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
The purpose of what follows is to show that if we assume March 1, 50 as the date on which ended the five years of imperium given to Caesar by the Lex Licinia Pompeia, we have a hypothesis which ‘works,’ in the sense that, as far as its relevance extends, it enables us to frame a coherent account of the dispute between Caesar and the Senate in the two years preceding the outbreak of civil war. The method followed will be to give a narrative based on that hypothesis and on the evidence which we possess. Many, at least, of the arguments and conclusions here adopted have been put forward already by various writers. I may mention, as an excuse for raising this question again (quippe qui cum ueterem turn uulgatam esse rent uideam), that a few suggestions will be made which I have not seen elsewhere. For the sake of clearness some very trite matters which belong to the years before 51 will first be recalled.
page 194 note 1 This is not inconsistent with a belief that the new method of assigning provinces was established by this lex de iure magistratuum. The change had been foreshadowed by a senatus consultum (Dio. XL. 56), and had therefore been discussed in the Senate before a lex on the subject was drafted; so that when Pompey was preparing his measure the Caesarians may have already shown what interpretation they put the Law of the Ten Tribunes.
page 195 note 1 As it was, Caesar said in 49 (B.C. I. 85, 9), In se ivra magistratuum commutari, ne ex praetura et consulatu, ut semper, sed per paucos probati et electi in prouincias mittantur. Thus, for the consular provinces of 51–50, the Senate picked out the two senior ex-consuls who bad not yet held consular governorships; and the decree of Ad Fam. VIII. 8, 8 implies that it depended on the Senate what ex-praetors should draw lots for the praetorian provinces of 50–49.
page 195 note 2 Some of the optimates may have even calculated that such a misuse of the tribunate might lead in the end to a happy restoration of the Sullan restrictions on the tribune's power. For optimate feeling about the tribunate just at this time, see Cicero, , De Legibus III. 8–11Google Scholar. It should be added that if under the old system the Senate had tried to decree in 50 that pro-praetors should succeed to the Gauls in 49 that would only have compelled Caesar to interfere, through a tribune, with the assigning of praetorian provinces in one year—nothing very unfamiliar (De Prou. Cons. 7, 17); whereas under the new system, if he was to keep his command till 48, it would be necessary for him (as we shall see) to thwart the assignment of consular provinces in two successive years —a very different matter.
page 195 note 3 As to the time at which the Senate decreed the provinces of 51–50, there is no quite definite evidence. Cicero's letter to Appius Claudius about taking over Cilicia, (Ad Fam, III. 2)Google Scholar gives the impression that it was written'(1) just after Cicero had learnt that he would have to go to a province, and (2) when he was to enter on his governorship in the near future. It is at any rate apparent from Ad Alt. V. 20, 7 and 8, that in 51 the Senate was expected to decree the provinces of 50–49 in March, 50, if it were not prevented from doing so by the dispute about the Gauls. Further evidence of this will be given later.
page 195 note 4 Ad Fam. XV. 14, 5 : Ad hanc prouinciam quam et senatus et populus annuam esse uoluit. Ad Att. V. 15, 1: Laodiceam ueni pridie Kal. Sext. Ex hoc die clauum anni mouebis. Cicero apologized to the authorities at Rome for not having reached his province before the last day of July propler itinerum et nauigationum aifficultatem (Ad Fam. XV. 2, 1). From Ad Att. V. 16, 4—Bibulus ne cogitabat quidem etiam nunc (towards the middle of August) in prouinciam suam accedere. Id autem facere ob eam causam dicebant quod tardius uellet decedere—it appears that both provinces were held on the same conditions as regards time. Bibulus seems to have reached Syria about the end of September or beginning of October (Ad Fam. II. 10, 2; compare Ad Fam. III. 8. 10). It years is not unlikely that he dawdled on his way order to supply his anti-Caesarian friends at Rome with an argument (for use in March, 50) against making Syria one of the consular provinces for 50–49.
page 196 note 1 Caesar represents himself as making this point on two occasions in 49, when he was stating his case against his enemies (B.C. I. 9, 2; 32, 3). Compare Cicero, , Ad Att. VII. 7Google Scholar, 6, Exercitum reinentis, cum legis dies transient, rationem haberi placet? Mihi uero ne absentis quidem; sed cum id datum est, illud una datum est. Apart from the obvious probability that the Caesarians had been using this argument since 52, the allusion to the Law of the Ten Tribunes in the relatio of Marcellus (Suetonius, , Diu. Iul. 28)Google Scholar shows that it was being used already in 51. There is an echo of its importance in that year in the epitome of Livy, 108; Agente in Senatu M. Marcello consule, ut Caesar ad petitionem consulatus ueniret, cum is lege lata in tempus consulates prouincias obtinere deberet.
page 196 note 2 Marcoque Marcello consuli finienti prouincias Gallias Kalendarum Martiarum die restitit (cs. Pompeius) Ad Att. VIII. 3, 3. This cannot mean that Pompey withstood Marcellus on March 1, 51, for by the end of May, 51, Marcellus had not made his relatio (Ad. Fam. VIII. 1, 2), and nobody knew till September what Pompey thought about it.
page 196 note 3 The text here is uncertain; but clearly the meaning of what Suetonius wrote was that in the opinion of Marcellus the Law of the Ten Tribunes had been repealed by Pompey's lex de iure magistratuum.
page 197 note 1 Plane perspecta Cn. Pompei uoluntate in earn pattern ut earn (sc. Caesarem) decedere post K Martias placeret (Ad Fam. VIII. 8, 4). That post K. Martias here refers to a time inclusive of the Kalendarum dies, and means ‘on or after March 1,’ is shown by a later passage in this letter (§ 9), where Pompey is quoted as saying, Se ante K. Martias non posse sine iniuria de prouinciis Caesaris statuere, post K. Martias se non dubitaturum. This passage also shows that in § 4 post K. Martias is to be connected with placeret, not with decedere.
page 197 note 2 Among the ‘interceding’ tribunes was C. Pansa, the well-known Caesarian and consul of 43. Nothing seems to be known about the others, C. Caelius, P. Cornelius, and L. Vinicius; it appears to be just possible that the last was consul suffectus in 33.
page 198 note 1 How thorough and emphatic was Pompey's approval of the position which the Senate was now taking up, may be seen from Ad Fam. VIII. 8, 9. It is not likely that the Senate was meaning to send out in 50 more than eight ex-praetors. But the nine reserved provinces were Cilicia, Bithynia with Pontus, Asia, Macedonia, Sicily, Sardinia with Corsica, Africa, Crete, and Cyrene; and the two last could easily be combined under a single governor.
page 198 note 2 Syria was one of the two provinces which were declared consular in January, 49, because civil war was then breaking out, and in Cisalpine Gaul, where feeling was so strongly Caesarian, no optimate governor could win a footing, while in Syria there would be important work to do in collecting troops and money, Cisalpine Gaul was therefore assigned pro forma to an ex-praetor. Transalpine Gaul was given to a consular, as there was some hope of making trouble for Caesar in and through Massilia.
page 199 note 1 When Caelius wrote the words, Si reformidarint, Caesar quoad uolet manebit, he seems to have thought it as likely (or unlikely) that the extremum certamen would be started in 50, as that it would come in 49.
page 200 note 1 The assignment of provinces in January, 49, was extraordinary; the last decree had been passed, and the governors appointed left the city at once paludati, without confirmation of their imperia by the people (B.C. I. 6, 5 and 6). But this was the natural result of the Senate's decision to remove the obstacle which had prevented it in 50 from making any assignment of provinces for 50–49, and which threatened to prevent an assignment for 49–48. Before the passing of the last decree, the Senate had voted that Caesar should dismiss his army ante certam diem (ib. 2, 6) —perhaps July 1, perhaps an earlier date. Caesar said afterwards, Doluisse se quod … erepto … semestri imperio in urbem retraheretur (ib. 9, 2). Apparently, if the order to disarm had been allowed to stand, and if Caesar had complied with it, an assignment of provinces for 49–48 would have been made in the regular way. But when that order was vetoed by Caesar's tribunes, the Senate declared a state of war, and took measures accordingly.
page 200 note 2 Ad Att. VII. 7, 6: Quid ergo? exercitum retinentis, cum legis dies transient, rationem haberi placet? Mihi vivo ne absentis quidem; sed cum id datum est, Mud una datum est. Annorum enim decent imperium et ita latum placet? Placet igitur etiam me expulsum, etc.
Ad Att. VII. 9, 4: Nam quid impudentius Tenuisti prouinciam per annos decem non tibi a senatu sed a te ipso per uint et per factionem datos; praeteriit tempus non legis sed libidinis tuae, fac tamen legis; ut succedatur decernitur; impedis et ais, ‘Habe meam rationem’ Habe tu nostram. Exercitum tu habeas diutius quam populus iussit, inuito senatu?
Ad Att. VII. 11, 1: Honestum igitur habere exercitum nullo publico consilio, occupare urbis ciuium quo facilior sit aditus ad patriam …?
