the temporary check to the Roman arms in Pontus, owing to the disaffection of the troops of Lucullus and the machinations of the latter’s enemies in Rome. Pompey now sought to have the command of Lucullus added to his own, and in this he had the support of the equestrian order. Early in 66 B. C. one of the tribunes, Caius Manilius, proposed a law transferring to Pompey the provinces of Bithynia and Cilicia and the conduct of the war against Mithradates and Tigranes. Cicero, then a praetor, supported the measure in his speech, For the Manilian Law. His support was probably dictated by the fact that he was a man without family backing and consequently had to have the friendship of an influential personage if he was to secure the political advancement which he desired. The Senate strongly opposed any extension of Pompey’s military authority, but the bill was passed and he took over the command of Lucullus. He was clothed with power to make peace or war with whom he chose, and enjoyed an unexampled concentration of authority in his hands.

[pg 161]

The campaigns of Pompey in the East. Pompey at once advanced into Pontus and attacked Mithradates. The latter was forced to withdraw into Lesser Armenia where he was overtaken and his army scattered by Pompey. The king fled to the neighborhood of the Sea of Asov. Upon the defeat of Mithradates, Tigranes deserted his cause and submitted to Pompey. He was permitted to retain his kingdom as a Roman ally. In the following year, 65 B. C., Pompey reduced to submission the peoples situated south of the Caucasus, between the Black and the Caspian Seas, who had been in alliance with Mithradates, and so completed the subjugation of Pontus, which he made into a province (64 B. C.).

In 64 B. C. he turned his attention to Syria, where a state of chaos had reigned since Lucullus had wrested it from Tigranes and where a scion of the Seleucids had failed to find recognition. Pompey decided to treat Syria as a Roman conquest and incorporate it within the empire. He then interfered in a dynastic struggle in the kingdom of Judaea. After a brief struggle, in which the temple of Jerusalem was stormed by the Romans, he installed his nominee as High Priest at the head of the local government. Judaea was then annexed to the province of Syria (63 B. C.).

While Pompey was in Judaea the death of Mithradates occurred. Deserted by the Greek cities of the northern Euxine, he formed the plan of joining the Celtic peoples of the Danube valley and invading Italy. But his army deserted him for his son Pharnaces, who revolted against his father, and Mithradates committed suicide. Thereupon Pharnaces made peace with Pompey.

The Mithradatic war was finally over and Pompey, after organizing affairs in Asia Minor and the adjoining countries, started on a triumphal return to Italy with his victorious army and rich spoils of war (62 B. C.).

VI. The Conspiracy of Catiline, 63 b. c.

The situation in Rome. While Pompey was adding to his military reputation in the East he was regarded with jealous and anxious eyes not only by the Senate but also by the other champions of the popular party, Crassus who found his wealth no match for Pompey’s military achievements, and Caius Julius Caesar who was rapidly coming to be one of the leading figures in Roman public life. Caesar [pg 162]was born in 100 B. C., of the patrician gens of the Julii, but since his aunt was the wife of Marius, and he himself had married the daughter of Cinna, his lot was cast with the Populares. As a young man he had distinguished himself by refusing to divorce his wife at Sulla’s behest, whereat Sulla was with difficulty induced to spare his life, saying that he saw in him many a Marius. For the time being Caesar judged it prudent to withdraw from Rome to Rhodes. While in the East he was captured by pirates, and after being ransomed, fulfilled his threat to avenge himself by taking and executing his captors. After the death of Sulla, Caesar returned to Rome and devoted his more than average oratorical abilities to the cause of the Marians. In 69 or 68 B. C. he was quaestor in Farther Spain, and shortly afterwards he became closely associated with Crassus in the attempt to develop a counterpoise to Pompey’s influence. While aedile in 65 B. C. he curried favor with the populace by the extraordinary lavishness with which he celebrated the public festivals, by the restoration of the public monuments of the campaign of Marius and by supporting the prosecution of agents in the Sullan proscriptions. The splendor of his shows had obliged Caesar to contract heavy debts, and Crassus was in all probability his chief creditor. Both were therefore interested in securing for Caesar a position in which he could secure the wealth to meet his obligations.

The unrest in Rome was heightened by the presence there of a number of men of ruined fortunes, both Marians dispossessed by Sulla and those of the opposite party who had squandered their resources or had been excluded from the Senate by the censors of 70 B. C. This element was ready to resort to any means, however desperate, to win wealth or office. Foremost among them was Lucius Sergius Catilina, a patrician who enjoyed an evil repute for his share in the Sullan proscriptions and the viciousness of his private life. Symptomatic of the weakening of the public authority was the organization of partizan gangs to terrorize opposition and control the Assembly.

Cicero elected consul, 64 B. C. In the year 64 B. C. three candidates presented themselves for the consulship, Catiline, Caius Antonius, a noble of the same type as Catiline, and Cicero. The first two were supported by Caesar and Crassus who hoped to use them for their own ends. Cicero, as a novus homo, was distasteful to the Optimates, but since they felt that Catiline must be defeated at all costs they supported the orator, who was elected with Antonius. [pg 163]From that time Cicero ranged himself on the side of the Optimates, and his political watchword was the “harmony of the orders,” that is, of the senators and the equestrians. Of the consular provinces Cicero received by lot Macedonia and Antonius Cisalpine Gaul. As the latter was dissatisfied Cicero resigned Macedonia to him, in return for his public assurance of abstaining from opposing Cicero’s acts during their year of office.

The land bill of Rullus, 63 B. C. On the first day of his consulate Cicero delivered a speech in which he scathingly criticized a land bill proposed by the tribune Servilius Rullus. This bill aimed to create a land commission of ten members of praetorian rank, elected in a special comitia of seventeen tribes, which Rullus was to choose by lot. These commissioners were to be vested with extraordinary powers for five years, including the right to sell the public land in Italy and in Pompey’s recent conquests, to exercise judicial authority, to confiscate lands, to found colonies, and to enroll and maintain troops. The bill would have placed in the hands of the commissioners extraordinary military authority both in Italy and in the provinces, guaranteed by the income derived from the sale of land. Pompey was excluded from the commission by a clause requiring the personal appearance of candidates. Everyone was aware that the measure was devised in the interests of Caesar and Crassus and that they would dominate the commission. However, the attack upon the Senate’s control of the public land and the general mistrust of the purposes of a bill of this sort caused such strong opposition that its sponsors did not bring the matter to a vote.

Caesar, Pontifex Maximus. But Caesar could console himself with victory in another sphere. The position of Pontifex Maximus had become vacant, and by a tribunician bill the lex Domitia, revoked by Sulla, was again brought into effect and election to the priesthood entrusted to a comitia of seventeen tribes. In the ensuing election Caesar was victorious.

The Catilinarian conspiracy: 63 B. C. In July, 63 B. C., occurred the consular elections for the next year. Catiline was again a competitor, but now he lacked the support of Crassus and Caesar and appealed directly to all needy and desperate characters throughout Italy, who hoped to enrich themselves by violent means. He was bitterly opposed by Cicero and the Optimates and was defeated. Thereupon he and his followers conspired to overthrow the govern[pg 164]ment by armed force. Cicero, who was on the watch, got news of the conspiracy and induced the Senate to pass the “last decree” empowering him to use any means to save the state. Catiline then left the city to join the bands his supporters had raised in Etruria. He was declared a public enemy and a force under the consul Antonius dispatched against him. December seventeenth was the day set for a rising in Rome, when the city was to be fired, the consuls and others murdered, and a reign of terror instituted. But the plan was betrayed by a delegation of the Gallic Allobroges who happened to be in Rome and whom the conspirators endeavored to enlist on their side. The leading Catilinarians in Rome were arrested, and, in accordance with a decree of the Senate, put to death. Caesar had argued for a milder sentence, but the firm stand of the young Marcus Porcius Cato, a man of uncompromising uprightness and loyalty to the constitution, sealed the fate of the plotters. Upon the failure of his plans in Rome, Catiline endeavored to make his way with his army into Cisalpine Gaul, but was overtaken and forced to give battle to the forces of Antonius at Pistoria. He and most of his followers died sword in hand. The suppression of the conspiracy added to Cicero’s reputation and greatly strengthened the position of the Senate and the Optimates.

But the whole episode bears testimony to the general weakness of the government and the danger of the absence of a regular police force for the maintenance of the public peace.

VII. The Coalition of Pompey, Caesar and Crassus: 60 b. c.

Pompey’s return. Towards the close of the year 62 B. C. Pompey landed in Italy and, contrary to the expectations of those who feared that he would prove a second Sulla, disbanded his army. The following September (61) he celebrated a memorable triumph. He was exceedingly anxious to crown his achievements by having the Senate ratify his eastern arrangements and securing land grants for his veterans. However, since the dismissal of his troops he was no longer feared by the Senate, which insisted on examining his acts in detail and not ratifying them en bloc as he demanded. Thus the Optimates lost the opportunity of binding Pompey to their side, and at the same time they fell out with the equestrians over the demand [pg 165]made by the publicani who had contracted for the taxes of Asia for a modification of the terms of their contract on the ground of poor harvests in the province.

The coalition of 60 B. C. No settlement had been reached when Caesar returned to Rome in 60 B. C. He had been praetor in 62 and for the following year governor of Further Spain, where he waged successful border wars, conciliated the provincials and yet contrived to find the means to satisfy his creditors. He now requested a triumph and the privilege of standing for the consulate while waiting outside the city for the former honor. However, when the Senate delayed its decision he gave up the triumph and became a candidate for the consulate. He now succeeded in reconciling Pompey and Crassus and the three formed a secret coalition to secure the election of Caesar and the satisfaction of their particular aims. This unofficial coalition is known as the First Triumvirate. Through the influence of his supporters Caesar was easily elected but his colleague was Calpurnius Bibulus, the nominee of the Optimates.

[pg 166]

Chapter XIV

The Rivalry of Pompey and Caesar: Caesar’s Dictatorship; 59–44 B. C.

I. Caesar Consul: 59 b. c.

A rule of force. At the beginning of his consulship Caesar tried to induce the Senate to approve his measures, but, when they failed to do so, he carried them directly to the Assembly. And when Bibulus and Cato essayed to obstruct legislation in the Comitia he crushed all opposition by the aid of Pompey’s veterans. Bibulus, protesting against the illegality of Caesar’s proceedings, shut himself up in his own house. Thus Caesar carried two land laws for the benefit of the soldiers of Pompey, induced the Senate to ratify the latter’s eastern settlement, and secured for the equestrians, whose cause was championed by Crassus, the remission of one third of the contract price for the revenues of Asia.

The Vatinian Law. A lucky chance enabled Caesar to secure his own future by an extended military command. The Senate had taken pains to render him harmless by assigning as the consular provinces for 58 the care of forests and country roads in Italy, but in February, 59, the death of Metellus Celer, proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul, left vacant a post of considerable importance in view of the imminent danger of war breaking out in Transalpine Gaul. Accordingly a law proposed by the tribune Vatinius transferred to Caesar the command of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum, with a garrison of three legions, for a term of five years beginning 1 March, 59. To this the Senate, at the suggestion of Pompey, added Transalpine Gaul and another legion.

The banishment of Cicero, 58 B. C. Caesar’s consulship had been an open defiance of constitutional precedent, and had revealed the fact that the triumvirate was stronger than the established organs of government, and that the Roman Empire was really controlled by [pg 167]three men. Well might Cato say that the coalition was the beginning of the end of the Republic. Within the triumvirate itself Pompey was the dominant figure owing to his military renown and the influence of his veterans. Caesar appeared as his agent, yet displayed far greater political insight and succeeded in creating for himself a position which would enable him to play a more independent rôle in the future. The coalition did not break up at the end of Caesar’s consulship; its members determined to retain their control of the state policy, and to this end secured for 58 B. C. the election of two consuls in whom they had confidence. To cement the alliance Pompey married Caesar’s daughter Julia, and Caesar married the daughter of Piso, one of the consuls-elect. To secure themselves from attack they felt it necessary to remove from the city their two ablest opponents, Cato and Cicero. The latter had refused all proposals to join their side, and had sharply criticized them on several public occasions. His banishment was secured through the agency of the tribune Clodius, whose transfer from patrician to plebeian status Caesar had facilitated. Clodius was a man of ill repute who hated Cicero because the latter had testified against him when he was on trial for sacrilege. Early in 58 B. C. Clodius carried a bill which outlawed any person who had put to death Roman citizens without regular judicial proceedings. This law was aimed at Cicero for his share in the execution of the Catalinarian conspirators. Finding that he could not rely upon the support of his friends, Cicero went into exile without awaiting trial. He was formally banished, his property was confiscated, and he himself sought refuge in Thessalonica, where the governor of Macedonia offered him protection. Cato was entrusted with a special mission to accomplish the incorporation of Cyprus, then ruled by one of the Egyptian Ptolemies, into the Roman Empire, and his Stoic conception of duty prevented him from refusing the appointment. Caesar remained with his army in the vicinity of Rome until after Cicero’s banishment and then set out for his province.

II. Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul: 58–51 b. c.

The defeat of the Helvetii and Ariovistus: 58 B. C. In 58 B. C., when Caesar entered upon his Gallic command, the Roman province in Transalpine Gaul (Gallia Narbonensis) embraced the coast districts from the Alps to the borders of Spain and the land between the [pg 168]Alps and the Rhone as far north as Lake Geneva. The country which stretched from the Pyrenees to the Rhine, and from the Rhone to the ocean was called Gallia comata or “long-haired Gaul,” and was occupied by a large number of peoples of varying importance. These were usually regarded as falling into three groups, (1) those of Aquitania, between the Pyrenees and the Loire, where there was a large Iberian element, (2) those called Celts, in a narrow sense of the word, stretching from the Loire to the Seine and the Marne, and (3) the Belgian Gauls, dwelling between these rivers and the Rhine. Among the latter were peoples of Germanic origin. Although conscious of a general unity of language, race and customs, the Gauls had not developed a national state, owing to the mutual jealousy of the individual peoples, and each tribe was perpetually divided into rival factions supporting different chiefs. Rome had sought to protect the province of Narbonensis by establishing friendly relations with some of these Gallic peoples and had long before (c. 121 B. C.) made an alliance with the Aedui. About 70 B. C. conditions in Gallia comata had been disturbed by an invasion of Germanic Suevi, from across the Rhine, under their King Ariovistus. He united with the rivals of the Aedui, the Sequani, and after a number of years reduced the former to submission. In 59 B. C. he reached an agreement with Rome, became a “friend” of the Roman people, and, while abstaining from further aggression, remained firmly established in what is now Alsace. For some time the Roman province had been alarmed by the threat of a migration of the Helvetii, then settled in western Switzerland, and in March, 58 B. C., this people started in search of new abodes. Caesar reached Gaul in time to prevent their crossing the upper Rhone, and followed them as they turned westward into the lands of the Sequani and Aedui. Defeated in two battles, they were forced to return to their home and to become allies of Rome. The movement of the Helvetii had given Caesar the opportunity for intervention in Gallia comata, and a pretext for extending his influence there was found in the hostility of some of the Gauls to Ariovistus, and the knowledge that a band of Suevi was expected soon to cross the Rhine to reinforce the latter. To frustrate a German occupation of Gaul now became Caesar’s object. Ariovistus rejected the demands of Caesar, who thereupon attacked him, defeated him in the vicinity of Strassburg and drove him across the Rhine. Caesar was now the dominant power in Gaul, and many of the leading tribes en[pg 169]tered into alliance with Rome. Of the Belgae, however, only the Remi came over to the side of Rome.

The conquest of the Belgae, Veneti, and Aquitanians, 57–56 B. C. In the next year, 57 B. C., Caesar marched against the united forces of the Belgae, defeated them, and subdued many tribes, chief of whom were the Nervii. At the same time his legates received the submission of the peoples of Normandy and Brittany. In the course of the following winter some of these, led by the Veneti, broke off their alliance and attacked Caesar’s garrisons. Thereupon he set to work to build a fleet, with which in the course of the next summer the fleet of the Veneti was destroyed and their strongholds on the coast taken (56 B. C.). The same year witnessed the submission of the Aquitanians, which brought practically the whole of Gaul under Roman sway.

Events in Rome, 58–55 B. C. Meanwhile important changes had taken place in the situation at Rome. Pompey had broken with Clodius, and supported the tribune Titus Annius Milo who pressed for Cicero’s recall. A law of the Assembly withdrew his sentence of outlawry, his property was restored, and the orator returned in September, 57 B. C., to enjoy a warm reception both in the municipal towns and at the capital. For the moment Pompey and the Optimates were on friendly terms, and the former made use of a grain famine in the city to secure for himself an appointment as curator of the grain supply (curator annonae) for a period of five years. This appointment carried with it proconsular imperium within and without Italy, and the control of the ports, markets and traffic in grain within the Roman dominions. It was really an extraordinary military command. Pompey relieved the situation but could do nothing to allay the disorders in Rome, where Clodius and Milo with their armed gangs set law and order at defiance. The news of Caesar’s victories and the influence which he was acquiring in the city by a judicious distribution of the spoils of war fired the ambitions of Pompey and Crassus who were no longer on good terms with one another. Furthermore, the return of Cato in 56 B. C. had again given the Optimates an energetic leader. Consequently Caesar felt it necessary for the coalition to reach a new agreement. Accordingly while spending the winter in Cisalpine Gaul he arranged a conference at Luca in April, 56, where the three settled their differences and laid plans for the future. They agreed that Pompey and Crassus should [pg 170]be consuls in 55 B. C., that the former should be given the Spanish provinces and Libya for five years, that Crassus should have Syria for an equal period, and that Caesar’s command in Gaul should be prolonged for another five year term to run from 1 March, 54.

These arrangements were duly carried out. Since it was too late for Pompey and Crassus to be candidates at the regular elections in 56 B. C., they forcibly prevented any elections being held that year. The following January, after forcing the other candidates to withdraw, they secured their election. Thereupon a law of the tribune Gaius Trebonius made effective the assignment of provinces agreed upon at Luca. Once more it was made plain that the coalition actually ruled the empire. Cicero, who was indebted to Pompey for his recall, was forced to support the triumvirate, and the Optimates found their boldest leader in Cato, who had returned to Rome early in 56 B. C.

Caesar’s crossing of the Rhine and invasion of Britain: 55–54 B. C. During the winter following the subjugation of the Veneti, two Germanic tribes, the Usipetes and the Tencteri, crossed the lower Rhine into Gaul. In the next summer, 55 B. C., Caesar attacked and annihilated their forces, only a few escaping across the river. As a warning against future invasion, Caesar bridged the Rhine and made a demonstration upon the right bank, destroying his bridge when he withdrew. Towards the close of the summer he crossed the Straits of Dover to Britain, to punish the Britons for aiding his enemies in Gaul. But owing to the lateness of the season and the smallness of his force he returned to Gaul after a brief reconnaissance.

In the following year, after gathering a larger fleet, he again landed on the island with a force of almost 30,000 men. This time he forced his way across the Thames and received the submission of Cassivellaunus, the chief who led the British tribes against the invaders. After taking hostages, and receiving promises of tribute, Caesar returned to Gaul. Britain was in no sense subdued, but the island had felt the power of Rome, and, besides enlarging the geographical knowledge of the time, Caesar had brought back numbers of captives. In Rome the exploit produced great excitement and enthusiasm.

Revolts in Gaul: 54–53 B. C. Although the Gauls had submitted to Caesar, they were not yet reconciled to Roman rule, which put an [pg 171]end to their inter-tribal wars and to the feuds among the nobility. Consequently, many of the tribes were restive and not inclined to surrender all hopes of freedom without another struggle. In the course of the winter 54–53 B. C. the Nervii, Treveri and Eburones in Belgian Gaul attacked the Roman detachments stationed in their territories. One of these was cut to pieces but the rest held their ground until relieved by Caesar, who stamped out the rebellion.

Vercingetorix, 52 B. C. A more serious movement started in 52 B. C. among the peoples of central Gaul who found a national leader in Vercingetorix, a young noble of the Arverni. The revolt took Caesar by surprise when he was in Cisalpine Gaul and his troops still scattered in winter quarters. He recrossed the Alps with all haste, secured the Narbonese province and succeeded in uniting his forces. These he strengthened with German cavalry from across the Rhine. However, a temporary check in an attack upon the position of Vercingetorix at Gergovia caused the Aedui to desert the Roman cause, and the revolt spread to practically the whole of Gaul. Caesar was on the point of retiring to the province, but after repulsing an attack made upon him he was able to pen up Vercingetorix in the fortress of Alesia. A great effort made by the Gauls to relieve the siege failed to break Caesar’s lines, and the defenders were starved into submission. The crisis was over, although another year was required before the revolting tribes were all reduced to submission and the Roman authority re-established (51 B. C.). Caesar used all possible mildness in his treatment of the conquered and the Gauls were not only pacified but won over. In the days to come they were among his most loyal supporters. The conquest of Gaul was an event of supreme importance for the future history of the Roman empire, and for the development of European civilization as well. For the time Gallia comata was not formed into a province. Its peoples were made allies of Rome, under the supervision of the governor of Narbonese Gaul, under obligation to furnish troops and for the most part liable to a fixed tribute. Caesar’s campaign in Gaul had given him the opportunity to develop his unusual military talents and to create a veteran army devoted to himself. His power had become so great that both Pompey and the Optimates desired his destruction and he was in a position to refuse to be eliminated without a struggle. The plots laid in Rome to deprive him of his power had made him hasten to quell the revolt of the Gauls with all speed. [pg 172]When this was accomplished he was free to turn his attention to Roman affairs.

Crassus in Syria, 55–53 B. C. After the assignment of the provinces by the Trebonian Law in 55 B. C., Crassus set out for Syria intending to win military power and prestige by a war against the Parthians, an Asiatic people who, once the subjects of the Persians and Seleucids, had established a kingdom which included the provinces of the Seleucid empire as far west as the Euphrates. Crassus had no real excuse for opening hostilities, but the Parthians were a potentially dangerous neighbor and a campaign against them gave promise of profit and glory. Accordingly, in 54 B. C., Crassus made a short incursion into Mesopotamia and then withdrew to Syria. The next year he again crossed the Euphrates, intending to penetrate deeply into the enemy’s country. But he had underestimated the strength of the Parthians and the difficulties of desert warfare. In the Mesopotamian desert near Carrhae his troops were surrounded and cut to pieces by the Parthian horsemen; Crassus himself was enticed into a conference and treacherously slain, and only a small remnant of his force escaped (53 B. C.). But the Parthians were slow in following up their advantage and Crassus’ quaestor, Cassius Longinus, was able to hold Syria. Still Roman prestige in the East had received a severe blow and for the next three centuries the Romans found the Parthians dangerous neighbors. The death of Crassus tended to hasten a crisis in Rome for it brought into sharp conflict the incompatible ambitions of Pompey and Caesar, whose estrangement had already begun with the death of Pompey’s wife Julia in 54 B. C.

Affairs in Rome, 54–49 B. C. At the end of his consulship Pompey left Rome but remained in Italy, on the pretext of his curatorship of the grain supply, and governed his province through his legates. In Rome disorder reigned; no consuls were elected in 54 B. C. nor before July of the following year; the partizans of Clodius and Milo kept everything in confusion. Pompey could have restored order but preferred to create a situation which would force the Senate to grant him new powers, so he backed Clodius, while Milo championed the Optimates. Owing to broils between the supporters of the candidates, no consuls or praetors could be elected for 52 B. C. In January of that year Clodius was slain by Milo’s body-guard on the Appian Way, and the ensuing outburst of mob violence in the city [pg 173]forced the Senate to appeal to Pompey. He was made sole consul, until he should choose a colleague, and was entrusted with the task of restoring order. His troops brought quiet into the city; Milo was tried on a charge of public violence, convicted, and banished. Pompey had attained the height of his official career; he was sole consul, at the same time he had a province embracing the Spains, Libya, and the sphere assigned to him with the grain curatorship, he governed his provinces through legati, and his armies were maintained by the public treasury. In reality he was the chief power in the state, for without him the Senate was helpless, and he was justly regarded by contemporaries as the First Citizen or Princeps. In many ways his position foreshadowed the Principate of Augustus. However, Pompey did not wish to overthrow the republican régime; his ambition was to be regarded as the indispensable and permanent mainstay of the government and to enjoy corresponding power and honor. In such a scheme there was no room for a rival, and therefore he determined upon Caesar’s overthrow. This decision put him on the side of the extreme Optimates, who were alarmed by Caesar’s wealth, influence and fame and feared him as a dangerous radical. They had no hesitation in choosing between Pompey and Caesar.

Pompey’s attack upon Caesar: 52 B. C. The latter’s immediate aim was to secure the consulship for 48 B. C. and to retain his proconsular command until the end of December, 49. He knew that he had reached a position where his destruction was the desire of many, and that the moment he surrendered his imperium he would be open to prosecution by those seeking to procure his ruin. But he had no intention of placing himself in the power of his enemies. The consulship would not only save him from prosecution but would enable him to confirm his arrangements in Gaul, reward his army, and secure his own future by another proconsular appointment. However, to secure his election, he had to be exempted from presenting himself in person for his candidature in 49, and this permission was accorded him by a tribunician law early in 52 B. C. So far his position was strictly legal, but Pompey, whose own consulship was unconstitutional, now broke openly with Caesar by passing legislation which would undermine the latter’s position. One of Pompey’s laws prohibited candidacies for office in absentia, and when Caesar’s friends protested, he added to the text of the law after it had passed a clause exempting Caesar from its operation; a procedure of more than dubious [pg 174]legality. A second law provided that in future provincial governorships should not be filled by the city magistrates just completing their term of office but by those whose terms had expired five years previously. This latter law may have been intended to check the mad rivalry for provincial appointments, but its immediate significance lay in the fact that it permitted a successor to be appointed to take over Caesar’s provinces on 1 March, 49 B. C. He would thus have to stand as a private citizen for the consulship and would no longer enjoy immunity from legal attack. At the same time Pompey had his own command in Spain extended for another five years.

Negotiations between Caesar, Pompey and the Senate, 51–50 B. C. The question of appointing a successor to Caesar’s provinces filled the next two years and was the immediate cause of civil war. Caesar claimed that his position should not be affected by the Pompeian law, and pressed for permission to hold his command until the close of 49 B. C. The extreme conservatives sought to supersede him on March first of that year, but Caesar’s friends and agents thwarted their efforts. Pompey was not willing to have Caesar’s command to run beyond 13 November, 49. Cicero, who had distinguished himself by his uprightness as governor of Cilicia in 51, strove to effect a compromise, but in vain. Caesar offered to give up Transalpine Gaul and part of his army, if allowed to retain the Cisalpine province but the overture was rejected. Finally, in December, 50 B. C., he formally promised to resign his provinces and disband his troops, if Pompey would do the same, but the Senate insisted upon his absolute surrender. On 7 January, 49 B. C., the Senate passed the “last decree” calling upon the magistrates and proconsuls (i. e. Pompey) to protect the state, and declaring Caesar a public enemy. Caesar’s friends left the city and fled to meet him in Cisalpine Gaul, where he and his army were in readiness for this emergency.

III. The Civil War between Caesar and the Senate: 49–46 b. c.

Caesar’s conquest of Italy and Spain, 49 B. C. The senatorial conservatives had forced the issue and for Caesar there remained the alternative of victory or destruction. He possessed the advantages of a loyal army ready for immediate action and the undisputed control [pg 175]over his own troops. On the other hand, his opponents had no veteran troops in Italy, and although Pompey acted as commander-in-chief of the senatorial forces, he was greatly hampered by having at times to defer to the judgment of the consuls and senators who were in his camp. It was obviously to Caesar’s advantage to take the offensive and to force a decision before his enemies could concentrate against him the resources of the provinces. Hence he determined to act without delay, and, upon receiving news of the Senate’s action on 7 January, he crossed the Rubicon, which divided Cisalpine Gaul and Italy, with a small force, ordering the legions beyond the Alps to join him with all speed. The Italian municipalities opened their gates at his approach and the newly raised levies went over to his side. Everywhere his mildness to his opponents won him new adherents. Pompey decided to abandon Italy and withdraw to the East, intending later to concentrate upon the peninsula from all sides; a plan made feasible by his control of the sea. Caesar divined his intention and tried to cut off his retreat at Brundisium, but could not prevent his embarkation. With his army and the majority of the Senate Pompey crossed to Epirus. Owing to his lack of a fleet Caesar could not follow and returned to Rome. There some of the magistrates were still functioning, in conjunction with a remnant of the Senate. Being in dire need of money, he wished to obtain funds from the treasury, and when this was opposed by a tribune, Caesar ignored the latter’s veto and forcibly seized the reserve treasure which the Pompeians had left behind in their hasty flight. In the meantime Caesar’s lieutenants had seized Sardinia and Sicily, and crossed over into Africa. He himself determined to attack the well organized Pompeian forces in Spain and destroy them before Pompey was ready for an offensive from the East. On his way to Spain, Caesar began the siege of Massalia which closed its gates to him. Leaving the city under blockade he hastened to Spain, where after an initial defeat he forced the surrender of the Pompeian armies. Some of the prisoners joined his forces; the rest were dismissed to their homes. Caesar hastened back to Massalia. The city capitulated at his arrival, and was punished by requisitions, the loss of its territory and the temporary deprivation of its autonomy. From here Caesar pressed on to Rome, where he had been appointed dictator by virtue of a special law. After holding the elections in which he and an approved colleague were returned as consuls for 48, he resigned his dictatorship and set out [pg 176]for Brundisium. There he had assembled his army and transports for the passage to Epirus.

Pharsalus, 48 B. C. During Caesar’s Spanish campaign Pompey had gathered a large force in Macedonia, nine Roman legions reinforced by contingents from the Roman allies. His fleet, recruited largely from the maritime cities in the East, commanded the Adriatic. Nevertheless, at the opening of winter (Nov. 49 B. C.) Caesar effected a landing on the coast of Epirus with part of his army and seized Apollonia. However, Pompey arrived from Macedonia in time to save Dyrrhachium. Throughout the winter the two armies remained inactive, but Pompey’s fleet prevented Caesar from receiving reinforcements until the spring of 48 B. C., when Marcus Antonius effected a crossing with another detachment. As Caesar’s troops began to suffer from shortage of supplies he was forced to take the offensive and tried to blockade Pompey’s larger force in Dyrrhachium. However, the attempt failed, his lines of investment were broken, and he withdrew to Thessaly. Thither he was followed by Pompey, who suffered himself to be influenced by the overconfident senators to risk a battle. Near the town of Old Pharsalus he attacked Caesar but was defeated and his army dispersed. He himself sought refuge in Egypt and there he was put to death by order of the king whose father he had protected in the days of his power. Pompey’s great weakness was that his resolution did not match his ambition. His ambition led him to seek a position incompatible with the constitution; but his lack of resolution did not permit him to overthrow the constitution. The Optimates had sided with him only because they held him less dangerous than Caesar and had he been victorious they would have sought to compass his downfall.

Caesar in the East, 48–47 B. C. After Pharsalus Caesar had set out in pursuit of Pompey, but arrived in Egypt after the murder of his foe. His ever pressing need of money probably induced Caesar to intervene as arbiter in the name of Rome in the dynastic struggle then raging in Egypt between the twenty-year-old Cleopatra and her thirteen-year-old brother, Ptolemy XIV Dionysus, who was also, following the Egyptian custom, her husband. Caesar got the young king in his power and brought back Cleopatra, whom the people of Alexandria had driven out. Angered thereat, and resenting his exactions, the Alexandrians rose in arms and from October, 48, to March, 47 B. C., besieged Caesar in the royal quarter of the city. Having [pg 177]but few troops with him Caesar was in dire straits and was only able to maintain himself through his control of the sea which enabled him to eventually receive reinforcements. His relief was effected by a force raised by Mithradates of Pergamon who invaded Egypt from Syria. In co-operation with him Caesar defeated the Egyptians in battle; Ptolemy Dionysus perished in flight; and Alexandria submitted. Cleopatra was married to a still younger brother and put in possession of the kingdom of Egypt. Caesar had succumbed to the charms of the Egyptian queen and tarried in her company for the rest of the winter. He was called away to face a new danger in Pharnaces, son of Mithradates Eupator, who had taken advantage of the civil war to recover Pontus and overrun Lesser Armenia, Cappadocia and Bithynia. Hastening through Syria Caesar entered Pontus and defeated Pharnaces at Zela. After settling affairs in Asia Minor he proceeded with all speed to the West, where his presence was urgently needed.

Thapsus, 46 B. C. Both the fleet and the army of Pompey had dispersed after Pharsalus, but Caesar’s delay in the East had given the republicans an opportunity to reassemble their forces. They gathered in Africa where Caesar’s lieutenant Curio, who had invaded the province in 49 B. C., had been defeated and killed by the Pompeians through the aid of King Juba of Numidia. From Africa they were now preparing to attack Italy. In Rome, Caesar had been appointed dictator for 47 B. C. with Antony as his master of the horse. Here disorder reigned as a result of the distress arising from the financial stringency brought on by the war. Antony, who was in Rome, had proved unable to deal with the situation. Caesar reached Italy in September, 47 B. C., and soon restored order in the city. He was then called upon to face a serious mutiny of his troops who demanded the fulfillment of his promises of money and land and their release from service. By boldness and presence of mind Caesar won them back to their allegiance and set out for Africa in December, 47 B. C. He landed with only a portion of his troops and at first was defeated by the republicans under Scipio and Juba. But he was supported by King Bogud of Mauretania and a Catalinarian soldier of fortune, Publius Sittius, and after receiving reinforcements from Italy he besieged the seaport Thapsus. Scipio came to the rescue but was completely defeated in a bloody battle near the town. The whole of the province fell into Caesar’s hands. Cato, who was in command of Utica, did not force the citizens to resist but com[pg 178]mitted suicide; the other republican leaders, including Juba, either followed his example, or were taken and executed by the Caesarians. From Africa Caesar returned to Rome where he celebrated a costly triumph over Gaul, Egypt, Pharnaces and Juba. He was now undisputed master of the state and proceeded according to his own judgment to settle the problem of governing the Roman world.

IV. The Dictatorship of Julius Caesar: 46–44 b. c.

The problem of imperial government. From 28 July, 46, to 15 March, 44 B. C., Caesar ruled the Roman Empire with despotic power, his position unchallenged except for a revolt of the Pompeian party in Spain which required his attention from the autumn of 46 to the spring of 45 B. C. His victory over Pompey and the republicans had placed upon him the obligation to provide the empire with a stable form of government and this responsibility he accepted. Sulla, when faced with the same problem, had been content to place the Senate once more at the head of the state, but from his own experience Caesar knew how futile this policy had been. Nor could the ideal of Pompey commend itself as a means of ending civil war and rebellion. Caesar was prepared to deal much more radically with the old régime, but death overtook him before he had completed his reorganization. What was the goal of his policy will best be understood from a consideration of his official position during the year and a half which followed the battle of Thapsus.

Caesar’s offices, powers and honors. Caesar’s autocratic position rested in the last instance upon the support of his veterans, of the associates who owed their advancement to him, and of such small forces as he kept under arms, but his position was legalized by the accumulation in his hands of various offices, special powers and unusual honors. Foremost among his offices came the dictatorship. We have seen that he had held this already for a short time in 49 and again in 47. In 46 B. C. he was appointed dictator for ten years, and in the following year for life. At the same time he was consul, an office which he held continuously from 48 B. C., in 45 as sole consul, but usually with a colleague. In addition to these offices he enjoyed the tribunician authority (tribunicia potestas), that is, the power of the tribunes without the name. This included the right to sit with the tribunes and the right of intercession, granted him as [pg 179]early as 48 B. C., and also personal inviolability (sacrosanctitas) which he received in 45. He had been Chief Pontiff since 63, and in 48 B. C. was admitted to all the patrician priestly corporations. And in 46 B. C. he was given the powers of the censorship under the title of “prefect of morals” (praefectus morum), at first for three years and later for life. In addition to these official positions of more or less established scope, Caesar received other powers not dependent upon any office. He was granted the right to appoint to both Roman and provincial magistracies, until in 44 B. C. he had the authority to nominate half the officials annually; and in reality appointed all. In 48 B. C. he received the power of making war and peace without consulting the Senate, in 46 the right of expressing his opinion first in the Senate (ius primae sententiae), and in 45 the sole right to command troops and to control the public moneys. In the next year ratification was given in advance to all his future arrangements, and magistrates entering upon office were required to swear to uphold his acts. The concentration of these powers in his person placed Caesar above the law, and reduced the holders of public offices to the position of his servants. Honors to match his extraordinary powers were heaped upon Caesar, partly by his own desire, partly by the servility and fulsome flattery of the Senate. He was granted a seat with the consuls in the Senate, if he should not be consul himself; he received the title of parent or father of his country (parens or pater patriae); his statue was placed among those of the kings of Rome, his image in the temple of Quirinus; the month Quinctilis, in which he was born, was renamed Julius (July) in his honor; a new college of priests, the Julian Luperci, was created; a temple was erected to himself and the Goddess Clementia, and a priest (flamen) appointed for his worship there; and he was authorized to build a house on the Palatine with a pediment like a temple. Most of these honors he received after his victory over the Pompeians in Spain in 45 B. C. However, the title imperator (Emperor), which was regularly the prerogative of a general who was entitled to a triumph and was surrendered along with his military imperium, was employed by Caesar continuously from 49 until after the battle of Thapsus in 46, when he celebrated his triumph over the Gauls and his other non-Roman enemies. He assumed it again after Munda in the following year.

Caesar’s aim—monarchy. Taking into account the powers which Caesar wielded and his lifelong tenure of certain offices there [pg 180]can be no doubt that he not only had established monarchical government in Rome but also aimed to make his monarchy permanent. And this gives the explanation why he accepted honors which were more suited to a god than to a man, for since the time of Alexander the Great deification had been accepted in the Greek East as the legal and moral basis for the exercise of absolute power, and as distinguishing a legitimate autocracy from a tyranny. To a polytheistic age, familiar with the idea of the deification of “heroes” after death and permeated in its educated circles with the teaching of Euhemerus that the gods were but men who in their sojourn upon earth had been benefactors of the human race, the deification of a monarch in no way offended religious susceptibilities. The Romans were acquainted with monarchies of this type in Syria and in Egypt. Indeed this was the only type of monarchy familiar to the Romans of the first century B. C., if we exclude the Parthian and other despotisms, and it was bound to influence any form of monarchical government set up in Rome. The plebs actually hailed Caesar as “rex,” and at the feast of the Lupercalia in February, 44 B. C., Antony publicly offered him a crown. It is possible that he would have assumed the title if popular opinion had supported this step. And there may well have been some truth in the rumor that he contemplated marriage with Cleopatra, who came to Rome in 46 B. C., for a queen would be a fit mate for a monarch and such a step would have effected the peaceful incorporation of Egypt into the Roman Empire.

Caesar’s reforms. Upon returning to Rome after the battle of Thapsus Caesar began a series of reforms which affected practically every side of Roman life. One of the most useful was the reform of the Roman calendar. Hitherto the Romans had employed a lunar year of three hundred and fifty-five days (the calendar year beginning on March first and the civil year, since 153 B. C., on January first) which was approximately corrected to the solar year by the addition of an intercalary month of twenty-two days in the second, and one of twenty-three days in the fourth year, of cycles of four years. For personal or political motives the pontiffs had trifled with the intercalation of these months until in 46 B. C. the Roman year was completely out of touch with the solar year. With the assistance of the Greek astronomer Sosigenes, Caesar introduced the Egyptian solar year of approximately 365¼ days, in such a way that three years of 365 days were followed by one of 366 days in which an extra day was [pg 181]added to February after the twenty-fourth of the month. The new Julian calendar went into effect on 1 January, 45 B. C. Another abuse was partially rectified by the reduction of the number who were entitled to receive cheap grain in Rome from about 320,000 to 150,000. The Roman plebeian colleges and guilds, which had become political clubs and had contributed to the recent disorders in the city, were dissolved with the exception of the ancient association of craftsmen. The tribuni aerarii were removed from the jury courts and the penalties for criminal offences increased. Plans were laid for a codification of the Roman law but this was not carried into effect. Municipal administration in Rome and the Italian towns was regulated by the Julian Municipal Law, which brought uniformity into the municipal organization of Italy. The Roman magistracies were increased in number; the quaestorships from twenty to forty, and the eight praetorships finally to sixteen. At the same time the priesthoods were likewise enlarged. Administrative needs and the wish to reward a greater number of followers probably influenced these changes. A number of new patrician families were created to take the places of those which had died out. The membership of the Senate was increased to 900, and many new men, including ex-soldiers of Caesar and enfranchised Gauls, were enrolled in it. Caesar provided for his veterans by settling them in Italian municipalities and in colonies in the provinces. The deserted sites of Carthage and Corinth were repeopled with Roman colonists and once more became flourishing cities. In this way Caesar promoted the romanization of the provinces, a policy which he had begun with his conferment of the franchise upon the Transpadane Gauls in 49, and continued in the case of many Spanish communities. This romanization of the provinces and the admission of provincials to the Senate points to an imperial policy which would end the exploitation of the provinces in the interests of a governing caste and a city mob.

Munda, 45 B. C. Caesar proved himself a magnanimous conqueror. No Sullan proscriptions disgraced his victory. After Pharsalus he permitted all the republican leaders who submitted (among them Cicero), to return to Rome. Even after Thapsus at the intercession of his friends he pardoned bitter foes like Marcus Marcellus, one of the consuls of 50 B. C. But there remained some irreconcilables led by his old lieutenant Labienus, Varus, and Gnaeus and Sextus Pompey, sons of Pompey the Great, who after Pharsalus had betaken [pg 182]themselves with a small naval force to the western Mediterranean. In 46 B. C. they were joined by Labienus and Varus and landed in Spain where they rallied to their cause the old Pompeian soldiers who had entered Caesar’s service but whose sympathies had been alienated by one of his legati, Quintus Cassius. The Caesarian commanders could make no headway against them and it became necessary for the dictator to take the field in person. In December 46 B. C. he set out for Spain. Throughout the winter he sought in vain to force the enemy to battle, but in March 45 the two armies met at Munda, where Caesar’s eight defeated the thirteen Pompeian legions. The Caesarians gave no quarter and the Pompeian forces were annihilated; Labienus and Varus fell on the field, Gnaeus Pompey was later taken and put to death, but his brother Sextus escaped. Caesar returned to Italy in September, 45 B. C., and celebrated a triumph for his success.

The assassination of Julius Caesar, 15 March, 44 B. C. His victory at Munda had strengthened Caesar’s autocratic position, and was responsible for the granting of most of the exceptional honors which we have noted above. It was now clear at Rome that Caesar did not intend to restore the republic. In the conduct of the government he allowed no freedom of action to either Senate or Assembly, and although in general mild and forgiving he was quick to resent any attempt to slight him or question his authority. The realization that Caesar contemplated the establishment of a monarchy aroused bitter animosity among certain representatives of the old governing oligarchy, who chafed under the restraints imposed upon them by his autocratic power and resented the degradation of the Senate to the position of a mere advisory council. It could hardly be expected that members of the Roman aristocracy with all their traditions of imperial government would tamely submit to being excluded from political life except as ministers of an autocrat who was until lately one of themselves. This attitude was shared by many who had hitherto been active in Caesar’s cause, as well as by republicans who had made their peace with him. And so among these disgruntled elements a conspiracy was formed against the dictator’s life. The originator of the plot was the ex-Pompeian Caius Cassius, whom Caesar had made praetor for 44, and who won over to his design Marcus Junius Brutus, a member of the house descended from the Brutus who was reputed to have delivered Rome from the tyranny [pg 183]of the Tarquins. Brutus had gone over to Caesar after the battle of Pharsalus and was highly esteemed by him, but allowed himself to be persuaded that it was his duty to imitate his ancestor’s conduct. Other conspirators of note were the Caesarians Gaius Trebonius and Decimus Junius Brutus. In all some sixty senators shared in the conspiracy. They set the Ides of March, 44, as the date for the execution of the plot. Caesar was now busily engaged with preparations for a war against the Parthians, who had been a menace to Syria ever since the defeat of Crassus. This defeat Caesar aimed to avenge and, in addition, to definitely secure the eastern frontier of the empire. An army of sixteen legions and 10,000 cavalry was being assembled in Greece for this campaign, and Caesar was about to leave Rome to assume command. He is said to have been informed that a conspiracy against his life was on foot, but to have disregarded the warning. He had dismissed his body-guard of soldiers and refused one of senators and equestrians. On the fatal day he entered the Senate chamber, where the question of granting him the title of king in the provinces was to be discussed. A group of the conspirators surrounded him, and, drawing concealed daggers, stabbed him to death. He fell at the foot of Pompey’s statue.

Estimate of Caesar’s career. By the Roman writers who preserved the republican tradition Brutus, Cassius, and their associates were honored as tyrannicides who in the name of liberty had sought to save the republic. Cato, who had died rather than witness the triumph of Caesar, became their hero. But this is an extremely narrow and partizan view. The republic which Caesar had overthrown was no system of popular government but one whereby a small group of Roman nobles and capitalists exploited for their own personal ends and for the satisfaction of an idle city mob millions of subjects in the provinces. The republican organs of government had ceased to voice the opinion even of the whole Roman citizen body. The governing circles had proven themselves incapable of bringing about any improvement in the situation and had completely lost the power of preserving peace in the state. Radical reforms were imperative and could only be effective by virtue of superior force. In his resort to corruption and violence in furthering his own career and in his appeal to arms to decide the issue between himself and the Senate, Caesar must be judged according to the practices of his time. He was the child of his age and advanced himself by means which his [pg 184]predecessors and contemporaries employed. That he was ambitious and a lover of power is undeniable but hardly a cause for reproach; and who shall blame him, if when the Senate sought to destroy him by force, he used the same means to defend himself. His claim to greatness lies not in his ability to outwit his rivals in the political arena or outgeneral his enemies on the field of battle, but in his realization, when the fate of the civilized world was in his hands, that the old order was beyond remedy and in his courage in attempting to set up a new order which promised to give peace and security both to Roman citizens and to the provincials. Caesar fell before he had been able to give stability to his organization, but the republic could not be quickened into life. After Caesar some form of monarchical government was inevitable.

[pg 185]

Chapter XV

The Passing of the Republic: 44–27 B. C.

I. The Rise of Octavian

The political situation after Caesar’s death. Caesar had made no arrangements for a successor, and his death produced the greatest consternation in Rome. The conspirators had made no plans to seize the reins of power, and instead of finding their act greeted with an outburst of popular approval, they were left face to face with the fact that although Caesar was dead the Caesarian party lived on in his veterans and the city populace, led by the consul Mark Antony, and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, Caesar’s master of the horse. The Senate met on 17 March, and it was evident that a majority of its members supported the assassins, but they were afraid of the legion which Lepidus had under his orders and the Caesarian veterans in the city. Antony, who had obtained possession of Caesar’s papers and money, took the lead of the Caesarian party and came to terms with their opponents. It was agreed that the conspirators should go unpunished, but that the acts of Caesar should be ratified, even those which had not yet been carried into effect, that his will should be approved, and that he should receive a public funeral.

The reading of Caesar’s will revealed that he had left his gardens on the right bank of the Tiber as a public park, had bequeathed a donation of three hundred sesterces (about fifteen dollars) to each Roman citizen and had adopted his grand-nephew Caius Octavius as his son and heir to three-fourths of his fortune. By a speech delivered to the people on the day of Caesar’s funeral Antony skilfully enflamed popular sentiment against Caesar’s murderers. The mob seized the dictator’s corpse, burned it in the forum and buried the ashes there. The chief conspirators did not dare to remain in the city; Decimus Brutus went to his province of Cisalpine Gaul, Marcus Brutus and Cassius lingered in the neighborhood of Rome. Antony was master of the situation in the capital and overawed opposition [pg 186]by his bodyguard of 6000 veterans. He held in check Lepidus and other Caesarians who called for vengeance upon the conspirators. Lepidus was won over by his election to the position of Pontifex Maximus to succeed Caesar and was induced to leave the city for his province of Hither Spain to check the progress of Sextus Pompey, who had reappeared in Farther Spain and defeated the Caesarian governor. It was hoped that Sextus would be satisfied with permission to return to Rome and compensation for his father’s property. Caesar’s arrangements for the provincial governorships had assigned Macedonia to Antony and Syria to Dolabella, who became Antony’s colleague in the consulate at Caesar’s death. This assignment Antony altered by a law which granted him Cisalpine Gaul and the Transalpine district outside the Narbonese province for a term of six years in violation of a law of Caesar’s, which limited proconsular commands to two years. Dolabella was to have Syria for a like period and Decimus Brutus was given Macedonia in exchange for Cisalpine Gaul. The consuls were to occupy their provinces at once. To Brutus and Cassius were assigned for the next year the provinces of Crete and Cyrene; while for the present they were given a special commission to collect grain in Sicily and Asia. The two left Italy for the East with the intention of seizing the provinces there before the arrival of Dolabella. They hoped to raise a force which would enable them to check Antony’s career, for it was evident that Antony regarded himself as Caesar’s political heir and was planning to follow the latter’s path to absolute power.

Caius Octavius. But he found an unexpected rival in the person of Caesar’s adopted son, Caius Octavius, a youth of eighteen years, who at the time of Caesar’s death was at Apollonia in Illyricum with the army that was being assembled for the Parthian War. Against the advice of his parents he returned to Rome and claimed his inheritance. His presence was unwelcome to Antony, who had expended Caesar’s money, and refused to refund it. Thereupon Octavius raised funds by selling his own properties and borrowing, and began to pay off the legacies of Caesar. By this means he soon acquired popularity with the Caesarians. The formalities of his adoption were not completed until the following year, but from this time on he took the name of Caesar.

[pg 187]

Antony underestimated the capacities of this rather sickly youth and continued to refuse him recognition, but was soon made aware of his mistake. He himself was anxious to occupy his province of Cisalpine Gaul, and since Decimus Brutus refused to evacuate it, Antony determined to drive him out and obtained permission to recall for that purpose the four legions from Macedonia. Before their arrival Octavian raised a force among Caesar’s veterans in Campania, and on the march from Brundisium to Rome two of the four Macedonian legions deserted to him. The Caesarians were now divided into two parties, and Octavian began to coöperate with the republicans in the Senate. The latter were thus encouraged to oppose Antony with whom reconciliation was impossible. Cicero, who had not been among the conspirators but who had subsequently approved Caesar’s murder, was about to leave Italy to join Brutus when he heard of the changed situation in Rome and returned to assume the leadership of the republican party. Antony left Rome for the Cisalpine province early in December, 44 B. C., and Cicero induced the Senate to enter into a coalition with Octavian against him. In his Philippic Orations he gave full vent to his bitter hatred of Antony and so aroused the latter’s undying enmity.

The war at Mutina, December 44–April 43 B. C. In Cisalpine Gaul Decimus Brutus, relying upon the support of the Senate, refused to yield to Antony and was blockaded in Mutina. The Senate made preparations for his relief. Antony was ordered to leave the province, and Hirtius and Pansa, who became consuls in January, 43, took the field against him. The aid of Octavian was indispensable and the Senate conferred upon him the propraetorian imperium with consular rank in the Senate. The combined armies defeated Antony in two battles in the vicinity of Mutina, forcing him to give up the siege and flee towards Transalpine Gaul. But Pansa died of wounds received in the first engagement and Hirtius fell in the course of the second. Ignoring Octavian, the Senate entrusted Brutus with the command and the task of pursuing Antony. The power of the Senate seemed reëstablished, for Marcus Brutus and Cassius had succeeded in their design of getting control of the eastern provinces, Dolabella having perished in the conflict, and were at the head of a considerable military and naval force. The Senate accordingly conferred upon them supreme military authority (maius imperium), and gave to Sextus Pompey, then at Massalia, a naval command. At last Cicero [pg 188]could induce the senators to declare Antony a public enemy. He no longer felt the support of Octavian a necessity and expressed the attitude of the republicans towards him in the saying “the young man is to be praised, to be honored, to be set aside.” But it was soon evident that the experienced orator had entirely misjudged this young man who, so far from being the tool of the Senate, had used that body for his own ends. Octavian refused to aid Decimus Brutus, and demanded from the Senate his own appointment as consul, a triumph, and rewards for his troops. His demands were rejected, whereupon he marched upon Rome with his army, and occupied the city. On 19 August, he had himself elected consul with Quintus Pedius as his colleague. The latter carried a bill which established a special court for the trial of Caesar’s murderers, who were condemned and banished. The same penalty was pronounced upon Sextus Pompey. The Senate’s decree against Antony was revoked.

The Triumvirate, 43 B. C. On his way to Transalpine Gaul Antony had met with Lepidus, whom the Senate had summoned from Spain to the assistance of Decimus Brutus. But Lepidus was a Caesarian and, alarmed by the success of Marcus Brutus and Cassius, allowed his troops to go over to Antony. Decimus Brutus had taken up the pursuit of Antony and joined forces with Plancus, governor of Narbonese Gaul. However, upon news of the events in Rome, Plancus abandoned Brutus and joined Antony. Brutus was deserted by his troops and killed while a fugitive in Gaul.

II. The Triumvirate of 43 b. c.

Octavian had taken care to have the defense of Italy against Antony and Lepidus entrusted to himself, and hastened northwards to meet the advance of their forces. But both sides were ready to come to terms and unite their forces for the purpose of crushing their common enemies, Brutus and Cassius. Accordingly, at a conference of the three leaders on an island in the river Renus near Bononia, a reconciliation between Antony and Octavian was effected and plans laid for their coöperation in the immediate future. The three decided to have themselves appointed triumvirs for the settlement of the commonwealth (triumviri reipublicae constituendae) for a term of [pg 189]five years. They were to have consular imperium with the right to appoint to the magistracies and their acts were to be valid without the approval of the Senate. Furthermore, they divided among themselves the western provinces; Antony received those previously assigned to him, Lepidus took the Spains and Narbonese Gaul; while to Octavian fell Sardinia, Sicily and Africa. Octavian was to resign his consulship, but in the next year to be joint commander with Antony in a campaign against the republican armies in the East while Lepidus protected their interests in Rome. The triumvirate was legalized by a tribunician law (the lex Titia) of 27 November, 43, and its members formally entered upon office on the first of January following. Unlike the secret coalition of Pompey, Crassus and Caesar, the present one constituted a commission clothed with almost supreme public powers.

Proscriptions. The formation of the coalition was followed by the proscription of the enemies of the triumvirs, partly for the sake of vengeance but largely to secure money for their troops from the confiscation of the properties of the proscribed. Among the chief victims was Cicero, whose death Antony demanded. He died with courage for the sake of the republican ideal to which he was devoted, but it must be recognized that this devotion was to the cause of a corrupt aristocracy, whose crimes he refused to share, although he forced himself to condone and justify them. The exactions of the triumvirs did not end with the confiscation of the goods of the proscribed; special taxes were laid upon the propertied classes in Italy and eighteen of the most flourishing Italian municipalities were marked out as sites for colonies of veterans.

Divus Julius. In 42 B. C. Octavian dedicated a temple to Julius Caesar in the forum where his body had been burned. Later by a special law Caesar was elevated among the gods of the Roman state with the name of Divus Julius. Meanwhile Octavian had found difficulty in occupying his allotted provinces. Africa was eventually conquered by one of his lieutenants, but Sextus Pompey, who controlled the sea, had occupied Sardinia and Sicily. His forces were augmented by many of the proscribed and by adventurers of all sorts, and Octavian could not dislodge him before setting out against Brutus and Cassius.

Philippi, 42 B. C. These republican generals had raised an army of 80,000 troops, in addition to allied contingents, and taken up a [pg 190]position in Thrace to await the attack of the triumvirs. In the summer of 42 B. C. the latter transported their troops across the Adriatic in spite of the fleet of their enemies, and the two armies faced each other near Philippi on the borders of Macedonia and Thrace. An indecisive battle was fought in which Antony defeated Cassius, who committed suicide in despair, but Brutus routed the troops commanded by Octavian. Shortly afterwards Brutus was forced by his soldiers to risk another battle. This time he was completely defeated, and took his own life.

The division of the Empire. The triumvirs now redistributed the provinces among themselves, Cisalpine Gaul was incorporated in Italy, whose political boundaries at length coincided with its geographical frontier. The whole of Transalpine Gaul was given to Antony, Octavian received the two Spains, while Lepidus was forced to content himself with Africa. He was suspected by his colleagues of having intrigued with Sextus Pompey, and they were now in a position to weaken him at the risk of his open hostility. From the time of the meeting near Bononia Antony had been the chief personage in the coalition and his prestige was enhanced by his success at Philippi. It was now agreed that he should settle conditions in the eastern provinces and raise funds there, while Octavian should return to Italy and carry out the promised assignment of lands to their troops. This decision was of momentous consequence for the future. In the summer of 41 B. C. Antony received a visit from Cleopatra at Tarsus in Cilicia. Her personal charms and keen intelligence, which had enthralled the great Julius, exercised an even greater fascination over Antony, whose cardinal weaknesses were indolence and sensual indulgence. He followed Cleopatra to Egypt, where he remained until 40 B. C.

Octavian in Italy, 42–40 B. C. In Italy Octavian was confronted with the task of providing lands for some 170,000 veterans. The eighteen municipalities previously selected for this purpose proved insufficient, and a general confiscation of small holdings took place, whereby many persons were rendered homeless and destitute. Few, like the poet Virgil, found compensation through the influence of a powerful patron. A heavy blow was dealt to the prosperity of Italy. The task of Octavian was greatly hampered by opposition from the friends of Antony, led by the latter’s wife Fulvia and his brother Lucius Antonius. Hostilities broke out in which Lucius was be[pg 191]sieged in Perusia and starved into submission (40 B. C.). Fulvia went to join Antony, while others of their faction fled to Sextus Pompey who still held Sicily. Of great importance to Octavian was his acquisition of Gaul which came into his hands through the death of Antony’s legate, Calenus. An indication of the approaching break between Octavian and Antony was the former’s divorce of his wife Clodia, and his marriage with Scribonia, a relative of Sextus Pompey, whom he hoped to win over to his side.

Treaty of Brundisium, 40 B. C. While Octavian had been involved in the Perusian war, the Parthians had overrun the province of Syria, and in conjunction with them Quintus Labienus, a follower of Brutus and Cassius, penetrated Asia Minor as far as the Aegean coast. Antony thereupon returned to Italy to gather troops to reëstablish Roman authority in the East. Both he and Octavian were prepared for war and hostilities began around Brundisium, which refused Antony admittance. However, a reconciliation was effected, and an agreement entered into which was known as the treaty of Brundisium. It was provided that Octavian should have Spain, Gaul, Sardinia, Sicily and Dalmatia, while Antony should hold the Roman possessions east of the Ionian sea; Lepidus retained Africa, and Italy was to be held in common. To cement the alliance Antony, whose wife Fulvia had died, married Octavia, sister of Octavian.

The treaty of Misenum, 39 B. C. In the following year Antony and Octavian were forced to come to terms with Sextus Pompey. He still defiantly held Sicily and in addition wrested Sardinia from Octavian. His command of these islands and of the seas about Italy enabled him to cut off the grain supply of Rome, where a famine broke out. This brought about a meeting of the three at Misenum in which it was agreed that Sextus should govern Sardinia, Sicily and Achaia for five years, should be consul and augur, and receive a monetary compensation for his father’s property in Rome. In return he engaged to secure peace at sea and convoy the grain supply for the city. However, the terms of the treaty were never fully carried out and in the next year Octavian and Sextus were again at war. The former regained possession of Sardinia but failed in an attack upon Sicily.

Treaty of Tarentum, 37 B. C. Meanwhile Antony had returned to the East where in the years 39–37 B. C. his lieutenants won back [pg 192]the Asiatic provinces from Labienus and the Parthians and drove the latter beyond the Euphrates. He now resolved to carry out the plan of Julius Caesar for the conquest of the Parthian kingdom. This necessitated his return to Italy to secure reinforcements. But, his landing was opposed by Octavian who was angry because Antony had not supported him against Sextus Pompey, whom Antony evidently regarded as a useful check upon his colleague’s power. However, Octavia managed to reconcile her brother and her husband, and the two reached a new agreement at Tarentum. Here it was arranged that Antony should supply Octavian with one hundred ships for operations against Pompey, that Lepidus should coöperate in the attack upon Sicily, and that both he and Octavian should furnish Antony with soldiers for the Parthian war. As the power of the triumvirs had legally lapsed on 31 December, 38 B. C., they decided to have themselves reappointed for another five years, which would terminate at the close of 33 B. C. This appointment like the first was carried into effect by a special law.

The defeat of Sextus Pompey, 36 B. C. Octavian now energetically pressed his attack upon Sicily, while Lepidus coöperated by besieging Lilybaeum. At length, in September, 36 B. C., Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, Octavian’s ablest general, destroyed the bulk of Pompey’s fleet in a battle off Naulochus. Pompey fled to Asia, where two years later he was captured by Antony’s forces and executed. After the flight of Sextus, Lepidus challenged Octavian’s claim to Sicily, but his troops deserted him for Octavian and he was forced to throw himself upon the latter’s mercy. Stripped of his power and retaining only his office of chief pontiff, he lived under guard in an Italian municipality until his death in 12 B. C. His provinces were taken by Octavian. The defeat of Sextus Pompey and the deposition of Lepidus gave Octavian sole power over the western half of the empire, and inevitably tended to sharpen the rivalry and antagonism which had long existed between himself and Antony. In the same year Octavian was granted the tribunician sacrosanctity and the right to sit on the tribune’s bench in the Senate.

III. The Victory of Octavian over Antony and Cleopatra

The Parthian war, 36 B. C. After the Treaty of Tarentum Antony proceeded to Syria to begin preparations for his campaign against the Parthians which he began in 36 B. C. Avoiding the [pg 193]Mesopotamian desert, he marched to the north through Armenia into Media Atropatene in the hope of surprising the enemy. However, having met with a repulse in his siege of the fortress Phraata (or Praaspa), he was forced to retreat. He was vigorously pursued by the Parthians, but by skilful generalship managed to conduct the bulk of his army back to Armenia. Still he lost over 20,000 of his troops, and his reputation suffered severely from the complete failure of the undertaking. And so he prepared once more to take the offensive. As he attributed the failure of the late expedition to the disloyalty of the king of Armenia, Antony marched against him, treacherously took him prisoner and occupied his kingdom (34 B. C.). Thereupon he entered into an alliance with the king of Media Atropatene, a vassal of Parthia, and formed ambitious projects for the conquest of the eastern provinces of the empires of Alexander the great and the Seleucids. But these plans could only be executed with the help of the military resources of Italy and the western provinces that were now completely in the hands of Octavian. In view of the jealousy existing between the two triumvirs it was not likely that Octavian would willingly provide Antony with the means to increase his power, and so the latter was prepared to resort to force to make good his claim upon Italy.

Antony and Cleopatra. Another factor in the quarrel was Antony’s connection with Cleopatra. While in Antioch in 36 B. C. he openly married Cleopatra, and in the next year refused his legal wife, Octavia, permission to join him. This was equivalent to publicly renouncing his friendship with Octavian. Although it cannot be said that Antony had become a mere tool of Cleopatra, he was completely won over to her plans for the future of Egypt; namely, that since Egypt must sooner or later be incorporated in the Roman empire, this should be brought about by her union with the ruler of the Romans. Consequently, since her marriage with Antony she actively supported his ambition to be the successor of Julius Caesar. Their aims were clearly revealed by a pageant staged in Alexandria in 34 B. C., in which Antony and Cleopatra appeared as the god Dionysus and the goddess Isis, seated on golden thrones. In an address to the assembled public Antony proclaimed Cleopatra “queen of queens,” and ruler of Egypt, Cyprus, Crete and Coele-Syria; joint ruler with her was Ptolemy Caesarion, the son she had borne to Caesar. The two young sons of Antony and Cleopatra were pro[pg 194]claimed “kings of kings”; the elder as king of Armenia, Media and the Parthians, the younger as king of Syria, Phoenicia and Cilicia. To their daughter, Cleopatra, was assigned Cyrene. These arrangements aroused great mistrust and hostility towards Antony among the Romans, who resented the partition of Rome’s eastern provinces in the interest of oriental potentates. Relying upon this sentiment, Octavian in 33 B. C. refused Antony’s demands for troops and joint authority in Italy. Antony at once postponed the resumption of the Parthian war and prepared to march against his rival.

The outbreak of hostilities, 32 B. C. The final break came early in 32 B. C. The triumvirate legally terminated with the close of 33 B. C. and two consuls of Antony’s faction came into office for the following year. To win support in Rome, Antony wrote to the Senate offering to surrender his powers as triumvir and restore the old constitution. His friends introduced a proposal that Octavian should surrender his imperium at once, but this was vetoed by a tribune. Octavian then took charge of affairs in Rome, and the consuls, not daring to oppose him, fled to Antony, accompanied by many senators of his party. Thereupon Octavian caused the Assembly to abrogate the former’s imperium and also his appointment to the consulship for 31 B. C. To justify his actions and convince the Italians of the danger which threatened them from the alliance of Antony and Cleopatra, Octavian seized and published Antony’s will which had been deposited in the temple of Vesta. The will confirmed the disposition which he had made of the eastern provinces in the interest of the house of Cleopatra. Octavian was now able to bring about a declaration of war against the Egyptian queen and to exact an oath of loyalty to himself from the senators in Rome and from the municipalities of Italy and the western provinces. It was this oath of allegiance which was the main basis of his authority for the next few years. In reply to these measures, Antony formally divorced Octavia and refused to recognize the validity of the laws which deprived him of his powers.

Actium, 31 B. C. In the fall of 33 B. C. Antony and Cleopatra began assembling their forces in Greece with the intention of invading Italy. By the next year they had brought together an army of about 100,000 men, supported by a fleet of 500 ships of war. However, no favorable occasion for attempting a landing in Italy presented itself and both the fleet and the army went into winter quarters in the [pg 195]gulf of Ambracia (32–1 B. C.). In the spring of 31 B. C. Octavian with 80,000 men and 400 warships crossed over to Epirus and took up a position facing his opponents who had taken their station in the bay of Actium at the entrance to the gulf of Ambracia. His most capable general was Agrippa. Owing to discord which had arisen between Cleopatra and his Roman officers, Antony remained inactive while detachments of Octavian’s forces won over important points in Greece. Antony began to suffer from a shortage of supplies and some of his influential followers deserted to the opposite camp. At length he risked a naval battle, in the course of which Cleopatra and the Egyptian squadron set sail for Egypt and Antony followed her. His fleet was defeated and his army, which attempted to retreat to Macedonia, was forced to surrender. There is little doubt that Cleopatra had for some time been contemplating treachery to Antony, and her desertion was probably based on the calculation that if Octavian should prove victorious she would be able to claim credit for her services, while if Antony should be the victor, she was confident of obtaining pardon for her conduct. Probably she did not anticipate that Antony would join her in flight. At any rate, when Antony abandoned his still undefeated fleet and army he sealed both his fate and hers. The victor advanced slowly eastwards and in the summer of 30 B. C. began his invasion of Egypt. Antony’s attempts at defense were unavailing; his troops went over to Octavian who occupied Alexandria. In despair he committed suicide. For a time Cleopatra, who had frustrated Antony’s last attempt at resistance, hoped to win over Octavian as she had won Caesar and Antony, so that she might save at least Egypt for her dynasty. But finding her efforts unavailing, she poisoned herself rather than grace Octavian’s triumph. The kingdom of Egypt was added to the Roman empire, not as a province but as part of an estate to be directly administered by the ruler of the Roman world who took his place as the heir of the Pharaohs and the Ptolemies. The treasures of Egypt reimbursed Octavian for the expenses of his late campaigns. After reëstablishing the old provinces and client kingdoms in the East, Octavian returned to Rome in 29 B. C., where he celebrated a three-day triumph over the non-Roman peoples of Europe, Asia and Africa, whom he or his generals had subjugated during his triumvirate.

At the age of thirty-three Octavian had made good his claim to the political inheritance of Julius Caesar. His victory over Antony [pg 196]closed the century of civil strife which had begun with the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus. War and the proscriptions had exacted a heavy toll from Romans and Italians; Greece, Macedonia and Asia had been brought to the verge of ruin; the whole empire longed for peace. Everywhere was Octavian hailed as the savior of the world and, as the founder of a new golden age, men were ready to worship him as a god.

IV. Society and Intellectual Life in the Last Century of the Republic

The upper classes. The characteristics of Roman society in the last century of the republic are the same which we have previously seen developing as a result of Rome’s imperial expansion. The upper classes of society comprise the senatorial nobility and the equestrians; the former finding their goal in public office, the latter in banking and financial ventures, and both alike callously exploiting the subjects of Rome in their own interests. Of this one example will suffice. Marcus Brutus, the conspirator, who enjoyed a high repute for his honorable character, loaned money to the cities of Cyprus at the exorbitant rate of 48% and influenced the senate to declare the contract valid. He did not hesitate to secure for his agents military authority with which to enforce payment, and was much disappointed when Cicero, as governor of Cilicia and Cyprus, refused to give his representative such power or to allow him to collect more than 12% interest on his debt.

As corruption characterized the public, so did extravagance and luxury the private life of the governing classes. The palaces of the wealthy in Rome were supplemented by villas in the Sabine hills, in the watering places of the Campanian coast, and other attractive points. The word villa, which originally designated a farm house, now meant a country seat equipped with all the modern conveniences of city life.

The solidarity of the family life which had been the foundation of Roman morality was fast disappearing. In general, wives no longer came under the authority (manus) of their husbands upon marriage, and so retained control of their properties acquired by inheritance or dowry through a guardian from their own families. Consequently women played an increasingly independent and important [pg 197]part in the society of the day. In Rome at least the age was one of a low tone in morals, and divorces were of common occurrence. At the same time social intercourse was characterized by a high degree of urbanity—the good manners which mark the society of cultured men.

The plebs. Of the life of the plebs who thronged the high tenement houses and narrow streets of Rome we know very little. But until the Assembly was overawed or superseded by armed forces the city populace could not be ignored by the upper classes. Their votes must be courted by magnificent displays at the public games, by entertainments and largesses of all kinds, and care must be taken to provide them with food to prevent their becoming a menace to the public peace. This latter problem was solved as we have seen after the time of Caius Gracchus by providing them with a monthly allowance of corn, at first at a greatly reduced price, but after 57 B. C. gratuitously. Julius Caesar found about 320,000 persons sharing in this distribution, and reduced the number to 150,000 male citizens. The city mob thus became to a certain degree state pensioners, and placed a heavy burden on the treasury. There can be no doubt that the ranks of the urban proletariat were swelled by peasants who had lost their holdings in the course of the civil wars and the settlements of discharged soldiers on Italian soil, but the chief increase came from the manumission of slaves, who as liberti or freedmen became Roman citizens. Sulla’s 10,000 Cornelii were of this number. The influx of these heterogeneous elements radically changed the character of the city populace which could no longer claim to be mainly of Roman and Italian stock but embraced representatives of all races of the Mediterranean world. The population was further augmented by the great numbers of slaves attached to the houses of the wealthy or engaged in various industrial occupations for their masters or others who hired their services.

In the rural districts of Italy the plantation system had been widely extended and agriculture and grazing were in the main carried on by slave labor. Yet the free farmers had by no means entirely disappeared and free labor was employed even on the latifundia themselves. The discharged veterans who were provided with lands attest the presence of considerable numbers of free landholders.

Religion. In religion this period witnessed a striking decline of interest and faith in the public religion of the Roman state. This [pg 198]was in part due to the influence of Greek mythology which changed the current conceptions of the Roman divinities and to Greek philosophy with its varying doctrines as to the nature and powers of the gods. The latter especially affected the upper classes of society upon whom fell the duty of maintaining the public cults. From the time of the Gracchi the public priesthoods declined in importance; and in many cases they were used solely as a tool for political purposes. The increase in the numbers of the priestly colleges and the substitution of election for coöptation brought in many members unversed in the ancient traditions, and the holders of the priesthoods in general showed great ignorance of their duties, especially with regard to the ordering of the state calendar. Some religious associations like the Arval Brotherhood ceased to exist and knowledge of the character of some of the minor deities was completely lost. The patrician priesthoods, which involved serious duties and restricted the freedom of their incumbents were avoided as much as possible. At the same time the private religious rites, hereditary within family groups, fell into decay. While the attitude of educated circles towards the state cults was thus one of indifference or skepticism, it is hard to speak of that of the common people. Superstitious they were beyond a doubt, but in the performance of the state cults they had never actively participated. The more emotional cults of the oriental type made a greater appeal to them if we may judge from the difficulty which the Senate experienced in banishing the priests of Isis from the city.

Stoicism and Epicureanism. The philosophic systems which made the most converts among the educated Romans were Stoicism and Epicureanism. The former, as we have seen, had been introduced to Rome by Panaetius, whose teaching was continued by Posidonius. It appealed to the Romans as offering a practical rule of life for men engaged in public affairs. On the other hand, the doctrine of Epicurus that men should withdraw from the annoyances of political life and seek happiness in the pursuit of pleasure, that is, intellectual pleasure, was interpreted by the Roman as sanctioning sensual indulgence and became the creed of those who gave themselves up to a life of ease and indolence.

Literature. The last century of the republic saw the completion of the amalgamation of Greek and Roman culture which had begun in the previous epoch. The resulting Graeco-Roman culture was a [pg 199]bi-lingual civilization based upon Greek intellectual and Roman political achievement which it was the mission of the empire to spread to the barbaric peoples of the western provinces. The age was marked by many-sided, keen, intellectual activity which brought Rome’s intellectual development to its height. Yet this Graeco-Roman culture was almost exclusively a possession of the higher classes.

The drama. In the field of dramatic literature the writing of tragedy practically ceased and comedy took the popular forms of caricature (fabula Atellana) and the mime, or realistic imitation of the life of the lower classes. Both forms were derived from Greek prototypes but dealt with subjects of everyday life and won great popularity in the theatrical exhibitions given at the public games.

Poetry: Catullus, 87–c. 54 B. C. The best exponent of the poetry of the age is Catullus, a native of Verona in Cisalpine Gaul, who as a young man was drawn into the vortex of fashionable society at the capital. This new poetry appealed to a highly educated class, conversant alike with the literature of the Greek classic and Hellenistic periods as well as with modern production, and able to appreciate the most elaborate and diversified meters. The works of Catullus show the wide range of form and subject which appealed to contemporary taste. Translations and copies of Greek originals find their place alongside epigrams and lyric poems of personal experience. It is his poetry of passion, of love and hate, which places him among the foremost lyric poets of all time.

Lucretius, 98–53 B. C. An exception among the poets of his time was Lucretius, who combined the spirit of a poet with that of a religious teacher. He felt a mission to free the minds of men from fear of the power of the gods and of death. To this end he wrote a didactic epic poem, On the Nature of Things, in which he explained the atomic theory of Democritus which was the foundation of the philosophical teachings of Epicurus. The essence of this doctrine was that the world and all living creatures were produced by the fortuitous concourse of atoms falling through space and that death was simply the dissolution of the body into its component atomic elements. Consequently, there was no future existence to be dreaded. True poetic value is given to the work by the author’s great imaginative powers and his keen observation of nature and human life. Lucretius made the Latin hexameter a fitting medium for the expression of sustained and lofty thought.

[pg 200]

Oratory. It was through the study and practice of oratory that Roman prose attained its perfection between the time of the Gracchi and Julius Caesar. Political and legal orations were weapons in the party strife of the day and were frequently polished and edited as political pamphlets. Along with political documents of this type appeared orations that were not written to be delivered in the forum or senate chamber but were addressed solely to a reading public. Among the great forensic orators of the age were the two Gracchi, of whom the younger, Caius, had the reputation of being the most effective speaker that Rome ever knew. Others of note were Marcus Antonius, grandfather of the triumvir, Lucius Licinius Crassus, and Quintus Hortensius Hortalus. But it was Cicero who brought to its perfection the Roman oration in its literary form.

Cicero, 106–43 B. C. Cicero was beyond question the intellectual leader of his day. He was above all things an orator and until past the age of fifty his literary productivity was almost entirely in that field. In his latter years he undertook the great task of making Hellenistic philosophy accessible to the Roman world through the medium of Latin prose. In addition to his speeches and oratorical and philosophic treatises Cicero left to posterity a great collection of letters which were collected and published after his death by his freedman secretary. His correspondence with his friends is a mine of information for the student of society and politics in the last century of the republic.

Caesar, 100–44 B. C. Julius Caesar made his genius felt in the world of letters as well as of politics. Though an orator of high rank, he is better known as the author of his lucid commentaries on the Gallic war and on the Civil war, which present the view that he desired the Roman public to take of his conflict with the senate.

Sallust, 86–36 B. C. Foremost among historical writers of the period was Caius Sallustius Crispus, “the first scientific Roman historian.” Subsequent generations ranked him as the greatest Roman historian. His chief work, a history of the period 78–67 B. C., is almost entirely lost, but two shorter studies on the Jugurthine war and Cataline’s conspiracy have been preserved. In contrast to Cicero, he is the protagonist of Caesarianism.

Varro, 116–27 B. C. Of great interest to later ages were the works of the antiquarian and philologist, Marcus Terentius Varro, the most learned Roman of his time. His great work on Roman religious and [pg 201]political antiquities has been lost, but a part of his study On the Latin Language is still extant, as well as his three books On Rural Conditions. The latter give a good picture of agricultural conditions in Italy towards the end of the republic.

Jurisprudence. To legal literature considerable contributions were made both in the domain of applied law and of legal theory. We have already noticed the appeal which the Stoic philosophy made to the best that was in Roman character and many of the leading Roman jurists accepted its principles. It was natural then that Roman legal philosophy should begin under the influence of the Stoic doctrine of a universal divine law ruling the world, this law being an emanation of right reason, i. e. the divine power governing the universe. The most influential legal writers of the period were Quintus Mucius Scaevola who compiled a systematic treatment of the civil law in eighteen books, and Servius Sulpicius Rufus, the contemporary of Cicero. Sulpicius was a most productive author, whose works included Commentaries on the XII Tables, and on the Praetor’s Edict, as well as studies on special aspects of Roman law.

[pg 202]

[pg 203]