American Journal of Ancient History (Vol 9.2) 9781463206796, 1463206798

Citation preview

American Journal of Ancient History

American Journal of Ancient History

9.2

The American Journal of Ancient History is a peer-reviewed academic journal covering ancient history and classical studies. It was established in 1976 and edited by Ernst Badian until 2001. It is continued by the American Journal of Ancient History: New Series, edited by T. Corey Brennan.

American Journal of Ancient History

Volume 9.2 Edited by

Ernst Badian

gp 2017

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2017 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1984 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܐ‬

1

2017

ISBN 978-1-4632-0679-6

Printed in the United States of America

TABLE

Editor's

OF CONTENTS

Note ...................................................................................

Sarah B. Pomeroy: The Persian King and the Queen Bee .........................

97

98

R.T. Scott: A Note on the City and the Camp in Tacitus, Histories

3.71 ..........................................................................

109

Robert Drews: The Lacuna in Tacitus' Annales Book Five in the Light of Christian

Traditions

..............................................................

112

Duncan Fishwick: Pliny and the Christians ..........................................

123

Duncan Fishwick: The Temple of Caesar at Alexandria .........................

131

Arthur M. Eckstein: Review-Discussion:Two Interpretations of Caesar .... 135 Michael Peachin: A Note on the Early Days of Diocletian's Reign ...........

153

Lee E. Reams: Sulla's Alleged Early Poverty and Roman Rent ................

158

TABLE

Editor's

OF CONTENTS

Note ...................................................................................

Sarah B. Pomeroy: The Persian King and the Queen Bee .........................

97

98

R.T. Scott: A Note on the City and the Camp in Tacitus, Histories

3.71 ..........................................................................

109

Robert Drews: The Lacuna in Tacitus' Annales Book Five in the Light of Christian

Traditions

..............................................................

112

Duncan Fishwick: Pliny and the Christians ..........................................

123

Duncan Fishwick: The Temple of Caesar at Alexandria .........................

131

Arthur M. Eckstein: Review-Discussion:Two Interpretations of Caesar .... 135 Michael Peachin: A Note on the Early Days of Diocletian's Reign ...........

153

Lee E. Reams: Sulla's Alleged Early Poverty and Roman Rent ................

158

EDITOR'S

NOTE

This issueof the American Journal of Ancient History is being published with fewer pagesthan has been our custom. That should not be taken as the beginning of a new policy. It is due to two reasons. First, we have no article ready for publication that would have fitted into the remaining spaceto make up the usual number of pages, and no article of preciselythat lengthis likely to be ready in the near future. Since we are behind already, it seemedpreferable not to wait any longer. Moreover, our next issue,which we hope will appear within two or three months, will be much longer than usual-in fact, a full monograph.Our subscribers'patiencewill be amply rewarded.

97

¸

1990by E. Badian.All rightsreserved.

THE PERSIAN

KING AND THE QUEEN BEE*

Xenophon's admiration for the Persiansis well known. However, it was not merely admiration that inspired him to introduce an entire chapter (IV) • on Persia into the Oeconomicus-a treatiseon Greek estatemanagement. In this article I will indicate the ways in which chapter IV relates to other themes of the Oeconomicusand evaluate the reliability of Xenophon's information about Persia. In the courseof a dialogue about estatemanagementwith the profligate Critobulus, SocratescitesCyrus as an example of a successfulmanager in both warfare and farming. In criticism of Xenophon, Plato assertedthat

Cyrusdid not carefor oikonomia.2 But perhapsit is becausePlato used the word in the narrowest senseas referring strictly to household management that he makes this criticism of Xenophon's report. On Persian customs, Xenophon is surely a better authority than Plato: it seems more likely that it is Plato himself who had no interest in oikonomia, and who perhaps shuddered, as quite a few studentsof philosophy have subsequently, over Xenophon's portrayal of Socrates'interestin practical matters. Xenophon (Cyrop. 8.1.14), and other fourth-century authors (e.g. Aristot. Pol. 3.12.1, 1288a34, Dinarchus 1.97) extend the meaning of oikonomia and related words, to refer to the administration of states. For Xenophon, the oikonomia of statesis a macrocosmof the oikonomia of estates. The Pseudo-Aristotelian Oeconomica (2.1.1-8, 134567-1346a25) distinguishesfour typesof economy:royal, satrapic,polis, and private. In any case,indifferenceto oikonomia would have made Cyrus exceptionally unsuccessfulamong Achaemenid rulers. Not only was the Great King interestedin agriculture,but as R.T. Hallock writes, "the AchaemenidElamite texts... inform us about the far-reaching organization of men and

materialsfor economicpurposes. "3 Thus all praiseworthyadministrators, including the elder and the younger Cyrus, should have been expert in oikonomia.

Xenophon deliberatelyblurs the distinctionbetweenthe older and the youngerCyrus in order to endowthe ill-fated pretenderwith the traditional virtues of his great predecessor.Xenophon moves from Cyrus the Great

98

THE PERSIAN KING AND THE QUEEN BEE

99

(who is designated "basileus")in IV.16 to Cyrusthe Younger(who had never legitimatelyreigned as King) in IV.18 without signalingthe transition.

GeorgesCousinnotedthat in the CyropaediaXenophondescribes Cyrus as a m61ange of two people:the childhoodis that of the elderCyrus, the maturity belongsto the youngerCyrus.4 The two resembleone another like brothers.Cousingivesa partiallistof similarphrases whichXenophon

appliesto bothCyruses? StevenW. Hirschargues thattheyounger Cyrus himselfexploitedhishomonymous ancestorandissuedpropaganda claiming that his own reignwould bringabouta reincarnationof Persiaasit had

beenunderthe reignof Cyrusthe Great.6 Hirschproposes,lesspersuasively,that XenophonusedtheyoungerCyrusasa modelfor hisportrayal of Cyrus the Great.? However, the oppositewould seemto have been more likely, inasmuchas the elder Cyruswas alreadyglorifiedin Near Easternand Greek accountsso that later Kingswantedto be associated withhim.8 For example,in Mesopotamian oraltraditionby thelatefifth century,the exploitsof the hero Sargonwereattributedto Cyrus.9 Jewishtraditionrecorded in Ezra 1.6 showshim displaying tolerance andgood will. Herodotus3.89presents Cyrusasgentleandfatherlyto hissubjects. Arrian,Ahab. 6.29,reportsthatthetombof Cyruswasa shrinethroughout the Achaemenidperioduntil it was plunderedbeforethe visit of Alex-

ander.Thereputation of theelderCyrussurvives to thisday,for example, in the eulogyin OCD2 308: "ThisvastEmpirehe administered with wisdom and tolerance. In the conqueredterritories he was welcomedas a

liberator;he respected theircustoms andreligion,honouringMarduk at Babylonand freeingthe captiveJewsto build their templein Jerusalem. To the Greekshe becamea modelof the uprightruler."•ø In fact, Edou-

ard Delebecque suggests that, especially in the Cyropaedia,Xenophon emphasizes parallelsbetweenpastand present,by usingexpressions such as (•zt) •:a• v•v. • Athenaeus (11.504f-505a), Diogenes Laertius (Ones. 6.84), and Sir ThomasBrowne•2alsofollow Xenophon'sprecedentand discuss the elder Cyrus in tandem with the youngerCyrus without signalingthe transition. Their readers,like Xenophon's,were probablyfamiliar enoughwith Greek history to have understoodthe distinction.Nevertheless,the juxtaposition of the two Cyruses and the consequenttelescopingof some 150 years of Persianhistory are noteworthy. Xenophon apparentlyfollowed the principlesof Achaemenid art (which he surely knew) in portraying the Kings in an archetypalrather than an idiosyncraticor personalmanner.•3 The result of this iconographicdeviceis an emphasison dynasticconcerns,on the conceptof kingship itself, rather than upon any individual King. In

lOO

SARAH

B. POMEROY

short, Xenophon intended the reader to understand that the elder and younger Cyrus were indistinguishablein their interest in oikonomia. The tradition of the Persian gardener-king can be traced back to Mesopotamian, Assyrian, and Chaldean sources.The picture of God as a gardener, modelled on a Mesopotamian King, comesacrossvividly in Genesis(2.8-9) "And the Lord God Almighty planted a garden.... And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food." The Persian King's interest in agriculture was noted by Greek historians, especially in the Hellenistic period. For example, according to Athenaeus (1.28d=Posidonius FGrHist 87F68) the Persiansintroduced viticulture into Syria. The "Letter of Darius", inscribed in the secondcentury Ar•, regardlessof its authenticity, is true to the spirit

of the tradition.14In part of the letter Darius thankshis satrap Gadates for his good cultivation of land in Asia Minor. Ancient historians nowadays differ in their estimate of the veracity of Xenophon's testimony about Persia in his various works. For example, Richard N. Frye, in The History of Ancient Iran, usesthe Cyropaedia and Ariabasis as historical sources,but ignores the Oeconomicus,although the information

in the latter

sometimes

differs

from

that of the other two

books.•5J.M. Cook, in The CambridgeHistory of Iran, assertsthat even the Cyropaediahas beenoverestimatedas a historicalsource.•6 In contrast, Pierre Briant treats the Cyropaedia, the Anabasis, and the Oeconomicus as valid sourcesof information about Persia, although he

is aware of Xenophon'sidealizationof the "miragePerse".•? It is interestingto observethat historianssuchas Briant, E. Grace,•8 and G.E.M. de Ste. Croix,•9 who are sympatheticto Marxism, generally accept Xenophon's testimony in the Oeconomicus because(in the case of Briant) it lends support to the view that massesof subjectswere successfully exploited by the Persian King and (in the case of Grace and Ste. Croix) it showsthat Athenians employed large numbers of slaves-even in the often debated area of agriculture. BecausePersian sourcescorroborate Xenophon's reports, some Iranologistshave been willing to accepthis testimonyand pay as much attention to the Cyropaedia and Oeconomicusas they do to the Ariabasis. Iranologistsunderstandthat he providessomevalid backgroundmaterial on Per-

sia, evenif specificdetailsare inaccurate?Thus, for example,Wolfgang Fauth2• opensan exhaustiveinvestigationof the gardener-kingwith the description of the garden of Cyrus in Book IV of the Oeconomicus. However, the Oeconomicusis, after all, a treatiseon estatemanagement, not a history of Persia. In fact, Persia is mentioned only in chapter IV. Xenophon, while keepinghis actual subjectin mind, will have selectedand

THE PERSIAN KING AND THE QUEEN BEE

101

orderedhis information about Persia. Yet, if what he reportedseemedblatantly falseto his readers,for whom the affairs of Cyrusthe Youngerwere recenthistory, and who had read at leastHerodotus'portrayal of the elder Cyrus, there would have been little point in introducing the subject of Persia.

Xenophon structuresthe Oeconomicusby a seriesof repetitionsand variations on themes. Thus Socratesdescribestwo paradigms of successful administration to Critobulus: first, the Persian Empire, and next, the householdof lschomachusand his wife. The orderly park (paradeisos) provides a model for the orderly household which will be described in Oeconomicus VII-IX, and the King serves as a model for the wife of Ischomachuswho will be compared to a queen of bees. As the park is a walled spacecontaining treesplanted in straight lines, so within the walls of the houseof Ischomachusand his wife utensilsare laid out in rows (VII 19-20).The park containsfine food within it, plants,fruit trees,and game; the storeroomsof the house are also stocked with provisions. The house is a peacefulfertile paradise.As the King is fond of spendinghis time in his parks surroundedby all manner of lovely fragrant plants, so would bees spend their days among the flowers. Aelian, NA 59-60, must have been thinking of the Oeconomicus when he mentioned the palaces of the PersianKings and the visit of Lysander, and, in the paragraphimmediately following, discussedthe architectureof beehives.(An encyclopedist,Aelian may have picked up the notion of palaces for king bees from Pliny, NH 11.12.29.) In the Oeconomicus in both the description of the garden of Cyrus and that of the household of lschomachusand his wife, we sense Xenophon's nostalgia for times gone by when Persia, on the one hand, was well governed, and Athens, on the other hand, was prosperous. Empire and oikos, public and private, are organized according to the same principles. The King rewards governors whose land is well-cultivated and densely populated (IV 7), just as lschomachus and his wife, in their efforts to increase their estate, give a share of the profits of the oikos to the tamia and epitropos (IX 12-13,15, XII 6). The emphasison rewarding, not merely punishing, their subordinates is a feature of Persian administration which is also practiced by lschomachus and his wife. This is one of the features, in fact, that distinguishesthe treatment of slavesin the Oeconomicus

from

that recommended

in the Pseudo-Aristotelian

Oeco-

nomica (1.5.3-4, 1344a35-b9)-a work which, though derived from Xenophon's Oeconomicus, eschewsany mention of the Persian King. Like the Persian King (IV 8), Ischomachus and his wife inspect their domains personally and act as magistratesand judges, upholding the laws of the community and settling disputesamong their subordinates(IX 15).

102

SARAH

B. POMEROY

Both the King and the wife of Ischomachusmonitor the reproduction of their subjects(IV 8, VII 34). Ischomachusand his wife rule slaves;the sub-

jectsof the King are the equivalentof slaves. 22Both slavesand subjects submit willingly. To both Cyrus the Younger and the wife of Ischomachus

lucreand loyaltyare renderedfreely.23Accordingto Frye, thereis no evidenceof any rebellionagainstthe elder Cyrus.24Xenophonreportsthat not one soldierdesertedfrom the youngerCyrusto Artaxerxes(IV 18),25 nor would the worker bees, that is to say the slaves• desert the wife of Ischomachuswho is their queen (VII 38). Analogies between the Persian Empire and the household of Ischomachus and his wife render Xenophon's controversial report in Oeconomicus IV 9-12 of the division of civilian and military power and its unification under a satrap more intelligible. In the Empire, one classof officers governed the inhabitants and another group commanded the troops, but in some parts of the Empire a satrap exercisedboth military and civilian power. Some contemporary historians totally reject Xenophon's testimony on the governanceof Persia. Thus J.M. Cook regards Xenophon's reports in the Oeconomicusand the Cyropaedia of the division of power in the provincial governmentsas inconsistentand arguesthat Xenophon attributed to the elder Cyrus practices of the Persians of his

own day.26Mort6za Eht6chamdoescite Oeconomicus IV 9, but argues that the separation of military and civilian power existed in the time of

Xerxes, but not in the daysof Cyrus.27Yet RichardN. Frye agreeswith Xenophon's positive view of the elder Cyrus and, moreover, suggeststhat there was a distribution of power among the court, the bureaucracy(perhapsincludingpriests),and the military, as well as a variety of governance

structuresthroughoutthe Empire.28 Pierre Briant acceptsXenophon's report and explains that there were several phrourarchs in each satrapy: military powerswere exercisedby phrourarchs,on the one hand, and civilian powers by tax officers, on the other, and, in addition, a satrap united both military and civilian authority; the system varied throughout the

Empirein response to militarynecessities. 29Am6lieKuhrt drawsattention to the division of power and to the absenceof any administrativereorganization of conqueredpeoplesand questionswhether a monolithic systemof

governance was everimposed. 3ø No scholar has ever found evidence for a division between civil and mili-

tary power in Asia Minor at any time we know about. Yet it is true that the King appointed phrourarchsand tax collectorswho servedunder the satrap and acted as checksand spieson him. Weak Kings, of course,probably could not, in practice, make suchappointmentseverywhere:it is difficult to imagine the Persian King doing this to Mausolus. It seems

THE PERSIAN KING AND THE QUEEN BEE

103

reasonableto assumethat the vastnessof the Empire, the varietyof the territories and peoplesruled, and the fact that the conquestshad not been made simultaneouslyresulted in a systemof administration that was not uniform throughout.However, Xenophon has probably exaggeratedthe division of power for didactic and literary purposes. The division of labor between the civil and military commandsin Persia and their interdependenceare paralleled by the reciprocal relationship of the domestic sphere which is supervisedby the wife and of the husband's realm which lies beyond the house. The spheres of husband and wife are complementaryand mutually dependent,paralleling the military and civilian spheresin the Empire. Normally, the powersof husbandand wife are divided between them. The household is both monarchy and meritocracy. If the wife proves to be more competent than her husband, she may also exercisesupremeauthority and rule over him (VII 27,42, XI 25). The wife of Ischomachuseventually even sits in judgment over him, sentencingher husband to endure punishments or to pay fines (XI 25). Thus, like a satrap, she unites, as it were, the two kinds of power in the oikos. In both household and Empire, authority to govern is awarded to those who deserveit, and the extent of the authority varies accordingto the merits of those who exercise it.

Xenophon has been persistently misunderstood, by feminist as well as by traditional scholars.Caroline Dall, a feminist who participated in Margaret Fuller's "Conversations"on classicalmythology and who knew some Greek herself, was angry that Xenophon representedthe wife of Ischomachus as not "tame" enough to speak to her husband when she was a young bride. But Dall did not give Xenophon due credit, for she went on to misquotehim: "When Iscomachus[sic] . . . asked his wife if she knew whether he had married her for love, 'I know nothing', she replied, 'but to be faithful to you, and to learn what you teach.' He respondedby an exhortation on 'staying at home',... and left her, with a kiss, for the

saloonof Aspasia!"3• More recently,Joan Kelly statedthat Xenophon distinguished"an inferior domestic realm of women from the superior public realm of men".32 In fact, as we have seen,Xenophon adoptedthe PersianKing, whom he greatly admired, as a model for the wife. (That the King might also serve as a model for Ischomachus

himself would have been obvious and needed

little elaboration.) It is Xenophon's view of the wife of Ischomachusthat was radical for its time and showsas much enlightenmentabout the potential of women as can reasonablybe expectedin the literature of classical Athens. Xenophon deliberately compared the wife to a queen bee (VII 17,32,33,38), at a time when the Greeks thought the hive was ruled by a

104

SARAH

B. POMEROY

king,33 and Xenophon himself writes of king beeselsewhere. TMXenophon's identification of the leader of the hive as female is deliberate: it results from the necessitiesof his literary parallel rather than from scientific knowledge. The analogy between the good housekeeperand the bee can be traced as far back as Semonides(fr. 7.83-93, "On Women"). As Semonidesand Phocylides(fr. 2 Diehi) had envisionedher, the bee-wife makes her hus-

band'spropertyincrease?However,Semonides doesnot referto the beewife as a "queen". Ischomachus,in contrast, tells his wife, "this will be the sweetestexperienceof all: if you prove yourself better than I am and make me your servant" (VI1 42). The hive is an appropriate metaphor for many reasons, including the fact that it is a neat and orderly edifice housing a social organization with a classstructure. (Plato usesthe same metaphor in Republic 7.520b-c.) Xenophon adoptspracticesfrom civic management, but the household is not a democracy. No ancient household was. Rather, it is governed on monarchical and meritocratic principles, and the wife may be the supreme ruler. (ln passingwe might contrast Aristotle's view that the husband's rule over the wife is fundamental to oikonomia (Politics 1.5.1-2, 1259a40-bl).) The household is compared to ships, cavalry, and men's choruses(VIII 3-12). These analogiesfrom the male sphere, rather than being ill chosen, serve to enhance the woman's sphere and imply that it is equal to the man's. Sappho had made a similar assertion in the priamel of fragment

16.36Xenophonassociated sedentariness with slavishness and womanishness(X 10,13). But he did not considerthat thesequalities were biologically determined. Men who engagein banausic occupationsmay become slavish and womanish, whereas women can avoid slavish and womanish

behavior(VII-X). Justas Cyrushimself doesagriculturalwork for the sake of exercise(1V 22), the wife of Ischomachuswas to engagein the physical exercise demanded by housework (X 10-11). What is most important is that she was to manage the finances of an oikos in the liturgical classcertainly, a substantial fortune.

Xenophonhad asserted that womenand menare complementary in their biologicalnature,and thereforein their contributions to the domesticeconomy, but this differencedid not imply inequality.Like Plato in Republic 5,37Xenophon makesit clear that the qualitiesof the soul are not determinedby gender:menand womenare endowedwith an equalpotentialto exercisememory,diligence,moderation,and discretion.Women are teachable and can even learn to exercisethe kingly skill of command.

Sophrosyn•was the most characteristicvirtue attributed to women. Helen North haspointedout that as a traditionalfemalequalityit borethe

THE PERSIAN KING AND THE QUEEN BEE

105

connotationsof inhibition, self-restraint,and chastity.38In this conventional sense,it was akin to a woman's control over her gastOr-a quality which is appreciated in OeconornicusVII 6. In the fourth century the Socratics defined sophrosynOmore broadly. According to Plato (Meno 71e-73b) both men and women may exhibit the same qualities of dikaiosyn• and sophrosyn•, but the man's aret• is displayed in managing the polis, the woman's in managing the household. In his various works, Xenophon mentionssophrosynenotably often and with a wide range of connotations. He is the first to connect the sophrosyneof both men and women with good administration of the household, and with the military virtues of obedience,discipline,orderliness,and practical knowledge. He attributes sophrosyn• to Cyrus in the Cyropaedia (8.1.30), and to both Ischomachusand his wife (VII 14-15). The Oeconornicuscontains a medley of normafive, idealistic, and realistic thoughts on oikonornia in the Persian Empire and in an upper-class Greek household.Xenophon links the two worlds in ways which illuminate both.

Hunter College and the Graduate School

Sarah B. Pomeroy

C.U.N.Y.

NOTES

* This article is the revisedversionof a paper read at the annual meetingof the American Philological Association,New York, December29, 1987. I wish to thank the National Endowmentfor the Humanities for a Fellowshipwhich supportedthe research on which this article is based and to thank the Editor for their comments.

and the Readers of

the AJAH

1. All referencesbeginningwith a Roman numeral are to the Oeconomicus. 2. Plato, Laws 3.694c, quoted by Athenaeus 11.504f-505a. 3. R.T. Hallock, "The evidenceof the Persepolistablets", The Cambridge History oflran 2, ed. by I. Gershevitch (1985) 588. 4. G. Cousin, Kyros le jeune en Asie mineure (1905) xli. 5. Ibid.

xli-xliii.

6. StevenW. Hirsch, "1001 Iranian nights:History and fiction in Xenophon's Cyropaedia", in The Greek historians:Literature and history. Paperspresentedto A.E. Raubitschek, ed. by M. Jameson (1985) 65-85, esp. 76-79. 7. Ibid.

79.

8. On Xenophon'ssourcesfor his portrait of the elder Cyrus, seemost recently Steven W. Hirsch, The friendship of the barbarians: Xenophon and the Persian Empire (1985) 68-71. Hirsch, however, does not do justice to the visual arts, for

106

SARAH

B. POMEROY

which see Margaret Cool Root, The King and kingship in Achaemenid art (Acta Iranica, Textes et M6moires, s. 3 v. 9 (1979)), esp. 38-40, 298-99. 9. Robert Drews, "Sargon, Cyrus and Mesopotamian folk history", JNES 33 (1974) 387-93. 10. For another recent expressionof the praise of Cyrus in a standard work see Max Mallowan, "Cyrus the Great (558-529 B.C.)", The Cambridge History oflran 2 (1985) 412-15. 11. Edouard Delebecque,Essaisur la vie de Xdnophon (1957) 395-96, 422 n. 36. 12. Sir Thomas Browne, The gardenof Cyrus (1658), in Urne buriall and the garden of Cyrus, ed. by John Carter (1967) 58-60. 13. For the impersonality of these portrayals see Root (above n. 8) 310. 14. Text in Russell Meiggs and David Lewis, Greek historical inscriptions (1980=1969 rev.) 12. Most recently Ove Hansen, "The purported letter of Darius to Gadares",RhM 129 (1986) 95-96, arguedthat the original text was a forgery that should be dated to 494-91 Bc and that the existing copy is a republication of the text in the second century Ar•. 15. Richard N. Frye, The history of Ancient Iran. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 3.7 (1983) ch. 5. 16. J.M. Cook, "The rise of the Achaemenids and the establishment of their Empire", The CambridgeHistory of Iran 2, 207-8. Cook characterizesthe Persian historicaldocumentsas giving information on economicand socialrather than political history and givesabsolutepriority to Greek sources,especiallyHerodotus, for, as Cook statesin the Preface to The PersianEmpire (1983) iii, his ignoranceof the relevantlanguagesforced him to read the Babylonian,Egyptian, Aramaic, and Elamire sourcesin translation. In contrast, Frye usesboth Persian and Greek sources. Chester G. Starr, "Greeks and Persiansin the fourth century B.C.: A study in cultural contacts before Alexander (Part 1)", Iranica Antiqua 11 (1975) 60, declares that Xenophon "does not significantly advance our knowledge of the real nature of the Persians in the fourth century". Most recently K.D. White, "Farming and animal husbandry", in Civilization of the ancient Mediterranean, ed. by M. Grant and R. Kitzinger(1988) 1, p. 212, summarilydismissedthe Oeconomicusas a "thirdrate work".

17. Pierre Briant, "Contrainte militaire, d•pendance rurale et exploitation des territoires en Asie ach•m•nide", Index 8 (1978-79), republishedas Rois, tributs et

paysans. •tudessurlesformationstributaires du Moyen-Orient ancien43. Annales litteraires de l'Universit• de Besan•on 269 (1982) 185 (all page citations to articles republished in Rois, tributs et paysans will be to that volume); "Sourcesgrecques et histoire ach•m•nide", Annales, ESC (1982), republishedas Rois, tributs et paysans 491-538, et passim; and Etat et pasteurs au Moyen-Orient ancien (1982) 34 n. 6. Similarly, Hirsch, Friendship (n. 8, above) 62 et passim, also uses Xenophon's testimony.

18. E. Grace, "Athenian views on what is a slave and how to manage people", VDI 111 (1970) 49-66. 19. G.E.M. de Ste. Croix, The classstruggle in the ancient Greek world (1981) 181-82, 505-09.

THE PERSIAN KING AND THE QUEEN BEE

107

20. For example, W. Knauth, Das altiranische Fiirstenideal yon Xenophon bis Ferdousi (1975) and Gerold Walser, Hellas und Iran (Ertrfige der Forschung 209 (1984) 114), use Xenophon along with Iranian sources;and seenext note. 21. W. Fauth, "Der k6nigliche Gfirtner und Jfiger im Paradeisos. Beobachtungen zur Rolle des Herrschersin der vorderasiatischenHortikultur", Persica 8 (1979) 1-53.

22. Ahab. 3.3.13, Hell. 6.1.12, and Frye (n. 15, above) 109. 23. Achaemenid art portrays subjects rendering gifts and tribute voluntarily. Getold Walser, Audienz beim persischenGrossk6nig (1966) 5, and AA 81 (1966) 546, observedthat the King is not shown as the recipient of tribute but rather as the beneficiaryof gifts of honor. Walser in Die V6lkerschaftenauf den Reliefs yon Persepolis. Historische Studien iiber den sogenannten Tnbutzug an der Apadanatreppe. Teheraner Forschungen2 (1966) 23, puts "freiwillig" in parentheses,suggestingsomeambivalence.Root (n. 8, above)228-29, 262, also discusses the subtle reality of the apparently voluntary donations. 24. Frye (n. 15, above) 95. 25. However, the Suda, s.v. Xenophon (3, p. 495 Adler), notes that 400 mercenariesand 3,500 hoplitesand peltastsdesertedCyrus when they learnedhe intended to campaign against his brother. 26. "The rise of the Achaemenids" (n. 16, above) 268. 27. Mort6za Eht6cham, L'Iran sous les Achdmdnides(1946) 113 n. 3 (p. 114). 28. Frye (n. 15, above) 95, 112-14. 29. Rois, tributs etpaysans (n. 17, above) 190, 210-11. 30. Am61ie Kuhrt, "A brief guide to some recent work on the Achaemenid Empire", LCM 8 (1983) 148, 150. 31. Caroline H. Dall, The college, the market, and the court,' or Woman's relation to education, labor, and law (1867) 52-53. 32. Joan Kelly[-Gadol], "Did women have a Renaissance?"in Becomingvisible, ed. by R. Bridenthal and C. Koonz (1977) 141, 161 n. 2. 33. Plato (Rep. 7.520b, Pol. 301e) and Aelian (NA 5.10-11) speak of king bees. Aristotle (HA 5.21,553a) reports that Greek entomologists were uncertain about the sex both of the leader of the bees and of the drones, although there was general agreement that the workers were female. Despite the controversy, Aristotle, unlike Xenophon, consistentlyrefers to the leaders as male. Malcolm Davies and JeyaraneyKathirithamby, Greek insects(1986) 63, note that misogynycoupledwith the Greek tradition of seeinganalogiesbetweenhuman societyand the hive affected Aristotle's view of the sex of the bees. Arrian (Indica 8.11, Epict. 3.22.99) revives the idea that the leader may be female. For a collection of citations in Greek and Roman authors, see T. Hudson-Williams, "King bees and queen bees", CR 49 (1935) 2-4. 34. In Cyrop. 5.1.24, the ruler of the hive is male, the Persian King is compared to the leader (masculine)of bees(feminine) in a hive. In Hell. 3.2.28, the leader is also male.

35. The industriousnessof the good wife was a common theme in Greek epitaphs. A.-M. V6rilhac, "L'image de la femme dans ies 6pigrammes fun6raires

108

SARAH

B. POMEROY

grecques",in A.-M. V•rilhac, Lafemme dans!e mondemdditerranden 3. Collection desTravaux de la Maison de l'Orient 10 (1985) 85-112, discusses the recurrent use of "philergia" and synonymsin praise of women. 36. I am grateful to Donald Lateiner for this parallel. 37. On Rep. 5 seeSarah B. Pomeroy, "Plato and the female physician",AJP 90 (1978) 496-500. 38. Helen North, Sophrosyne.Self-knowledgeand self-restraintin Greek liter-

ature(1966)121-32,and "The mare,the vixen,andthe bee:Sophrosyne asthe virtue of women in antiquity", ICS 2 (1977) 35-48.

A NOTE

ON THE

IN TACITUS,

CITY

AND

HISTORIES

THE

CAMP

3.71

Kenneth Wellesleyhas lately remade a convincingcasefor the traditional view of the source and direction of the Vitellian attack on the Capitol in Rome in December AD 69, reported by Tacitus in Hist. 3.71, against T.P. Wiseman, who had argued in an earlier number of this journal that the first assault came from the southeast rather than from the north.•

"The orthodox view", as Wellesley has put it, is that the impetus for the attack came from the Castra Praetoria, with the first assailantscoming down from the alta semita to the Clivus Argentarius, whencethey charged southwestwardspast the temples of Concord and Saturn up the Clivus Capitolinus. While there is no need to recapitulate in detail the arguments advanced by Wellesley in his article (and earlier in his edition of Book 3 of the His-

tories),2 to appreciatetheir full weight requiresa clear senseof the sequenceof events and the movements of the Vitellian troops in and

aroundthe city on December18 and 19.3 As Tacitusreports(3.69-70), the first assault on Flavius Sabinus and his party was made on December 18 by praetorians who came up from the western end of the Forum to challengethem as they were descendingto it from the Quirinal along the Vicus Fundanus.4

This happened shortly after Vitellius' abortive contio at the Rostra in which he failed to resign his authority, was prevented from depositing his dagger in the temple of Concord and was obliged instead to return to the Palatine from the Forum (3.68). The attack on Sabinus and his escort seemsto have been a spontaneousfollow-up to the demonstration in favor of Vitellius that had taken place in the Forum rather than to have been organised by him (although Tacitus has Sabinus charge him with the responsibilityfor it at 3.70.2) and in the sequelmight have remained an isolatedepisode.Sabinusand his group betook themselvesto the Capitol and the praetorians set a guard around it that the historian assureshis readerswas entirely ineffectual: during the night of the 18th people came and went on the Capitol, a messengerleft for Ocriculum to apprisethe Fla109

110

R.T.

SCOTT

vian commanders of the situation, and Sabinus summoned his own children and the young Domitian to join him. On December 19, however, everything changed becauseof the appearance early in the morning of Petilius Cerialis with a cavalry force on the

Via Salaria close to the city (3.79). As Wellesley observes,the successof the Vitellian cavalry in driving them off will have alerted the camp to the enemy within as well as without the city and provided the emotional incentive for the launching of the fateful attack on the Capitol, which the lan-

guageof the historianat 3.71 clearlyshowscamefrom that direction? In addition to the arguments adduced by Wellesley in favor of the traditional view, one should also keep in mind Tacitus' ability to maintain a strongstory line. In the presentinstancehe has in fact preparedthe reader of Book 3 for this eruption from the praetorian camp toward the Capitol by his description of two previous ones from the same place: the first occurs at Hist.

1.38-44 and culminates with the murder of Galba in the

Forum, the secondoccursat Hist. 1.80 and finisheswith the disruption of

Otho's dinner party on the Palatine.6 In all three episodesthe praetorians embody the social and political inversionsof civil war and the antithetical encounterbetweenthe city and the camp that are so prominent throughout the text of Histories 1-3. Thus in my view the reader will have had no more difficulty in visualising the sourceand developmentof the attack at Hist. 3.71 than he will have been surprisedthat the final scenein the battle to secureRome for the Flavians is the strugglefor the camp itself describedat 3.84; for as Tacitus presents it, the war in large and small detail begins and is sustained from the

camps.7Certainly there are inadequaciesin his telling of the tale of the long year of the four emperors,but they are offset by the brilliance of his overall achievement, albeit one that was facilitated on occasion-as here

with the salliesfrom the praetoriancamp-by the eventsthemselves.8 R.T.

American Academy in Rome

Scott

NOTES

1. K. Wellesley,AJAH 6 (1981) 166 ff. and especiallypp. 178-189; T.P. Wiseman, AJAH 3 (1978) 163 ff. 2. Wellesley (ed.), Cornelius Tacitus, The Histories, Book III (1972) 166-172. 3. See L. Holzapfel, Klio 13 (1913) 300 ff., for the sequenceof events, and cf. H. Heubner, P. Cornelius Tacitus. Die Historien. Band III. Drittes Buch (1972) 181 ff.

CITY

AND CAMP

IN TACITUS,

HISTORIES

3.71

111

4. SeeCh. H01sen,RhM 49 (1894) 401 ff. The languageof Tacitus at 3.70.2 suggeststhat the encountertook place at the southernend of the Vicus: inde armatum agmen emissum,stratam innocentiumcaedibusceleberrimamurbis partem. Cicero usesthe phraseceleberrimaeurbispartes to refer to the Forum and its environs(De Domo 146); cf. Florus (4.8.4): cum in celeberrimaparte urbis, Carinis, pater eius habitasset. Further material in Heubner, op. cit. 168. 5. SeeWellesley, op. cit. (n. 2 above) 169, where he also considersan alternate route from the camp along the Argiletum to the northwestern end of the Forum. 6. For the topography of Hist. 1.80 seethe commentaries on the Histories by Heubner, I (1963) 167-168 and C.E.F. Chilver (1979) 146-148. With this incident one might compare the sceneof the arrival of the aquilifer of legio IV Macedonica at Vitellius' dinner in Cologne, bearing the news of the legionary revolt in Germania Superior. 7. Earlier in his account one may instancethe revolt in the German camps: Hist. 1.12, 51-61; Otho's withdrawal to the praetorian camp to prepare the coup against Galba: Hist. 1.23-28, 36-38; the proclamation of Vespasian in the camps of the eastern army, followed by the swing to him of the European troops and the Flavian war council at Poetovio: Hist. 2.79-82, 85-86, 3.1-7. Finally note the context in which the battle for the camp is set: urbem senatui ac populo Romano, templa dis reddita. proprium esse militis decus in castris: illam patriam, illos penatis. (3.84.2) 8. Cf. Wellesley, op. cit. (n. 1 above) 189. I am grateful to the editor and referees of the journal for a number of improvements in this article.

THE

LACUNA

IN THE

IN TACITUS'/INNALES

LIGHT

OF CHRISTIAN

BOOK

FIVE

TRADITIONS

Our text of Tacitus' Annales has a large gap in its account of Tiberius' principate. The last nine tenths of Book 5, along with the opening chapters of Book 6, have disappeared. The missingsectioncovered most of nt• 29, all of 30, and the greater part of 31. Book 5 beginswith an announcement of the consulsfor 29, Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, then reports the death of Livia and its melancholy aftermath, and then breaks off. When our text resumesin Book 6, we are far into the year 31, with Sejanus having already fallen. A recent editor of Annales 1-6 has aptly remarked that "the most tantalizing problem about this text's transmission" is the question which the presentarticle will explore: "when was book 5

mutilated and was its mutilation purely a matter of chance? "• There are other serious gaps and chopped endings in our Tacitean corpus. The middle and perhaps the end of the Annales are gone, as are the last two thirds of the Historiae, and there is a lacuna of uncertain length in the Dialogus. Perhaps there are sundry reasons for these and lesser losses,and one must always remember that the remarkable thing is that anything of Tacitus' work has survived:what we have of the first six books of the Annales dependson a singleninth-century manuscript, in Carolingian minuscule, from Fulda (Laurentianus 68.1, but conventionally called First Medicean); and for Annales 11-16 and the opening books of the Historiae we are apparently in debt to a singlemanuscript, SecondMedicean, which was copied in Beneventanscript at Monte Cassinoin the eleventh or twelfth century. Undoubtedly we have the Benedictinesto thank for preservingwhatever of Tacitus' works has been preserved. Fulda was a Benedictinemonastery, indeed the chief Benedictinemonasteryin all of Germany. And the monasteryat Monte Cassinowas founded by St. Benedict himself

in 529.

The original extent of First Medicean may have been far greater than Annales 1-6, sincesimilaritiesin format suggestthat SecondMedicean was

copiedfrom First Medicean.2 If so, First Mediceanwould at one time have included, at the least, everything that we have of both the Annales and the Historiae, and for a time may have been the Benedictineorder's 112

THE

LACUNA

IN TACITUS'

ANNALES

BOOK

FIVE

113

only manuscript of Tacitus' major historical works. Yet the production of First Medicean in the Fulda scriptorium was not a very impressiveperformance. The scribe responsible for First Medicean was careless, and his

work displayswhat hasbeencalleda "completeignoranceof Latinity".3 The lacuna in Annales 5, however, was apparently not his fault, for the material seemsto have been missingalready in the immediate ancestorof First Medicean. Although First Medicean is here physically intact, the CarolingJan copyist has left a blank spaceof several centimetersbetween the testarentur with which the account of 29 breaks off and the quattuor with which his text resumes.The blank spaceis thus his indication of an omission in the text that he was producing, and can be explained in two ways. The less likely explanation is that the ninth-century copyist was working from a complete text, and that either he or his superior decided to omit the bulk of Annales 5. The more likely possibility is that First

Medicean'sarchetype,which dated from about the sixth century,4 had a lacuna at this point in the narrative. Whether the lacuna in the archetype would have been physical or textual is difficult to say. Had a number of folios in the archetypebeen missing or damaged, perhaps our ninth-century scribe would have remarked upon it, rather than merely leaving a blank space;on the other hand, perhaps our scribe was too perfunctory to have risen to the occasion. It may be that at some point in the manuscript tradition physical damage to (or deletionof) the folios of Annales 5 had occurred:the text immediately following the great lacuna is defective, presentingus with a fragmentary sentence that is itself followed by a minor lacuna: quattuor et quadraginta orationes super ea re habitae, ex quis ob metum paucae, plures adsuetudine ( .... ) mihi pudorem aut Seiano invidiam adlaturum

censui.

The lacuna between adsuetudine and mihi, which at a minimum extended for one complete sentenceand parts of two others, is not signalled in the

manuscript, and the anacoluthon was possiblynot observedby the ninthcentury scribe. Possibly either he or his predecessorfound the fragment about "44 speeches"legiblesomewherenear the major lacuna, and prefixed it to the sentencebeginning mihi pudorem. In looking for a terminuspost quem for the lossof Annales 5, we may say that a textual lacuna is unlikely to have appearedin the hyparchetype, since the hyparchetype seemsto have been copied in the third or fourth century and we have some evidence that at that time the full text of Taci-

tus' works was still available?We are thereforefairly safe in assuming

114

ROBERT

DREWS

that in our manuscript tradition Tacitus' account of the years 29-31 disappeared either becausephysical damage was done to the manuscript (either of the hyparchetypeor the archetypeof First Medicean)or because the account was omitted when the archetype of First Medicean was produced in the sixth or seventh century. Whether the lacuna in Annales 5 came about because of physical destruction or scribal omission, there is something to be said for the pos-

sibility that this part of Tacitus' account was deliberately suppressed. Specifically, I think it is not unlikely that a Christian in Late Antiquity or the early Middle Ages was displeasedwith the account of 29-31 that he found in the hyparchetypeor archetype of First Medicean. That Tacitus' works held no attraction for Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages is quite clear. Perhaps a sufficient reasonfor the Christians' dislike of Tacitus can be found in his famous chapter (Annales 15.44) on Nero's attempt to blame the Christiani for the great fire in Rome: in that chapter Tacitus displayed some scorn for both the Christiani and the auctor norninis eius. But it may be that Latin Christians found Tacitus guilty of other sins of omission or commission. When Tertullian, at the end of the secondcentury, assailsTacitus as a pathologicalliar (rnendaciorumloqua-

cissimus)6 he seemsto be indicting Tacitus not for subjective antiChristian sentiments but for distortions of historical fact. Although in pagan circlesTacitus remained one of the four greatestRoman historians (the other three being Sallust, Livy and PompeiusTrogus) until the end of

antiquity,7 by the fourth centuryChristian writers were in a positionto ignore him rather than to attack him. In the sixth century, Cassiodorus could refer to Tacitus' Getmania as having been written by "a certain Cornelius",s and no writer from the seventhor eighthcenturymentionsTacitus at all. For the literate of this period, the greatestLatin historian by far was Orosius, whosedismal Historia adversurnPaganos provided medieval Europe with most of what it knew about its ancientpast. Altogether,Tacitus' eclipsein Christian Europe is hardly surprising. A case could be made that Christian sensitivitieswere responsiblefor several of the lacunae other than that in Annales 5. It will have occurred

to many readers of Tacitus that the present terminations of the Annales and the Historiae curiously coincide with the points at which Tacitus' narratives of the Jewish War and of the siege of Jerusalem would have be-

gun.9 In the Late Empirethe JewishWar wasan episodeof extraordinary interest to Christians, whose doctrine it was that the war was God's pun-

ishmentupon "the Jews"for having crucified Jesus.Although Josephus did not thus explain the war, his accountof it did not quite rule out such an etiology,•øand Josephus'BellurnIudaicurnwas early translatedinto

THE

LACUNA

IN

TACITUS'

ANNALES

BOOK

FIVE

115

Latin and eventuallyinto most of the languagesof Christendom.Tacitus' version of the Jewish War, on the other hand, apparently did not lend itself at all to the Christian

characterization

of that event. If Tacitus

did

describe the outbreak of the Jewish War in the Annales, he would almost

certainly have presentedbeliefs about "Christus" as contributing to that outbreak: at 15.44 he statedthat in 64 the exitiabilisSUl•erstitio,which had been suppressedin the time of Tiberius, was once again breaking out

"throughout Judaea".• And apparentlyin his Historiae Tacitus did in fact portray the destruction of the Temple as a blow aimed just as much

at the religioChristianorumas at the religioIudaeorum.12 It is quitepossible that when Tertullian assailedTacitus as mendaciorum loquacissimus it was not becauseof what Tacitus said about Nero's persecutionof the Christians after the great fire, but becauseof what Tacitus had written about the Jewish War.

The terminations of the Annales and the Historiae, however, must be the subjectof a study far more extensivethan the one presentedhere. Let us return, then, to our relatively limited question: could the lacuna in Annales

5 have resulted from Christian

sensitivities?

In his annotated edition of the Annales Erich Koestermann repeated a suggestionthat had been made from time to time: the gap beginning at Annales 5.5 came about becausesomewhere in the missing section Tacitus had written somethingabout Jesusthat the Christiansfound objection-

able.•3The suggestion may havesomeinitial appeal,but in the endis not convincing.One large difficulty with it is that if a Christian copyisthad indeedfound somethingobjectionablein this section,he would reasonably have omitted a few lines, or at most a few paragraphs, but surely not the equivalentof an entire book.TMAn even more seriousdifficulty is that when Tacitus doesmention "Christus", at Annales 15.44, his phraseology suggeststhat this is the first such mention in the Annales. Although Tacitus is not likely to have written anything unfavorable about Jesusin Annales 5, one cannot leap to the conclusionthat Christian

sensitivitiestherefore had nothing to do with the gap in question.It may be that what offended the Christians was not somethingTacitus said, but what he failed to say. Let us take a closer look at the problem. According to very early Christian tradition, An 29, the consulshipof Rubelliusand Fufius, being the sixteenthyear of Tiberius, was the year of

Jesus'crucifixionand rest•rrection. 15This is the absolutedate givenby our earliestsource,Tertullian,16and for sometime thisdatingmaintained itself in Latin Christendom, appearing-for example-in the writings of

Augustine •7and of his contemporary,the chronographer SulpiciusSeverus.18But the matterwasnot certain,and otherChristianchronographers

116

ROBERT

DREWS

dated the beginning of Jesus' ministry to 29 and the Crucifixion to 31 (Tiberius' eighteenth year), on the argument that the Gospel of John implied three years for Christ's ministry. Thus we find the Passion dated to 31 in the chronicles of Eusebius, Jerome and Cassiodorus. As indicated above, Tacitus' explanatory remarks about "Christus" at Annales 15.44 make it highly unlikely that in his account of the years 29 to 31 the historian made any mention of Jesus.Now from our perspective, that is perhaps not at all surprising.A sixth-centuryChristian abbot, however, would not have been so complacentabout Tacitus' silence.For Christians in Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages were quite certain that the world was astir about Jesus during the years of his ministry and immediately after the Resurrection. In the words of Rufinus, "people everywherewere talking about the wonderful report of the resurrectionand

miraclesof our Lord JesusChrist".19Christiansof Late Antiquity understood that Jesus'miracles were spectacularevents, and the Crucifixion and Resurrection world-shaking, since during the week of the Passion nature itself was turned upside down. At the Crucifixion the world was for three hours plunged into a darkness so deep that the stars could be seen. For example, Cassiodorusreported that in the fifth consulshipof Tiberius (the year 31) "occurred the Passionof our Lord JesusChrist, on the eighth day before the kalendsof April, and there was an eclipseof the sun such as had

never before and has never sincebeen seen"? And at Jesus'death, and during his Descent into Hell, the graves were opened and men who had long been dead walked once more in Judaea: Noah, Abraham, Isaac,

Jacob and many more, twelve thousandaccordingto one tradition? All of this was necessarily observed by the incumbent Roman governor, and in the arsenal of Christian apologists one of the most effective missiles was the so-called Acts of Pilate. These Acta, sent by Pilate to Tiberius, described Jesus' miracles, his arrest and trial, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascensioninto heaven. During the reign of Antoninus Pius, Justin Martyr tells his sceptical readers to have a look at these Acta and

to seefor themselves the miraclesofficially reportedabout Christ? The Acta Pilati seem to have taken the form of a letter, in Latin, with very

crisp and preciseinformation? For example,one of the few thingswe know about theseActa is that they were the document that fixed the date of the Crucifixion to the eighth day before the kalends of April, whether

of the year 29 or 31.24The Acta Pilati were apparentlynot abovesuspicion, however, even among Christian apologists.Although Justin and Ter-

tullianrefer to theActa, theydo not quotethem? Later apologists rarely mentionthem, and the text seemsto havebeeneventuallysuppressed. 26 Early in the fourth century Maximin Daia forged another set, this one

THE

LACUNA

IN TACITUS'

ANNALES

BOOK

FIVE

117

inimical to the Christian faith, since in Maximin's version Pilate reported to Tiberius that Jesus and his followers were a thoroughly disreputable lot. 27

Although the second-century Acta Pilati may not have had a long career, a secondarygrowth fared somewhatbetter. Tertullian, in the samepassage in which he refers to Pilate's report to Tiberius, goes on to describe its reception by Tiberius. The emperor, according to Tertullian, was so impressedby what Pilate wrote that he requested the senate to recognize Christ as a god. But the senate refused to go along with Tiberius' re-

quest? This storyin Tertullian'sApologeticus 29lay dormantthroughthe third century,but early in the fourth it waspickedup by Eusebius 3øand so beganto circulatein the Greek east. Apparently it was Eusebius'unparalleled authority that guaranteed the successof this story about Tiberius' requestingthe senateto recognizeChrist's divinity. At the end of the fourth century, while Jerome was translating Eusebius'chronographicalwritings into Latin, Rufinus of Aquileia did the same for the Historia Ecclesiastica, and so our story came back to the Latin west, this time with an authority

far betterthan Tertullian'sbehindit. 3• Twentyyearsafter Rufinus'translation appeared, Orosius repeated the story and improved on it: accord-

ing to Orosius,32the senate'srefusal to deify Christ was the sourceof Tiberius' hatred of the senate; before the episode, Tiberius had gotten along quite well with the senate, but when his recommendation was turned down he began his campaign of terror against the leading senators. Finally, in the third stage of the legend, a cluster of derivative stories grew out of this tale about Pilate, Tiberius and the senate. Most of these storiesseemto have arisen in the sixth century. One of the more colorful pertained to Veronica and her miraculous cloth: this cloth, upon which Jesushimself had imprinted his image, was brought to Rome by imperial courier and there healed Tiberius of his dread disease.Other legendstold of Tiberius' punishment of Pilate, how Pilate was executedand his body thrown into the Tiber, only to be dredged up again when the Tiber stank so profusely that the inhabitants of Rome could not endure it. Tiberius therefore ordered that Pilate's body be thrown into a crevicein the earth at Vienna, which popular etymology explained as a short form of via

gehennae,the road to hell.33 Against this florid background of Christian legend about Tiberius' recognition of Christ's divinity, we can appreciatehow dismayed, or at least how puzzled, a Late Antique or early medieval Christian would have been to find that Tacitus' Annales, which the pagans had touted as the fullest and best authority on the reign of Tiberius, made no mention whatever of any of this: no Veronica's cloth, to be sure, and no Tiberian execution of

118

ROBERT

DREWS

Pilate; more reprehensible,no mention of Pilate's report to Tiberius about Jesus' miraculous life, death and resurrection; and utterly inexplicable, sinceTacituspresentedin suchdetail all sortsof senatorialbusiness,would have been Tacitus'

omission of the debate between Tiberius

and the sen-

ate on the matter of Jesus' divinity. A sixth- or seventh-centuryabbot who appreciated the value of Tacitus' Annales would necessarilyalso have been aware that Tacitus' account of the years 29 to 31 could trouble the faith of some weaker brethren, or would at least raise difficult questions about authority and tradition. On one chronology, the ministry, death and resurrectionof Jesusall occurred in 29; on the other, his miracles began in 29, and the Passion and Resurrection took place in 31. It might be supposedthat Tacitus' failure to say anything about thesematters could have been repaired by the interpolation of a brief chapter here and there. Many scholars believe that that is

preciselywhat wasdoneto the text of Josephus' JewishAntiquities. 34But such a recourse would not have been long considered in dealing with Annales 5. Apart from the recklessnessrequired to place Christian testimony in the mouth of one of the great pagan historians, there would be the rather daunting prospect of writing something that might pass for Tacitean Latin. Things would not have been so bad in the sixth century as they were in the ninth, but we do note that the monk who produced First Medicean in a ninth-century scriptorium was quite unable to extend the Tacitean text. He was, in fact, scarcelyable to read it, and contented him-

self with transcribing"a text whichhe madeno effort to construe"? Tacitus' silence about Jesusin Annales 5 could not be easily repaired. It is therefore not at all impossiblethat in Late Antique or early medieval times a Christian custodian of the hyparchetype or archetype of First Medicean decidedto delete from his manuscript the obviously inadequate account that Tacitus had written of Tiberius' sixteenth to eighteenth years. If the mutilation of Annales 5 was intentional, it was provoked not by Tacitus' "lies" but by his "omissions". Robert

Vanderbilt University

Drews

NOTES

1. F.R.D. Goodyear, The Annals of TacitusBooks 1-6 I (1972) 4. 2. C.W. Mendell, Tacitus: The man and his work (1957) 239.

3. H. Furneaux,TheAnnalsof Tacitus12(1896)7. 4. Revilo P. Oliver, "The First MediceanMS of Tacitus and the titulature of

THE

LACUNA

IN TACITUS'

ANNALES

BOOK

FIVE

119

ancient books", TAPA 82 (1951) 236, notes that "students of the text are agreed that numerouserrors in transcriptionshow that a manuscriptin Insular minuscules intervenedbetweenour codex and the hyparchetypein rustic capitals". Oliver presenteda tightly constructedargument that the hyparchetypewas produced in the third or the fourth century. The Insular minusculearchetype of First Medicean would perhaps have been copied in the sixth or seventhcentury. 5. Early in the fifth century Orosius was still able to consult the later books of the Historiae (cf. fragments 3-7, ed. Fisher). What the author of the Historia Augusta has to say about the emperor Tacitus' provisions for the copying of his namesake'sworks (H.A., Tacitus 10.3) is perhaps sheer invention, but is instructive nevertheless:the story assumesthat the full Tacitean corpus was still available in AD 275 at the least.

6. Apologeticus 16 and Ad nat. 1.11. For a full presentation of Tacitus' Nachleben see Mendell, Tacitus 225-238. 7. The author of the Historia Augusta, probably at the very end of the fourth

century, twice mentions Tacitus in this company (seeAurelian 2 and Probus 2). 8. Cassiodorus, Variarum 5, epist. 2.2: quodam Cornelio scribente. 9. It is possible, although I think not probable, that Tacitus died with pen in hand, half-way through the sentencewith which Annales 16 now ends. For an argument along theselines seeRevilo P. Oliver, "Did Tacitus finish the Annales?", ICS 2 (1977) 289-314. No such argument, of course, can be made for the abrupt ending of the Historiae. 10. Origen (Contra Celsum 1.47; cf. 2.13) generalizedthat accordingto Josephus the Jews' catastrophe occurred becausethey had slain James the Righteous, who was Jesus'brother. That severelydistorts what Josephushad said about the murder of James (AJ 20.200). Eusebius took even greater liberties with Josephus' account. At Hist. Eccl. 2.23.20 Eusebius tells the reader: "Josephus says, 'These things happened to the Jews as vengeancefor James the Righteous.'" Thus Eusebius attributes to Josephusin oratio recta the sentencewhich in Origen was an indirect (and quite misleading) paraphrase. 11. That Judaea experienceda resurgenceof enthusiasmfor Jesusas Messiah in the middle 60s is not mentioned in Luke's Acts of the Apostles, but Luke's silence is not surprising.After describingPaul's conversion,Luke thoroughlyignored Peter and the rest of the Twelve, James the Righteous, and the entire community of Christ-followers in Judaea and Galilee, and his presentation suggestedinstead that the Christiani were synonymouswith the "gentiles"in Asia Minor and Greecewhom Paul had converted;as portrayed by Luke, theseChristiani were as much hated by "the Jews" as were the Romans

themselves.

12. Hist. frag. 2 (ed. Fisher). The Tacitean derivation of Sulpicius' account of 70 is with goodreasongenerallyaccepted;seeT.D. Barnes,"The fragmentsof Tacitus' Histories", CP 72 (1977) 224-231. For an unpersuasiveargument to the contrary seeHugh Montefiore, "SulpiciusSeverusand Titus' Council of War", Historia 11 (1962) 156-170. 13. Koestermann, Cornelius Tacitus: Annalert II (1965) 28, dealt with the matter in a fairly superficialway: "Worauf der Verlust der Hauptmassedes 5. Buches

120

ROBERT

DREWS

zurfickzuffihren ist, Irisst sich natfirlich nicht mehr erschliessen. Aber eine Ver-

mutungk6nntemandochfiussern. Nachchristlicher Oberlieferung fid derKreuzestod des Er16sers in das Jahr 30 oder kurz danach. Da Tacitus wfihrend seiner

Amtstfitigkeit in Asien zweifellos ebensowie sein Freund Plinius in Bithynien in Berfihrungmit der christlichenKirche gekommenist, wird er sich auch Gedanken fiber den Stifter der Religion gemachthaben. Er k6nnte, vielleichtim Zusammenhang mit Pontius Pilatus, seinesTodes im 5. Buch gedacht haben, abet, nach seinen AusffihrungenAnn. 15.44 zu urteilen, schonhier in einer Weise, die schwerlich etwas yon Mitgeffihl oder gat Verstfindnisdurchblicken liess. Dies mag alsdann M6nche, denen die Bewahrung der antiken Literatur anvertraut war, veranlasst haben, die anst6ssigenBlfitter zu vernichten." 14. Thus, for example, H. Furneaux, H.F. Pelham and C.D. Fisher, The Annals

of TacitusII 2 (1907)418 n. 1, in theirargument(with whichI agree)that Tacitus did not mention

"Christus"

in his Annales

before the famous reference at 15.44:

"The strangeconjectureof M. Joel (seeC.F. Arnold, p. 117), that an accountgiven in the Fifth Book causedthe destructionof that part of the Annals through the indignationof Christiansat the representationcontainedin it, involvesthe extravagant supposition that the whole history of some three years was annihilated, to securethe excisionof what could have been at the utmost so extremelysmall a portion of it."

15. The early Christians had imprecisetraditions about the date of Jesus'birth, the Gospel of Matthew putting it at the end of the reign of Herod the Great, while Luke's story seemedto put it after the creationof the Roman province.For the date of Jesus'crucifixion, however, the canonical writers were not in obvious disagreement, although neither did any of them fix the year. Calculationswere therefore basedon Luke 3: 1-23, where the reader found that Jesus,being then about thirty yearsold, was baptisedby John in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. Sincethe synoptic gospelsseemedto suggestthat Jesus'crucifixionoccurredin the very next year after his baptism, the obvious inference was that the Passiontook place in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, the consulshipof Rubelliusand Fufius. 16. Tertullian, adversum Iudaeos 8.18: quae passio Christi intra tempora lxx ebdomadarumperfecta estsub Tiberio Caesare,consulibusRubellio Gemino et Fufio Gemino, roeriseMartio temporibuspaschae, die octavo Kalendarum Aprilium. 17. Augustine, Civ. Dei 18.54. 18. Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.27: Dominus crucifixus est, Fufio Gemino et Rubellio

Gemino

consulibus.

19. Rufinus, Hist. Eccles. 2.2.1.

20. Cassiodorus,Chron. 386 B-C (Migne, Pat. Lat. LXIX, col. 1228):His coss. Dominus nosterIesus Christuspassusest VIII calend. Aprilis, et defectiosolisfacta est, qualis ante vel postmodum numquam fuit. 21. DescensusChristi ad Inferos (Latin VersionB) 1.6 (p. 420 in C. Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha (1876)). 22. Justin, Apology I 35 pag. 76; 48 pag. 84. 23. Somethingof what the Acta Pilati containedcan perhapsbe seenin Tertullian'sparaphrase(Apolog. 21.17-23) of Pilate'sreportto Tiberius.More or lessthe

THE LACUNA

IN TACITUS'

ANNALES

BOOK FIVE

121

sameitemsappearin oratiorectain "Pilate'sletterto Claudius"whichis readto Nero in Acta Petri et Pauli 40-42 (in R.A. Lipsius (ed.), Acta Apostolorum Apoc-

ryphaI (1891)). SeealsoDescensus Christi(Latin VersionB) 13 (Tischendorf,Ev. Ap. 412-416). 24. Epiphanius, Haer. 50.1.

25. Justinshowedthe samewarinessin referringthe readerto-but not actually

quoting- "thecensus registers of Kyrenios"(Apol. I 34) for documentation about Jesus' birth at Bethlehem.

26. Amongthe Christianapocryphathereis a text whichsomeeditorshavechosen to call Acta Pilati (no manuscriptof the text, whetherin Greek, Latin, Coptic or Syriac, is so titled). But the extanttext, whichpretendsto be a transcriptof Jesus'trial in Pilate'spraetorium,masquerades asa translationof a Hebrewdocument"discovered" in the year424. For a generalanalysisof the text and its milieu seeE. von Dobschtitz,"Der ProcessJesunach den Acta Pilati", ZNW 3 (1902) 89114; von Dobschtitz'generalconclusionsare convincing,despiteTh. Mommsen's argument("Die Pilatus-Akten",198-205in the samevolume)that the authorof the text knew nothing about fifth-century judicial procedure. 27. Eusebius,Hist. Eccl. 1.9. Maximin's versionwasnot the last. In 1571Barth. Chassanaeus publisheda letter in polishedTaciteanLatin that purportedto be a reportfrom Pilateto Tiberius.This letterenjoyeda considerable voguewhenit was included in A. Gronovius' 1721 edition of the Annales (the text of the letter can be found in Joannes Thilo's Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti (1832) 801). A lengthy,naive, nineteenth-century specimenof the samegenrewas producedin Englishby W.D. Mahan; for this pieceseethe Rev. Geo. Sluter (ed.), The Acta Pilati. Important testimonyof PontiusPilate, recentlydiscovered,beinghis official report to the Emperor Tiberiusconcerningthe Crucifixion of Christ (Shelbyville, Indiana 1879). In our own timesa letter from PontiusPilate to Tiberius wasdiscoveredin Liverpool, and excitedmuch interestin the press;on this hoax see Paul Winter, "A letter from Pontius Pilate", Novurn Testamenturn7 (1964) 37-43.

28. T.D. Barnes,"Legislationagainstthe Christians",JRS 58 (1968) 32, aptly remarksthat "the utter implausibilityof the storyoughtto needno argument",but notes that the story has been acceptedby a few modern scholars. 29. Apolog. 5.2. 30. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.2.

31. Under the year 31 Jerome'sChronicle(ed. Helm, p. 176)notesthat "Pilato de . . . Christianorumdogmatead TiberiumreferenteTiberiusrettulit ad senatum". The full Eusebian story appearsin Rufinus, Hist. Eccles. 2.2.1-2: Interea cureper oranera iam locum de resurrectlone et mirabilibus domini nostri Iesu Christi et de

ascensioneeiusad caelumfelix lama loquereturac per omniurnauresbeati huius rumoris volveretur opinio, et quoniam antiqui moris erat apud Romanos, ut provinciarumiudices,si quidforte novi in his quasregebantprovinciisaccidisset,vel principi vel senatuinuntiarent, uti ne ex his, quae gerebantur,ignorarealiquid viderentur, de resurrectionea mortuis domini et salvatorisnostri Iesu Christi, quae iam in oraneralocumruerat pervulgata, Pilatus Tiberio principi refert, sed et de

122

ROBERT

DREWS

ceterismirabilibus eius, et ut, post mortem cum resurrexisset,a quam plurimis iam deus essecredererut. Tiberius quae conpererat retulit ad senatum. senatus autem sprevissedicitur pro eo quod non sibi prius huius rei iudicium ruetit delatum, sed auctoritatem suam praevenerit vulgi sententia. lex enim erat antiquitus designata, ne qui apud Romanos deushaberetur nisi senatusdecretoet sententiaconfirmatus. As ProfessorBadJanpointed out to me, Rufinus stretchedthe story a bit: according to Rufinus, Pilate's report to Tiberius merely confirmed officially what the

whole world alreadyknew anyway(quae iam in omnemlocumruerat pervulgata). Eusebiushad said only that by the time Pilate senthis report Jesus'fame had spread throughout Palestine. 32. Adversum Paganos 7.4. 33. The Mots Pilati and the Vindicta Salvatoris give us the details; for thesetexts see Tischendorf, Ev. Ap. 456-458 and 471-486. 34. I am not persuadedthat AJ 18.63 is interpolated. Most interpolationsin our texts of ancient authors are accidental,having arisenbecausescribalglossesworked their way into the text within a particular mss. tradition. The Josephanparagraph, however, is not an inadvertent interpolation, since Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 1.11, assumesthat it was to be found in all copies of the Jewish Antiquities. A conspiratorial interpolation, such as would have to be imagined for AJ 18.63, would have been very difficult to perpetrate. In order to acceptthe thesisone would need to believe, it seemsto me, that by the middle of the third century (when Origen cites the "testimonium Flavianum") Christians had rounded up the copies of the Jewish Antiquities then in circulation, had inserted into each the paragraph that now stands at AJ 18.63, and had then put the doctored texts back into circulation. For selectionsfrom the enormousbibliography on the "testimonium Flavianum" seepp. 573-575 in L. Feldman's edition of Josephus, AJ 18-20 (vol. IX of the Loeb Josephus(1965)). Seealso E. Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman rule (1981) 168 n. 83.

35. Oliver, "The First Medicean" (n. 4 above) 235.

PLINY

AND

THE

CHRISTIANS

The rites ad imaginem principis

ß . . qui negabant essese Christianos autfuisse, cum praeeunte me deos adpellarent et imagini tuae, quam propter hoc iusseram cum simulacris numinum adferri, ture ac uino supplicarent, praeterea male dicerent Christo, quorum nihil cogipossedicuntur qui sunt re uera Christiani, dimittendos putaui. alii ab indice nominati essese Christianos dixerunt et mox negauerunt;fuisse quidem sed desisse, quidam ante triennium, quidam ante plures annos, non nemo etiam ante uiginti. [hi] quoque omnes et imaginem tuam deorumque simulacra

uenerati sunt et Christo

male dixerunt.

Epp. ad Trai. 10,96,5-6

Some points of Pliny's report stand in little need of fresh exegesis.After

an introductoryprayerformula spokenby Pliny himself(praeeunteme),• those who denied that they were or had been Christians have proved their claim by calling on the gods and offering incense and wine before the emperor's image, which for this purpose Pliny has had placed with the statuesof the gods. The rite is the well-known act of supplicatio. Originally this had taken the form of a special obsecratio or gratulatio that was addressedto the gods by decree of the senate at a time of national emergency or rejoicing; the ritual involved the whole community, who participated by burning incense, pouring wine, and offering prayer before images of the gods, placed for this purpose on couches (puluinaria) in

front of the opentemples. 2 From this developedthe simplerform of supplicatio ture ac uino to which Pliny refers. The procedure is already attestedunder the Republic in connectionwith the statuesof the Gracchi, Marius Gratidianus, Saturninus,Cassiusand Brutuset al.,3 and was performed by Ovid each day at dawn before silver imperial likenessesin his householdLararium at Tomi.4 Thanks no doubt to its cheapness and simplicity it was firmly established, perhaps by the end of the Julio-Claudian 123

124

DUNCAN

FISHWICK

period, both as a preliminary to animal sacrificeand as a standard rite in

itself.5 Pek/tryhassuggested that in the FerialeDuranum(reignof Alexander Severus) 6 the supplicationmarking many of the occasionscommemorated may well have been made before an image of the personage honoured,much as in the Pliny passage. 7 Iconographicaltracesare relatively frequent. A seriesof reliefs from Pettau in Austria, for example, showsin varying completenessthree figures capite uelato who pour libations or sprinkle incenseupon a small, squarealtar before them; in the left

hand each carriesa laurel(?) branch.8 The rites are to be brought into relation with those of the Lares Augusti, as illustrated notably on reliefs from Aquileia or Nimes, and similar scenesof sacrificeby four uicomagistri are portrayed on the exterior walls of buildings at the compita of

Pompeii.9 More uncertainty attachesto the act of ueneratio, which apostate Christians, like the first group (hi quoque omnes), are reported to have per-

formed.w Whereasproskynesis • before the statuesof the gods is a frequent theme in the accountsof Christian martyrdoms, •2 the more moderate gestureof bowing the head is reported in the Martyrdom of St. Crispina specifically in relation to supplicatio: ut in templis sacrisflexo capite diis Romanorum tura iramoles (2,1); cf. subiuga caput tuum ad sacradeorumRomanorum(1,4).• At first sightthis might suggestsimply a reverent nod on the part of the Christians. However, in the Acta Pionii we have a description of prostration before the 'golden idol', here the

emperor'simago(4,24);•4 the soldierDasiuswasevenorderedto venerate the feet of the emperor,that is of his statue(Acta Dasii 7);•5 and Origen affirms that Christians were also required to kiss the hand, a typical ges-

ture in veneratinga statue.•6 Here one can seea correspondence with the older form of supplicatio (above) in which the worshipperprostratedhim-

self, clutchedthe feet of the cult image, and kissedits handsand feet.•7 As it is clear from Pliny that Christians had to venerate not only the imperial image but also the statuesof the gods, full prostration is likely to have been the version required by Pliny. Beyond the rites themselves Pliny's account leaves various issues in doubt. Where exactly the testingof the Christianstook place is not stated; all we are told, on the received text, is that the emperor's imago was brought into Pliny's presence,as also were the statuesof the gods (quam propter hoc iusseram cum simulacris numinum adferri). No difficulty attachesto the word imago. Originally a wax image or painted portrait,

the term had acquiredthe specializedmeaningof the likenessof a man 'h

PLINY

AND

THE

CHRISTIANS

125

mi-corps', usually in the form of a bust made of bronze, silver or gold

plate.•8As such,imagois to be distinguished from statua,the representation of a man 'en pied', and more particularly from simulacrum or signurn, both of which refer regularly (as in Cicero) to the cult image in the temple.19In this case,however,it is difficult, if not impossible,to think that Pliny rounded up cult idols for his purpose. In ritual practicethe only occasionon which a cult statue might be taken out of the temple cella was that of a processionmarking a festival; the best known instancein Roman

practiceis the pompa circensis,of course? Nothing of the sort is mentioned in connection with Pliny's examination of the Christians, so one must assumethat here the term is usedlooselyto refer to representations

of the godsthat servedas substitutesfor cult idols.2• What form these might have taken (full-length statues, portable full-length statues, statuettes?) is entirely uncertain. As for the specific reference of simulacris numinum (cf. deorumque simulacra), the major complaint against Christians was that they refusedto sacrificeto the godsof Rome; the cult of the emperor, one aspectof this issue,was of lesserconcern? In all probability therefore the plural form points to the Capitoline Triad, as Sherwin-

White saw;23certainlythesewould be the most appropriatedeities. What, then, was the point of placing the imperial imago with the statues of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva? The likeliest interpretation is that Pliny was re-creatinga situation that could occur within a temple, for examplein the

localCapitoliumat Amastris(?). 24To placethe imageof a ruler (whether statue or bust) within a temple was a procedure that is widely attested

throughout Classicalantiquity and indeed earlier? In theory such an object was an offering to the deity 'dedicated in accordancewith ancient

customfor vowsor piousreasons', •6 but in practiceit doubtlessbecame a conventional way of honouring the individual represented. Examples in the Roman period are widespread in Rome, Italy and the provinces, particularly those of the Greek East. Just as likenessesof Republican governors had been set up in temples, shrinesand other cult places of Greece and Asia Minor, so the image of the emperor and other members of the imperial house was accorded the same treatment from the reign of Augustusonwards. One of the most striking examplesfor presentpurposes is at Brixia in northern Italy, where a whole seriesof emperor statuesmay have been placed in the Capitoline temple from its construction under

Vespasiandown to the Severanperiod? The rule was for suchstatuesor buststo be placed in the temple porch, but as a mark of specialhonour they might stand in the cella. The greatest distinction of all was to have

126

DUNCAN

FISHWICK

one's statue set beside the cult statue. Thus Caesar, who himself had an eikon in the temple of Quirinus (Cic. Art. 12,45,2), placed a beautiful eikon of Cleopatra besidethe cult statue in the temple of Venus Genetrix (Appian, BC 2,102); Octavian'sstatueappearsto have beenput besidethe idol in the templesof Italian municipalities(Appian, BC 5,132);28 and Augustus' physician was rewarded with a statue besidethe cult image of Aesculapius(Suet. Aug. 59). The samehonour was conferred by the senate on Claudius Gothicus, whose golden statue was placed beside the simulacrum of Jupiter in the Capitolium at Rome, as well as in the Curia. 29

What Pliny seemsto be doing therefore is enacting a scene,the clear implication of which was to accord exceptionalstatusto the emperor's imago; while still a representation of the emperor as a man, his likeness is put on a par with the likenessesof the godsbesideswhich it now stands. This is an honour well into the upper reaches of isotheoi timai, so advancedin fact that 'constitutional'emperorsfelt it bestavoided.Tiberius expresslyforbade the practice: templa, flamines, sacerdotesdecerni sibi prohibuit, etiam statuas atque imagines nisi permittente se ponere; permisitque ea sola condicione, ne inter simulacra cleorum seal inter ornamenta aedium ponerentur (Suet. Tib. 26,1). To have set the emperor's

likenessbesidethe temple idol would presumablyhave put him in too close proximity to the gods, in contravention of Tiberius' explicit policy on divine honours (Tac. Ann. 4,38,1). Caligula had no such inhibitions and required the Jews to place a statue of Caesar beside the temple idol. According to Petronius, governor of Syria, this was a universal practice in the cities of subject nations; for the Jews to object was tantamount to rebellion aggravated with insult (Josephus,BJ 2,194). More significantly for present purposes, Pliny affects to be scandalized that Domitian was guilty of precisely this excess:. . . cure incestiprincipis statuis permixta cleorumsimulacra sortierent (Paneg. 52,3). For Trajan, in contrast, he has nothing but praise becauseof his moderation on this score:itaque tuam statuam in uestibulolouis Optimi Maximi unam a!teramue ethanc aeream cernimus (ibid.). Yet here Pliny himself, in testing the Christians, has deliberately copied a usage he found reprehensible in the case of Domi-

tian.3øHe could of courseclaim good reason:that he neededto ensure repentant Christiansrecognizedthe godsof Rome, without whoseworship

the cult of the emperorwould also fail.31But the fact that he couldact in this way at all provides telling commentary on the flexibility of his attitude to divine honours, to say nothing of his own capacity for adulatio.

PLINY

AND

THE

CHRISTIANS

127

One final point. In a way it is hardly surprising that Pliny fails to make explicit the location at which he questionedChristians and put them to the test; one has the impressionfrom his account that he expectedit to be selfevidentto Trajan. While the modern reader is left to puzzle, a possibleclue might be thought to lie behind Pliny's use of the term simulacra numinum/deorum. As we have seen, this is the standard expression for cult idols in a temple. Were that the casehere, in other words if Pliny is using the word simulacrum in a strict rather than extended sense,then the meaning would be that Pliny has removed an imago of the emperor from its place in the porch or the cella of the local Capitolium and placed it beside the cult idols of the Capitoline deities;how preciselythis might have been

accomplished we haveno hint.32On thisreconstruction the wholeepisode would have taken place at the local Capitolium and the Christians must have performed the rite of supplication at the exterior altar, from which one could see the cult statues (with which the imperial image was now grouped) within the temple cella. In practice such a scenariowould correspond closely to that evoked by the passagein the Martyrdom of St.

Crispina (abovep. 124). Attractive as this hypothesismight seem,33it is excludedby the Latin, which must mean that the emperor'simage along with the statuesof the godswas brought to whereverPliny sat in judgement (at his own residence?). Unless some modification of the text has taken place, one that has left no trace in the manuscript tradition, it is obligatory to locate the rites performed by the Christians elsewherethan at a temple. The implication of what Pliny was up to neverthelessremains obvious--wherever the episode took place.

University of Alberta

Duncan

Fishwick

NOTES

1. On the formulapraeire uerbaseeJ. Marquardt, R6mischeStaatsverwaltung

(1885)3, 176-178; G. Wissowa, Religion undKultus derR6rner 2 (1912)394with n. 7. Presumablythe Christiansrepeatedthe formulain addressing the gods. 2. Marquardt 48-51; cf. S. Weinstock, Divus Julius (1971) 62. 3. Plut. Gaius Gracchus 18,2; Seneca,De ira 3,18,1; cf. Cic. De off. 3,80; A. von Premerstein, 'Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats', ABA W 15 (1937) 89 with references;A. Alf61di, Die zwei Lorbeerbi•urnedes Augustus. Antiquitas 14 (1973) 24.

DUNCAN

128

FISHWICK

4. ExPonto 4,9,111 f., cf. 3,1,161-4. For the background see R. Syme, History in Ovid (1978) 125-128.

5. Wissowa,RuKR2 425 f.; RE II 7 (1931)949-951 s.v. supplicatio.Cf. the regulations preserved in the Antonine copy of the inscription of the Ara Numinis Augusti at Narbo, where incenseand wine are to be supplied to the townspeople for supplications on special anniversaries (CIL XII 4333--ILS 112). 6. R.O. Fink, A.S. Hoey, W.F. Snyder, 'The Feriale Duranum', YCS 7 (1940) 191-200.

7. T. Pek•ry, Das r6mischeKaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft.Das r6mische Herrscherbild; Abt. 3, 5 (1985) 153, cf. 127 f.; id., 'Das Opfer vor dem Kaiserbild', BJ 186 (1986) 91-103. 8. V. Skrabar, 'Denkm•iler des Larenkultes aus Poetovio', JOEAI 20 (1919) Beiblatt 279-294; cf. CIL III 10873.

9. M. Hano, 'A l'origine du culte imperial: les autels des Lares Augusti. Recherchessur les th•mes iconographiques et leur signification', ANR W II 16, 3 (1986) 2364; E. Esp•randieu, Recueil gdndraldes bas-reliefsde la Gaule Romaine I, no. 432=CIL XII 3076; I. Scott Ryberg, Rites of the state religion in Roman art. MAAR 22 (1955) 81, no. 1 with references. 10. While both categoriesof the accusedhave reviled Christ, Pliny does not

explicitly say that the apostateChristianscalledupon the godsor supplicatedthe imperial image. Presumably this was neverthelessthe case;otherwise he will have dealt with apostates more leniently than those who claimed never to have been Christians. In view of the clear evidence for the practice, I take uenerati sunt to mean an act of veneration (probably prostration), not just repetition of the rites of prayer and supplication required of the first group. 11. Prostration, perhapswith blowing a kiss, had beenno more than a court custom for the Persians, a social gesturebefore a person of high rank, notably the King; but there can be no doubt that for Greeks or Macedonians it was an act appropriate to and restrictedto divine cult. Hence its later significancein martyrologies.Seein generalE. Badian, 'The deificationof Alexanderthe Great', in Ancient Macedonian studiesin honor of Charles F. Edson. Publ. Inst. Balkan Studies 158 (1982) 48 fl.; D. Fishwick, The Imperial cult in the Latin West. EPRO 108 (1987) I 9 with references.

12. H. Musurillo, The acts of the Christian martyrs (1972) 10, no. 1, ch. 12 (Polycarp); 92, no. 7, ch. 13 (Apollonius); Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6,41,4. 13. Musurillo 304, 302, no. 24. 14. Musurillo 142, no. 10; cf. S.R.F. Price, Rituals and power. The Roman Imperial cult in Asia Minor (1984) 222. 15. Musurillo 276, no. 21. For the reading ¾Zwot see F. Millar, 'The Imperial cult and the persecutions',in W. den Boer (ed.), Le culte dessouverainsdans l'empire romain. Entretiens Fondation Hardt 19 (1972) 148 with n. 3. For petitions depositedat the feet of statuesseePrice 193.

PLINY

AND

THE

CHRISTIANS

129

16. Exhort. ad mart. 33. For the custom see A. Alf61di, Die monarchische Repr•isentation im r6mischen Kaiserreich (1970) 64 f. 17. Marquardt (above n. 1) 188; cf. Weinstock (above n. 2) 339 n. 4. 18. See in general Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire III 1 (1900) 395,402 f. s.v. imago (Courtaub); R. Daut, Imago. Untersuchungenzum Bildbegriff der R6mer. Bibl. d. Klass. Altertumswiss., n. F. 2, R. 56 (1975). 19. Pekfiry, o.c. (aboven. 7) 57. For signurnalsoas a statuetteseeOxford Latin dictionary 1760 s.v. (12). For the Greek equivalentssee L. Robert, 'Inscription d'Ath•nes', REA 62 (1960) 316-324 (=Opera Minora Selecta2 (1969) 832-840); id.

'Le serpent Glycond'Ab6nouteichos h Ath•neset Artemisd'l•ph•se h Rome',CRAI 1981, 513-535 especially522-530; cf. Pekfiry 119-122; Price (aboven. 14) 176-179. 20. See recently M. Clavel-L•vt•que, 'L'espace des jeux dans le monde romain: h•g•monie, symbolique et pratique sociale', ANRW II 16, 3 (1986) 2440 ff. 21. Cf. Apuleius, Apologia 63,3: ham morem mihi habeo quoque earn simulacrum alicuius dei inter libellos conditum gestare eique diebusfestis ture ac mero et aliquando uictima supplicare.Apart from Panegyricus52,3, where the reference is to the cult idols, the only other relevant usage in Pliny is Paneg. 16,3; accipiet ergo aliquando Capitolium non mimicos currus nec falsa simulacra uictoriae

....

22. Millar (above n. 12) 159 ff.; Price (above n. 14) 125,215 n. 44, 221; Pekfiry (above n. 7) 150 f. 23. A.N. Sherwin-White, The letters of Pliny (1966) 701. 24. The city where Pliny encounteredthe Christiansis not known. Sherwin-White 693 f. opts for Amastris. 25. Pekfiry, o.c. 55-65; D. Fishwick, 'Liturgy and ceremonial', in The Imperial cult in the Latin West(1989), forthcoming. One of the earliestexamplesis the eikon of Philip II in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus:Arrian, Ahab. 1,17,11. 26. P. Oxy. XII 1449,11.11 f. A.D. Nock, 'Synnaos Theos', HSCP41 (1930) 3, 29, 56 (=A.D. Nock, Essays on religion and the ancient world, ed. Z. Stewart (1972) 1,204, 224, 246) seemsto take such offerings to be necessarilyvotives. 27. Pekfiry 96 ad CIL V 4315-4317; cf. AEp 1972, 204. 28. Similarly Dio usesthe verb ibp•cscttof Agrippa's plan to place a statue of Augustusin the (later) Pantheon (53,27,3) and the same term is usedin Josephus, BJ 2,194. See further 'Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus', in D. Fishwick, The Imperial cult in the Latin West I 1 (1987) 78 with n. 41. 29. non diui uocabulum modo, sed ex auro statuam prope ipsum louis simulacrum atque in curia imaginem auream proceres sacrauere (Epit. de Caes. 34,4); cf. Eutrop. Brev. 9,11,2: diuus appellatus est. senatus eum ingenti honore decorauit, scilicet ut in curia clipeus ipsi aureus, item in Capitolio statua aurea poneretur.

30. Plinyhas,of course,placedtheemperor's imagewith the statues of thegods outsidethe temple, but the parallel is clear nonetheless.

130

DUNCAN

FISHWICK

31. Musurillo (above n. 12) 178, no. 12 (Fructuosus):hi audiuntur, hi timentur, hi adorantur; si dii non coluntur, nec imperatorurn uultus adorantur (2,6). 32. If the local Capitolinetriad had their cult statuessideby sidein a singlecella, then the mechanicsof placingthe emperor'simage besidethem causeno difficulty. If, however,the Capitolium had a triple cella, as was frequentlythe case,the imago could have been placed besidethe image of Jupiter (cf. above n. 29). See in general I.A. Barton, 'Capitoline templesin Italy and the provinces(especiallyAfrica)', in ANRWII 12, I (1982)259-342 with bibliography. 33. Tertullianreportsthat soldierstook the annualuota on behalfof the emperor (on 3rd Januaryafter ca. ^i) 38) first at the chapelin the camp (thereforebefore the signaand the imagines),then at the local Capitolium:ecceannuauotorumnuncupatio quid uidetur?prima in principiis, secundain Capitoliis (De corona militis 12).

THE

TEMPLE

OF CAESAR

AT ALEXANDRIA

The most extensivedescription of the 'temple of Caesar' at Alexandria is given by Philo, who locatesit oppositethe harbours and points with pride to the unprecedentednumber of dedicationsthat filled it, the works of art and objects of gold and silver that surrounded it, the decoration of its extensive precinct with colonnades, libraries, banqueting-halls, groves,

gateways,openspaces,and unroofedenclosures (Leg. ad Gai. 22:151).• No-one doubts today that in its final form the temple was the Alexandrian centre of the cult of Augustus. The letter of Claudius to the Alexandrians

(^•) 41) showsthat it was dedicatedto Augustus(P. Lond. col. 4,60 f.);2 the inscription on the base of one of the two fifteenth-century Bc obelisks that were erected in the temple enclosure (Pliny, NH 36,69) preservesthe date 13/12 Bc (OGIS 656=IGRR 1,1072-CIL 3,6588); and an entry in the lexicon of Suidas saysexplicitly that the unfinished temple was completed

in honour of Augustus.3 It might be addedthat the acclamationof Augustus in the bay of Puteoli (^•) 14) by seafarers from Alexandria seems to corroborate Philo's statement that the Sebasteion gave hope of safety to sailors when they set out to sea and returned: per illurn se vivere, per illurn navigare, libertate atque fortunis per illurn frui (Suet. Aug. 98,2).

The formula hasall the ring of ritual chantsin the templeat Alexandria.4 Beyondthis the original statusof the templeis disputed.5 Accordingto the Suda, it was originally begun (by Cleopatra) for Antony. The only evidence in support of that appears to be Dio's account (51,15,5) of the end of Antyllus, the elder son of Antony, who was slain despite the fact that

he had taken refugein the herOonbuilt by Cleopatra,6

Here the templeis definedas z6 zo6 rcazobqa6zo6 fiOOov,whichhasbeen taken to meanthe shrineof his father Antony.7 As Fraserrightly points out, however, this interpretation-which

could well be the source of the

statementin the Suda--is dubiousto saythe least.8 What the Greek says 131

132

DUNCAN

FISHWICK

is a/)xo•, which in the contextshouldrefer to the father of Caesar(=Augustus),not of Antyllus. The temple Cleopatra had constructedwill in that case have been one of Julius Caesar.

Fraser left the matter there on the grounds that the evidence was too ambiguous to allow a decision one way or the other, but another source can be adducedthat one would have thought decisive.Suetonius(Aug. 17) reports that Antyllus had taken refuge at the foot of the statue of Divus Iulius: Antonium iuvenem, maiorem de duobusFulvia genitis, simulacro

Divi Iuli, ad quod post multas irritas preces confugerat, abreptum interemit. In a recent study H. Hfinlein-Schfifer takes this to be a statue

in the templeof Antony.9 Strictosensuthe only way thiswouldbe possible would be if Divus Iulius had been synnaoswith Antony. For what Suetoniusalludes to is the simulacrum•ø of Divus Iulius, which in the context must surelyhave its regular, technicalsenseof a cult idol, particularly when we are told that Antyllus had soughtasylumat the simulacrum and was torn from it before being put to death. With nothing in the evidence, however, to suggestthe existenceof a joint temple of Julius and Antony the most likely view is the natural one that the simulacrum of

Divus Iulius was where it shouldhave been: in the temple of Julius Cae-

sar.ll Presumablythe templeitself had beencompletedand dedicated after the death of Julius and what was under construction was the exten-

siveprecinctwith the decorativefeaturesmentionedby Philo. That would at any rate reconcilethe conflicting statementsof Dio and the Suda on the point. If this inferenceis correct,then Suetoniusprovidesstriking confirmation of the interpretation of Dio which is required by strict syntax, namely that the temple was one of Julius Caesar.

Otherevidenceis moreequivocal.Hfinlein-Schfifer rightlypointsout thatKatot•O•tov/Caesareum andE•[3aox•iov/Augusteum areinterchangeableandcanall beusedequallywellof a templeof Augustus, particularly by authorswriting long after the event.12This would apply to the tes-

timonyof Strabo(17,1,9),Athanasios (Hist.Ar. 56),andEphanios (Adv. haereses 2,2,69,2: Migne, PG 42, coll. 204 f.), all of whomusethe term Kaisareion,alsoto an epigraphical referenceto the Caesareum, dated2nd July, ^I) 94 (ILS 9059); one might extendthe point alsoto Pliny'sin Caesaristemplo (NH 36,69). Other sourcesrefer to the shrineas a tem-

pleof Augustus (P.Lond. col.4,60 f., cf. P.Oxy. 1116,10f.), whileJohn Malalas evensuggests the templewas calledafter Caesarion,the sonof

Juliusby Cleopatra(9,6: 217). Nothingof thisis decisive,thoughit is worthnotingthatmostauthorsdo callthetemplea Kaisareion, theonly termthat couldreferto a templeof Caesar.As for thetermepibaterios,

thishastheconnotation of felicitous arrivalwiththegoodfortuneit brings

THE

TEMPLE

OF CAESAR

AT ALEXANDRIA

133

and, as a cult term, impliesthe protectionof seafarersand travellers.13 Hfinlein-Schfiferwould refer it specificallyto AugustusTMbut, as Weinstock has shown, it would have been equally appropriateto Caesar.•5 Certainly there would have been no problem in transferring it from Julius to Octavian.

In light of the above the most probable development would seem to be that the temple originated as a shrine of Caesar comparable to the Cae-

sareumhe beganat Antioch-on-the-Orontes, 16perhapsalso elsewhere, and was finished after his death. It was into this herOon that the unfor-

tunate Antyllus fled to no avail. Once Octavian had subjugatedEgypt, the complexwas completed- Suidascitesit as an exampleof a vs&q g•¾0tqleft half-finished, presumably on the death of Cleopatra-and it became the centre of the cult of Augustus at Alexandria; henceits changeof name. As for the temple of Antony, this is a figment constructedon an error of syntax, with no corroborating evidence to support it whatsoever. Duncan

University of Alberta

Fishwick

NOTES

1. E.M. Smallwood, Philohis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium (1961) 231 f. For a comparable complex on a much smaller scale at Nimes see P. Gros, "L9tugusteumde NYmes",RAN 17 (1984) 123'--134at 128 f., referringto the Alexandrian model.

2. E.M. Smallwood,Documentsillustratingtheprincipatesof Gaius, Claudius and Nero (1967) no. 370; 60 f.; H.I. Bell, Jewsand Christiansin Egypt (1924) 35. 3. s. v./l[tff;p¾ov,•[ttt•Lgotov: 'AvtcoviO 8• 0•co86[tstwCov[t•¾ctv,6onto o6v ql•f,r.p¾oq &nsXs/q)Oq, tO Zs{•ciotO8•: )otsX•oOq. 4. G. Rocca-Sera, "Une formulecultuellechezSuBtone (DivusAugustus,98,2)", MdlangesP. Boyancd.Collectionde l'Ecolefran•. de Rome22 (1974)674-676.The

pointgoesbackto G. Lumbroso, L'EgittodeiGrecie deiRomani 2 (1895) 185192.

5. For early discussionseein particular A.C. Merriam, "The Caesareumand the worshipof Augustusat Alexandria", TAPA 14 (1883) 5-35. An extensivelist of secondarysourcesis given by H. Hfinlein-Schfifer,VeneratioAugusti. Eine Studiezu den TempeIndeserstenr6mischenKaisers.Archaeologia39 (1985)203. 6. For the correctinterpretationof herOonas shrineseeHfinlein-Schfifer,o.c. 209.

7. So Lumbroso(above, n. 4) ibid., assumingSuidasrefersto the temple at Alexandria.Cf. F. Taeger,Charisma2 (1960)94 n. 37 (he understands heroonto refer to Antony's grave); Hfinlein-Schfifer, l.c.

134

DUNCAN

FISHWICK

8. P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 2 (1972) 68 f. (n. 156). Professor Badian ingeniouslysuggests that Suidasmight have read a6•ofi insteadof a6•ofi in his text, although Dio himself is unlikely to have usedthat form: cf. Dio Cassius(ed. Boissevain) 5: Index Graecitatis (ed. W. Nawijn, 1931) 135 s.v. a6•6q. 9. Above, n. 6, ibid., combining the testimony of Suetonius with that of Dio, who is interpreted to refer to a temple of Antony. 10. S. Weinstock,Divus Julius (1971) 395-397. For asylumat imperial statues seeS.R.F. Price, Rituals and power. The Roman Imperial cult in Asia Minor (1984)

119, 192f. with nn. 119f.; furtherin generalF. vonWoess,DasAsylwesen fit'gyptens in der Ptolemiierzeit und die spOtereEntwicklung (1923). 11. Hfinlein-Schfifer refers to the discovery of a statue base for Antony set up in 34 ac within the precinctof the temple: o.c. (n. 5) 209 with n. 23, citing A. Adriani, Repertorio d54rte dell'Egitto greco-romano, Ser. C 1-2 (1966) 215. To have erected a statue of the living Antony within the precinct of the temple of Divus Iulius would have been in keepingwith normal practice; cf. Tiberius' later ruling that statuesand images of the emperor might not be placed among the simulacra of the gods but only among the ornamenta of shrines (Suet. Tib. 26,1). A statue in honour of Antony would have been an ornament to the precinct of the temple of Divus Iulius and focussedattention on him in a sacredsetting. But it is difficult to seethe senseof a statue in the precinct to Antony as a man if the temple contained a cult idol of him as a god. 12. o.c. 10 f., 205 f. 13. Merriam (above, n. 5) 20-26; Weinstock (above, n. 10) 289 n. 8. 14. o.c. 207 f.

15. Weinstock, o.c. 297 nn. 6-8. Contra Hfinlein-Schfifer 211; cf. J. Gag6, "Actiaca", MEFR 53 (1936) 89 f. 16. John Malalas 9,5:216; 12,7:287; Weinstock, o.c. 297 n. 10 with references.

REVIEW-DISCUSSION:

TWO

INTERPRETATIONS

OF CAESAR

Christian Meier, Caesar. Severin u. Siedler, Berlin 1982 Arthur D. Kahn, The Education of Julius Caesar. Schocken, New York 1986

Since at least the mid-nineteenth century there has been, in the countries of the West, a vast audience for history-writing. There was a time when great scholarsmade a point of satisfyingthis vast non-specialistaudience: in ancient studies one thinks immediately of Theodor Mommsen's R6mische Geschichte, or even Tenney Frank's Roman Imperialism. These were books with broad themes, written in vigorous language, and if their authors expressedstrong opinions, yet thesebooks were also solidly based on ancient evidence;they did well in the market-place. Especiallysincethe middle of the twentieth century, however, there has been an increasing divorce of the scholar from the general reading public. The growing "professionalization"of the field of history, which has occurredin tandem with the enormous growth of university faculties since the SecondWorld War, has resulted in more and more specialization: more and more scholars, writing about lessand less,for fewer and fewer readers.And in many areas of historical study, we have also witnessedthe triumph of jargon over normal language as the preferred method of communication. The problem has not gone unnoticed. But as the semesterspass, nothing seems to be done about it. Perhaps, given the structure of rewards in university

life, nothing can be done about it.• Meanwhile, one should stressthat the large non-specialist audience for history-writing continues to exist, and ancient studies are no exception. That is proven by the relative successof, for instance, Erich Gruen's brilliantly written but often highly technical The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome-which became an Alternate Selection of the History

Book Club.2 But the fact is that the History Book Club rarely offers works by professional scholars, such as Gruen; and consideringthe type of crabbed work most professionalscholarsare producing, it is hard to 135

ARTHUR

136

M.

ECKSTEIN

blame them. The tragic result, however, is that the large non-specialist audience

for ancient

studies is often

left in the hands of amateurs.

Biography, though, is one historicalgenrewhere the specialistshave not completely abandoned the popular audience. One thinks of Ellis and Cawkwell on Philip II, Milns, Hamilton and even Fox on Alexander the Great, Scullard on Scipio Africanus, Seageron Tiberius and on Pompey, MacMullen

on Constantine. 3 And of the two books under review here-

both of them on the ever-fascinatingsubjectof Caesar the Dictator, both aimed at the generalreading public-that of Christian Meier doesindeed show how a major professionalscholarcan bring to a non-specialistaudience the insightsof a lifetime of careful work. The other book, however, presents an instructive contrast to Meier. For while, ironically, it shares with Gruen's work the distinction of being selectedas an offering of the History Book Club, it revealsexactlythe hazardsof entrustingto amateurs the interpretation of antiquity. Arthur D. Kahn's The Education of Julius Caesar has been a substantial successwith the general public: in recent years, only I.F. Stone's The Trial of Socrates (a book with many of the same virtues-and vices-as Kahn's Caesar) has reached a wider audience. And one can understand why Kahn's Caesar has done so well. The book is written in a vivid style; it tellsa simpleand dramatic story;it offers the readeran all-encompassing picture of Roman life in the late Republic; it has as its focus a figure of world-historical importance, who is presentedas a marvelous hero. One fears that, to the uninitiated, it will be all too persuasive. This fear is based on the basic defects in Kahn's ideas about Caesar, and on the basic defectsin Kahn's understandingof Rome in the late Republic. To begin with the latter point: it is disconcertingthat Kahn persistently depictsthe world of the first centuryBc as if it were essentiallysimilar to our own, both economicallyand politically. Thus Kahn'sRome is a world controlledfinanciallyby "public stockcompanies"(by whichis meant the societatespublicanorum), where the Italian countrysideis almost com-

pletelyin the handsof huge"scientific-capitalist" agriculturalcombines(by which is meantthe allegedspreadof latifundia after the Hannibalic War), and where Roman politics is a struggle between "reactionaries" and

"progressives" (amongwhom Kahn includes,for instance,the peopleof the Cisalpina-because of their advancedbuilding techniques!). All thesefacileequationsof the ancientwith the modernworld may well make the late Roman Republic more easilycomprehensibleto Mr. Kahn and his readers.The problem, of course,is that all thesefacile equations are also highly misleading,and the "comprehension" they lead to is, in

TWO

INTERPRETATIONS

OF CAESAR

137

consequence,a false one. A major scholarly advance in recent years has been the growing realization of just how foreign and different the ancient world actually was from ours-different in economic structure, in political behavior and thought, in communal and personaloutlook, perceptions and philosophy.(Emphasison this differenceis, precisely,one of the great strengthsof ProfessorMeier's book.) Thus it is now clear that despitethe fascination the societatespublicanorum have exercisedon modern scholars, the financial (and hencepolitical) power of the tax-farming companies was completelydwarfed by the financial (and hencepolitical) power of a Pompeius Magnus or a Caesar- power ultimately basednot so much on capitalist economicactivity as on plain, old-fashionedlooting (in Pom-

pey'scasefrom the East, in Caesar'scasefrom Gaul)? Similarly,one can only shake one's head in amazement when Mr. Kahn makes Caesar's con-

questsbeyond the Alps merely the instrumentof Cisalpineand Campanian manufacturing and agricultural interests,which (allegedly) were engaged in the late Republic in an intensivesearchfor new markets for their products in central and northern Europe (including especiallythe Balkans)and which were prepared to win those export markets by outright conquest, if necessary.This sort of Hobson-Lenin explanation for imperial expansionhas come under increasingscholarlyattack even with regard to the truly industrialized and truly export-oriented economies of the

nineteenth-and twentieth-centuryempire-buildingpowers;5 to make Hobson-Lenin the deep explanation for Caesar'sconquestof Gaul, when the general economic background consistedin actuality of an economy overwhelminglydevoted to subsistenceagriculture, vergeson the ridiculous. Once more, Christian Meier is obviously closerto the mark when he ascribesCaesar's ambitions in Gaul to the archaic "ideology of personal military accomplishment" so common among the Roman aristocracy. Again, Mr. Kahn seemsunaware that the last twenty years of archaeologicalresearchhave calledinto deepquestionthe ancientliterary-historical (and moralizing) tradition accordingto which the yeoman farmer of Italy had beendriven from the land in the late Republicby giant sheep-ranching "agribusiness". The old-fashioned image of the latifundia dominates Kahn's depictionof socialconditionsin the Italian countryside,and Kahn's Caesar is deeply concerned with this issue. But we now know that even in a region like Cosa (which Tiberius Gracchusmust have visited during his famous journey through "empty" north-central Italy in the 130s Bc), the situation was very complicated,with many small farms co-existingwith a few large estateseven in Caesar's time; and nearer Rome, small and mid-

sizedfarms in fact predominated. 6 This is not to saythat the socialprob-

138

ARTHUR

M.

ECKSTEIN

lem posed by the dispossessed small farmer or the indigent urban dweller did not exist; it certainly did (as is proven, for one thing, by the constant demandsof veteransfor land and a fresh start). But Mr. Kahn's image of the cancerousgrowth of latifundia now appearsto be false beyond the confines of southern Italy, and his readers will not know just how complex the situation actually seemsto have been in the Roman heartland. Meier arguesthat there is no evidencefor supposingthat the vast majority of the Roman populace was opposedto the Republican order becauseof problems on the land-or, indeed, becauseof any other problems; in other words, unlike Kahn he seesno "revolutionary situation". Finally, Mr. Kahn ignores all the work done with regard to prosopographical-as opposedto ideological-explanation of Roman Republican politics. The prosopographicalmethod has been misusedby somescholars, and its value (especially for the middle Republic) has perhaps been exaggerated; but much good work has been done, and for the first century Bc we have a great deal of information. In any case, the prosopographical method possessesthe great virtue of depicting for us the actual universe of family-based interests, friendships, feuds and goals in which the real Caesar maneuvered: his world, close-up. This enriches our understanding of Roman politics in a manner which Mr. Kahn's reduction of almost every event to a struggle between "reactionaries" and "progressives"does

not.7 Indeed, the searchfor consistent,overarchingideologiesin Roman politicsis usually a hazardousscholarlyenterprise.In Mr. Kahn's case,the search leads to assertionsabout Caesar's personal ties to Epicurean philosophy, and the nature of "Epicurean politics" itself, which few specialists will find convincing. (In reality, there is precious little evidence to connect Caesar with Epicureanism or any other Greek philosophical system.) In sum, Mr. Kahn fails to appreciate the essential foreignnessto us of Caesar'sworld-the basic primitivenessof the economy, the uncompromisingly archaiccharacterof the Roman ideologyof personalmilitary-political achievement,the family-based (as opposedto ideologically-based)character of Roman Republican politics. And that means, of course, that Mr. Kahn fails as well to appreciate the essentialforeignnessto us of Caesar himself. Evidently misled by the Dictator's notorious charm, vigor and wisecracks, Mr. Kahn seeshim as an essentially modern man (a mistake not made by ProfessorMeier). Indeed, Mr. Kahn's Caesaris the only modern man in a Rome populated by stubbornly narrow, antediluvian opponents. This view of things seemsto be at the root of the other great fault in the book: what can only be called Mr. Kahn's Caesar-idolatry.

TWO

INTERPRETATIONS

OF CAESAR

139

Kahn's Caesar, to begin with, is a consciousinstrument of History, a man bent on sweeping away the institutions of a corrupt and degenerate Republic, a social-political systemthat has long sinceoutlived its historical usefulness. This view, of course, derives ultimately from Hegel and Mommsen-a good pedigree, but probably not good enough, sincethere is preciouslittle evidencein the ancient sources(including the writings of

Caesarhimself)that the Dictator had sucha coherentvision? Such a figure as Mr. Kahn describeswould obviously be of extraordinary importance from the moment of his first entrance into Roman politics: his every action heavily weighted with omens and consequencesfor the future. It is not surprising, then, that Mr. Kahn makes Caesar a dominant force in Republican political life at least from the time of his quaestorshipin 69 Bc (and even his prosecutionof Dolabella, back in 77, is made a moment of high drama). This reconstructionof events,however, is contradictedby the famous story in SuetoniusconcerningCaesar'senvy of the achievementsof the young Alexander the Great (Div. Jul. 7), and it was decisivelyrefuted half a century ago in a pioneeringstudy by Stras-

burger.9 Few of Caesar'scontemporaries in the 60s (let alonein the 70s) would have viewed him as "the Man of History"; he was simply one young noble among many, a man of talent (certainly), who was pursuing with vigor the traditional cursushonorurn. That is why his election as pontifex maximas in 63 came as such a surprise-and why his candidacy was such an enormous risk for him (cf. Plut. Caes. 7). And to such a figure as Mr. Kahn wishesCaesar to be, much can be forgiven. Thus Caesar's savagecruelties in Gaul are skated over by means of euphemism,and the same holds true for various bloody incidentsduring the Civil War. In the aftermath of the War, we are told, Caesar tended to "ignore constitutional niceties"-such as his appointment of consulswithout botheringwith a public vote. Although Caesar'slong seriesof amours were a matter of much public comment and open joking in Rome, Kahn somehow manages to praise Caesar's "discretion" in these endeavors. Again, Caesar's relations with his soldiers are idealized: mutinies are described, but without emphasis (though public execution of the ringleaders was one way Caesar put them down); stressis laid instead on the idea that military servicewith Caesar was a self-actualizingexperiencefor even the ordinary recruit (see p. 358). And Caesar's relations with the populus Romanus are idealized as well. According to Mr. Kahn, Caesar was always the sincerechampion of the urban and rural poor against the exploitativeoligarchsof the Roman Senate,for "Caesarsubscribedwithout dissimulationto the Gracchan theory that the state bore responsibilityfor

140

ARTHUR

M.

ECKSTEIN

the welfare of all its citizens"(p. 196); indeed, for Mr. Kahn the oppressed classesform an important element in Caesar's vision of a New Order. Yet as Dictator, the actual Caesar chose not to push through the classic popularis measure,a debt reform or cancellation-and also ordered that

the number of recipientsof the grain dole be cut by more than half.•ø Conversely, we also know that Caesar's popularity was actually subjectto wide fluctuation. No doubt there were many who always supported Caesar'sactions. Nevertheless,there were significantpublic protestsagainsthis "tyrannical" behavior as consulin 59; similar protestsoccurredduring his last period as Dictator, in late 45 and early 44; and Kahn makes little of the extraordinary demonstrationsfor C. ScriboniusCurio in 50, when the tribune demanded that both Caesar and Pompey should lay down their commands and armies, and allow the state to be free: here is a sign not only of a popular desire for peace, but also of a popular desireto avoid

the rule of military strongmen.• As usual, the actual historicalsituation seemsto have been much more complicatedand many-faceted than Kahn would have his readers believe.

Similarly, Kahn tends to over-estimate the coherence of the various reforms Caesar instituted during his brief tenure as absolute ruler of Rome: everything from the creation of a new zalendar, to debt relief for the province of Asia, to a law prohibiting senators' sons from travelling on private businessat state expense,to a law encouragingthe birth-rate among Roman citizens. It is clear that during 49-44 Caesar tackled a whole variety of matters with his typical demonic energy. But much of this legislation was ad hoc: responsesto specificand pressingproblems.One must rememberthat the Roman tradition of government-before, during, and after Caesar-was far more passivein character than are the traditions of any modern state; Roman central government rarely engaged in longrange, internally-generated initiatives or strategies,and Caesar seemsto

have been no exception. •2 Indeed, as far as imperial administrationis concerned,there is nothing in 49-44 to equal in scopeand usefulnessthe lex Julia de repetundisof 59. It is therefore a very open questionwhether the over thirty-five measuresattributed to Caesar during the Dictatorship really amount to a coherent program, or a vision--or even the beginnings of a vision-of a future systemintended to replace permanently the traditional Republican order. The fact is that what Caesar left behind when he was killed was a mess;especiallyimportant was the absenceeven of any meansof transferringhis absolutepower legallyto anyoneelse.And it cannot be argued that this was a mere accident of his premature demise, for (as is well known) Caesarin the springof 44 was intent in any caseon leav-

TWO

INTERPRETATIONS

OF CAESAR

141

ing Rome, to spend the next three years with his armies in a grandiose campaign of conquestin the East. Nothing to establishMr. Kahn's "New Order" was likely to get done during that period. Caesar's behavior here has struck many modern scholarsas irresponsible, and it is hard-from a modern perspective-to disagree. Indeed, to judge from the administrative hodge-podgehe left in Gaul in 49 (which Augustuslater had to spendmuch time cleaningup), as well as the vigorous but seeminglydirectionlesslegislationof the Dictatorship period, one may have to confront the possibilitythat Caesar simply felt more at ease as the commander of ferocious armies than as the governor of an enormous empire. The image emerges of a man more interested in the techniquesof war-making and the glory of conquestthan in the far duller tasks of systematicadministration (which, in the spring of 44, he was preparing to abandon): Caesar had many virtues, but patience was not one of them, and war at least promised excitement, even exaltation. What is disturbing is to find such an attitude in a man in his mid-fifties. But the fact must be faced that Caesar'shome for the last fifteen yearsof his life was, essentially,the camp-and that when he was murdered he was planning

happily for far more of the same(cf. Plut. Caes. 58.2-3). •3 We are told that Caesar was fascinated by Alexander the Great. What I am suggestingis that Caesar'spersonalityseemsto have come to resemble the restlessMacedonian's in crucial respects,perhaps as a result of long yearsof habitual absolutecommand on the imperial frontiers (seefurther below). To Mr. Kahn, it is true, Caesaris "unfailingly rational" (p. 425). But if Caesar really believedthat the alternative to his personalrule over Rome was world-wideanarchy(so Suet. Div. Jul. 86.2), and yet dismissed his bodyguard at a time when rumors of a plot against his life were rife (ibid.), then he was guilty of irresponsibility and arrogance on a truly Alexander-like scale; the results were catastrophic, Caesar's own death

beingthe least of it. 14 Caesar, according to Roman estimates, was a man who initiated wars

which costthe livesof 1,192,000human beings(Plin. NH 7.91-92); and many of thesedead were Roman citizens.Yet one is hard put to find a single severecriticismof Caesaror any of Caesar'sactionsin all the 453 large pagesof Mr. Kahn's book. It therefore comesas no surprisethat Mr. Kahn is, conversely,mercilessto Caesar'sopponents.The fate of those Gauls who resistedCaesaris recountedwith stonyindifference(p. 266; p. 300). Cato the Youngeris presentedas rigidly opposedto eventhe mostreason-

able reforms;this is false.•5 As for the sixty senatorswho successfully conspiredto assassinateCaesar in 44, Mr. Kahn very oddly offers the

142

ARTHUR

M.

ECKSTEIN

reader no detailed discussion of what their motives might have been; instead, he satisfieshimself with a brief remark implying their base ingrati-

tude (p. 445). But throughout the book, the real focus of Mr. Kahn's wrath (and it is a strangeone) is M. Tullius Cicero. If Mr. Kahn's Caesar can do no wrong, Mr. Kahn's Cicero can do no right. He is sleazy,greedy,cowardly, hypocritical-and ugly, to boot. The root of Mr. Kahn's pervasive hostility towards Cicero seemsto be Mr. Kahn's conscious and intentional

identification

of Cicero with Senator

JosephMcCarthy (seep. ix and passim). This identification, in turn, is based on Mr. Kahn's interpretation of the Catilinarian Affair of 63 according to which the malevolent Cicero, for his own reactionary purposes,framed a basicallyinnocentCatiline on chargesof treason. Indeed, Kahn is so obsessedwith the bellum Catilinae that he devotes a full forty

pagesto it- a tenth of the book to an episodein whichCaesarplayedonly a relatively minor part. Mr. Kahn, of course, is taking an extreme position here on the question of Catiline's innocence:for instance, he makes nothing of the fact that his own hero, Caesar himself, gave damning evidenceto Cicero againstCatiline in late 63 (Suet. Div. Jul. 17.2). Yet in the end even Mr. Kahn allows the possibilitythat followers of Catiline may have been provoked in late 63 into an attempt at a "putsch"(p. 179). Nevertheless, Kahn's vision of Rome in 63 Bc as some version of the McCarthy era in the United Stateshighly colorshis depictionof Cicero whenever the great orator later appearsin the narrative: for Cicero is "the witchhunter".

One particularly egregiousexampleof Mr. Kahn's mistreatmentof Cicero deservesespeciallyto be refuted in detail. When in late 50 Cicero returned to Italy from his provincial command in Cilicia, he enteredinto communications with both Caesar and Pompey in an independent effort to avert civil war betweenthem. According to Mr. Kahn, however, when in the first days of January 49 the anti-CaesarianSenateexpresseda willingnessto award Ciceroa triumph for his military operationsagainstCilician bandits,Ciceroimmediatelysidedwith the anti-Caesarianfaction, and suddenlydropped his important mediation efforts. The Senate thereafter passedthe "senatusconsulturn ultimum"; and a few days later Caesar crossedthe Rubicon (pp. 317-318). This is a devastatingindictment. Cicero's short-sightedness and monumental egotismwere crucial elementsin bringing about a war which laid wastemuch of the Mediterraneanbetween49 and 45: Cicero'snegotiations might have preventedthat war, but he abandonedthem becauseof his own miserable hopes for a triumph.

TWO

INTERPRETATIONS

OF CAESAR

143

Unfortunately, however, Mr. Kahn's reconstruction of events is based on a misperceptionof the chronology of January 49. The "senatusconsulrum ultimum" was passed by the Senate on January 7, 49, and Caesar moved his army from Ravenna to invade Italy proper as soon as the news reached him (January 10). Now, Cicero was still a holder of imperium in early January, by virtue of his recent proconsulshipin Cilicia, but he was also present at the Senate meeting where the prospectsfor his Cilician triumph came up and were favorably discussed(Plut. Cic. 37.1; cf. Cic. Fam. 16.11.3). This meeting of the Senate must therefore have taken place outside the pomerium, for if it had occurred within the pomerium, within the City, then Cicero could not have attended it without laying down his imperium-thus forfeiting his right to the very triumph under discussion. Were there any suchmeetingsof the Senateoutsidethe pomerium in early January? Indeed there were. Caesar himself tells us that the Senatebegan to hold its meetings outside the pomerium-after, that is, the passage of the "senatus consultum ultimum" itself, on January 7 (BC 1.6.1; cf. 1.5.3-4). Thus the issueof Cicero's triumph will only have come up at a Senatemeeting on January 8 or 9--when (one can say) the die had already been cast, and when it was far too late for any actions by Cicero to have

affectedthe courseof eventstowardswar.•6Concerninghis Ciliciantriumph, Cicero is supposedto have said that he would rather be a figure led in Caesar'sown triumphal procession,as long as peacecould be preserved (Plut. Cic. 37.1). I see no reason to doubt this story: Cicero was many things, some of them disreputableto modern eyes;but on the great issues of his day he was not small-minded.Responsibilityfor the outbreak of the Civil War will have to be sought elsewhere. From Professor Christian Meier one expectsneither mistakes of fact nor grotesqueinterpretations.And Meier's Caesar does not disappoint. Essen-

tially a distillationof Meier'sResPublicaAmissa(1966;21980),this is a book filled with brilliant insights. One of the most striking virtues of ProfessorMeier's book is to be found preciselyat a point where Kahn is weakest. For unlike Kahn, Meier knows that Romans of the first century Bc were not eighteenth-century philoø sophesor nineteenth-and twentieth-centurycapitalists(or socialistsor fascists) in togas. In a long introductory section, and then in analytical chapters interspersedthroughout the narrative, Meier consistentlyunderlines for the reader the foreignnessof Roman political culture to the modern world. Meier emphasizesthe weakness of the Roman state structure and its close identification with society as such (very different from the

144

ARTHUk

M.

ECKSTEIN

powerful overarching modern state, separate from and dictating to society); he emphasizesthe low level of expectation Romans had concerning the actionsof sucha state structurewithin their own lives (again, very different from the expectationsof the inhabitants of a modern society); he emphasizesthe circumscribed"present-mindedness" of Roman Republican politics (a myopia causedin part by the constant campaigning for annual political office), and its hostility both to changeand to discussionof "big issues".Perhapsmost intriguing is Meier's insistenceon the essentialsocial unity of Rome-where the vast majority of (at least) the property-holders were agreedon what was right and what was wrong, and where in any case everyone(both rich and poor) unquestioninglyacceptedthe Republican order, sanctified as it was by the psychologicallyoverwhelming power of tradition, the enormous weight of rnos rnaiorurn. Cato the Younger, Professor Meier notes, may have been, objectively, a "conservative"- but what doesthat term mean in a world where there were no "progressives"? A politicsnot only foreignto us, then, but staticin a way almostincon-

ceivableto us: that is Meier's view of the Republic.Iv Thus there never was-and never could be-a unified and coherent opposition to the res publica. How couldthere be, whenthe respublica was equatedwith all of existingsocietyand its mutual moral bonds?Tribunesagitatedon specific issues,and increasinglyso in the late Republic,but a continuouspolitical structurebasedon the populus Romanus, as opposedto the Senate,was simply beyond the capacityof Roman political thinkers;populariter agere was a method occasionally used by certain aristocratic politicians, not a coherentand enduringpoliticalgroup, let alonea "party". (Mr. Kahn, with hispopulares,hasno notion of this.) Again, therewereoccasionaltensions between the Senate and the Equestrian order, and especiallybetween the Senate and the societatespublicanorurn. But the Equestrian order was made up primarily of substantialland-holderswho thushad a strongidentity of interest with the Senate, men who believed overwhelmingly in the correctness of currentsociety- while (within the Equestrianorder) the publicani had their own good reasonsfor desiringjust the sort of senatoriallybasedgovernmentwhich seemsto us so weak. The urban poor, it is true, occasionallyengagedin violent riots-but though their activitiesare well known to us becauseof the City-basedcharacterof our sources,they really counted for little againstthe enormousinertia of the rest of Roman society. Indeed, the greatestpoliticalweaponavailableto the senatorialoligarchy, the "senatusconsulturnultirnurn",dependedfor its political efficacy preciselyon the existenceof widespreadsocialconsensus (as in 121, 100, or-one must sayit-63 }•c). And conversely,ProfessorMeier asserts,the

TWO

INTERPRETATIONS

OF CAESAR

145

leadersof the Senate-the consulares-generally took their responsibility to societyasa wholeveryseriously. Thusto the Romansof the first century, the alternativeto the respublicawas not someNew Order (e.g., monarchy).It couldonlybe disorder:nullarespublica;respublicaamissa. How, then, did the Roman Revolution come about? Professor Meier stresses that despitethe modernfascinationwith socio-economic problems (a fascinationRomansdid not share),the real characterof the crisisof the late Republicwas a crisisof politicswithin the Roman aristocracyitself. The Civil War of 49-45 was not a sign of a widespread"crisisof legitimacy" concerningthe Republicanorder, but it wasa signof the defacto disintegrationof Republicaninstitutionsin the face of new resourcesof poweravailableto certainaristocrats.The systemcouldonly functionas long as there were limits to political conflict, basedon a deep, almost unconsciousconsensus.But outstandingindividuals occasionallycome alongin any society,and amid the Roman aristocracythey tendedto provoke increasingoppositionto the exactextentthat they stoodout from the herd psychologyof their contemporaries(as can be seenas early as the careerof ScipioAfricanus).•8Yet in the late Republic,whereastherewere no new political ideas,there werenew waysof assemblingpower-and the mostdangerouswas the army. Marius had first trod that path, and Sulla had shown what ultimately could be done with the soldiery, if necessary.

But there was no revolution in the basicpolitical dynamic: as in the third and secondcenturies, the natural inclination of the massof the oligarchy in the first century was to tear down the over-powerful individual, who (from their point of view) held the potentialto disruptaristocraticpolitics and perhapssocietyas a whole. The tragedy of the last generationof the Republic was that traditional political conflicts for traditional political supremacywithin the traditional aristocraticworld came to be fought out with new weapons.It was, precisely,"politicsas usual" which broughton the Civil War.

One may therefore describeProfessorMeier's analysisof the originsof the Civil War as basicallypolitical, as opposedto socio-economic.And in any such political analysis, the focus inevitably falls on the eventsof 60 Bc, and the formation of the so-called First Triumvirate-as

C. Asinius

Pollio was the first to show. •9 Hence Professor Meier traces a familiar

dialectic.PompeiusMagnus'campaignsin the East in the 60s (whichmany in the Senate had initially supported) resulted in his gaining enormous financial and political power-and this, in turn, arousedgreat opposition. To give in any further to the wishesof sucha man would only make him stronger,which was both repulsiveand perhapsdangerous;to opposeand

146

ARTHUR

M. ECKSTEIN

block his wisheswas now only natural, although it risked alienating him from the massof his contemporaries.Led by Cato, the Senatetook the latter course-and this, in turn, created Pompey's great need to have Caesar as his ally and as consul. During his consulship, Caesar pushed through the legislation Pompey neededin order to keep his promisesto his troops concerningland, and to ratify his Eastern diplomatic settlement.But part of Caesar's price was a great command in the North, which in the end resultedin so successfula campaignof imperial expansionas to make him seemover-strong,both to many in the Senateand to Pompey himself. The natural and traditional political reflex was a growing desire to tear him down; and some of Caesar's actions during his consulship(actions, ironically, performed mostly in the serviceof Pompey's own legislativeprogram) left Caesar vulnerable to prosecution once he laid down his irnperiurn.When the Senatebeganarraying itself on Pompey'ssideagainst Caesar(startingin 52), the political divisionswithin the aristocracybecame ever deeper, and harder to bridge. The ultimate consequencewas the Civil War of 49-45, a war in whose origins Caesar was as much the victim of an on-rolling, natural political Dynarnik as he was a fully independent actor (see especially pp. 435-436). And here once again ProfessorMeier emphasizesthat even in 49 no one wanted to overthrow the Republicanorder, or could even conceiveof such an act. Caesar's propaganda stressedthat by his great achievementshe deservedwell of the Republic and was being unfairly attacked; the propaganda of Caesar's enemiesstressedtheir view that they representedthe interestsof the community as a whole; the consularfamilies, the nobiles-

the livingheartof the Republic-pretty muchsplitdownthe middle.TM An alternative to the Republic was not the issue-and though such an alternative might have developed out of the events of the Civil War itself, in fact it did not. Caesar, even in 45-44, was producing "keine neue Oralhung"; and Meier supportsthis thesiswith a famous quotation from Caesar's good friend Matius on the political dead-endCaesar faced (Cic. Att. 14.1: etenirn,si ille tali ingenioexiturn non reperiebat,quis nunc reperiet?). An alternative to the Republic would, of course,eventuallyarise, but only out of the new convulsions

which followed

Caesar's

own death.

All in all, then, it should be clear that a study of Professor Meier's reconstructionof Caesarand Caesar'sage offers much instruction,enjoyment, and evenintellectualexcitement-and not just for the generalreader. Nevertheless,somedisquietdoesoccasionallyarise. It surelyis the case that the vast socio-political consensusProfessor Meier describesso well was indeed characteristicof Rome in the middle Republic; but whether

TWO

INTERPRETATIONS

OF CAESAR

147

sucha primeval intellectual unity actually still reigned among the Roman

aristocracy in the first centuryBc is moreopento question? On an even more fundamental level, Professor Meier's presentation of events tends strongly towards the sociologicallyabstract: developments,interactions and conflicts are all populated by conceptsand social constructs, rather than by living people. In Meier, the Roman aristocracyitself remains a faceless,namelessmass-and thus all the more capable of being subsumed underabstractsociologicalcategories.Yet for the Roman noble, the family and its traditions were of overwhelming importance; and we happen to know a lot about thesepeople as individuals. This was a world, we know, in which L. Julius Caesar (cos. 64) could, in debating the Catilinarian Affair with his brother-in-law P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura (cos. 71), bring into discussionthe specific attitudes of both their grandfathers concerning C. Gracchussixty years before (Cic. Cat. 4.6.13). This was the concretedetail of the Dictator's political universe-but one will find little such detail in Meier, whose narration of the Gracchan crises occurs without

mentionevenof C. Octavius(tr. pl. 133)or C. Opimius(cos. 121).22 Finally, there is ProfessorMeier's presentationof Caesarhimself. In the opening pagesof the book, Meier recounts in graphic style the ancient story of how Caesar pondered the crossingof the Rubicon: not to cross the river meant disasterfor himself (submissionto the "senatusconsulturn ultimum"); to crossit meant disasterfor the entire world (the beginning of outright civil war). As Meier emphasizes,Caesar did not hesitate for long betweenthesetwo fatal alternatives.Yet by the time Meier returns to the outbreak of the Civil War in the direct narrative, Caesar has become a figure caught and enmeshedin the conflict of socio-cultural structures,

concepts,"alternatereality-perceptions": as much a victim (as noted above) of the unfolding abstract Dynamik or dialectic as he is an independent actor. But as Meier also says, Caesar'sgreatnesslay preciselyin his being, for better or worse, a person of extraordinary intensity (and the same might be said of Cato). Were suchmen really suchprisonersof the Dynamik as Meier suggests? In other words: we need to consider carefully the origins of the Caesar of Professor Meier's opening pages, the Caesar of sacro egoismo, for whom dignitasis not only more important than life itself, but more important than world peace,the Caesar(as Meier at one point says)who reminds one of Achilles if not Coriolanus. I mean, of course, the Caesar who started the Civil

War.

The human personality and its developmentare a mystery-especially a personality formed in the crucible of a foreign culture, and by experi-

148

ARTHUR

M.

ECKSTEIN

enceswe can perceive only dimly and only through our imagination (e.g., what was it like to be responsiblefor selling 53,000 people into slavery at a crack, and even to boast of it-Caes. BG 2.33?). But one hypothesis seemsto me especiallyintriguing. For nine years(58-50) Caesarhad been, literally, the lord of Gaul, creating his own policies without reference to the Senate, dictating the fate of entire peoples by his own will. Roman commanderstraditionally enjoyed enormous freedom of decision-making in their provinciae (it was an aspectof the mutual trust and consensusto which Professor Meier so often rightly points); but no one in the history of the Republic had ever ruled over such a vast region for such a huge period of time. Power and above all independenceon a scale like this might well becomeaddictive (especiallyconsideringwhat we know about the extraordinary intensity of Caesar'spersonality): as a colleaguein British history oncesaid to me, empiresand their imperial administratorstend to create their own counter-cultures.By the beginning of 49 Bc Caesar had

spent closeto a fifth of his life as what amounted to absoluteruler of Gaul. Could he ever become an ordinary-even very senior-senator again, even if he wished it? In 51, there were many people who already wondered whether Caesar would wish to be consulagain while simultaneouslyretaining command of his armies (Caelius, Faro. 8.8.9). One can understand their concern. To stand for a secondconsulshipin absentia,to have a secondconsulshipcarried through with honor and resplendentwith dignitas (preceded, presum-

ably, by a senatorially-approved triumph), to avoid prosecution(or at least conviction)for his actionsduring his first consulshipin 59, to proceed thenceforth to an honored and secureplace in the Senate (or perhaps to anothergreat command,this time againstthe Parthians?)-all this would

requirePompey'scooperation,wouldrequire,to a significantextent,Caesar's dependenceupon another man. Such cooperationand dependence was, of course,the stuff of which normal Republicanpoliticswas made. But to return to the normal hurly-burly of Republicanpolitics meant, for Caesar, an enormousadjustment-and a willingnessto run normal political risks. Yet Caesar'sviolent impatiencewith traditional political maneuvers, as far as the impositionof his own will was concerned,is already evidentduring his consulshipin 59; and a decade'sexperienceof unprec-

edentedmilitary glory and essentiallymonarchicalpowerin Gaul will not have lessenedhis arrogance, nor his contempt for many of his contem-

poraries.PompeiusMagnus,for his part, seemsto havesensedCaesar's deepreluctanceto return to City politics.This wasthe caseby the spring of 50 at the latest,and Pompey'sconsequentincreasingestrangement from

TWO

INTERPRETATIONS

OF CAESAR

149

Caesar, and his suspicions of him, made negotiations for some sort of political compromise ever more difficult. Conversely, Pompey's increasing estrangementmade Caesar ever less eager to return to City politics without ironclad guarantees-although in the autumn of 50 he offered a

whole variety of waysin which suchguaranteescould be managed.23 Admittedly, this image of a Caesar changed by his experiencein Gaul, of a man grown overly-fond of power and (above all) independence through nine years of absolute command, may well strike some scholars as too speculative.But one thing, I would suggest,is fairly certain. The transition of Caesar from ruler of a huge region in the West back into a Republican politician raised enormousdifficulties, and it was a transition which Caesar (unlike Pompeius in a similar situation in late 62) made increasingly clear he would undertake only on very specific conditions. When those conditions were not met, the result was war. Caesar, of course, will ever remain subjectto differing interpretations, and the interpretation of Caesar offered above is basically only an extension of Professor

Meier's

own ideas. And

none of this detracts

from

Professor Meier's achievementin presenting, in a book intended for the general reader, an account of Caesar filled with profound insight into Roman society and Roman political culture. Frankly, one can only envy the audiencein the Bundesrepublikand other German-speakingcountries for having at its disposal a book of this quality-a book whose intellectual caliber, one may add, is matchedby its fluid and elegantliterary style. Is it too much to hope that a scholarof Professor Meier's abilities will turn to writing a book on Caesar, at a similarly high intellectual level, intended for the non-specialistEnglish-speakingaudience?That audience, as indicated at the beginning of this essay, is large, and interested-and should not be left at the mercy of amateurs. Arthur

University of Maryland College Park

M.

Eckstein

NOTES

1. For complaintsabout the failure of the historicalprofessionto maintain contact with the wider reading public, see(e.g.) R.R. Palmer, "The American Historical Association in 1970. American Historical Association Presidential Address, 1970", AHR 76 (1971) 1-15, especially6-7. For commentson the decline in the willing-

150

ARTHUR

M. ECKSTEIN

ness of professional historians to engage in meaningful synthesis, see W.J. Bouwsma, "The Renaissanceand the drama of Western history. American Historical Association PresidentialAddress, 1978", AHR 84 (1979) 1-15, especially3. For complaintsabout overspecialization,seeP.B. Curtin, "Depth, span, and relevance. American Historical AssociationPresidentialAddress, 1983", AHR 89 (1984); also the resultsof the surveyof historiansin D. Thelan, "The professionand the Journal qfAmerican History", JAH 73 (1986) 9-10. For complaints about the increasing domination of the humanities by recherchd methodologies and jargon, see L. Cheney, The humanities in America (National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington D.C. (1988)). 2. E.S. Gruen, The Hellenistic world and the coming o•fRome, 2 vols. (1984). 3. J.R. Ellis, Philip H and Macedonian imperialism (1976); G.L. Cawkwell, Philip qfMacedon (1978); J.R. Milns, Alexander the Great (1968); J.R. Hamilton, Alexander the Great (1973); R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (1973); H.H. Scullard, ScipioA fricanus.'soldier and politician (1970); Robin Seager,Tiberius(1972), Pompey (1979); R. MacMullen, Constantine (1969). 4. See E. Badian, Roman imperialism in the late Republic (1968), chapter vi; and Publicansand sinners.Private enterprisein the serviceo.f the Roman Republic (1972), chapter v.

5. SeemostrecentlyL.E. Davis and R.A. Huttenback,Mammon and thepursuit o•fempire. The economicso•fBritish imperialism (1988). Earlier: D.K. Fieldhouse, "'Imperialism': an historiographical revision", Economic History Review, n.s. 14 (1961) 187-209. 6. The ground-breakingarticle on the situation in the Italian countrysidein the late Republicwas M.W. Frederiksen,"The contributionof archaeologyto the agrarian problem in the Gracchan period", DArch. 4-5 (1970-71) 330-367. On Cosa, see D.W. Rathbone, "The developmentof agriculturein the 'Ager Cosanus'during the Roman Republic: problems of evidenceand interpretation", JRS 71 (1981) 10-23. In general: see J.K. Evans, "Plebs Rustica. The peasantry of Classical Italy, I: The peasantryin modern scholarship.II: The peasanteconomy", AJAH 5 (1980) 1947; 134-173. The most recentsummaryof the archaeologicalevidence:T.W. Potter, Roman Italy (1987) 98-118. 7. For an excellentexample of the value of the prosopographicalapproach, see D.R. ShackletonBailey, "The Roman nobility in the secondcivil war", CQ n.s. 10 (1960) 253-267. 8. See, e.g., J.H. Collins, "On the date and interpretationof the Bellurn Civile", AJPh 80 (lajal 959) 113-132, for Caesar's persistently"Republican" outlook. 9. H. Strasburger, CaesarsEintritt in die Geschichte(1938). Now reprinted in his Studien zur Alten Geschichte(1982) I 181-327. 10. On Caesar's reduction of the welfare rolls, see Z. Yavetz, Julius Caesar and his public image (1983) 156-158. 11. The popular demonstrationsof hostility towards Caesarin 59: Cic. Art. 2.19. The protests during his last months: Suet. Div. Jul. 80.2-3; Plut. Caes. 56.4 (cf.

TWO

INTERPRETATIONS

OF CAESAR

151

Suet. Div. Jul. 78.2). The popular demonstrationsin favor of Curio's proposalsin 50: App. BC 2.27, cf. Caes. BG 8.52. Even when militarily triumphant in Italy in the late springof 49, Caesar faced popular expressionsof disapproval:seeCic. Art. 10.12a.

12. See the insightful comments of M.G. Morgan, "0 Julius Caesar, thou art mighty yet!", Helios 11 (1984) 158-159 (a review of Yavetz: above, n. 10). On this theme, cf. for the Imperial period F. Millar, The emperor in the Roman World (1977), chapter v; and for the middle Republic, A.M. Eckstein, Senateand general. Individual decision-makingand Roman foreign relations, 264-194 B.C. (1987), passim. 13. For Caesaras a haphazard administrator, see(once again) the highly useful

comments of Morgan(above,n. 12) 159-160. 14. The parallel I am suggesting,in other words, is betweenCaesarand the isolated, arrogant, archaic-"Titanic" Alexander of F. Schachermeyr:see, e.g., Alexander der Grosse. Ingenium und Macht (1949), with the commentsof E. Badian, "Some recent interpretations of Alexander", Entretiens Hardt 22 (1976) 282-285. 15. On Cato's political principles(and his practical willingnessto make concessions to the populus), see especiallyA. Dragstedt, "Cato's politeuma", Agon 3 (1969) 69-ajal 95. 16. These are the chronologicalargumentsof M. Wistrand, Cicero Imperator. Studies in Cicero's correspondence, 51-47 B.C. (1979) 53-64, especially 57 n. 5: completelyconvincing. (This book is missingfrom Kahn's bibliography.) 17. For an analysisof Roman externalrelationsvery much along the lines Meier suggestsconcerning Roman internal politics-i.e., emphasizing Rome's "static" quality, myopia, and even autism-see P. Veyne, "Y a-t-il eu un imperialisme romain?", MEFR 87 (1975) 793-855. 18. Parallel to Meier here is the illuminating article by P. Veyne, "Le folklore h Rome et les droits de la consciencepublique sur la conduite individuelle", Latomus 41 (1983) 3-30, which stresses the naturally "censorious"nature of Roman society, hostile to unusual behavior or stature of any sort; for specificapplication of Veyne'sideas to Roman politics, seeMorgan (above, n. 12) 157. 19. On the beginning date of Pollio's history, see Hot. Odes 2.1.1; historiographical implications: see C. Fornara, The nature of history in ancient Greece and Rome (1983) 75-76. 20. See Shackleton Bailey (above, n. 7), especiallyp. 264. 21. See most recently W.W. Batstone, "The antithesisof virtue: Sallust'sSynkrisisand the crisisof the late Republic",ClAnt 7 (1988) 1-29, especially29. 22. One other problemshouldbe mentioned:it is consistentlyirritating that both ancient sourcesand modern writers are referred to or actually quoted without any referenceapparatusat all. This is not pedantry: it does a disserviceto the general reader as well as to the professional. 23. The issuein late 50 cannothavebeenanythingso simpleas Caesarneeding just anotheryear to put the finishingtouchesto his administrativeand diplomatic

152

ARTHUR

M.

ECKSTEIN

arrangements in Gaul-despite E.S. Gruen, The last generation of the Roman Republic (1974) 496. If that had been the only problem, it is hard to believe that compromisecould not have beenreached.Besides,Caesarhad alreadybeengranted

the entire summerand autumn of 50 (as peacereigned in Gaul) to completehis arrangements. That should have been more than enough time (compare Scipio Africanus' enormousand complicatedadministrative and diplomatic settlementin Spain: Livy 28.16.10, cf. Polyb. 11.33.8). In other words, the problem with Caesar must have been deeper than this. (Meier, of course, standsin the tradition of Gruen's monumental work in the stress-so often correct-on the continuity betweenthe late Republic and earlier periods in the history of the Roman State.)

A NOTE

ON THE

EARLY

DAYS

OF DIOCLETIAN'S

REIGN*

Two cardinal points concerningthe inception of Diocletian's reign are held by a near consensusuniuersorum: a) Diocletian's dies imperil fell on 20

November284;l b) DiocletiandefeatedCarinusat the Margusriver (Moesia Inferior) in the springor early summerof 285.2 Papyrologicalevidencenow providesanotherpoint-Egypt belongedto Diocletian prior to the battle at the Margus.3 It is mostunlikelythat Diocletianshouldhave sent troops to capture Egypt, as he was militarily outnumbered by Carl-

nus.4 Hencethe logical assumptionis that the prefectof Egypt simply declaredfor Diocletian;and our man is PomponiusJanuarianus.5 It has also been averred that "Asia Minor, the east, anti Egypt" as well as "the Danubian provinces closestto Asia" must have gone over to Diocletian

almostimmediatelyafter 20 November284.6 The assertionis persuasive, but leavesthe possibility of more preciseinvestigation. As with Januarianus, who rose to become prefect of Rome, we might expect later promotions to indicate early advocacy of Diocletian's cause. And although the fasti of provincial governorsfor this period are woefully lacunose,still it is possibleto suggestseveralgovernorsat the moment of Diocletian's

accession:7

M. Aelius Vitalis, praesesprouinciaeSardiniae,ca. 282/2838 M. Aurelius Valentinianus, praesesprouinciae Hispaniae Citerioris, ca. 2839

Latinius Martinianus,procuratorAlpium Graiarum, ca. 283•ø Fl. Valerius Constantius,praesesprouinciaeDalmatiae, ca. 283/285 • Gaianus,praesesprouinciaeDaciae, ca. 283•2 Aurelius Nestor, praesesprouinciaeMacedoniae,ca. 282/283•3 Onesimus(?), praesesprouinciaePonti, ca. 282/283TM T. Oppius Aelianus Asclepiodotus,praesesprouinciaePhrygiae et Cariae, ca. 282/283 •5

AemilliusAemillianus,praesesprouinciaeArabiae, ca. 282/28316 L. Julius Paulinus,proconsulAfricae, ca. 28317 M. AureliusDecimus,praesesprouinciaeNumidiae,ca. 282/28418 153

154

MICHAEL

PEACHIN

Only one of these men is known to have risen significantly in the se-

quel-Constanti, us.•9Beforebecoming Caesarto Maximianin 293, Constantiusseemsto have held the followingposts:2ø protector with Aurelian in Syria, 271/272 military tribune, ca. 272/283 praesesDalmatiae, ca. 283/285 praetorian prefect (Maximian), 288-293.

The appointmentsas praetorian prefect and then Caesarare noteworthy, particularly in the absenceof any known connectionbetweenConstantius and Diocletian. One explanation might be that Constantiusdeclared for Diocletian shortly after the acclamation at Nicomedia. Moreover, there is reasonto supposethat Constantius'alliance could have been particularly valuable.

Though by the late third century Dalmatia had no permanentlegionary garrison, there may have been (ca. 284) a few detachmentsof legionaries

from neighboringprovincesin Dalmatia.2• Someauxiliarytroops,moreover,appearto havebeenin the provinceon a morepermanentbasis. 22 Hence Constantius,aspraesesof Dalmatia, was in a positionto be of real serviceto Diocletian. He occupieda province that was strategicallylocated for the war with Carinus, that had (probably) a standing auxiliary garri-

son, and that may havecontainedsomelegionaries? I should like to suggest,then, that like Pomponius Januarianus, Constantiusrallied early to Diocletian'scause,possiblyin about December284. I shouldalso like to suggestthat this initial displayof loyalty was the impetus for Constantius' later stellar career? Michael

New York University

Peachin

NOTES

* Preparation of this note was assistedby a grant from the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung. I thank ProfessorG. Alf61dy for commentson a draft. 1. A strong casefor this date was made sometime ago by W. Ensslin, "Zum dies imperii desKaisersDiocletian", Aegyptus28 (1948) 178-94. The date is now confirmedby P. BeattyPanopolis2.163 ff. Seealso:T.D. Barnes,Constantineand Eusebius(1981)4; idem, The New Empire of Diocletianand Constantine(1982), esp. 3-4; and F. Kolb, Diocletian und die Tetrarchie(1987) 10 n. 20. 2. The only sourcethat can be adducedasgoodevidencefor the date of the battle is Hydatius,ap. Chron.Min. (ed. Mommsen)I p. 229. On thispassage seeR.S.

THE

EARLY

DAYS

OF DIOCLETIAN'S

REIGN

155

Bagnail, A.D.E. Cameron, S. Schwartz, K.A. Worp, The consuls of the Later Roman Empire (1987) s.a. 285. For opinions regardingthe date of Margus: H. Mattingly, "The Imperial recovery", CAH XII (1939) 323 (spring 285); W. Seston, Diocldtien et la Tdtrarchie (1946) 53 (spring or summer 285); W. Ensslin, "Valerius (Diocletianus)", RE VIIA2 (1948) 2424-5 (late spring 285); P. Meloni, I! regno di Caro Numeriano e Carino (1948) 164-70 (ca. spring285); J. Lafaurie, "Chronologie imp•riale de 249 h 285", BSNAF (1966) 149-53 (July 285); L. Polverini, "Da Aureliano a Diocleziano", ANRW II 2 (1975) 1032 (spring 285); H.W. Bird, "Diocletian and the deathsof Carus, Numerian and Carinus", Latomus 35 (1976) 130 (spring or early summer 285); J. Schwartz, "Chronologie du IIIe s. p.C.", ZPE 24 (1977) 170 (18 June 285); A. Chastagnol, "Sur la chronologie des ann•es 275-285", in P. Bastieneta!., Mdlangesde numismatique,d'archdologieet d'histoire offerts • Jean Lafaurie (1980) 79-80 (August/September285); Barnes,New Empire 50 (spring285); StephenWilliams, Diocletian and the Roman recovery(1985) 37-8 (spring 285). 3. P. Michael. 21.12-14 (Arsinoite Nome, 10 February 285) and P. Oxy. XLII

3055.7-8 (7 March 285). It had beenassumedpreviouslythat Diocletiandid not gain control of Egypt until after his defeat of Carinus. See Seston, Diocldtien 51-2 and C. Vandersleyen,Chronologiedespr•fets d'Egypte de 284 • 395 (1962) 30-4. P.J. Parsons, P. Oxy. XLII 3055 remarks only that "Whatever the run of events, then, the battle of Margus was not the decisivemoment." For more detail on this, Barnes, New Empire 195-6 and idem, Constantine and Eusebius 5. 4. Eutrop. 9.20.2. 5. On Januarianus: Vandersleyen, Chronologie 11 and 27-30; G. Bastianini, ZPE 17 (1975) 318; idem, ZPE 38 (1980) 89; PLRE I, 452-3 Januarianus 2. Also Barnes,Constantineand Eusebius5: "He (Januarianus)had presumablytransferred his allegianceto the new regime with alacrity and performed useful services." 6. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius 5. Also Barnes, New Empire 195-6. 7. Nearly all of the dates that follow derive from the titulature of Carus, Carinus and Numerian. Though there are problemsstill, the relevant datesseemto be as follows: Carus:

Carinus:

Numerian:

Tr. Pot.

I Cos. I

ca. September-9 December 282

Tr. Pot.

II Cos. I

10-31

Tr. Pot.

II Cos. II

1 January-July/August 283

Tr. Pot.

I

Tr. Pot. Tr. Pot.

I Cos. I II Cos. I

ca. spring-July/August 283 July/August-9 December 283

Tr. Pot.

II Cos. II

Tr. Pot.

III

Cos. II

10-31

Tr. Pot.

III

Cos. III

1 January-spring 285

Tr. Pot.

I

Tr. Pot. II (.9) Tr. Pot. II (.9) Cos. I

10-31

December

December

282

283

1 January-9 December 284 December

284

July/August-9 December 283 10-31 December

283

1 January-20 November 284.

MICHAEL

156

PEACHIN

I hope soon to have in print clarification of thesedates:Roman Imperial titulature, A.D. 235-284 (forthcoming). 8. AE 1889, 39 has Carinus as Nob. Caes., not yet Augustus, henceis prior to spring283. CIL X 8013 has Carus as Aug. and Carinus and Numerian as Nobdissimi Caesares,hence a similar date. See also Bengt E. Thomasson, Laterculi Praesidum (1984) 11. 9. CIL II 4102=ILS 599=RIT 89 with Carus Tr. Pot. Cos. II (betweenJanuary and August 283), and CIL II 4103=RIT90 with Carinus as Nob. Caes. (before spring 283). Also Thomasson, Laterculi 18. Valentinianus could, of course, have been praeses already in 282. 10. CIL XII 110=ILS 605, Numerian Aug. Tr. Pot. (ca. spring/August283). AE 1948, 163, Carus Tr. Pot. Cos. II (January/August 283). The fact that the first stone has no tribunician iteration nor mention of a consulate does not absolutely preclude a later date. Also Thomasson, Laterculi 68. 11. See Barnes, New Empire 35-7. 12. AE 1912, 200, Carus and CarinusAugusti (ca. spring/August283). It should be noted, however, that the inscriptionattestingGaianus as governor of Dacia may be a forgery. Cf. Barnes, New Empire 217 n. 32. 13. AE 1939, 191, Carus Aug. and Carinus Nob. Caes. (September/December 282-spring 283). Also Thomasson, Laterculi 185. 14. D.H. French, ZPE 43 (1981) 155-6, Carus Aug. and Carinus Nob. Caes. (as above, n. 13). The name Onesimus is suggestedby French, 1oc.cit. Also Thomasson, Laterculi 252. 15. Asclepiodotusis attestedby two stones,the first publishedby D.H. French, ZPE 43 (1981) 171-2, the secondby C.M. Rouech6,JRS 71 (1981) 108-13. Seealso their subsequentarticle in ZPE 49 (1982) 159-60. Also Thomasson, Laterculi 237. Dating dependsupon the stone publishedby French, where Asclepiodotusis praeses during the joint reign of Carus, Carinus and Numerian, fall 282/summer 283. 16. IGLS XIII 1 9109. The stone is dated to the provincial era year 177, i.e. 282/283. See also Thomasson, Laterculi 334. 17. IRT 461, Carus Tr. Pot. II Cos. II (January/July 283). Also Thomasson, Laterculi

388.

18. The inscriptions for Decimus are conveniently set out by H.-G. Kolbe, Die Statthalter Numidiens yon Gallien bis Konstantin (1962) 21-8. It would appear that Decimus was appointed by Carinus subsequentto Carus' death. Though there is no inscription that can be dated absolutely after November 284, Decimus' staunchloyalty to the dynasty (I take this from his dedication of a temple in Verecunda to the divine Carus- CIL VIII 4221=ILS 609 and CIL VIII 4222) may well indicatethat he held out as long as Carinus lived. Also Thomasson, Laterculi 406-7.

19. AureliusValentinianus mayhavebeenpraeses Dalmatiaeca. 303. Cf. PIR 2 A 1623 and PLRE I, 932 Valentinianus5. He was also legatusof Pannonia Inferior roughly in this period--Thomasson, Laterculi 118 and G. Alf61dy, rev. of PLRE I in Byzantinoslavica 34 (1973) 239 (under Probus). 20. See Barnes, New Empire 36-7. 21. Though there is no precisionof datesor numbersof troops, legionariesfrom

THE

EARLY

DAYS

OF DIOCLETIAN'S

REIGN

157

the H Adiutrix, V Macedonica and XIII Gemina may have been presentin the office of the governor. See E. Ritterling, "Legio", RE XII (1925) 1451-2, 1584 and 1721-2; A. Betz, Untersuchungenzur Milit•irgeschichte der r6mischen Provinz Dalmatien (1933) 42-3, 49 and 54; J.J. Wilkes, Dalmatia (1969) 115-20. 22. Generally on the chronology of the auxiliaries in Dalmatia, seeG. Alf61dy, "Die Auxiliartruppen der Provinz Dalmatien", R6mischeHeeresgeschichte. Beitr•ige 1962-1985 (1987) 273-6. The units that seemto have been presentwere (with page references to Alf61dy):

cohors I Belgarum equitata (248-9, 283-5) cohors I milliaria Delmatarum (251-2, 286-7, 296) cohors H milliaria Delmatarum (252, 287) cohors VIII uoluntariorum ciuium Romanorum (254-5, 288-91,296) cohors III A lpinorum (294-5) 23. Note also Oros. Hist. adv. pag. 7.25.1-2, Carinum deinde, quem Carus Caesarem in Dalmatia reliquerat, flagitiose uiuentem difficillimo bello et maximo labore superauit [i.e. Diocletianus]. An interestingintrusion of Dalmatia (though uniqueand not clear in the presentcontext),this may be of somerelevance.Seealso Meloni, II regno di Caro 82. 24. The presentargument would support the interpretation of Constantius'election as Caesar in Kolb, Diocletian und die Tetrarchie 68-87 and esp. 77 ff.

SULLA'S

ALLEGED

EARLY

POVERTY

AND

ROMAN

RENT

The young L. Cornelius Sulla, according to Plutarch (Sulla 1-2), came from an obscure patrician family, was left nothing by his father, rented cheap lodgings, and only became moderately well off thanks to inheritancesfrom his mistressand his stepmother.Although the obscurity of Sulla's family is generally accepted, his early poverty is somewhat less well-received,• and such scholarsas Th. Mommsen and E. Badian have

doubtedits completeauthenticity. 2 Nevertheless,Arthur Keaveney,the dictator's most recentbiographer, has argued that the young Sulla, though rich by ordinary Roman standards, was poverty-stricken by those of the Roman nobility to which he belonged and could not even meet the minimum equestriancensus-circumstanceswhich precludedany youthful military service, delayed his career, causedhim to be shunned by his fellow riobiles, spurred an already driving ambition, and helped to turn him into a man who marched on Rome when his ambition might otherwise have

been thwarted.3 SinceSulla is a prime exampleof a man whosewill shapedsubsequenthistory, any motivating factor such as early poverty is of more than just biographical interest. Further, his rent is an important piece of evidence in Roman social and economic history, so it is vital to know whether it was high or low and under what financial circumstances

he paid it.4 If the youngSullalackedsufficientwealthto enterpubliclife, then he was poor for all practical purposes. If, however, he had such wealth, then he was not poor and his behavior would have to be otherwise explained. By examining Plutarch's testimony, the true position of Sulla's family and the history of Roman rent, we shall argue that his early poverty was fiction rather than fact. Plutarch is the only extant author to say that the young Sulla was poor, so the case for early poverty stands or falls on his testimony. The dictator was of patrician family, Plutarch begins, but his consular ancestorP. Rufinus was expelledfrom the Senatefor having more than ten poundsof silver plate; the descendantsof Rufinus became obscureand remained so, while Sulla himself was not raised in "plentiful paternal wealth" (•tq•06votq zoiq •azO•otq). Indeed, Sulla lived in cheaplodgingsin his youth and was later taunted about this when he was thought unfittingly prosperous. 158

SULLA'S

EARLY

POVERTY

AND

ROMAN

RENT

159

Plutarch then suppliestwo anecdotesbearing on thesepoints. The first has Sulla acting boastfully after his service in North Africa, when a certain nobleman asked him how he could be an honest man when his father left

him nothing, yet he was so rich. The Romans, Plutarch comments (1.5), though already degeneratefrom the love of luxury and extravagance,still censuredequally those who squanderedinherited wealth and those who forsook ancestralpoverty. The secondanecdoteinvolvesa freedman who was about to be hurled from the Tarpeian Rock for allegedlyhaving sheltered one of the proscribed;the freedman revealedthat he and Sulla had long lived in the same house and that he rented the upper rooms for HS 2,000 a year and Sulla rented the lower rooms for HS 3,000. The difference between their respectivefortunes, Plutarch notes, was only HS 1,000, or 250 Attic drachmas. He now concludesthis phase of his discussionby saying(1.7), "This then is what we learn by inquiry of the earlier fortune of Sulla."

To judge from this last statement,Plutarch conductedresearchinto the issueand concluded on the basis of the dictator's obscure family and the two anecdotesthat Sulla was poor in his youth. Plutarch, one should note, was no abject slave of his sources;when thesecan be compared with his own account, he emergesas a man who drew his own interpretation from

the evidenceat his disposal?That would appearto be the casehere:since Sulla lived in cheap lodgingsin his youth, he was obviously poor; the reason why he was poor was his lack of a patrimony; he lacked a patrimony becausehis family was obscure. Having decidedSulla was poor, Plutarch then had to explain how he escapedearly poverty, and doesso. After discussingSulla's early associationwith actors, hedonisticbent and pathological licentiousness (2.3-6), Plutarch mentionshis long relationshipwith the actor Metrobius and relates the following story: Sulla began by loving a common yet well-off (•6•r60ov) woman named Nicopolis but she ended by loving him and made him her heir when she died; he also inherited the property of his stepmother, who loved him like her own son, and by these means he •t•T0/,c0q•6•r60rlo•v or became moderately well off (2.6-8). Plutarch was presumably using theseterms in the senseof wealth relative to social standing, but they are neverthelessvague descriptionsand say nothing about the size of the bequestsor Sulla's exact degree of wealth after receivingthem-Plutarch apparentlylacked precisefigures.One suspects, however, that Plutarch was merely hazarding a guessbased on his analysisof Sulla's earlier financial position. The latter, in Plutarch's mind, was less than impressive: he notes that the difference between the fortunes of Sulla and the freedman was only HS 1,000 and emphasizesthis by then giving the equivalent in Attic drachmas. In other words, Plutarch placed

160

LEE

E. REAMS

Sulla's original wealth at little better than a lower-classlevel at most. His statementthat the two bequestsmade Sulla moderately well off was based on that assumption.But Plutarch'sanalysisof Sulla'soriginal financial situation was, we shall demonstrate, badly flawed and hence invalid. Before doing so, however, we must first examine the question of Plutarch's sourcesregarding Sulla's youth. Unfortunately, he does not reveal them. True, he must have used the dictator's own Commentarii as

his major sourceconcerningthe man'spubliccareer.6 Whetherthis was the casewith respectto Sulla's youth is a different matter, however. We can begin by noting Plutarch's failure to name Sulla's parents, a strange omissionif the dictator had written a completeautobiography, especially sinceit is contrary to Plutarch's own practice, even in the casesof such novi hominesas Marius and Cicero.? Further, Plutarch's accountof the young Sulla is entirely too hostileand scandalousto have beenbasedupon an autobiography.Sulla wrote Commentarii, not Confessions,and clearly expectedhis friend L. LiciniusLucullusto turn them into a proper history. As such, they servedas his political testament,and their chief aim was to

recount,glorifyandjustify hispublicactions?Consequently, Sullawould have written with an eye to posterityand its assumedprejudices,and in the knowledgethat enemiesas well as friends could write history. Accordingly, anythingdetrimentalto his public image of soldier, statesman,darling of fortune, saviorof the Republicand enactorof sumptuarylaws-anything that his enemiescould use against him-would have had no place in the

Commentarii,includinghis privatelife and less-than-exemplary youth.9 Sulla certainly would not have depictedhimself as the young moral reprobate painted by Plutarch. Finally, if Sulla had claimed early poverty, Plutarch would have neededto make no inquiry into the dictator's earlier fortune, as he sayshe did, nor would he have neededthe two anecdotes

asproofof Sulla's youthfulpenury.Based onwhatPlutarch doesanddoes not say about the young Sulla, the dictator probably began his own

accountwith his quaestorship and no earlier.•ø If Sulla did not discusshis youth in the Commentarii, Plutarch would not have found the historiansof much greateruse on the subject,for they

too wouldhaveconcentrated uponthe dictator'spubliccareer.• Evenso, it is not hard to seewhere Plutarch obtained his information: one only has to note the nature of his material on the young Sulla, which is anecdotal, hostile or scandalousand based on what originally would have been oral

traditions.To be specific,the fall of Rufinuswas a well-knownstory;the nobleman'sattack on Sulla was a notable dictum; the story of the freedman was a bizarre incidentthat occurredduring the proscriptions;Sulla's misspentyouth is also discussedby Valerius Maximus (6.9.6) and was

$ULLA'S

EARLY

POVERTY

AND

ROMAN

RENT

161

probably a widely known tradition; the Nicopolisepisodeis broadly comparable to the story of Pompey and the courtesanFlora (Plut. Pomp. 2) and probably came from a comparablesource;Sulla's loving stepmother was probably a well-known exemplum of such a relationship. Plutarch may have picked theseup from antiquarian compilations, collectionsof notable acta et dicta and compendia of anecdotesabout famous men, or

theymay havebeenrelayedto him by hisRomanfriends.•2This is not to say that such material was necessarilyspurious, but it does show the sort of material Plutarch was forced to employ concerning Sulla's youth. Let us now determine whether he correctly interpreted this material. Plutarch directly links Sulla's early poverty with the obscurity of his family after the fall of Rufinus (1.2), and this obscurity is supported by the direct testimony of Sallust (Iug. 95.3): Sulla's family almost disappeared through the ignavia of his ancestors. Ignavia, however, was a loaded term, meaning the indolent and disgraceful refusal to participate

in publiclife. •3 Strippedof malice, it doessuggestthat Sulla'sancestors failed to hold public office. Yet it is difficult to see how such a failure would have sunk the family into poverty. Public life, after all, was an expensive business offering an uncertain return, until one received a

profitable provincial governorshipor military command.TMIf Sulla's ancestors had scorned public life, they still would have been equitesperhapsevenpublicani-and avoided the expensesof a senatorial career. But this issueis entirely academic; Sulla's ancestorswere demonstrablyneither politically inactive nor poverty-stricken.True, the family did sink after the fall of Rufinus, the two-time consul and former dictator, for his son P. Sulla was only flamen Dialis and during a period, the middle of the

third centuryBc, when the prestigeof that office was quite low.•5 Nevertheless,the flamen's son, another P. Sulla, was praetor in 212 and had two sonswho both won the same office: P. Sulla-the dictator's grandfatherwas praetor of Sicily in 186, and his younger brother Ser. Sulla was probably praetor of Sardinia in 175 and was definitely of praetorian rank by

167, when he servedon an important senatorialcommissionin Greece.•6 The ability of both brothers to win the praetorship argues a degree of wealth and political strength in the 180s and 170s beyond that of just a typical praetorian family, while P. Sulla's governorship of the rich province of Sicily should have given him plenty of wealth to transmit to his heirs,the dictator'sfather amongthem.iv Still anotherP. Sulla, who was probably the dictator'suncle, was a moneyer around the middle of the second century, and the Romans presumablydid not entrust their mint to the impecunious. TMUnfortunately, little is known of L. Sulla the Elder, the dictator's father: only that he was married at least twice and to at least one

162

LEE

E. REAMS

wealthy woman, and had a minimum of three children. Even so, it has been plausibly suggestedthat, as the descendantof praetors and husband of a wealthy woman, he must have made somemark in life and might even

haveattainedthe praetorshiphimself.•9The latter possibilitywouldcertainly be consistentwith the great Suila'sown attempt to win the praetor-

shipsuoanno.2øOf course,the elderL. Sulla'spoliticalcareermay have been abortive or absent, but at worst he still would have been an eques. In any case, Plutarch and Sallust clearly drew a grosslyinaccuratepicture of Sulla's ancestors-men who regularly reachedthe praetorship cannot simply be dismissedas politically indolent or their family as obscure, nor is there any evidenceof a slide towards poverty on their part. Plutarch apparently producedhis distortedview of Sulla'sancestorsby combiningthe story of Rufinus with the testimony of Sallust, whom he quotes once and seemingly follows on two other occasionsregarding Sulla. 2• Sallust either formed his view on the basis of an examination of

the consularfasti or from political invective of Sulla's own time. Sulla's enemiescertainlywould have found his ancestrya temptingtarget, for with one exceptionSulla's forebearsafter Rufinus did nothing of real note. The one exception was the praetor of 212, who was the first to celebrate the Ludi Apollinares; Sulla's enemies,we are told, tried to deny his ancestor this honor, which suggestsan effort to relegate all of his ancestors,other than the damning example of Rufinus, to obscurity and ignavia. Cicero made a similar attack on the family tree of Ser. SulpiciusRufus: his nobility was admittedly of the highest, but was unknown to the voters, while

his father was a mere equesand his grandfatherdid nothing of note.22 Further, the obscurityof Sulla's ancestorswould have been a congenial conceptto Sallust-and to Plutarch, for that matter. Sallustin particular saw Sulla as a great man until after his victory in the civil war and his transformation into a sanguinarytyrant. Any man who changedso completely so late in life must have had somethingwrong with him somewhere. Since the principle of descentmaking the man was the foundation of an aristocratic society, a set of obscure and indolent ancestors would have made a great deal of sensein Sulla's case: he was the fruit of a rotten tree. 23

Let us now turn from Sulla's descentto the related issueraised by the story of the nobleman:Sulla'sallegedfailure to inherit anything from his father. Knowing now that Sulla's father was himself the son of a provincial governor, this matter seemssuspicious.Nevertheless,it would probably be a mistaketo dismissthe story as a later fabrication-the nobleman makes only an innuendo of dishonestyagainstSulla rather than a specific

SULLA'S

EARLY

POVERTY

AND

ROMAN

RENT

163

charge of wrongdoing, but an invented tale which does so little would not have been worth fabricating. This story, then, was most likely basedupon an actual incident. Still, its authenticity does not force us to accept as truthful the word of an obviouslyhostilespeaker.Even Plutarch must have thought that the nobleman had exaggerated,for he only saysthat Sulla was not raised in plentiful ancestralwealth, as opposedto none at all. Unfortunately, Plutarch's own interpretation of this story is incorrect: the nob#is could not have been rebuking Sulla for having abandoned ancestral poverty for the reason he gives; for the Romans no longer condemned such behavior. If they had, the very wealthy M. Aemilius Scaurus would not have boasted in his de vita sua of his minimal patrimony: a mere six slaves

and HS 35,000.24In orderto understandthe story,onemustfirst placeit into its proper political context. Sulla was acting boastfully after his service in Numidia, but this servicehad beenunder Marius, the bogeymanof the nobility, and Sulla was his open adherent from 107 to at least _•03and

probablywell into the 90S.25This would have madehim the natural target of an outraged nobleman, especiallysincehe was a nob#is himself, yet was continuingto associatewith an odious, noble-baitingnovushomo who had outdone his betters. Given these circumstances, however, the nobleman should have come up with something better than a vague innuendo, so his failure to do so is highly significant.He was probablydoing no more than to insinuatethat Sulla had emergedfrom the JugurthineWar with too

much booty, in collusionwith the vile Marius? In any case,the nobleman's hostility towards Sulla renders his testimony inherently suspicious without corroboration from another quarter, such as Sulla's rent. If Sulla paid a low rent, then one would have to concedethat there probably was more truth

than falsehood

in the nobleman's

attack.

Accordingly, let us now examinethe story of the freedman and the issue of Sulla's rent. Again, we are confronted with a story apparently based upon an actual incident, for too few Romans would have cared about the fate of a mere freedman at Sulla's hands-they reservedtheir outrage for

what he did to membersof the equestrianand senatorialorders? This story was thus not worth the effort of fabricating. Having acceptedthis story as genuine, we must now ascertainwhat sort of quarters Sulla could have rented for HS 3,000 a year in his youth-that is, at some point

betweenroughly121and 107Bc.TMPreviouscommentators haveassumed that he lived in an insula or even a "tenement", terms often treated as syn-

onymousor nearlySO. 29Technically,however,the word insulaapparently meant any kind of multi-family rented dwelling and was more of a legal term than an architectural one, but most scholarsfollow the lead of Russell

164

LEE

E. REAMS

Meiggsand usethe word to mean"the large,normallyhigh, block divided into separateapartmentswhich can be separatelylet."3øWe shall do the same for the sake of clarity. This is not the sort of building which the story of the freedman describes.It has the freedmanrenting the upper rooms (T&v •tvco)and Sulla the lower rooms(T&v 6/ro•cdtxco). Theseterms,emphasizedwith definite articles,revealno toweringinsulacrammedwith tenants;they actually describea traditionalRomandomuswith a lower floor for the family

andan upperfloor for the slaves. 3• Sullawasrentingthe familyquarters and the freedman, appropriatelyenough,was renting the former slave quarters.Insulae,however,did existin Romein Sulla'syouthand perhaps did so as early as the third centuryuc.32If Sullatruly had beenpoor, he presumablywould have rentedan apartmentin sucha structure,but he did not.

Of course, Sulla may have been renting a rundown house at a cheap rate, but this would seemunlikely, for in 125 uc the censorsCn. Servilius Caepioand L. CassiusLonginusRavilla took to task the augurand former consulM. Aemilius Lepidus Porcina for luxuria becausehe rented a house for HS 6,000 a year. VelleiusPaterculus(2.10.1), our sourcefor this, goes on to observethat in his day, 153 years later, anyone renting a housefor so little would be scarcelyrecognizedas a senator. Of course, the nora

againstLepiduswaspoliticallyinspired?Evenso, the prevailingrent for a man of Lepidus' rank must have been lessthan HS 6,000 or else the censors would have looked ridiculous and angeredtoo many members of the elite if they were also paying a comparable rent. Accordingly, the usual rent for a man in Lepidus' position was, one suspects,probably no more than HS 5,000 at the time. The proper rent for a young man yet to hold even the quaestorshipwould have been still less. Indeed, HS 3,000 would seem the rent which a young man in Sulla's position should have paid regardlessof his income. A rent much higher than that presumablywould have drawn the wrath of men of exalted rank, been the cause of trouble even when censorswere not in office and (as we shall later see) given grounds for a charge of extravagance. Further, a singletenant could have rented Sulla's entire housefor HS 5,000, which implies a dwelling fit even for an ex-consul. Thus, Sulla's "cheap lodgings" were nothing of the sort. Lepidus and Sulla, however, rented their accommodationswhen Roman upper-classhousingstandardswere relatively austere. Down to 100 or so, even the leading nob#es lived in plain and relatively inexpensivetownhouses,and the sale value of Lepidus' househas been estimatedat no more

than HS 80,000.34But the first centuryuc sawtwo major developments: a dramatic increase in upper-class living standards and a sharp rise in

SULLA'S

EARLY

POVERTY

AND

ROMAN

RENT

165

Roman rents. The first of theseincluded the transition from houseto palace. In 92, the censorL. Licinius Crassusdrew the ire of his colleagueCn. Domitius Ahenobarbus for owning a houseworth HS 6 million, of which HS 3 million was the value of its gardensalone, while the houseitself featured at least four and possibly ten columns of imported marble. Nevertheless,this housewas inferior to thoseof Marius, Q. Lutatius Catulus and the wealthy ecluesC. Aquillius, and the last had the besthouseof them all

at the time? In 78, the most splendidhousein Rome belongedto M. Aemilius Lepidus, the seditious consul, but this is said to have been surpassedby a hundred others thirty-five years later (Pliny, NH 36.109-10). In 63, Cicero purchased a house on the Palatine for HS 3.5 million, of which HS 1.5 million representedthe cost of the land alone. The lot in question probably measuredno more than 15,000 square feet and so cost

about HS 100 per squarefoot.36By way of comparison,the groundarea of a typical insula is estimated to have been between 2,100 and 4,200 square feet, while traditional housesseemto have occupiedparcelsbetween

8,300 and 9,400 squarefeet.37In 53, Clodiusboughta housefor HS 14.8 million; this house seemsto have occupied at least the equivalent of two

traditional lots.38Yet not all senatorslived in palacespricedin the millions of sesterces.Enough senatorslived in rented quarters in 43 for the triumvirs to considerlevying a specialtax upon them (Dio 46.31.3), while in Ar• 28 Velleius(2.10.1) did not find it strangefor a man of Lepidus'rank to rent a house-he only saw HS 6,000 as beneath a senator'sdignity in his own day. Roman rental law, with its lump-sum annual payments and multiyear leases, seemsto have been designedwith the well-to-do tenant

in mind.39The rise of upper-classliving standardswould have causedan elevation of upper-classrents, for equestrian and senatorial tenants would have demanded better housing and been willing to pay for it. Further, all rents in Rome rose during the first century Bc as the result of an everincreasingpopulation, monetary inflation, escalationof real-estateprices thanks to the craze for large and luxurious palaces among the elite, and frequent fires and collapses of insulae whose rebuilding was financed

through higher rents.4ø Sulla rented his quarters for HS 3,000 as a young man in an era when upper-classliving standardsand rents were relatively low and recentlysubjected to censoriallimitation. Several years after he had ceasedto rent an apartment for HS 3,000, however, the upper-classhousingmarket underwent a radical change, so that the house which had been too ostentatious for a Lepidus in 125 became not ostentatiousenough after 100 or so. Despite the revolutionary nature of this change, it would still be useful to compare his rent with the amounts paid by tenants in the middle of the

166

LEE E. REAMS

first century Bc. In 47, Caesar remitted rents up to HS 2,000 in Rome and up to HS 500 in Italy (Dio 42.51.1-2; Suet. Iul. 38.2). The Roman poor probably did not pay as much as HS 2,000 to rent an apartment, however. Cicero drew an annual income of HS 80,000 to 100,000 from two insulae in Rome, and one has to doubt whether each building held only twenty or twenty-five tenants. The figure of HS 2,000, one suspects,probably representedthe annual lease of a ground-floor shop and a mezzanine apartment for the shopkeeperand his family. Perhapscloserto the mark for the poor is Tenney Frank's estimateof HS 360 a year to rent the most squalid

apartmentsin Rome.4• In any case, HS 2,000 still would have been a lower-classrent in 47, even after the rent increasesof the preceding fifty years. Yet Sulla, before all those rent increases,had paid a thousand sestercesmore. Again, he appearsto have paid a high rent in his youth. That is further confirmed by the caseof M. Caelius Rufus. In 56 he was living in an insula on the Palatine owned by Clodius: he was either paying HS 10,000 in annual rent, accordingto Cicero, or elsewas living extravagantly and was actually paying HS 30,000, accordingto his enemies.Caelius, we should note, was at the time apparently not quite twenty-sixyears old and

may not haveyet held a magistracy. 42He and the youngSulla werethus in comparable situationsas tenants, yet Caelius paid at least 3.33 times as much to rent an apartment as Sulla had to rent the ground floor of a traditional house. Clearly, Sulla received better value for his HS 3,000 than Caelius did for his HS 10,000, and Caelius would have needed more than HS 10,000 to rent quarters comparable to Sulla's. How much more is suggestedby the allegation, which may have been true, that his rent was actu-

ally HS 30,000.43Even if untrue, this must have beena plausiblerent in 56 or Caelius' enemies would have been laughed out of court. In either case, the rental of the ground floor of a housemust have been more than HS 30,000 at the time. Caelius, however, was not accusedof povertyhe was charged with extravagance. Plutarch obviously had no idea how the Roman rental market had changedbetweenSulla's youth and his own day, and he wrote the Sulla at some time betweenAD 96 and 114.44Velleius said that HS 6,000 was too low a rent for a senatorin A• 28, but the caseof Caeliusprovesthat it also would have been too low for a senator in 56 t3c. There is no good reason to believe that rents in Rome did not continue to increase after Velleius'

time, for insulaecontinued to burn or fall down and rents would have risen

for that reasonalone.45 There are no actual rent figures for the early Empire, but both Martial (3.38) and Juvenal (3.162) attacked the high rents of Rome. Sulla's rent would already have seemedcheap by the standards of Caelius; it must have seemed extremely cheap by the standards

SULLA'S

EARLY

POVERTY

AND

ROMAN

RENT

16'7

of Plutarch's Roman friends. Even so, Plutarch probably did not rely upon rent figures alone to construct his view of Sulla's cheap lodgingsbut presumably took the tenancy of the freedman as a sign of accommodations more fit for an ex-slavethan a young aristocrat. He apparently knew nothing about the normal Roman practice of renting a ground-floor apartment to an upper-classtenant and apartments above it to membersof the lower

classes. 46In other words, Sulla would not have beendisgracedby living below a freedman. Further, even the freedman was paying a high rent for the time. The estimated annual income of a laborer in Sulla's youth is HS 1,000, but the freedman was paying twice as much in rent alone-and urban freedmen filled a vast range of lucrativeoccupationsevenduring the

Republic.47Our freedmanmusthave beenone of them to afford sucha high rent. Finally, since both Sulla and the freedman had actually paid high rents, the freedman could not have been taunting the dictator about his "cheap lodgings"and undue prosperity, as Plutarch believed. Under the circumstances, the freedman was most likely pleading for mercy on the basisof once having sharedthe same roof with the dictator and was citing the specific rent figures to prove his claim. Sulla paid a high rent in his youth and this is preciselywhat one would have expectedfrom the true nature of his family background. But it is also in accord with the tradition of his youthful profligacy, which his alleged

early povertyis not.48This tradition may be somewhatoverblown,but it is also well-attested. Plutarch, as we have seen, even names both Sulla's erastusMetrobius and his mistressNicopolis in addition to giving a more general account of his hedonism. According to Valerius Maximus (6.9.6), Sulla until his election to the quaestorship led an iniquitous life of licentiousness,wine and love of the theater. There must be somethingto this, for Sallust (lug. 95.3) mentionshis eagernessfor pleasureand extravagant leisure activities, and these are hardly the traits which Sulla would have suddenly acquired while serving under Marius in Numidia. This kind of

high living is more symptomaticof youthful wealth than of early poverty. The sameis true of his affair with Nicopolis. The woman was a high-class prostitute, and such women appear to have been professional mistresses who served a patron on an exclusivebasis.49 We are also told that Nicopolis only came to love Sulla later on, which implies that their relationship was at first a strictly professional one from her standpoint. A poverty-strickenSulla would not have interestedand could not have kept

sucha woman, but a wealthy Sulla would have been a different story, especiallysinceanothertradition describeshim as a generousman. Even Plutarch admits that, though he stole much, he gave more (6.14), while Sallust(lug. 95.3) describeshim as a free giverof manythings,aboveall

168

LEE E. REAMS

of money. A rich and generousyoung man certainly would have greatly interested a Nicopolis. As for making him her heir, she had to leave her estateto someone,and a man for whom sheultimately had great affection would have been an obviousand logical choice.Wealthy Romans accepted

inheritancesfrom all mannerof people? The young Sulla, then, came from a politically active family, was the grandson of the governor of a rich province, paid a high rent, lived in a profligate way, kept an expensivemistress, and was especiallygenerous with money. Any other Roman nob#is who exhibited all of these traits would be consideredrich rather than poor. The only grounds for not doing so in Sulla's caseare the questionable testimony of the nobleman and the authority of Plutarch. The former-given what we know about Sulla's family, rent and habits-seems even more suspicious than ever, while Plutarch's discussionof the young Sulla is demonstrably a compendium of ignorance, error and misinterpretationof evidence.What is more, it is also a caseof Plutarch grindinghis moral ax. His commentafter the story of the nobleman (1.5) reveals this plainly: the Romans were already degenerate,yet even they still condemnedthe forsaking of ancestralpoverty. Sulla, the man who had forsaken such poverty, would sink Rome to new moral lows. Thus, it was Sulla who, more than anyone else, corrupted the soldierswith lavish sumsto be spenton opulent living and so made his country a thing for sale (12.11-14); thus, it was also Sulla who rewarded sons for slaying their fathers and slavesfor killing their masters (31.7). Sulla's early poverty was in fact an important thematic and moralistic consideration to Plutarch. To be fair, however, his mistake regarding Sulla's rent was inevitable:

Plutarch

was not the kind of writer to be concerned

with the grubby realities of the Roman rental market but rather was, as he says(Alex. 1), looking for the signsof the soul in men. Early poverty was one of the signs of the soul in Sulla. Finally, one does not need early poverty to explain the slow start of Sulla's career and his later actions. His failure to perform any military service in his youth was, given his hedonism, an understandable unwilling-

nessto exchangethe pleasuresof the city for the rigors of the camp.51 Once he had begun his career, he discoveredthat he was a first-rate man who nonetheless seemed destined by his family background to rise no higher than a second-rateposition, the praetorship. Having overcomethat obstacleand reachedthe consulshipand the Mithridatic command, he naturally would have recalled the fate of Rufinus, the last member of his family to scalea comparableheight. When Marius, Sulpiciusand their supporters seemedabout to turn him into a secondRufinus in 88, Sulla violently turned the tables on them instead. Eventually, his victory in the civil

SULLA'S

EARLY

POVERTY

AND ROMAN

RENT

169

war gavehim the powerand the opportunityto exorcisethe ghostof Ruff-

nusby likewisebecoming a dictatoranda two-termconsul. 52Admittedly, thesepointsare speculative,but they rest upon a better foundationthan

Plutarch'smoralisticand error-riddenfantasyof Sulla'searlypoverty? Lee E. Reams

California State University Fullerton

NOTES

1. Poverty accepted:e.g., Wilhelm Ihne, The history of Rome, English ed., (1887) 5.277, "poor"; Tenney Frank, An economichistory of Rome to the end of the Republic (1920) 81, "a poor but respectableyouth"; David Stockton, "Sulla, !e monarquemalgrd!ui", previouslyunpublishedlecture,in Problemsin ancienthistory, ed. D. Kagan (1966) 2.262, "a poor aristocrat";I. Shatzman,Senatorialwealth and Roman politics, CollectionLatomus 142 (1975) 268, "poor in his youth." More skeptical:F. Fr6hlich, RE (1896) s.v. "Cornelius" no. 392, 1522-3, mentionshis obscurefamily, cheaplodgingsand lack of patrimony, but notesan educationnot

inferiorto hissocialstanding; A.N. Sherwin-White, OCD• (1949)866,mentions Sulla'sobscure familybut saysnothingaboutearlypoverty;E. Badian,OCD2 (1970) 1021, callsthe family "not recentlyprominent"and Sulla'syouth "financially successful."

2. Th. Mommsen, The history of Rome, trans. W.P. Dickson (1887) 3.458, notes the excellenceof Sulla's education and calls his family "less wealthy" rather

than poor; E. BadJan,LuciusSu!!a:The deadlyreformer, Todd Memorial Lecture (1970) 5, suggests that Sulla may have deliberatelymisrepresented his early financial situation in order to seem more like M. Aemilius Scaurus, who certainly was poor in his youth. On Scaurus, cf. n. 24 below. 3. Arthur Keaveney,"Young Sulla and the Decem Stipendia",RFIC 108 (1980) 165-71, and Su!!a: The last Republican (1982) 6-9. He estimatesthe young Sulla's total assetsat around HS 150,000 ("Young Sulla" 167 n. 1). 4. ConsideringSulla'srent low are suchscholarsas Frank (81), Shatzman(268) and Keaveney ("Young Sulla" 167), but deeming it high is E.J. Phillips, "The Roman law on the demolition of buildings", Latomus 32 (1973) 89. 5. D.A. Russell, "Plutarch's Life of Coriolanus", JRS 53 (1963) 26-8; C.P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (1971) 87. 6. Plutarch's debt to the Commentarii was recognized at least as early as H.

Peter,Die QuellenPlutarchsin den Biographieender R6mer (1865) 57-61. Seealso Ida Calabi, "I Commentarii di Silla come fonte storica", MAL 3.5 (1950) 247-302, esp. 301-2. Plutarch quotesthe dictatorfourteentimesin the Sulla, seventimeselsewhere: William C. Helmbold and Edward N. O'Neil, Plutarch's quotations (1959) 68. Plutarch also twice cites the Commentarii by book number (Book 10 in Su!!a 17.2; Book 22 in Sulla 37.1-3), which implies a direct consultation:Jones83 and

170

LEE

E. REAMS

n. 14. Whether Plutarch read all twenty-two books of the Commentarii from beginning to end is questionable, however. 7. Cf. Badian (n. 2 above) 6 n. 10. 8. Lucullus: Plut. Luc. 1.4. General purpose and nature of the Commentarii and similar works: Georg Misch, A history of autobiography in antiquity, trans. E.W. Dickes (1951) 1.237-8,244-8.

9. Soldier,statesman, fortune:e.g., Peter,HRR2 1.197-8,200-202,flags.8, 12-17.Saviorof theRepublic: cf. Peter,HRR2 1.203,flag. 20:"adsummam perniciem rem republicam perventurum esse"we can guesswho savedthe situation. Sumptuary laws: Cic. Art. 12.36.1; Plut. Sulla 35.3-4; Gell. 2.24.11; Macrob. Sat. 3.17.11. One should also bear in mind what Plut. Sulla 2.5 and Sail. lug. 95.3 say about Sulla's ability to make a strict dichotomy between his public and personal life. The Commentarii, I submit, dealt with the former, while his youth belonged to the latter.

10. This is also the view of Keaveney,"Young Sulla" (n. 3 above) 168 n. 2, who citesE. Valgiglio, "L'Autobiografia di Silla nelleBiografiedi Plutarco", in Gli Storiografi Latini tramandati inframmenti (StudUrb (Ser. B) n.s. 49 (1975)) 255. Latin writers never term Sulla's work de vita sua; they instead describeit as rerum gesta-

rum, rerumsuarumor evenhistoria:Peter,HRR 2 1, CCLXXII. The title may have been Commentarii rerum gestarum (Valgiglio 255). 11. Cf. Richard Saller, "Anecdotes as historical evidence for the principate", G & R 27 (1980) 72-3. 12. Fall of Rufinus: sources(numerous)in MRR 1 (1951) 196. Types, and methods of transmission,of anecdotes,in general:cf. Saller 70-3. Plutarch'suseof compendia: Helmbold and O'Neil (n. 6 above) ix. Plutarch's acquisition and use of anecdotes,including Ro•nan friends as source:C.B.H. Pelling, "Plutarch's method of work in the Roman Lives", JHS 99 (1979) 90-1. Note Plutarch's telltale use of "they say" concerningthe consulshipof Rufinus (1.1) and "it is said" regardingthe story of the nobleman (1.4). 13. TLL s.v. "ignavia", 7.276-8; D. Earl, The moral and political tradition of Rome (1967) 20-3. 14. Cf. Shatzman (n. 1 above) 108, 233; Keith Hopkins, Death and renewal: Sociological studies in Roman history 2 (1983) 74-5, 79-81. 15. The best stemma of the Rufini/Sullae

is to be found in W. Drumann

and P.

Groebe, GeschichteRoms 2 (1902) 360-1, which see also on P. Rufinus, 2.361-2. Flamen: F. Miinzer, RE s.v. "Cornelius" no. 382, 1517-8; MRR 1.214; B.R. Katz, "Notes on Sulla's ancestors",LCM4 (1982) 148-9. Low prestige: Livy 27.8.4-10; Val.

Max.

6.9.3.

16. Pr. 212: Miinzer, RE s.v. "Cornelius" no. 383, 1518; Broughton, MRR 1.268. Pr. 186: Miinzer, RE s.v. "Cornelius" no. 384, 1518 (but ignore his alleged coinage and consult instead reference in n. 18 below); MRR 1.371. Ser. Sulla: MRR 1.402 (praetor possiblyin 170 but probably in 175) and 1.435 (commissioner);Miinzer, RE s.v. "Cornelius" no. 388, 1521. 17. On provincial profits, see Shatzman (n. 1 above) 53-63.

SULLA'S

EARLY

POVERTY

AND

ROMAN

RENT

171

18. Crawford, RRC (1974) 1.250 (no. 205); on the family backgroundand wealth of moneyers, 2.602. 19. Mtinzer, RE s.v. "Cornelius" no. 379, 1517. The great Sulla had a brother and a sisterwho produced offspring. The brother lathered P. Sulla, cos. des. 65, eponym of Cic. Pro P. Sulla: Dio 36.44.3, defendedby L.E. Reams, "The strange

caseof Sulla'sbrother", CJ 82 (1987) 301-5, againstthe tentativeidentification of Mtinzer, RE s.v. "Cornelius" no. 385, 1518. The sister is known through Sulla's nephew, Sex. Nonius Sufenas, pr. 81: Drumann-Groebe (n. 15 above) 2.436, 559; Mtinzer, RE (1936) s.v. "Nonius" no. 53,901; the argumentadvancedby H.B. Mattingly, "The Denarius of Sufenas and the Ludi Victoriae", NC 16 (1956) 189-204, that Nonius was only a quaestorin 81, is rebuttedby Crawford, RRC 1.455-6 (no. 421). The elder L. Sulla's possible praetorship is the suggestionof Badian (n. 2 above) 5. Sulla's father (or other male relatives) would have held the praetorship after 165. Between 165 and 107,348 praetors would have held office, but only 38 can be definitely identified and their praetorshipsspecificallydated, while another 82 are known to have held the office becausethey later reached the consulship, which leaves 228 unknown praetors. 20. For Sulla's attempt to win the praetorship suo anno, see Plut. Sulla 5.1-5, as interpreted by E. Badian, "Sulla's Cilician command", in Studies in Greek and Roman history (1964) 158-60 [originally in Athenaeum 37 (1959) 279-303]. The objectionsof A.N. Sherwin-White,"Ariobarzanes,Mithridates and Sulla", CQ (1977) 173-83, and Broughton, MRR 3 (1986) 73-4, are not convincing, especially in the light of A. Keaveney, "Deux dates contest6esdans la carri•re de Sylla", LEC 48 (1980) 149-57. One of Sherwin-White's stronger arguments, however, is that a man of obscurefamily would have had little hope of achievingthe difficult feat of winning the praetorshipsuo anno: 178 n. 31. Sulla was undoubtedlycountingupon his fine military record, but coming from a known praetorian family would have improved his chancesand made his bid more reasonable. 21. The quotation is Comp. Lys. et Sul. 3, from Sail. Hist. Plut. Sulla 3 appears to be based on Sall. lug., while Sulla 12.11-14 is suspiciouslysimilar to Sall. Cat. 11.5-7.

22. P. Sulla and the Ludi Apollinares: Livy 25.12.3-15; Fest. 438 L. Denial: Macrob. Sat. 1.17.27. The gamesof 212 were a special, one-time-only event; the Ludi Apollinares only became an annual fixture in 208: H.H. Scullard, Festivals and ceremoniesof the Roman Republic (1981) 159-60. This was presumably the concreteelement of the smear againstP. Sulla. Ser. SulpiciusRufus: Cic. Mur. 16this was in responseto an attack on Murena's ancestry mentioned in Mur. 15. 23. Sulla seenas a great man until his victory: Sall. lug. 95.4. This was a common view: Livy Per. 88; Veil. Pat. 2.17.1; Flor. 2.8.6-9; Oros. 5.19.4. Sallust's views on the value of ancestry:lug. 85.23 (put in Marius' mouth).

24. Peter,HRR 2 1.185(frag. 1). 25. Plut. Sulla 4 has him transferring to the command of Catulus in 102 due to worseningrelations with Marius, a view essentiallyfollowed by Keaveney, Sulla (n. 3 above) 32. But Badian (n. 2 above) 9-10 argues that Sulla transferred on

172

LEE

E. REAMS

Marius' behalf and notes how the vicissitudesof Sulla's career in the early 90s matched those of Marius.

26. Plut. Mar. 12 givesthe spoilsfrom Numidia as 3,700 poundsof gold, 5,775 pounds of silver, and 87,000 drachmas(=denarii). 27. E.g., Livy Per. 88; App. BC 1.95; Plut. Su!la 31. 28. Sulla was born in 138: Fr6hlich, RE s.v. "Cornelius" no. 392, 1522. Keaveney, "Young Sulla" (n. 3 above) 166, puts the start of Sulla's tenancyin his late teens.

29. Insula: Z. Yavetz, "The living conditionsof the urban plebsin Republican Rome", Latomus 17 (1958) 515, using the term in a bad senseas shown by his descriptionof the freedman'squarters, 504 n. 7: "In a flat or room still worsethan Sulla's . . ." "Tenement": Keaveney, "Young Sulla" 167-8. 30. More legalthan architecturalterm: A.G. McKay, Houses,villasand palaces

in theRomanworld(1975)83 and245 n. 123. R. Meiggs,RomanOstia2 (1973) 237 [lst ed., 1960]. But his definitionreflectsearlierusage:e.g., J. Carcopino,Daily life in ancientRome, trans. E.O. Lorimer (1940) 23-6. B.W. Frier, Landlords and tenants in imperial Rome (1980) 3, usesinsula in the same senseas Meiggs. 31. On this type of structure, seeYavetz 506 and n. 1; Meiggs 235-6. 32. McKay 85-6; Meiggs 236. 33. Yavetz 514 misdates this incident to the 130s. See MRR 1.150, for the correct date. Politically inspired: Lepidus as consulin 137 opposedthe ballot law of Cassius, then tribune: Cic. Brut. 97.

34. L. Friedlgnder,Roman life and mannersunderthe Early Empire?, trans. L.A. Magnus (1908-13) 2.185, in general. It is only after 100 that we find the development of more imposing houses:see n. 35 below. Estimate for Lepidus' house: Tenney Frank, An economic survey of Ancient Rome 1 (1933) 406. 35. House of Crassus:Pliny, NH 17.2-5, 36.7; Val. Max. 9.1.4; cf. Friedl/•nder 2.185. His house surpassedby others: Pliny, NH 17.2. 36. Value of Cicero's house: Cic. Att. 4.2.5. Size and per-foot value of his lot: Frank, ESAR 1.406. 37. These figures, translated from square meters and rounded off, are basedon Carcopino (n. 30 above) 31 and 292 n. 40. They pertain to the Empire, but a Republican insula could not have been much smaller, for (as Carcopino 31 points out) the typical Imperial insula was too small in relation to height to be structurally sound. The figure for housesis from Pompeii, but note the strong affinity betweenPompeian houses and those of Rome c. 100 Bc: McKay (n. 30 above) 68-9. 38. Details of Clodius' house, which was purchasedshortly before his death from M. Aemilius Scaurus the Younger, Sulla's stepson: Cic. Off. 1.138; Ascon. 26-7, 32 C.; Pliny, NH 36.6, 36.103, as interpreted by Shatzman (n. 1 above) 291,327. 39. Frier (n. 30 above) 39-40. 40. Yavetz (n. 29 above) 500-1, 507-15. 41. Poor did not pay as much as HS 2,000: believing otherwise are Carcopino (n. 30 above) 44; Yavetz 504 n. 7; Phillips (n. 4 above) 89-90. Cicero's rental income: Cic. Art. 12.32.2; 15.17.1; 16.1.5. Shop and mezzanine apartment described:Dig. 33.7.7; Meiggs (n. 30 above) 241-2. Estimate: Frank, ESAR 1.385.

SULLA'S

EARLY

POVERTY

AND

ROMAN

RENT

173

42. Cic. Cael. 17-8. Pliny, NH 7.165 saysCaelius was born May 28, 82; he was

triedApril 3-4, 56:R.G. Austin,M. TulliCicerohis Pro M. CaelioOratio3 (1960), AppendixesI (144-6) and IV (151). But there is some questionregarding his date of birth and early career: MRR 3 (1986) 44. 43. An element of confusion occurs in Cic. Cael. 18 when Caelius' apartment is describedas a domus. This descriptionled Shatzman (n. 1 above) 311 n. 166 to believe a house was meant. But the ground-floor apartment of an insula was also called a domus: CIL IV 138; Carcopino 26. 44. In general, C.P. Jones, "Towards a chronology of Plutarch's works", JRS 56 (1966) 72. Plut. Sulla 21.8 dates the battle of Orchomenus (86 Bc) "almost 200 years ago". Thus, he discussedSulla's youth 230 years after the fact. 45. Fires and collapsesduring Empire: Carcopino 31-3; McKay (n. 30 above) 859; Meiggs(n. 30 above)250; Gustav Hermansen, Ostia: Aspectsof Roman city life (1982) 207-35. 46. See Frier (n. 30 above) 15-6, 28-9, and his commentson "vertical zoning". This was apparently even more prevalent before the first century Bc: Yavetz (n. 29 above) 505. 47. Estimate: This figure is used by Keaveney, "Young Sulla" (n. 3 above) 167 n. 1, from Crawford, RRC 2.622-3. The former correctly warns not to compare this figure with Sulla'swealth, but this caveatdoesnot apply in the freedman'scase. A laborer's annual wages seem to have risen to about HS 1,200 in Cicero's day, assuming he were employed 300 days a year (based on estimate of Frank, œSAR 1.385). Freedmen's occupations:Susan Treggiari, Roman freedmen in the late Republic (1969) 91-106, 110-41. 48. The inconsistency betweenearly poverty and youthful profligacyis noted by Shatzman (n. I above) 268-9, but not given sufficient weight. 49. Nicopolis' status:Fr6hlich, RE s.v. "Cornelius"no. 392, 1523:"eine gemeine, aber begiiterte Dirne"; Badian (n. 2 above) 6, "a wealthy prostitute." Professional mistress:inferred from Plut. Pomp. 2.6-7-Geminius first had to ask Pompey's permissionto consummatehis love for Flora; Pompey gave her to him. 50. See Shatzman 51 and n. 15 (in general), and 409-12 (which showsCicero benefitingunder at leastsixteendifferent wills and claiming to have receivedmore than HS 20 million in inheritancesby 44-Cic. Phil. 2.40). 51. Cf. Badian 6: "... Sulla did no military servicein his youth, which meant he had no political ambitions." Assumingfor the moment Sulla was poor, one has to doubt whether the technicality of the minimum equestrian censuswould have

barreda patriciannob#isfrom military service,contraryto the belief of Keaveney, Sulla (n. 3 above) 8, while living in camp would have been cheaperthan living in Rome--especially the way Sulla lived. 52. This seemsto be the only reasonableexplanation why Sulla (1) revived the dictatorshipafter 120 years in abeyance(Plut. Sulla 33.1) when a compliant Senate, cowedpeople and loyal soldierymade holding the office unnecessary,(2) relinquishedthe dictatorshipby 80, and (3) held a secondconsulship.Why did he not simply remain dictator until his retirement into private life? On the date of abdication from the dictatorship: seeBadian, "Forschungbericht:From the Gracchi to

174

LEE

E. REAMS

Sulla (1940-1959)", Historia 11 (1962) 230, and "Additional noteson Roman magistrates", Athenaeum 48 (1970) 8-14, as well as Keaveney (n. 20 above) 157-60; a somewhatdifferent view is offered by G.V. Sumner, "Manius or Mamercus?", JRS 54 (1964) 45 n. 44, and Briggs Twyman, "The date of Sulla's abdication and the

chronologyof the first book of Appian's Civil Wars", Athenaeum 54 (1976) 7797, 271-95.

53. The author wishesto thank the following for making valuable comments upon earlier versionsof this paper: ProfessorsD. Brendan Nagle (University of Southern California), Richard Frank (University of California, Irvine), E. Badian (Editor) and an anonymous Reader for this journal. All errors, however, fall squarely within the author's provincia.