We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
This paper seeks to dispel the notion that Mark Antony and the Senate indulged in a cat-and-mouse game over the control of Caesar's archives (his commentarii) in the weeks immediately following the Ides of March. At stake was whether unpublished documents drawn up by Caesar before his death should be ratified and put into force. The belief that the Senate and Antony contended over this issue and that Antony got the upper hand rests primarily on what I hope to show is a misinterpretation of two key passages in the Philippics. Moreover, since the standard interpretation of these two passages appears to be supported by Dio's account of how Antony cajoled the Senate into permitting him a freer hand to review and publish documents found in Caesar's archives, it will be necessary to have a closer look at Dio's probable sources for this particular section of his history.
2 As a matter of fact, in Phil. 1.2–5 Cicero praises Antony's moderation in the first few months after Caesar's death and contrasts this restraint with a sudden adoption of radical measures in June (§6 ‘Ecce enim Kalendis Iuniis…mutata omnia’). Modern critics are justified in asserting that Cicero overstates his approval of Antony's conduct in April and May; certainly in the letters Cicero harshly criticizes many of Antony's measures during those months. On the other hand, the decidedly negative picture of Antony that emerges from the Philippics taken as a whole—and particularly the Second Philippic—should not be allowed to colour the facts when they tell a different story.
3 Among those who interpret Phil. 1.3 and 2.91 as describing an attempt by the Senate to ban the posthumous publication of decreta Caesaris are the following (in order of publication, henceforth referred to by author's last name):
4 Gelzer (p. 328), for instance, is representative of those who interpret the SC as narrowly limited to beneficia and grants of immunitas: ‘Senatsbeschluss…wonach keine Erlasse über Tributbefreiung und Vergünstigung, die ein Datum nach dem 15. März trugen, mehr ausgehändigt werden sollten’. Certainly the wording of Phil. 2.91 and the context of Phil. 1.3 imply that grants of immunitas and the recall of exiles (representing beneficia) were two of the chief areas of the Senate's concern over possible abuse of Caesar's papers. Since, however, two of the most notorious alleged forgeries of Antony in April can only be described as conferring beneficia—on King Deiotarus and Cloelius—we must explain how Antony circumvented Sulpicius' motion, even if it is interpreted narrowly as banning only beneficia and grants of immunitas.
5 Either on the night of 15/16 March (so Pelling, C. B. R., Plutarch, Life of Antony [Cambridge, 1988], p. 155Google Scholar) or on the following night (so Becht pp. 78–9, cf. p. 20 for a collection of the sources).
6 Although a straightforward account in one of the letters (Alt. 16.16C.2) makes it possible to establish the abridgment of the narration in the oration (Phil. 2.100), the way the facts are presented in the oration has commonly misled modern scholars (see below, n. 13).
7 See most conveniently E. Schwartz, RE 3.1719, citing specialized studies and discussing Dio's use of the Philippics in composing speeches that he attributes to Cicero in 44 and 43 and to the consular Fufius Calenus in 43.
8 More than thirty years ago, Balsdon, J. P. (‘The Ides of March’, Historia 1 [1958], 80–94)Google Scholar pointed out the danger of interpreting the Ides of March by combining later sources, such as Dio, Plutarch and Appian, with the contemporary evidence of Cicero—what Collingwood aptly called ‘scissors-and-paste history’. We must observe the same caution in reconstructing the events that followed the Ides. Nowhere is the danger posed by combining these two classes of evidence (Dio and Cicero) into what appears to be a seamless whole more striking than in the present instance once we realize that Dio has nothing new to add except his imagination.
9 Becht, pp. 84–5.
10 Suetonius (Iul. 82.4) reports that the conspirators had intended to hurl Caesar's corpse into the Tiber, confiscate his property and annul the measures of his regime (acta rescindere), but they abandoned their plans out of fear of Antony and M. Lepidus, Caesar's Master of Horse. The ratification is commonly assumed to have been included in (or to have been a consequence of) the SC passed on Cicero's motion to declare a general amnesty (Phil. 1.1) and so break the deadlock over how to treat both Caesar's regime and the act of the conspirators on the Ides (so Becht, p. 25, citing sources). The clearest statement in Cicero that Caesar's acta were ratified in consequence of action taken by the Senate on 17 March is found in the gloomy prediction that if Octavian gets power ‘multo firmius acta tyranni comprobatum iri quam in Telluris’ (Alt. 16.14.1).
11 Schmidt, pp. 688–9, attempts to distinguish Caesar's acta—the official acts of his office—from various intentions and jottings (chirographa) concerning matters such as the recall of exiles that would have to be brought before the Senate or Assembly. Schmidt argues that in addition to decreta that were already published, Caesar's acta would include notations in his archives (commentarii) that concerned matters over which he had authority, such as the right to fill offices and assign provinces without having recourse to allotment. Accordingly he hypothetically reconstructed the wording of SCI as follows (p. 691): ‘C. Iulii Caesaris acta ualento; si quae acta in commentariis exstant, ea quoque ualento.’ v. Premerstein (p. 132 n. 1) with greater plausibility suggests ‘ut quaecumque C. Iulius Caesar…egit decreuit, rata sint.’ Whatever the exact language was, it is reasonable to suppose that the unpublished documents belonged to a potentially grey area in need of careful definition by the best legal minds available—hence the role of the jurist Sulpicius.
12 ‘Cum consules oporteret ex senatus consulto de actis Caesaris cognoscere, res ab iis in Kal. Iun. dilata est.’ (Att. 16.16C.2); ‘quibus (sc. consulibus) et lege et senatus consulto permissum erat ut de Caesaris actis “cognoscerent, statuerent, iudicarent”’ (Att. 16.16B.1); ‘At sic placuerat ut ex Kalendis Iuniis de Caesaris actis cum consilio cognosceretis’ (Phil. 2.100).
A possible terminus post quern non for the passage of this decree is provided by the statement in a letter to C. Cassius (Fam. 12.1.2 of 3 May) that ‘we voted’ (decreuimus) to uphold not only Caesar's published acta—the various leges and decreta inscribed on bronze tablets, aera—but also documents that had not yet been issued, chirographa: ‘cuius [sc. Caesaris] aera refigere debebamus, eius etiam chirographa defendimus? at enim ita decreuimus.’ If this remark concerns the consilium decree, and not the earlier decree ratifying Caesar's acta on 17 March, then the consilium decree was passed prior to 7 April, the date on which Cicero left Rome (see Shackleton Bailey on Att. 14.1) for an extended absence that lasted until 31 August.
Most modern scholars, however, since Schmidt (pp. 692–4; followed by v. Premerstein, p. 132; cf. Tyrrell and Purser, and Shackleton Bailey ad loc.; contra Drumann–Groebe, p. 424) assign decreuimus to SCI rather than to the consilium decree. They do so, no doubt, chiefly because the consilium decree is commonly misdated to mid-April on the grounds of the ‘postponement clause’ (see below, n. 13) and so, in their view, could not have been voted on by Cicero since he was not in Rome after 7 April. They may also be thinking of Att. 14.10.1 and 14.14.2 where Cicero speaks of the meeting on 17 March almost directly after complaining about the undue sway being enjoyed by Caesar's promissa, cogitata, and libelli. Closer inspection of these two passages reveals, however, that Cicero's point is that the Liberators failed to take the initiative immediately after removing Caesar and so were undone by the meeting on the 17th. That meeting represented for Cicero the turning point from which all else followed, including presumably the slightly later vote to arrange for the publication of Caesar's chirographa-a vote in which both Cicero and Cassius could have participated, whereas on the 17th Cassius and his fellow conspirators did not come down from the Capitoline until the evening after the Senate adjourned (Becht, p. 27). We must not, however, read too much into the ‘we’ of decreuimus. Cicero may be asserting merely that he and his fellow senators (i.e., ‘the senatorial order’ and without reference to a meeting attended by Cassius) went along with this proposal.
13 The decree itself did not contain the provision for the postponement until 1 June, nor did the Senate pass a separate decree providing for the postponement, although quite a few scholars have jumped to this false conclusion (Drumann–Groebe p. 424, Ferrero p. 44, v. Premerstein p. 135, Mommsen, StR III.2 p. x n. 2, Stein, P., ‘Die Senatssitzungen der Ciceronischen Zeit (68–43)’ diss. Mönster [1930] pp. 76–7 n. 434Google Scholar). Based upon this false conclusion is the frequent assumption that the consilium decree must have been passed close to the Senate's traditional spring recess (discessus) in mid-April (see Stein, op. cit., pp. 110–11) since otherwise it is impossible to explain why the Senate voted to postpone the urgent matter of reviewing Caesar's papers. Cicero, however, makes it clear in Att. 16.16C.2 (quoted above, n. 12) that the formation of the consilium was postponed by the consuls (ab üs), not by the Senate, although the wording of Phil. 2.100 would allow either interpretation—another instance of selective reporting in the Philippics of the type that we shall observe in the way Cicero presents Sulpicius' motion.
14 τς βουλς…ψηϕισαμνης μηδεμαν στήλην ὡς κα το Καίσαρος συγγεγραϕότος τι, νατεθναι (‘yet the Senate had previously voted that no tablet was to be posted as containing some document drafted by Caesar’) Dio 44.53.4; ὑμεῖς…ψηϕίσασθε μηδεμίαν στήλην μεττν το Καίσαρος θάνατον, ὡς κα παρ’ κείνου τῳ δεδομένπν τι χουσαν, στναι (‘you voted that no tablet that supposedly contained a grant from Caesar to anyone was to be set up after Caesar's death’) Dio 45.23.7.
15 κεῖνος νκειτο λγων πολλ κα ναγκαῖα ὑπ’ αὐτο [sc. Caesar] προβεβουλεσθαι (‘he [sc. Antony] insisted that many necessary matters had been provided for by him’ [sc. in his commentarii]) Dio 44.53.4.
16 βουλς…κελευσάσης πάντας τοὺς πρώτους κοινῇ αὐτ διαρῖναι (‘the Senate voted that all the foremost citizens were to take part in deciding these matters’) Dio ibid.
17 This assertion stands in close agreement with Phil. 2.100. Dio, in fact, seems to distinguish two periods of abuse by Antony, one before the passage of SC3 and one following its passage, since he prefaces his remarks on SC2 and SC3 by stating that Antony had been entrusted with reviewing Caesar's regime (44.53.2 τό…ξετάσαι τ διοικηθέντα ὑπ το Καίσαρος) and carrying out his decisions (τ πάντα τ δόξαντα αὐτῷ ποισαι; cf. 45.23.5 τούτων [sc. Caesar's acta] ξεταστς), but he abused this power. He then takes up SC2 and SC3, noting Antony's failure to form and consult the consilium. It is difficult to say precisely how Dio pictured the sequence of events. The most plausible reconstruction is that of v. Premerstein (pp. 139–40) who argues on the basis of the historical context of chapter 53 that Dio took as his starting point the law of June (see below, n. 36) which gave Antony broad powers to issue decrees in the name of Caesar. Dio then went on to take into account the previous decrees of the Senate on the same subject—hence the earlier and later abuses of authority granted by the Senate and Assembly, respectively, but presented out of order since Dio referred first to the more egregious abuses that were made possible by the greater freedom granted to Antony by the law passed in June.
18 Although there is general agreement that SC3 superseded SC2, opinion is divided as to whether SC3 should be viewed as the response to Antony's request to lift the ban on publication. (Drumann–Groebe pp. 422–4; Becht p. 39; Holmes p. 16; and v. Premerstein pp. 132–8) or as an attempt by the Senate to impose stricter controls on Antony after he had already begun to publish forgeries in the name of Caesar despite the ban imposed by SC2 (Schmidt pp. 692–3; Ferrero p. 44; and Denniston p. 161).
19 The more general complaints in early April (12–19) that Caesar's facta (Att. 14.6.2, 9.2) and promissa (14.10.1) were being given undue weight are replaced from 22 April onward with specific complaints concerning forgeries and/or Antony's role in producing these bogus documents (Att. 14.12.1, 13.6, 14.2, 5, Fam. 12.1.1, Att. 14.19.2). On the total number of letters extant for this period, see below, n. 39.
20 ‘Notes on Cicero's Philippics', Philologus 126 (1982), 217–18.
21 Cicero, Philippics, edited and translated by Bailey, D. R. Shackleton (Chapel Hill, 1986).Google Scholar
22 For its relative frequency, even with nouns not having a verbal quality, see Kühner, R. and Stegmann, C., Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache: Satzlehre (Hannover, 1976) I p. 213 § 58Google Scholar. As Nägelsbach, K., Lateinische Stilistik9 (Nürnberg, 1905), pp. 306–7Google Scholar points out, these adverbial modifiers often occupy the attributive position, resembling their placement in Greek. Add to the examples collected by K.-S. pp. 214–15 the following instances of post + ace. in these three different positions characterized by interlocking word order, the first two recalling Greek usage:
1. (ADJ. post + ace. SUBSTANTIVE): ‘illam post reditum eius caedem’ (Cic. De or. 3.8), ‘quaedam post mortem formidines’ (Cic. Fin. 5.31), ‘serum post male gestam rem auxilium’ (Livy 27.20.3).
2. (ADJ. SUBSTANTIVE ADJ. post + ace.): ‘hoc tempus omne post consulatum’ (Cic. De or. 1.7).
3. (GEN. post + ace. SUBSTANTIVE): ‘clarorum uirorum post mortem honores’ (Cic. Cat. M. 80), cf. ‘eius usque ad Idus Martias consulatum’ (Cic. Phil. 2.82).
23 As E. Badian pointed out to me, we cannot imagine that these decreta themselves bore a date post Idus Martias. Rather, we must understand in this instance, as often with these prepositional modifiers, an appropriate verbal adjective. One can suggest (prolatus (= ‘brought to light’, sc. from Caesar's commentarii) on the model of the expression leges prolatae (Phil. 1.23) describing the laws that Antony claimed to have found in Caesar's archives.
24 See most recently (with citation of modern bibliography) Jean, Beaujeu, ‘L'Affaire de Buthrote’, in Cicéron Correspondance IX (Paris, 1988), pp. 289–94Google Scholar. Cicero gives quite a detailed description of the salient facts especially in Att. 16.16A.2–3. In summary the circumstances were these: Caesar imposed a hefty war indemnity on the territory of Buthrotum in Epirus (NW Greece); when payment was not forthcoming, he scheduled this region for confiscation to provide land for settlers. With Cicero's help, Atticus, who had property nearby, intervened on behalf of his neighbours in negotiations with Caesar that were conducted in 46 (Att. 12.6a.2 of Oct. 46). Caesar was persuaded to cancel the planned settlements if the money owed was paid promptly. Atticus himself put up the cash to avoid any further threat to the region. Caesar's decretum (so styled by Cicero §3, cf. ep. 16C.2 ‘decretum Caesaris recitatum est’) covering this case was committed to writing and witnessed by prominent Romans (Cicero among them, ep. 16E.1 ‘nobis testibus et obsignatoribus’). The decree itself, however, was not announced publicly, and this worried Atticus and Cicero. Plans for the settlements in Buthrotum went ahead as if no understanding had been reached. When questioned about these preparations, Caesar assured Cicero and Atticus that once the settlers had set sail he would send written instructions to divert them to colonies elsewhere; he explained that he did not want to ruffle feathers by announcing the cancellation of the settlements in advance. This is where the matter stood when Caesar was struck down on 15 March (ep. 16A.4). Atticus had paid the fines out of his own pocket, but the only proof that this money had been received by Caesar, and that the land in Greece was no longer subject to confiscation, resided in a sealed document in Caesar's archives, which were in the hands of Mark Antony.
25 Cicero was convinced that this beneficium was a forgery (Att. 14.13.6 ‘quae enim Caesar numquam neque fecit neque fecisset neque passus esset, ea nunc ex falsis eius commentariis proferuntur’), but he also remarks that Antony had the potestas to carry it out, even without the courtesy of consulting him (Att. 14.13B.5 ‘hoc a me sic petis ut, quae tua potestas est, ea neges te me inuito usurum’). Antony describes himself as feeling obliged to uphold this beneficium as part of his duty to respect the contents of Caesar's commentarii (Att. 14.13A.2 ‘uideor debere tueri commentarium Caesaris’).
26 ‘An Caesaris decreto Creta post M. Bruti decessum potuit liberari, cum Creta nihil ad Brutum Caesare uiuo pertineret?’ (Phil. 2.97). The reference to Brutus' governorship, which was not assigned until June or later in the summer (see below, n. 27), establishes a terminus post quem for the publication—and drafting—of this decree.
27 A terminus post quem for the assignment of Crete to Brutus is furnished by the statement in Att. 15.9.1 that the Senate was expected to take up the assignment of the praetorian provinces for 43 on 5 June.
28 The bogus decree concerning Crete is mentioned twice: once in a speech attributed to Cicero (45.32.4, the same speech that contains one of the two allusions to SC2 at 45.23.7) and once in the reply to this speech put into the mouth of the consular Fufius Calenus (46.23.3). The speech of Calenus (46.15.2) also contains a reply to the criticism in Phil. 2.98 that Antony did not include his uncle among those recalled from banishment in 49 but caused him to wait another year or two for restoration. Sturz, F. G., who provides the fullest collection of parallels and sources in his variorum edition of Dio (Leipzig, 1824)Google Scholar, correctly identifies Phil. 2.97 as Dio's source concerning the Cretan decree (vol. 5 p. 465) but fails to note the borrowing concerning the recall of Antony's uncle.
29 ‘Ille [sc. Caesar] paludes siccare uoluit; hie [sc. Antonius] omnem Italiam moderato homini, L. Antonio, diuidendam dedit’, Phil. 5.7; κα χώραν ἄλλην τε πολλν κα τν ν τοῖς ἔλεσι τοῖς Πομπτίνοις, ὡς κεχωσμένοις ἤδη κα γεωργεῖσθαι δυναμένοις, κληρουχηθναι δι Λουκίου 'Αντωνου δελϕο δημαρχοντος σηγήσατο (‘Antony proposed that both a great deal of other land and land in the Pontine Marshes—since supposedly the marshes had already been filled in and were capable of being farmed—be divided in allotments by his brother Lucius, who was a tribune.’) Dio 45.9.1.
Of course, it is a commonplace of invective that agrarian laws try to fob off undesirable land on settlers (‘paludes et silvas’, Sall. Or. Lep. 24 on the Sullan settlements; cf. Cic. De leg. agr. 2.71 ‘harenam…paludes’ of land to be purchased under Rullus' bill in 63; Tac. Ann. 1.17 ‘uligines paludum uel inculta montium’ to describe land discharged veterans could look forward to in A.d. 14). However, the reference to the draining of these swamps in both Cicero's and Dio's account of lex Antonia agraria make it likely that the one passage lies behind the other (a possibility overlooked by Sturz [above, n. 28]). To my knowledge, Ferrero, p. 70, is the only modern scholar who takes Dio at face value and concludes that Antony's law provided for the draining of the Pontine Marshes!
30 This reconstruction combines, with supplements, Phil. 1.3 and Att. 16.16B.1 (quoted above, n. 12).
31 In a particularly bitter letter of 24 May (Att. 15.4.3) Cicero remarks that if Caesar had lived to go on the Parthian campaign he never would have returned and so fear would not have compelled the senators to ratify his acta: ‘nos timor confirmare eius acta non coegisset.’ Elsewhere Cicero specifically states that the Senate was forced to act as it did on 17 March when it ratified Caesar's acta because it could not go against the wishes of Caesar's armed veterans who ringed the temple of Tellus (Att. 14.14.2 ‘nonne omni ratione ueterani qui armati aderant, cum praesidi nos nihil haberemus, defendendi fuerunt?’, cf. Phil. 2.89 ‘cum omnis aditus armati obsiderent’). These veterans had already received, or been promised, parcels of land as rewards for their service, and the Senate and Liberators were quick to ratify this portion of Caesar's enactments (Phil. 1.6 ‘ueterani…quibus hie ordo diligentissime cauerat’; cf. App. BCiv. 2.135; Dio 44.34.1).
In addition, current officeholders and magistrates for the following year, as well as consulsand tribunes-designate for 42 (Att. 14.6.2; Dio 43.51.5; cf. Phil. 13.26) stood to forfeit their appointments if Caesar's acta were cancelled at one fell swoop. Therefore, Appian (BCiv. 2.128–9; cf. Dio 44.33.3–4) is probably correct to draw attention to the concern felt by officeholders when the Senate debated on 17 March whether it should declare Caesar a tyrant and so rescind all his acts. Schmidt (p. 697) rightly stresses the fact that in the absence of SCI the Liberators would have forfeited their appointments to offices and provinces. Among the leading conspirators, M. Brutus and C. Cassius owed their praetorships to Caesar, while Caesar had named D. Brutus, L. Cimber and C. Trebonius to be the governors of Cisalpine Gaul, Bithynia-Pontus, and Asia respectively. This consideration, taken with the sheer mass of Caesarian legislation during the previous five and a half years, made outright cancellation on 17 March impracticable. However, the Senate may well have kept its options open for reviewing matters on a case by case basis in the near future, particularly any matters that had not been completely settled prior to Caesar's death—hence the decree passed on Sulpicius' motion.
32 ‘Nihil tum nisi quod erat notum omnibus in C. Caesaris commentariis reperiebatur. Summa constantia ad ea quae quaesita erant [sc. Antonius] respondebat. Num qui exsules restituti? Unum aiebat, praeterea neminem. Num immunitates datae? “Nullae” respondebat.’ (Phil. 1.2–3) The very next sentence is the one quoted at the beginning of this paper, describing Antony's wish that the Senate adopt Sulpicius' motion.
33 Phil. 1.3 and 2.91.
34 ‘Quem [sc. Antonium] quidem ego epularum magis arbitror rationem habere quam quicquam mali cogitare’ (Att. 14.3.2).
35 Two or three days after Antony's departure from Rome ca. 25 April for an extended tour of Campania, Dolabella suppressed the growing movement in Rome to accord divine honours to Caesar. He did so by causing a pillar and altar to be removed from the spot in the Forum where Caesar's body had been cremated and by punishing the ringleaders of the movement. Slaves were crucified; freemen hurled from the Tarpeian Rock (Phil. 1.5, 2.107). The date of this deed (ca. 27/28 April) can be calculated on the basis of the first reference to it in Att. 14.15.1, written at Puteoli on 1 May. Both in his letters to Atticus (loc.cit. and ep. 16.2) and to Dolabella himself (Att. 14.17A = Fam. 9.14) Cicero hailed this deed as truly heroic. In a letter written in early May to Cassius (Fam. 12.1.1) Cicero professed hope in a brighter future, when thanks to Dolabella's deed the Liberators might return safely to Rome. Elsewhere (Phil. 2.107) Cicero implies that Dolabella remained a counterbalance to Antony until late May when he was won over by Antony after his return to Rome from the tour of Southern Italy, but there are signs in the letters that Dolabella may have already been in Antony's camp as early as April (e.g., Att. 14.14.4 of 28–29 April reveals that Antony was going to request an extended provincial command for both himself and Dolabella, and Att. 14.18.1 of 9 May accuses Dolabella of having embezzled money from the treasury of Ops [cf. below, n. 47] with the help of Caesar's secretary Faberius, activity which must have occurred in March/April with Antony's blessing).
36 ‘Accessit ad senatus consultum lex quae lata est a.d. iii [iiii Cratander marg.] Non. Iun., quae lex earum rerum quas Caesar “statuisset, decreuisset, egisset” consulibus cognitionem dedit’ (Att. 16.16C.2); cf. 16B.1 quoted above, n. 12 a nd 16A.4 ‘senatus consultum et lex’. This law is convincingly identified by v. Premerstein (pp. 137–9) with the consular lex de actis Caesaris confirmandis attested by Phil. 5.10. As evidence that Antony may have promulgated this law in April before his departure from Rome ca. 25 April, v. Premerstein cites the statement of Balbus (in Att. 14.21.2) that Antony intended to rally support among Caesar's veterans for the ratification of his acta (‘ilium [sc. Antonium] circumire ueteranos ut acta Caesaris sancirent’). This would in part explain why veterans flocked to Rome in great numbers towards the end of May (Fam. 11.2.1 ‘scribitur nobis [Brutus and Cassius] magnam ueteranorum multitudinem Romam conuenisse iam et ad Kal. Iun. futuram multo maiorem’; cf. Phil. 1.6 ‘ueterani…non ad conseruationem earum rerum quas habebant, sed ad spem nouarum praedarum incitabantur’).
37 The possibilities of forgery are twofold. On the one hand, it is debatable whether the documents quoted by Josephus can be accepted as genuine. (For a review of the evidence against their authenticity, see Moehring, H., ‘The Acta pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus’, in Studies for Morton Smith, ed. Jacob, Neusner (Leiden, 1975), pp. 124–58Google Scholar, esp. p. 142 n. 57 on this particular document. For a contrasting view, see Rajak, T., ‘A Roman Charter for the Jews?’ JRS 74 [1984], 110–11Google Scholar. I wish to thank Erich Gruen for directing me to these two articles.) On the other hand, even if we can trust Josephus, we must allow for the possibility that this SC represented one of the forgeries that Cicero (Phil. 5.12) charged Antony with producing. It may not be without significance that the decree granted certain privileges to the Jews that were requested by envoys of Hyrcanus, High-Priest of the Jews. Antony had seen service in Judea where, as an officer on Gabinius' staff in 57, he played a role in crushing the Jewish revolt instigated by Aristobulus, Hyrcanus' brother (Joseph. AJ 14.82–97, BJ 1.160–74; Plut. Ant. 3.1–3), and Antony had doubtless become acquainted with Hyrcanus on that occasion. Therefore, this decree may be one in which Antony took a personal interest.
38 περ τούτων [sc. matters decided earlier by Caesar and the Senate] ρέσκει μῖν γενέσθαι, ὡς κα Ποπλίῳ Δολαβέλλᾳ κα Mάρκῳ ’Aντωνίῳ τοῖς ὑπάτοις ἒδοξεν, Joseph. AJ 14.221.
39 For the period of 61 days represented by the months of April and May, 41 letters are preserved, 34 in the collection Ad Atticum and 7 in the collection Ad familiares. This works out to an average of one letter for every day and a half, and there is perhaps no other period in Roman history when we are in a better position to follow events so closely as they unfolded.
40 ‘Omnia facta, scripta, dicta, promissa, cogitata Caesaris plus valerent quam si ipse viveret,’ Att. 14.10.1 of 19 April; cf. ep. 6.2 of 12 April criticizing the defence of the ‘tyrant's’ facta.
41 ‘Tabulae figuntur, immunitates dantur, pecuniae maximae discribuntur, exsules reducuntur, senatus consulta falsa referuntur,’ Fam. 12.1.1 of 3 May.
42 ‘Ecce autem Antonius accepta grandi pecunia fixit legem “a dictatore comitiis latam” qua Siculi ciues Romani; cuius rei uiuo illo mentio nulla,’ Att. 14.12.1.
43 ‘Falsas leges C. Caesaris nomine et falsa decreta,’ Phil. 3.30.
44 ‘A c de his tamen legibus [sc. the laws passed by Caesar in his lifetime] quae promulgatae sunt saltern queri possumus; de eis quae iam latae dicuntur [sc. those produced by Antony] ne illud quidem licuit. Illae enim sine ulla promulgatione latae sunt ante quam scriptae,’ Phil. 1.24.
45 ‘Illas quidem quas post mortem Caesaris prolatas esse et fixas videtis,’ Phil. 1.23.
46 Significantly the lex de exsulibus is not mentioned in the letters of April and May. Apart from criticizing the proposed recall of Cloelius, Cicero can only speculate that others are bound to follow. He gives us the names of only two others, the disreputable C. Sempronius Rufus and an otherwise unknown Victor, as representatives of a sizeable group whose recall he expected would follow closely on the heels of Cloelius' return (Att. 14.14.2 of ca. 28/29 April). Ironically Cicero's name was attached to a forged SC Sempronianum (Fam. 12.29.1) which may have been the instrument that authorized the recall of this Sempronius (see Badian, E., ‘The Sempronii AseUiones’, PACA 11 [1968], 4 n. 18).Google Scholar
47 One such general charge concerns unauthorized drafts from the treasury in the temple of Ops (allegedly begun by Antony even before Cicero left Rome on 7 April, Att. 14.14.5, cf. above, n. 35 on alleged embezzlement by Dolabella); another concerned forged decrees of the Senate (see below, n. 53). When Cicero uses such general terms as sescenta similia (Att. 14.12.1) in asserting that the grants to Sicily and Deiotarus were just the ‘tip of the iceberg’, the historian must allow for rhetorical exaggeration; cf. exsules reducuntur (Fam. 12.1.1), when we can be pretty certain that the proposed recall of Sex. Cloelius was the only specific example that could be given when Fam. 12.1 was written (see above, n. 46, and below, n. 51). As Syme, R., Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939; corr. repr. 1960Google Scholar), p. 107 remarked, ‘Rumours [sc. concerning Antony's abuse of Caesar's papers and treasury] circulated before long, to be reinforced by monstrous allegations when proof or disproof was out of the question.’
48 ‘Sed Pansa furere uidetur de Cloelio itemque Deiotaro et loquitur seuere, si uelis credere,’ Att. 14.19.2 of 8 May. Cicero distrusted Pansa's hostile pose toward Antony (Att. 15.22 of 22/23 June).
49 We must trust Cicero on this point since the claim is made not only in the Second Philippic, where misrepresentation might be suspected, but also in one of the letters (Att. 16.16C.2, quoted above, n. 12) where Cicero had no motive to distort the truth. Possibly the consuls agreed on the postponement because Antony did not want to be bound by the supervision of the consilium (so Becht, p. 40). However, since the consuls apparently formed and were guided by the advice of a consilium in settling the Buthrotian affair in June (Att. 16.16C.2 ‘consules de consili sententia decreuerunt…’) even after they were granted power to review Caesar's archives under the terms of a lex passed on 3 June (see above, n. 36), the chief difference between the prior SC and lex may have been that the lex freed the consuls from the need to seek the Senate's ratification of their decisions (so Mommsen, StR III.2 p. x n. 2, cf. p. 1001 noting that typically the Senate reserved the right to ratify decisions reached by magistrates with the advice of a consilium).
50 Att. 14.14.6; 15.2.2, 4.1, the last written ca. 24 May.
51 See above, n. 49, for the suggestion that the lex de actis Caesaris confirmandis of 3 June may have freed the consuls from the Senate's control. It is also possible that Antony chose to carry out the recall of Sex. Cloelius by lumping him with the large group of exiles recalled later when he produced Caesar's lex (see above, n. 46). However, Phil. 7.15 (‘exsules sine lege restituit’) seems to point in the opposite direction if the plural exsules is correctly to be interpreted as a rhetorical plural masking the single case of Cloelius (cf. the alleged grants of Roman citizenship to ‘entire provinces’ [provinciis totis, Phil. 2.92] for which Sicily provides the sole example).
52 In a well-known letter written in 46 to Papirius Paetus (Fam. 9.15.4) Cicero remarks that his name was sometimes attached to decrees as being one of those present at the drafting or as being the proposer of the motion. These decrees, however, merely reflected decisions Caesar had taken on his own and were drawn up by a member of his staff (prob. the reference is to Cornelius Balbus, see Shackleton Bailey ad loc.). Sometimes the first Cicero heard of these decrees was when he received expressions of thanks from foreign princes who had benefited under senatus consulta supposedly passed on his motion.
53 Antony is repeatedly charged with filing forged decrees of the Senate (Fam. 12.1.1 [quoted n. 41]; Phil. 5.12 [quoted below, n. 55 below], 12.12 nullified by the Senate in 43; cf. Att. 15.26.1; Fam. 12.29.2).
54 ‘Syngrapha sesterti centiens per legatos…facta in gynaecio est.…’ Phil. 2.95.
55 ‘Senatus etiam consulta pecunia accepta falsa referebat; syngraphae obsignabantur; senatus consulta numquam facta ad aerarium deferebantur,’ Phil. 5.12.
56 Perhaps a brief modern-day analogy will make the point crystal clear. Let us suppose that a university has introduced a new statute that reads: ‘Undergraduates will not be permitted to enrol in classes intended for graduate students unless they petition the instructor and receive written permission to take the class’. If a member of the senior common room remarks, ‘now that undergraduates will no longer be allowed to take classes intended for graduate students, we can expect fewer, but better-prepared, students to enrol in these classes’, his colleagues will understand his remark in terms of the new regulation taken as a whole (including the waiver that undergraduates can secure in deserving cases). By contrast, a person who is unfamiliar with the statute is likely to draw the false conclusion that an undergraduate is barred absolutely from taking such a class. It was just this sort of a double entendre that Cicero deliberately exploited in the two passages of the Philippics.
