XXII
‘It is always the same at the end of civil wars, and it is not just the wishes of the victor which are carried through, for he also needs to humour those who have helped him to win.’ - Cicero, December 48 BC.1
‘As victor Caesar returned to the city and, in a way that almost exceeded human belief, pardoned all those who had carried arms against him.’ - Velleius Paterculus, early first century AD.2
Caesar reached Rome near the end of July 46 BC. The Senate had already voted him the staggering total of forty days of public thanksgiving for his latest victory - tactfully considered to be over King Juba and not his Roman allies. This was double the number awarded even for the defeat of Vercingetorix. Fourteen years earlier Caesar had given up the right to celebrate a triumph in his quest for the consulship. Now, after weeks of frantic preparation, he celebrated no less than four triumphs, over Gaul, Egypt and the Nile, Asia, and King Juba and Africa. In his long career Pompey had triumphed three times, and it is likely that most were aware that Caesar was now also commemorating victories won on the continents of Europe, Africa and Asia, just as his great rival had done. The celebrations began on 21 September, but were not held on consecutive days and so lasted until 2 October. The scale was lavish, with parades of prisoners, including Vercingetorix, the infant son of Juba, and Cleopatra’s sister Arsinoe. The latter is said to have inspired pity in the crowd and she and the boy were spared the fate of the Gaulish war leader, who was ritually strangled at the end of the Gallic triumph in the traditional way Tradition - certainly recent tradition - was altered in a number of special privileges granted to Caesar. One of the most conspicuous was the right to be preceded by no fewer than seventy-two lictors. A consul was normally attended by a dozen of these men and a dictator by twenty-four, and the number seems to have been intended to show that Caesar had held the latter office three times - six times the number who normally attended a consul and treble the amount given to a dictator. In addition, following precedents found only in the distant past of the Republic, Caesar rode in a chariot pulled by a team of white horses. However, if Suetonius and Dio are to be believed, early on in the first triumph - the one over Gaul - the axle on his chariot broke and he had to finish the procession in a hastily summoned replacement. Perhaps in expiation of this bad omen, at the end of the ceremony Caesar climbed on his knees up the steps of the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitol. Pliny tells us that Caesar always uttered a magical formula before setting out anywhere in a chariot because of some earlier accident, but clearly this did not have the desired effect on this occasion.3
In each of the processions were carts carrying the spoils taken from the enemy, usually weapons and armour as well as silver, gold and other precious objects. Others mounted placards carrying slogans - including the famous Veni, Vidi, Vici - or lists of achievements. It has often been suggested that Pliny’s figure of 1,192,000 enemies killed by Caesar during his campaigns was derived from adding up the numbers of enemy casualties proclaimed during his triumphs. Quantifying victory had always been important for the competitive aristocracy of Rome. Another tradition was to show paintings of notable scenes from the campaigns, and Caesar’s triumphs included many of these. Officially he was celebrating the defeat of foreign enemies of the Republic, and there was no mention or depiction of Pompey and Pharsalus. There were said to be pictures of Metellus Scipio stabbing himself to death and Cato tearing open his own wound. The sight provoked groans from the crowd, and has sometimes been seen as crass exultation over the defeat of his enemies that contrasted with his usual emphasis on clemency. Yet the sources do not suggest that the sight encouraged hostility to Caesar, and the reminders of the waste of life and horror of the Civil War were certainly encouragement to accept the new regime simply to avoid further conflict. The soldiers who marched in the procession wearing their decorations and finest equipment certainly had no qualms about causing offence. Long-standing tradition gave them licence to sing not just about their own deeds in the war, but to chant bawdy rhymes at the expense of their commander, for on a day of triumph normal military discipline was relaxed. Caesar’s veterans sang of his mistresses in Gaul, claiming that he had squandered on them the funds granted to him by the Republic, and warned the Romans to ‘lock up their wives’ because they brought with them the ‘bald adulterer’. They joked about how wrongdoing normally brought punishment, but that instead Caesar had made himself master of Rome through defying the Senate. Another verse recalled the old gossip about his time in Bithynia:
Caesar subdued Gaul - but Nicomedes subdued Caesar:
Behold now Caesar triumphs, who has conquered Gaul - Nicomedes does not triumph, although he conquered Caesar.4
This was the only slur that annoyed Caesar and soon afterwards he took a public oath denying that there was any truth in the allegation. Dio says that this only made him look ridiculous.5
In the days between the triumphal processions there were great feasts open to all, with no fewer than 22,000 tables laid out with the finest foods and wines. At nightfall after the final banquet, Caesar walked home in a procession whose progress was illuminated by twenty elephants that carried great torches. There were also theatrical performances, and at one of these he insisted that the famous equestrian playwright Decimus Laberius actually perform on stage. The latter resented this, but obeyed and had the satisfaction when he uttered the line ‘He whom many fear, must therefore fear many’ of seeing the audience all turn to face Caesar. After the performance Laberius was rewarded with 500,000 sestertii and a gold ring to signify restoration to the equestrian status that he had been forced to forfeit by appearing on stage - acting was not considered a proper activity for a wealthy citizen. Apart from the drama, there were sporting and athletic competitions, and - since Caesar finally celebrated the funeral games to Julia he had promised years before - gladiatorial fights. Chariots raced in the Circus, while special temporary venues were constructed for the athletics on the Campus Martius and some of the gladiatorial fights in the Forum. However, the scale of these was so massive that a few combats were staged elsewhere. Five days were devoted to beast fights, in which 400 lions were killed, as were a number of giraffes, animals never seen in Rome before. Apart from the usual matched pairs of gladiators, there was a battle between two armies each composed of 500 men on foot, 30 cavalry and 20 elephants. Another version claims that the twenty elephants and their riders fought each other separately. In addition there was a naval battle fought in a specially flooded lake dug on the right bank of the Tiber. All of these celebrations were intended to be bigger and more spectacular than anything Rome had ever seen before.
The city was packed with hordes of people who had come to see the celebrations. Many lived in tents pitched wherever there was open space, and Suetonius claims that a number of people, including two senators, were crushed to death in the crowds that thronged the great events. The cost was staggering, not simply for staging the entertainments and processions, but also through the more direct largesse that accompanied them. At the end of the triumphs Caesar gave 5,000 denarii to each of his soldiers - more than a legionary would earn even if he served a full sixteen-year term in the army. Centurions each got 10,000, while the tribunes and prefects, most of whom were equestrians, received 20,000 apiece. In each case this was probably more than he had promised the men during the Civil War. Yet he also now chose to extend his generosity to the civilian population and especially the poorer inhabitants of Rome, each of whom was given 100 denarii, as well as gifts of wheat and olive oil. Some of the soldiers were angered by this gesture, which they saw as an unnecessary sharing of the wealth that they had earned. Doubtless drink and the atmosphere of holiday also contributed to this discontent, which led to an outbreak of rioting. Caesar had not been willing to back down in the face of mutiny and was no more inclined to do so now. He had one of the rioters led off and executed. Two more were ceremonially beheaded by the college of pontiffs and the Flamen Martialis (the priest of Mars). The ritual, whose precise meaning escapes us, took place on the Campus Martius, but the two heads were taken into the Forum and displayed near the Regia. Order was restored and the period of celebration was overwhelmingly successful. Caesar had always been a good showman and had given thought not only to the displays but also to the comfort of the crowds. At several performances silk awnings were erected to provide shade for the audience.6
REWARDS AND SETTLEMENTS
In general the crowd had delighted in Caesar’s triumphs, celebrations and games, although Dio claims that some people were shocked by the scale of the bloodshed during the gladiatorial fights. The dictator’s habit of reading letters and dictating to his secretaries while watching these shows was disliked by the people, but gave indication of the sheer amount of business that required his attention. Caesar had not fought the Civil War in order to reform the Republic, and in spite of what Cicero and others later claimed, there is no evidence that he had been aiming at supreme rule for much of his life. He had wanted a second consulship and doubtless had planned a programme of legislation for his twelve-month term of office. Instead, he had - at least in his own mind - been forced to fight the Civil War, and his victory brought him far greater power. His third consulship in 46 BC was followed by a fourth and fifth term in 45 and 44 BC respectively, and for most of this period he was also dictator and had a number of additional rights granted to him by the Senate. He was not in Rome for the entire time, since the last campaign of the Civil War took him to Spain in November 46 BC and he did not return to Italy until the following summer. This makes the sheer scale and scope of his legislation and reforms all the more astonishing. Caesar was constantly at work and, though his assistants such as Oppius and Balbus clearly undertook a good deal of the detailed work of framing laws, the basic concepts seem always to have been his. Given the comparatively short time period it is unsurprising that some projects were never actually begun, while many more were uncompleted at his death. It is also not always easy to establish what precisely he did do, and even harder to discern his intentions. His assassination was followed by renewed civil war between his partisans and assassins, during which it was clearly in each sides’ interest to put forward radically different claims of his long-term aims.
To add to the confusion, the civil wars would finally be ended when Caesar’s adopted son Octavian - later named Augustus - became Rome’s first emperor. Following the adoption his name was formally Caius Julius Caesar Octavianus. This meant that whether Caesar himself or his adopted son passed a law or founded a colony, each would be known as a lex Julia or colonia Julia respectively. Therefore, if only the name is preserved without any indication of date, it is often impossible to know which of the two was responsible. It is especially confusing since it is known that in some cases Augustus implemented a design of Caesar’s, whereas on other issues his thinking was very different. Detailed discussion of each possible measure introduced by Caesar would require immense space and take us too far from our main purpose. Instead what follows is an overview, concentrating on the more generally accepted acts.7
It is obvious that Caesar wielded immense power, but there has been little consensus amongst scholars about his overall aims. Some would like to see him as a visionary who discerned the problems facing the Republic, realised that its system of government could simply no longer cope with the changed circumstances of empire, and understood that a form of monarchy was the only answer. His plans included not only political change but a radical shift in the relationship between Rome and the rest of Italy, and of both to the provinces. A comment in a letter to Metellus Scipio in 48 BC,that Caesar wanted only ‘tranquillity for Italy, peace for the provinces, and security for [Roman] power’ has sometimes been taken as a clear programme. Critics of this view would instead see it as a vague slogan employed in the midst of civil war. For them Caesar was not a radical reformer or visionary, but a deeply conservative aristocrat who won power in a quest for personal glory and status within the Republic. Motivated by such traditional ambitions, he had little idea of what to do once he took control of Rome. In this view his numerous reforms dealing with such a wide range of different issues were the sign not of a coherent programme, but of the total absence of any broader design. Caesar tinkered with so many things simply because he did not know what to do and instead just kept himself busy, mistaking activity for achievement. Both views are extreme, and most scholars have more reasonably adopted a position somewhere between the two, but before returning to this question it will be useful to review the evidence.8
Caesar did not take over a Republic that was functioning effectively. The Civil War had disrupted the entire Roman world, but even before that the institutions of the State had been struggling for many years to cope with turbulent and often violent political struggles. Respect for tradition - and the extent to which Caesar himself felt this need not concern us too much, since he was aware of its importance to others - had to be balanced against the practical importance of providing effective government as soon as possible. There was also always the central importance of dealing with individuals, both those who had fought for him and deserved reward and those who had opposed him, and who now required either generosity to win them over or stern judgement. In the autumn of 46 BC Caesar began the colonisation programme to provide farms for his veteran soldiers. His intention was to employ public land or properties confiscated from dead or incorrigible Pompeians, but where this was insufficient land was to be bought at a fair rate. As he had told the mutineers, Caesar was anxious to avoid the upheaval and hardship caused when Sulla gave land to his troops. At first it seems that only the men who had served their full term of service were discharged - we do not know what proportion of the army this was - and the remainder were to wait until they were demobilised at the proper time. The focus was mainly on Italy, but there were also veterans settled in North Africa and in Transapline Gaul, where, for instance, the colony at Narbo seems to have been expanded. In the same way that he had given money to the people of Rome as well as the soldiers to commemorate his triumphs, Caesar now also included civilians in his colonisation programme. A number of colonies were created in the provinces, and even more planned as part of a programme that would see the resettling of 80,000 people. Caius Gracchus’ plan of a colony on the site of Carthage was revived, and another new settlement was set down at Corinth, which like Carthage had been destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC. In some cases the selection of locations was intended to punish communities that had sided against him in the war, but even so this was not intended to be especially harsh. The whole programme of colonisation required immense effort, surveyors going out to all the regions under consideration, and correct ownership of land being investigated before lots were marked out and the process of allocating them to individuals begun. At every stage Caesar and his staff appear to have been open to pleas from interested parties. Cicero successfully secured an exemption for the community of Buthrotum in Epirus on behalf of his friend Atticus, who owned an estate and had interests there. As far as possible the intention was to satisfy the discharged veterans and civilian settlers without causing too much hardship to the regions where the colonies were set down - especially when these had influential friends.
There was a great tradition of distribution of land to citizens by popularis politicians, stretching back far beyond the Gracchi. Caesar’s agrarian law had been the cornerstone of his legislative programme in 59 BC, and now with greater freedom of action he had resumed his activity on a far greater scale. He rewarded his soldiers, and also removed a potentially volatile section of Rome’s population and gave them the means to support themselves and their families. Politically he gained from this, and placed very many people in his debt, but at the same time it greatly increased the number of affluent citizens. There is no reason to doubt that Caesar - and indeed many contemporaries - did not feel that the programme of colonisation was good for the State as well as in his own interest. In 59 BC even Cato had felt that the only thing wrong with Caesar’s agrarian law was the man who presented it. Yet the scale of these projects was enormous and could not be rushed. Only a small part of his plans in this respect were complete by Caesar’s death. Ambitious plans to drain the Pomptine marshes and so provide a fresh supply of good farmland do not seem to have moved beyond the theoretical stage, but do suggest plans for further distributions and so a major attempt to provide livelihoods for more poor citizens. Another project that does not seem to have been started was the plan to alter the course of the Tiber, improving river access and protecting parts of the city vulnerable to flooding.9
Army officers, especially tribunes and centurions, also benefited from the land distribution. Caesar’s more distinguished followers were rewarded with high office, and this resulted in a number of alterations to the traditional pattern of magistracies. In 47 BC he had increased the number of praetors from eight to ten. In the autumn of the following year there was insufficient time between returning from Africa and going to Spain for most elections to be held. Therefore, when he returned from Spain in October 45 BC he promptly had fourteen praetors and forty quaestors elected for what remained of the year, with sixteen praetors and another forty quaestors to take up office on 1 January 44 BC. At the same time he resigned his own consulship for 45 BC, which he had held without a colleague, just like Pompey in the opening months of 52 BC. His legates Fabius and Trebonius were duly elected replacement or suffect consuls for the rest of the year. Although the Senate had granted him the right to appoint magistrates, Caesar contented himself with sending recommendations to be read aloud at the relevant voting assembly - ‘Caesar the dictator to [the name of the tribe]. I commend to you such and such to hold the dignity of office by your vote.’ These seem always to have been successful, and it may well be that no rivals bothered to put their names forward. To some extent this preserved the proper formalities, but Caesar’s obvious desire to grant to numerous followers the dignity and status of the high magistracies acted against this. When Fabius Maximus went to watch a play and was announced as consul, the audience is said to have yelled out, ‘He is no consul!’ He died on the morning of his last day in office. Caesar received the news while presiding over a meeting of the Tribal Assembly, which was going to elect quaestors for the next year. Instead, he had the people reconvene as the Comitia Centuriata and vote for a new consul. Just after midday another of his legates from Gaul was chosen, Caius Caninius Rebilus, whose spell as consul therefore lasted no more than a few hours. A few days later Cicero joked that ‘in the consulship of Caninius nobody ate lunch. However, nothing bad occurred while he was consul - for his vigilance was so incredible that throughout his entire consulship he never went to sleep.’ At the time he is supposed to have urged everyone to rush and congratulate Caninius before his office expired. Privately he thought the affair more a matter for tears than wit.10
Caesar’s replacement consuls can rarely have had time to achieve much during their term of office, even supposing that they were granted any freedom of action and not simply expected to put through his legislation. Yet they gained the dignity and symbols of the office. Caesar actually granted ten former praetors consular status without ever holding the senior magistracy, for he had many followers to reward and limited time. Resigning and appointing replacements in this way was not illegal, but was unprecedented and scarcely added to the dignity of the office. In a similar way the dramatic increase in the numbers of other posts inevitably devalued these to some extent, but in this case there was more practical justification. Sulla had fixed the number of praetors at eight because this was adequate to provide enough governors for the provinces then controlled by the Republic. Since his day, Rome’s empire had increased markedly by conquest and annexation and there was a real need for more magistrates to administrate the new provinces. Men elected to the quaestorship were automatically enrolled as senators, so that the House would be augmented by at least forty new members each year. Caesar was also granted the power to create new senators, and to grant patrician status as he felt necessary.
Even before the disruption and losses of the Civil War the censorship had failed to function properly in practice, often because of squabbles between the colleagues holding the post. Thus the ranks of the Senate were depleted. Caesar appointed hundreds of new senators, compensating for the losses and then expanding the House dramatically. Sulla had doubled the Senate in size to around 600, but by the time of Caesar’s death there were somewhere between 800-900 members. A few of these were men who had been expelled from its ranks in previous years, or whose families had been barred from public life because of their Marian sympathies. Most of the new members were from established equestrian families, including many who came from the local aristocracies of Italy, but they may also have included a few former centurions. There were also a few from citizen families outside Italy, including a number of Gauls from the Cisalpine, and probably also Transalpine, provinces. There were jokes at the time of the ‘barbarians’ taking off their trousers to put on a toga, and someone daubed up a slogan in the Forum proclaiming that it would be a good deed not to tell any of the new senators the way to the Senate House. It is unlikely that any of the ‘foreigners’ added to the Senate were not fluent in Latin, well educated and in cultural respects little different from genuinely Roman aristocrats.11
A few of the appointments may have been unsuitable - as we have seen, Caesar is supposed often to have said that he would reward even criminals if they had helped him. A number of the men he appointed to provincial commands were subsequently charged with and condemned for corruption and extortion. One was the future historian Sallust, who had been left behind to govern Africa after Thapsus. In his writing he protested his innocence and it is just possible that he was more naive than corrupt. Another loyal follower with an established reputation for cruelty was refused a province by Caesar, who instead let him have a gift of money. Yet in general Caesar’s new senators were probably little different from other members of the House. Corruption, pettiness, incompetence and many other vices had all in the past been displayed frequently by the scions of many of the oldest and noblest families of Rome. A more serious charge might be that in enlarging the Senate in this way Caesar made it too big to function effectively as a forum for debate. This is certainly possible, but there was so much business to conduct that only a small proportion was actually debated in the House during these last years of Caesar’s life. More often matters were decided by Caesar and his advisors behind closed doors, who then issued a decree as if produced by the Senate, even including an invented list of attendees at the meeting. Cicero was surprised to receive a number of letters from rulers or communities in the provinces thanking him for voting to grant their petitions, since in most cases he had not even heard of them before and had certainly not taken part in any meeting to discuss the matter. So many things needed attention that there was simply not time to deal with them in the proper way, although it is interesting that Caesar ensured that his decisions were presented in the correct traditional form, especially to distant communities who would have no idea that this was a sham. Oppius and Balbus were his two main assistants in such work and both remained outside the Senate during his lifetime. Although the manner in which it was conducted was unprecedented and unconstitutional, it is notable that even his critics did not claim that Caesar and his associates generally did not make good and sensible administrative decisions.12
Cicero was one of a large number of former Pompeians who had been pardoned by Caesar and now sat in the Senate - at least when it actually met - alongside his partisans. At first he resolved to take no part in debates, devoting his energies to writing instead of public life. Servilia’s son Brutus was another such man, although he chose to be more active and was sent by Caesar to govern Cisalpine Gaul, probably as propraetor although he had not yet held the magistracy. His brother-in-law Cassius also accepted a post as legate around this time. Other Pompeians had ceased to fight, but had not formally surrendered themselves to Caesar for judgement and could not return to Italy without his permission, so waited in exile, hoping that family and friends would be able to persuade him to be lenient. It was rumoured that he took some pleasure in responding slowly in the case of his most vitriolic opponents, feeling that the nervousness this engendered was some small payment for the trouble they had caused him. One of these was Marcus Claudius Marcellus, the consul for 51 BC, who had begun the concerted attack on Caesar’s position and flogged the magistrate from Novum Comum (see p.363). He had not taken much active part in the Civil War that his actions had helped to precipitate, but still refused to write to Caesar directly. Instead his case was raised by Caesar’s father-in-law Piso, backed by Marcellus’ cousin, the consul for 50 BC and the husband of Caesar’s great-niece, as well as the other senators present at the meeting. Caesar granted their request, prompting Cicero to break his silence and launch into a speech of praise for the man who preferred to place the ‘auctoritas of the Senate and the dignity of the Republic before personal wrongs and suspicion’. Not long afterwards he made another speech - this time in the Forum rather than in the Senate - urging the recall of Quintus Ligarius. Plutarch says that before he began Caesar openly declared that Ligarius was an enemy who did not deserve mercy, but that, although his mind was already made up, he would still listen to Cicero for the sheer pleasure of hearing his oratory. In the event the speech moved him to tears and prompted an immediate pardon. Gradually a trickle of Pompeians, some of them very distinguished, returned to Rome and some at least to public life. Marcellus was not amongst them, for he was murdered by one of his household in a domestic dispute before he was able to enjoy his pardon. In addition a growing number of men who had remained neutral were persuaded to take office under Caesar, such as the noted jurist Sergius Sulpicius Rufus, who went out as governor to Greece. Cicero continued to be active publicly and for a while at least was optimistic, advising Caesar to do more to restore the Republic to a proper condition.13
TIDYING UP
Caesar’s programme of colonisation removed a significant part of Rome’s population, but he was also very concerned to improve and regulate the living conditions of those who remained. He looked closely at the system for giving out free grain to citizens and judged that it was subject to abuse and badly run. A new calculation of those eligible to receive this was made, based on a survey of the city’s population conducted on a street-by-street basis, and making use of information provided by landlords for those living in their tenements. The overall number of recipients was reduced from 320,000 to 150,000 names. The new figure was fixed and arrangements made for the praetors to add new names when the deaths of recipients created vacancies on the lists. Some of those taken from the list are likely to have found work and a wage in Caesar’s continuing and massive building projects focused around the saepta on the Campus Martius and his new Forum complex. Apart from his lavish shows and games, Caesar also found other ways to benefit Rome and seems likely to have been influenced by what he had seen in Hellenistic cities, most of all Alexandria. He granted citizenship to any doctor or teacher willing to come and work in Rome. In direct emulation of the famous Library at Alexandria, he gave orders for the creation of a similar centre of learning at Rome, placing Terentius Varro, the famous scholar - and former Pompeian commander in Spain - in charge of the task of gathering the works of Latin and Greek literature. Another plan involved the thorough codification of Roman law, but this may not have even begun and was not actually achieved for several centuries.14
One of Caesar’s most lasting projects was the reorganisation of the calendar, and again this showed Hellenistic influence with the Alexandrian astronomer Sosigenes playing a leading role in the calculations. Rome’s existing calendar consisted of 355 days, was based originally on the lunar cycle and needed constant modification. The college of pontiffs - of which Caesar was the most senior - were charged with adding extra or intercalary months at their discretion in an effort to keep the official year at least vaguely connected to the seasons of the natural year. It was a confusing system and one open to political manipulation, for instance, extending the year of office of an associate. During his time as proconsul of Cilicia, Cicero had been very nervous that someone would do this and thus postpone the date on which he could leave and return to Rome. By the time of the Civil War the calendar was running some three months ahead of the actual seasons. Caesar’s system was far more logical and was intended to function without any need for annual changes. One intercalary month of about three weeks had already been inserted into 46 BC at the end of February Two more were now added between November and December so that the year eventually consisted of 445 days. This was to allow the new calendar to begin on 1 January 45 BC at what was thought to be the proper time in the solar cycle. The Julian calendar had months that varied in length but added up to a total of 365 days. Every fourth year a single day, rather than an entire month, was added after 23 February It does not seem to have been given its own number. This system remains in use with the Orthodox churches, but in the sixteenth century it was slightly modified under the auspices of Pope Gregory XIII and this Gregorian calendar is the one followed today Caesar’s reform was practical and removed confusion and the possibility for political abuse. It also added ten days to the year, each of which was considered to be fas or a day on which public business, such as summoning the Senate or the Assemblies, could be conducted. Even so there is some sign that the change - or more accurately the fact that Caesar imposed it - was resented. When someone mentioned to Cicero that the constellation of Lyra was due to rise on the next day, he remarked snidely that obviously it did so in accordance with official command.15
Caesar was certainly concerned with regulation, much of it well within Roman tradition. In the past many sumptuary laws had been passed with the aim of restricting excessive luxury amongst Rome’s elite. Caesar brought in one of his own, forbidding the use of litters and the wearing of purple clothes or pearls, save by certain named individuals or groups on specific days. Various exotic and expensive foods were banned and men set around the Forum to watch what the shops were selling. There were even stories of soldiers breaking into houses and confiscating forbidden foods from the dinner table. In the long run his law had as little impact as earlier legislation. The purpose behind it was in part political, to deny potential rivals - or at least potentially disruptive politicians - the chance to display their wealth or win support through lavish entertainment. There may also have been a desire that the merchants in the city should devote more effort to providing essential goods rather than the exotic. Even Caesar does not seem to have had much hope that the rules would be obeyed as soon as his back was turned. Perhaps there was also a desire for a return to traditional frugality, so often praised, if rarely emulated, by the Romans, although if this was the case then it was more than a little ironic that it came from Caesar, the noted collector of pearls and fine art. Dio also claims that he wished to encourage the birth rate by offering incentives for families with three or more children. Yet his restrictions were not simply felt by those well enough off to want luxuries. The collegia, the guilds of particular trades or regions of the city that men like Clodius had turned into political gangs, were now banned. The only exceptions to the law were legitimate associations - the synagogue meetings of Rome’s Jewish population were expressly given an exemption. Roman citizens between the ages of twenty and forty were forbidden to spend more than three consecutive years abroad, unless serving as a soldier or in another official capacity. Particular attention was paid to senators’ sons, who were barred from going abroad at all other than on the staff of a governor or with the army The aim of such laws is unclear, although presumably the restriction on young aristocrats may have been intended to stop them joining armed opponents and so compromising the rest of the family Other bills were far more practical, dealing with keeping the streets of Rome clean and the administration and infrastructure of the city in good working order. There was a popularis tone to many of Caesar’s measures, but the reforms themselves were not extreme. He tried to improve the lot of many different sections of society and there was a clear effort not to indulge any one group at the expense of others.16
It was not simply Rome that concerned Caesar. Probably with memories of Spartacus’ rebellion, he passed a law that stipulated that at least one- third of the workforce on the great ranching estates of southern Italy must be free rather than servile labour. It has sometimes been suggested that he laid down a template for the constitutions of the towns or municipia of Italy, although this question is fiercely debated. He may have taken an interest in such things, and it does seem that much of his legislation was intended to apply also in Italy and the provinces. Much of his time during the campaigns fought around the Mediterranean had been spent in settling disputes and confirming or modifying the regulations covering communities and monarchs in the provinces. As we have seen, raising funds was a major concern on such occasions, but he was also eager to leave behind stable and peaceful regions, if only because discontent could readily lead to rebellions that would aid his Roman enemies. Early in his career he had made a name in prosecutions against corrupt provincial governors, and during his first consulship had passed a law regulating the behaviour of these magistrates. As dictator he added further restrictions, one of the most significant of which was to set their term of office at no more than two years for a proconsul and just twelve months for a propraetor. Dio felt that this was intended to prevent anyone else from following his own example, but even critics saw the measure as sensible.17
THE SPANISH CAMPAIGN, AUTUMN 46-SPRING 45 BC
An unwise appointment as governor precipitated the last major episode of the Civil War. Quintus Cassius Longinus had served in Spain as quaestor and was left to govern the Further Spain province after the defeat of Afranius and Petreius. Through a combination of greed and his own unpleasant temperament, he managed to make himself loathed by provincials and his own troops alike. This led to rebellion and mutiny, with many openly declaring their defection to the Pompeians. Cassius survived one assassination attempt, but subsequently decided to flee and was eventually drowned when the ship carrying him and his plunder foundered. Before this Caesar had heard of his misbehaviour and assigned a replacement, but the damage had already been done. Pompey’s sons Cnaeus and Sextus soon arrived in Spain to rally support in this region that had so many connections with their father. After Thapsus, Labienus and other refugees joined them. Caesar at first felt the problem was a minor one and hoped that his legates could deal with the Pompeians without requiring him to go to Spain in person. By the end of November 46 BC he judged that this was not sufficient and set out to take charge. As noted earlier, no senior magistrates had been elected and instead he left Rome in the charge of Lepidus as Master of Horse, aided by eight appointed prefects, although much of the day-to-day decision making was in the hands of Oppius and Balbus. In less than four weeks - Suetonius says twenty-four days, but several other sources say twenty-seven - he reached the theatre of operations in Further Spain. To keep himself occupied he not only conducted his normal business from the carriage, but also composed a poem entitled The Journey (Iter). Cnaeus lacked his father’s talent as a soldier, but he was an extremely determined individual who now found himself at the head of an army consisting of thirteen legions as well as numerous auxiliaries. After Caesar left for Spain there was concern that even after all his victories he might be defeated, for he could muster only eight legions, just two of which - the Fifth Alaudae and the Tenth minus its time- expired men - were considered veteran. Amongst the former Pompeians who had come to terms with Caesar there was also much nervousness, for Cnaeus was known to be an irascible man. In January 45 BC Cassius - the brother-in-law of Brutus and future conspirator - wrote to Cicero and expressed his concern:
Now to return to matters affecting the Republic, report what’s happening in Spain. I am really worried by this, and would rather stick with the old clement master than have a new and cruel one. You know how fatuous Cnaeus is; you know how he mistakes cruelty for courage, and how he thinks we always mock him. I am afraid he’ll repay our wit with the sword in peasant fashion.18
An account of the campaign known as the Spanish War was written by one of Caesar’s officers, but is by far the least satisfactory of the books added to his Commentaries. Many of the details of these operations elude us and a brief summary will suffice. When Caesar reached Spain he learned that the enemy had been besieging the town of Ulia for some months, and that this was the only important community in the immediate area that had remained loyal to him. To relieve the pressure on the town, he immediately marched against Corduba, the capital of the province. It was defended by Sextus Pompeius, and his pleas for help soon drew his older brother and the main army away from Ulia. Cnaeus shadowed and harassed Caesar’s army as he settled down to a winter siege of Corduba, but he refused to be drawn into a pitched battle. Conditions were difficult and from the very beginning the campaign was fought with extreme savagery by both sides. Deciding that the city was too strong to take and that no useful purpose was served by staying where he was, Caesar withdrew and instead besieged the smaller town of Ategua. Pompey followed, but still declined to fight a battle. Considerable progress was made in the siegeworks and it soon became clear that a substantial part of the population wished to surrender. Subsequently, the commander of the Pompeian garrison had all those suspected of this brought up to the walls and slaughtered along with their families. Even so Cnaeus was unable to aid them and eventually the garrison surrendered on 19 February 45 BC. Defections of provincial communities to Caesar were now becoming common, as were desertions from the Pompeian legions. Cnaeus responded with executions of suspects. Near the end of the month Caesar’s men captured four enemy scouts and crucified three of them because they were slaves. The remaining man, a legionary, was beheaded as befitted a citizen. As Pompeius retreated Caesar followed, and approached the town of Urso (modern Osuna). The enemy camped near the town of Munda some 6 miles away.19
On the morning of 17 March, Cnaeus led his men out of camp and deployed in battle order on the ridge outside Munda. Caesar judged that this was the chance to fight the battle that he had desired since the beginning of the campaign and ordered his own army to take positions on the plain in front of the enemy He expected the Pompeians to come down and fight on level ground, since they were showing every sign of confidence. However, Cnaeus kept his men on the slope, but Caesar decided to attack anyway, in spite of the disadvantage his troops would face. Numbers were probably also against them, although it is doubtful that all thirteen of the Pompeian legions were present in full strength, given losses earlier in the campaign and the need to detach troops as garrisons. Caesar did have significantly more cavalry than the enemy, but the ground was not immediately favourable for its use. Caesar trusted to his luck, ability and the bravery of his troops, who as at Thapsus expressed their frustration at any delay As usual the Tenth was on the right, the Fifth and Third - possibly the unit that had served him in Gaul and then been taken over by Pompey - on the left flank, with five more legions forming the centre. Caesar gave the order to advance, but the enemy did not match the movement until the last minute when they launched a counter-attack. The fighting was bitter and for a while seemed to be going Cnaeus’ way. At one point some of the Caesareans began to waver and there was a danger that his line might collapse. As at the Sambre years before, Caesar was a match for the crisis and rushed to the spot. He is said to have advanced to within 10 paces of the enemy line. At first he was alone, dodging the missiles or catching them in his shield, but he was then joined by the nearest officers, and finally by the legionaries. The tale is not included in the Spanish War, and doubtless grew in the telling, but gives some indication of the desperate struggle at Munda. According to Plutarch Caesar later said that he had often fought for victory, but that this was the first time he had fought for his very life. The Tenth were the first to break through, punching a hole in the enemy left and exploiting it in spite of their small numbers. Cnaeus ordered Labienus to take a legion and plug the gap, but Caesar’s cavalry were already enveloping the Pompeians’ other flank. As they struggled to meet this crisis the whole army swiftly collapsed into flight. The toughness of the fighting was shown by the fact that Caesar lost around 1,000 men, more than at Pharsalus, and a high proportion from an army that is unlikely to have numbered much more than 25,000-30,000. Pompeian casualties are said to have numbered over 33,000, although this was probably an exaggeration. Caesar’s legionaries erected a grisly trophy topped with severed heads outside Munda, which resisted siege for some time. Labienus was killed in the battle. Cnaeus Pompeius was wounded, but escaped only to be caught some weeks later. He was beheaded and the head sent to Caesar. Sextus escaped in command of a small squadron of ships, but for the foreseeable future he was in no position to pose any significant threat. Although a few Pompeians still kept on fighting, the Civil War was effectively over.20
Battle of Munda
News of the victory reached Rome about a month later, and prompted the Senate to decree fifty days of thanksgiving. Caesar was also granted the title of ‘Liberator’, and a Temple of Liberty was to be set up. In addition he was given the title Imperator permanently - in the past a general had only been hailed in this way by his soldiers immediately after a victory. He remained in Spain for some time, mopping up the last strongholds that remained loyal to the Pompeians and also resettling the province. However, he still found time for his usual flood of correspondence, and we know that near the end of April he wrote to Cicero to offer condolences at the death of his beloved daughter Tullia. Cicero was an important public figure whose political friendship Caesar greatly desired to encourage, but in this case it may have been more than just a question of formality since he knew what it meant to lose a daughter. Cicero was far fonder of Tullia than of either his wife or son, and he never truly recovered from the loss. In Spain, Caesar was busy re-forming a number of towns as colonies, which included existing inhabitants as well as parties of discharged veterans or other settlers. He was eager to reward the loyalty of both soldiers and civilians, provincials and citizens. During his return journey he paused for several weeks in Transalpine Gaul, carrying out similar administrative tasks and looking at the progress of veteran settlement at Narbo and Arelate (Arles). The Gaulish towns of the province were granted Latin status, which meant that their magistrates automatically received full Roman citizenship after their term of office. Mark Antony met him in Gaul and the rift between the two was clearly healed.
Caesar did not return to Italy until late in the summer, and then seems to have remained outside Rome until he celebrated another triumph at the beginning of October. This time there was no doubt that he was commemorating a victory over a Roman foe. In an unprecedented act he also permitted two of his legates, Quintus Pedius and the Fabius whom he would shortly make consul for the remainder of the year, to celebrate triumphs for the Spanish campaign. None of this was popular with critics in the Senate. During his own triumph Caesar was annoyed when the tribune Pontius Aquila, alone of the college of ten, refused to stand as he passed. Aquila was a former Pompeian who had suffered the confiscation of some of his property, but had evidently been permitted to pursue a public career. The sight so angered Caesar that he lost his temper and called out mockingly, ‘Come on, Tribune Aquila, take the Republic back from me!’ Unwilling to let the matter drop easily, for the next few days he is said to have not made a promise to anyone without adding the sarcastic caveat, ‘That is, as long as Pontius Aquila lets me.’21
Caesar’s honours were now exceptional. He was made dictator for ten years and all magistrates were formally subordinate to him. To this he added the consulship, for as much of each year as he chose to retain it. Soon this was extended to the formal right to hold the office for ten years. According to Dio he was also given the powers and rights of a tribune of the plebs, although this is not mentioned in other sources. In addition, he controlled the entire Roman army, as well as the Republic’s Treasury. The honours accepted by him - which Dio tells us represented a small fraction of those awarded him by a sycophantic Senate, being merely the ones he chose to take - were staggering. At formal meetings in the Senate or Forum he sat on a special chair of office between the two consuls. An ivory statue of him was included with the statues of the gods and carried in a special carriage at the ceremonies opening the games. There was also a statue of him set up on the Capitol near those of the kings, and one in the Temple of Quirinus, another name for Rome’s mythical founder Romulus. This amused Cicero, since there was a story that Romulus had been torn to pieces by senators and he joked that he was happier to see Caesar with Quirinus than with Salus, the personification of good health and safety. By this time he had become less optimistic than he had been a year before when Caesar had pardoned Marcellus and other leading opponents. It was clear that Caesar held supreme power and showed no sign of returning complete freedom of action to the Senate. Most key decisions were made privately, by men like Oppius and Balbus when the dictator himself was absent. It was not that the decisions themselves were bad, but what bothered him was how and by whom they were taken. For a senator, especially one who had held high office and was used to a prominent role in its debates, important matters should only ever be dealt with in the proper manner by the Senate. The Senate should in turn be guided by its best and most distinguished members, composed primarily of the established aristocracy, joined - so he had always desired - by a handful of talented new men like himself. That was the tradition, and Caesar’s position was a clear violation of this senatorial ideal.22
Many senators were willing to tolerate Caesar’s exceptional power as long as the crisis and the threat of renewed civil war remained, but as soon as this was removed were desperate for a return to normality and the prominence of their own class. Brutus met Caesar as the latter passed through Cisalpine Gaul on his way back to Italy and felt that he ‘was going over to the good men’ - one of those expressions like ‘best men’, which always meant those allied and of like mind to the speaker. Cicero thought the view absurdly naive. It is probable that Caesar had at the same meeting promised Brutus the praetorship for 44 BC and the consulship as soon as he was old enough in 41 BC, which may have contributed to his enthusiasm. Brutus had always shown great respect for his uncle Cato, but this had grown markedly since his uncle had chosen to die rather than accept clemency like his nephew. He divorced his wife, who was a daughter of Appius Claudius - the man himself had died of natural causes early on in the Macedonian campaign - and instead married Cato’s daughter Porcia. Marriage between cousins was not that uncommon amongst Rome’s elite. Porcia was the widow of Bibulus and thus had an even greater association with Caesar’s most bitter opponents. In 46 BC Brutus wrote a book entitled Cato, which was a fiercely eulogistic work in praise of his uncle. Cicero claimed it was sloppily researched and was annoyed that Cato’s role in the debate over the Catilinarian rebels was exaggerated and his own part played down. Nevertheless, at Brutus’ urging, Cicero was persuaded to write his own Cato, which focused on the latter’s personal virtue and steadfastness rather than his political career, for he was eager not to cause Caesar too much offence. This was also easier in other respects, since in the past Cicero had often doubted Cato’s judgement in public life. He was subsequently delighted when he was shown a letter from Caesar in which the latter declared that through studying Cicero’s book he had improved his own literary style. In contrast he said that reading Brutus’ Cato made him feel like a better writer himself.23
Within months of his suicide, one of Caesar’s bitterest opponents was being held up as the ideal of aristocratic virtue in books which were openly circulated and widely praised. One was written by an ex-consul who was acknowledged as Rome’s foremost living orator, and the other by Brutus, widely believed to be the foremost of the up and coming men of his generation. When Sulla was dictator no-one would have dared to praise one of his enemies in this way Yet from the beginning Caesar had declared that he would not emulate Sulla, and did not deviate from this now. When the books were released he found time to read them, but was too busy with the campaign against Cnaeus Pompeius to do anything about it. Instead he ordered Hirtius to collect material and produce his own book criticising Cato. After defeating the Pompeians, Caesar then used this as a basis for writing his own Anticato. The work has not survived, but it was clearly highly abusive. It claimed that when Cato cremated his half brother he had adorned the body in fine clothes and precious metals, but subsequently had the ashes sieved to retrieve the melted gold. This may have been simple invention, but Cato’s lifestyle had been highly eccentric and did offer much material for Caesar to work with. One of the oddest episodes of his life was his decision to divorce the wife who had given him a number of children, so that his friend the famous orator Hortensius could marry her and have offspring of his own. Hortensius was fabulously wealthy, and when he died a little later, Cato remarried the widow, and thus resumed what had always been a successful marriage and at the same time brought a lot of property and money into the family Such behaviour was at best strange, or - as Caesar averred - deeply cynical.
It is tempting to see flashes of personal anger in the Anticato, although it is worth remembering that political invective at Rome was often wildly exaggerated and frequently vulgar. Cato had hated Caesar bitterly, had frustrated him in a number of their public encounters and, finally, had played a major part in causing the Civil War. ‘They wanted this’ - Caesar’s comment at Pharsalus could most of all be applied to Cato, the man whose implacable hostility had, he felt, forced him to cross the Rubicon, to fight and to kill so many fellow citizens and tear the Roman world apart. From his point of view there was reason enough to loathe Cato, or if not the man himself, then what he felt the man had made him do. Perhaps there was an emotional element adding to the invective of the Anticato, but the most significant part of the whole episode was that Caesar contented himself with simply writing this response. He did not in any way withdraw his friendship from either Cicero or Brutus, but sought instead to persuade educated Romans not to idolise Cato. In this he failed, for as an ideal of stern virtue and unflinching constancy Cato was much easier to revere than he had been as a living, active politician.24
Caesar’s regime was not repressive and, for all his flashes of temper and jibes at the dead Cato, or the living Pontius Aquila, it did not become any more harsh after Munda. Yet discontent remained widespread. Cicero wrote a draft letter of advice on how to reform and restore the Republic, but took care to show it to Oppius and Balbus before sending it to Caesar. They suggested so many alterations that he felt unable to complete the task. When he heard of Brutus’ optimism about Caesar’s intention to join the good men, with black humour he wondered how this would be achieved ‘unless he hangs himself’. The Civil War was over, problems long neglected were being addressed so that large numbers of people were better off than they had been for a long time. Rome itself now enjoyed a peace and stability that had rarely been its lot for more than a decade. Yet the scars of the war were deep. So many had died - especially amongst the famous names of the Senate - and some of those who lived had to cope with the consequences of their decisions during those turbulent years. Caesar had employed clemency and political skill to win over the neutrals and his defeated opponents, but ultimately his position had been gained through military force. In a way the situation had much in common with the creation of a settlement in conquered Gaul. Caesar had to persuade his fellow citizens, especially the aristocratic elite, that tolerating his dominance was preferable to opposing it. This was the final test.25