NOTES

Note to the reader: Many of the ancient sources cited below appear as part of the Loeb Classical Library series published by Harvard University Press. The abbreviation LCL in the first reference to such a source indicates that the source is found in the Loeb series. The translations of LCL sources generally follow those presented in the Loeb, with some adaptations for clarity. The exception to this is the translations of Polybius, which use the Loeb Greek text but also draw upon the more accessible English of Ian Scott-Kilvert’s translation (Polybius: The Rise of the Roman Empire [New York: Penguin, 1979]). Fuller references to ancient sources not found in the Loeb are given following their first mention. References to modern scholarship are not intended to be exhaustive but should instead serve as a point of departure from which further investigation of a topic can commence.

CHAPTER 1

1. Augustus’s illness: Cassius Dio (hereafter Dio) 53.30–31 (LCL). Floods: Dio 53.33.5, 54.1. Augustus’s use of his own funds: Dio 54.1.3–4; Augustus, Res Gestae, 34. A translation of Augustus’s Res Gestae, the emperor’s own account of his reign, was published as part of the Loeb Classical Library edition of the Roman History of Velleius Paterculus (Velleius Paterculus/Res Gestae Divi Augusti, trans. F. Shipley [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002]).

2. Dio 54.3.2–8.

3. Rioting and violence between 21 and 19 BC: Dio 54.6.1–4, 54.10.1–5. On the conception of a state in antiquity, see now the important arguments of James Tan, Power and Public Finance at Rome, 264–49 BCE (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), xx–xxv.

4. Rem publicam a dominatione factionis oppressam in libertatem vindicavi (Res Gestae 1.1). For the most thorough recent discussion of conceptions of libertas in the late Republic, see V. Arena, Libertas and the Practice of Politics in the Late Roman Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

5. This concept is developed in Vergil, Eclogue, 1.26–45 (LCL). For discussion, see K. Galinsky, “Vergil’s Use of ‘Libertas’: Texts and Contexts,” Vergilius 52 (2006): 3–19.

6. For US patterning on Rome, see, among many examples, the explicit statements made by John Adams in his A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, letter 30. Note, too, the comment of the historian of the ancient world Arnaldo Momigliano that Polybius had such influence on the American Constitution that he should be considered an honorary Founding Father (Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography [Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1977], 77). For these examples as well as a concise analysis of Polybius’s influence, see C. Champion, “Polybius on Government, Interstate Relations, and Imperial Expansion,” in A Companion to Ancient Greek Government, ed. H. Beck, 119–130 (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013).

7. For a brief summary of these tools and their use, see A. Lintott, The Constitution of the Roman Republic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 61–63.

8. For this perspective, see the insightful and provocative work of H. Flower, Roman Republics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010).

CHAPTER 2

1. For Pyrrhus’s summons to Italy, see Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 13 (LCL). For Tarentum’s previous appeals to Greek commanders (e.g., its collaboration with Alexander of Epirus in the 330s), see M. Fronda, Between Rome and Carthage: Southern Italy during the Second Punic War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 79–80.

2. Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 14.2–7.

3. Pyrrhus’s letter: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities (hereafter Ant. Rom.), 19.9.1 (LCL); Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 16.4. Lavinius’s response: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom., 19.10.4. Captured spy: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom., 19.11.1.

4. Romans not barbarous: Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 16.5. First battle: Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 16.6–17.5; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom., 19.12; Livy, Book 13 (LCL). Pyrrhus’s losses: Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 17.4, gives the range of figures, citing two different ancient sources. Roman forces replenished: Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 18.1. Pyrrhus’s embassy: Appian, Samnitica, 10. For Lucanian and Samnite forces that joined Pyrrhus after the battle, see Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 17.5, and the discussion of Fronda, Between Rome and Carthage, 15n33. Although Plutarch (Pyrrhus, 16.2) and Appian (Samnitica, 8) both say that the Tarentines were unserious and unable to mount a real army, the quality of the Tarentine contribution was recognized in an inscription erected by Pyrrhus in Dodona and the Tarentine inscription in Delphi, both commemorating their joint victories over the Romans. These are discussed by P. Willeumier, Tarente: Des origines à la conquête romaine (Paris: De Boccard, 1939), 116–117; and A. Eckstein, Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 156.

5. Cineas is introduced most extensively in Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 14.1–2. For this system of diplomacy in the ancient world, see Eckstein, Mediterranean Anarchy, 56–72.

6. Pyrrhus’s terms: Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 18.3–5. The speech is alluded to in a partial inscription commemorating the career of Appius Claudius (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum [Berlin, 1863, hereafter CIL], 6.40943) and another, evidently with the same text fully preserved, found at Arretium (CIL, 11.1827). Both indicate that “he prevented the agreement of a truce with king Pyrrhus.” The text of his speech continued to circulate at least until the time of Cicero (see de Senectute 6 [LCL—hereafter Sen.], “the speech of Appius himself is extant,” and Brutus, 61). The quotations here come from Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 19.4.

7. This view of the third-century Roman alliance structure owes much to the impressive work of Fronda, Between Rome and Carthage, 13–34. For the Celtic army, see Eckstein, Mediterranean Anarchy, 156.

8. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom., 14.1–2. Plutarch (Pyrrhus, 20.1–5) has a slightly different account involving a sequence of conversations with Fabricius over a number of days. Fabricius’s encounter with Pyrrhus would later become proverbial and would be alluded to many times by subsequent authors (e.g., Ennius, Book 4:186–193 [LCL]; Vergil, Aeneid, 6.843–844 [LCL]; Cicero, De oratore, 2.268 [LCL]).

9. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom., 14.2.

10. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom., 15.1–18.7) offers a fictionalized reconstruction of Fabricius’s response. For similar ideas, see, for example, Cicero, de Re Publica, 5.4 (LCL).

11. Plutarch, Pyrrhus, 21.14–15.

12. The notion of the Republic as a mechanism to channel the energies of individual Romans toward a collective good is developed at great length in Book 2 of Cicero’s de Re Publica. For a concise description of the Republic of the nobiles, see Flower, Roman Republics, 25–27.

13. For an excellent and concise summary of the display of tokens of bravery, see N. Rosenstein, “Aristocratic Values,” in A Companion to the Roman Republic, ed. N. Rosenstein and R. Morstein-Marx, 365–382 (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). Note, too, the more detailed discussions of H. Flower, Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996). For the crowns and war spoils: Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, 5.6.13 (corona civica), 2.11.3 (spoils) (LCL). For the epitaphs of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus and his son, see CIL 1.2.7 (father) and CIL 1.2.9 (son). For a discussion of the father’s epitaph and the odd erasure that precedes the surviving text, see Flower, Ancestor Masks, 176–177.

14. Eulogy of Metellus: Pliny, Historia Naturalis, 7.139–140 (LCL—hereafter HN). Display of war spoils: E. Malcovati, Oratorum Romanorum fragmenta⁴ (hereafter ORF⁴) (Turin: Paravia, 1976), Cato no. 8.97; Pliny, HN, 35.7. Note here Rosenstein, “Aristocratic Values,” 374.

15. This notion of liberty at the heart of the Republic is best articulated by Cicero more than two hundred years later, but he likely describes sentiments at the core of Roman notions of liberty. For discussion, see V. Arena, “Invocation to Liberty and Invective of Dominatus at the End of the Roman Republic,” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies (hereafter BICS) 50 (2007): 49–73, at 58.

16. For a discussion of the workings of this system, see the important study of A. Lintott, Constitution of the Roman Republic, as well as the concise introduction of J. A. North, “The Constitution of the Roman Republic,” in Rosenstein and Morstein-Marx, A Companion to the Roman Republic, 256–277. Flower (Roman Republics) offers a compelling and accessible reconstruction of the Republic’s structural evolution. On the consulship in the Republic, see the essays contained in H. Beck, A. Duplá, M. Jehne, and F. Pina Polo, eds., Consuls and Res Publica: Holding High Office in the Roman Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

17. For a thorough discussion of the praetorship, see the magisterial work of T. C. Brennan, The Praetorship in the Roman Republic, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

18. No magistrates except for a tribune had a genuine veto power. More senior magistrates could effectively veto the actions of juniors by prohibiting them from taking a certain action. A magistrate could also cancel the actions of a colleague through an intercessio, though there are not many attested examples of this actually happening. For discussion, see Lintott, Constitution of the Roman Republic, 100–101.

19. Cicero, de Re Publica, 2.22, describes the political principles behind this assembly. At some point in the Republic, the actual voting within the centuries was apparently reorganized so that it was done according to a division of the thirty-five Roman tribes. For further discussion, see Lintott, Constitution of the Roman Republic, 55–61.

20. The question of whether there were one or two assemblies remains a subject of some controversy among scholars. Here I follow the discussion of Lintott, Constitution of the Roman Republic, 49–55. Although some have questioned the existence of a comitia tributa distinct from the comitia plebis, note the discussion of Lintott, Constitution of the Roman Republic, 53–55. It is well-known that tribunes proposed legislation in the concilium plebis. For praetors and consuls proposing legislation, see, for example, M. H. Crawford, Roman Statutes (London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London, 1996), 1:12. Livy 45.35 gives an instance of a patrician speaking to an assembly convened by tribunes of the plebs to discuss the triumph of Aemilius Paullus in 167 BC. I am not aware of any account of patricians voting in a plebeian assembly, however.

21. The number of rural tribes grew as Roman territory and citizenship expanded until the thirty-first and final rural tribe was established in 241 BC. For a concise discussion of the Roman tribes, their origins, and their expansion, see Lintott, Constitution of the Roman Republic, 50–51.

22. On the contio, see R. Morstein-Marx, Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 34–42. For Roman voting procedures before their reform in the 130s, see Lintott, Constitution of the Roman Republic, 46–61.

23. So says the text of a Lex Ovinia from the fourth century BC (Festus 290 L); for discussion, see T. Cornell, “The Lex Ovinia and the Emancipation of the Senate,” in The Roman Middle Republic: Politics, Religion, and Historiography c. 400–133 BC, ed. C. Bruun, 69–89 (Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2000).

24. Appian, Civil Wars, Pro. 1 (LCL). All of the surviving works of Appian belong to one historical project. The initial phase of this project consisted of a series of books narrating Rome’s conquests of the regions that made up its empire. The next phase, a series of books narrating the civil wars, offered a unified narrative of these conflicts across the entire Mediterranean. The final phase (now lost) provided an imperial history that ran from the time of Augustus until the second century AD. I refer to the books from the first part of the project by the abbreviated names of the regions on which they focus. The Civil Wars hereafter is referred to as BC.

25. Polybius 6.18 (LCL). The conceptual puzzle of how to fit Rome into this Greek and barbarian dichotomy animated the work of Polybius and other contemporary Greeks. For a compelling discussion of this issue within and beyond Polybius, see C. Champion, Cultural Politics in Polybius’s Histories (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004). For a different take on Polybius’s goals, see A. Eckstein, Moral Vision in the Histories of Polybius (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995). On the concept of the Republic of the nobles, see Flower, Roman Republics, 35–57.

26. Polybius 6.2.

27. Polybius 1.20.13–16. For First Punic War and the idea of Rome stumbling into it, see the careful discussions of B. D. Hoyos, Unplanned Wars: The Origins of the First and Second Punic Wars (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1998), 33–131; and N. Rosenstein, Rome and the Mediterranean 290–146 BC: The Imperial Republic (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012), 53–70.

28. Polybius 1.38.6.

29. The Roman reluctance to build a fleet goes back to 253 BC. For discussion of that incident, see Tan, Power and Public Finance, chap. 4. Individual financial support for new fleet: Polybius 1.59.6–7. Success in 241: Polybius 1.61.1.

30. For discussion of the agrarian law and the process that led to it, see Polybius 2.21.8–9; Cicero, de Inventione (hereafter Invent.), 2.52; Brutus, 57; de Academica (hereafter Acad.), 2.13 (all in LCL); Valerius Maximus, Facta et Dicta Memorabilia (hereafter Valerius Maximus), 5.5.4 (LCL). For the abrogation of his military command resulting from the bad omens and the triumph, see Plutarch, Marc., 1–3 (LCL); Zonaras, Epitomē Historiōn (hereafter Zonaras), 8.20. On the career of Flaminius and the reasons for the uniformly negative portrayal he receives in literary sources, see R. Feig Vishnia, “A Case of ‘Bad Press’? Gaius Flaminius in Ancient Historiography,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik (hereafter ZPE) 181 (2012): 27–45.

31. For details of the war’s outbreak and the military campaigns within it, see the excellent, accessible studies of J. F. Lazenby, Hannibal’s War: A Military History of the Second Punic War (Warminster: University of Oklahoma Press, 1978); A. Goldsworthy, The Punic Wars (London: Cassell, 2000); and Rosenstein, Rome and the Mediterranean, 119–175.

32. Although only later sources indicate that Hannibal was familiar with Pyrrhus’s strategy (e.g., Livy 35.14.5–12; Appian, Syr., 9–10; Plutarch, Flam., 21), Hannibal’s strategy when in Italy seems to have been informed by Pyrrhus’s campaigns. On this, see Fronda, Between Rome and Carthage, 45–48.

33. Livy 21.63.5–15, 22.1.5–20, 3.11–13.

34. Livy 21.63.

35. For Fabius’s strategy, see P. Erdkamp, “Polybius, Livy, and the ‘Fabian Strategy,’” Ancient Society 23 (1992): 127–147.

36. For some recent studies on the Battle of Cannae, see A. Goldsworthy, Cannae: Hannibal’s Greatest Victory (London: Cassell, 2001); G. Daly, Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War (London: Routledge, 2002).

37. Casualty reports vary. They include 70,000 dead (Polybius 3.117), 60,000 (Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 8.6.26), 50,000 (Plutarch, Fabius, 16.8, and Appian, Hannibalic War, 4.25), and 48,200 (Livy 22.49). For modern discussion, see P. A. Brunt, Italian Manpower 225 BC–AD 14 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 419n4.

38. On the scene when news of Cannae reached Rome: Livy 22.53, though this anecdote functions primarily to foreshadow the eventual success of Scipio Africanus. For human sacrifices: Livy 22.57. The only subsequent occurrence was in 113 BC, on which see the report of Plutarch, Roman Questions, 83, and Marcellus, 3 (both in LCL), as well as the discussion of M. Beard, J. North, and S. R. F. Price, Religions of Rome: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1:81. The act was banned in 97 BC (Pliny, HN, 30.3.12).

39. Livy 22.57.

40. The revolts and the local background to them are masterfully reconstructed by Fronda, Between Rome and Carthage. On the revolt of Capua and the hegemonic aspirations that may have laid behind it, see Livy 23.6.1–2; Fronda, Between Rome and Carthage, 103–125.

41. War with Macedon seems to have actually not been officially declared until 214 BC. For Philip’s objectives, see Polybius 7.9.1–17; Livy 23.33.1–12. On the general scrambling in the Mediterranean as a result of Rome’s troubles, see A. Eckstein, Rome Enters the Greek East: From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230–170 BC (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 78–91.

42. For estimates of Roman manpower during the war, see N. Rosenstein, Rome at War: Farms, Families, and Death in the Middle Republic (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 90; Brunt, Italian Manpower, 417–422.

43. N. Rosenstein, “Competition and Crisis in Mid-Republican Rome,” Phoenix 47 (1993): 313–338.

44. For the economic impact, see P. Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 16; Tan, Power and Public Finance, chap. 5.

45. The prorogatio of commands was not new to the period of the Second Punic War, though this practice became much more widespread during and following the war. For discussion, see Lintott, Constitution of the Roman Republic, 113–115.

46. Sale of confiscated land: Livy 26.35–36, 28.45–46. On the logistics of this currency reform, see M. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (hereafter RRC) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 3–46; M. Crawford, Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic: Italy and the Mediterranean Economy (London: Methuen, 1985), 52–62; K. Harl, Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 B.C. to A.D. 700 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 21–37.

47. This threat was particularly meaningful given the financial power that the taxpayers in the assembly had at this moment (Tan, Power and Public Finance, chap. 5).

48. For the denial of Scipio’s triumph and his election: Livy 28.38; Dio 17.57.5–6; Valerius Maximus 2.8.5. Fabius’s speech: Livy 28.40–42. Although Livy created the speech he puts in the mouth of Fabius, he is probably correct to imagine that Fabius attributed Scipio’s proposal to invade Africa to a desire for personal glory rather than a wise military tactic. Commissioners’ impression of the troops: Livy 29.16–22.

49. Literally, “mater Idaea a Pessinunte Romam advecta foret” (Livy 29.10). The best analysis of this situation and its connection to the political tension caused by Scipio’s rise remains E. Gruen, “The Advent of the Magna Mater,” Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 5–33.

CHAPTER 3

1. Roman embassy to Egypt in 213: Polybius 9.11a. The gold coins are Crawford, RRC 44/2-4 and 72/2. For discussion see Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 16, and A. Meadows, “The Mars/Eagle and Thunderbolt Gold and Ptolemaic Involvement in the Second Punic War,” in Coins of Macedonia and Rome: Essays in Honor of Charles Hersh, ed. A. M. Burnett, U. Wartenberg, and R. Witschonke, 125–134 (London: Spink and Son, 1998). Egyptian embassy in 208: Appian, Mace., 9.3.1. On Roman relations with Pergamum in this period, see A. Eckstein, Rome Enters the Greek East, 122.

2. Roman vigilance after the first Macedonian war: Livy 30.26.2–4, though note the comments of Eckstein, Rome Enters the Greek East, 123. For the Egyptian rebellion in 207 or 206 and the climate shocks precipitating it, see F. Ludlow and J. Manning, “Revolts under the Ptolemies: A Paleoclimatological Perspective,” in Revolt and Resistance in the Ancient Classical World and the Near East: In the Crucible of Empire, ed. J. Collins and J. Manning, 154–174 (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2016), 160–163 (for the revolt) and 164ff. (for the climatological conditions). For the pact of Philip V and Antiochus III, see Eckstein, Rome Enters the Greek East, 3–28. For Philip’s interest in western expansion, see Polybius 5.105.4–8.

3. Reports from allies: Appian, Mace., 4; Livy 31.2–6. For the idea that Galba had an incentive to prosecute this war with Philip, see W. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 217–218.

4. Livy 31.6.3. The tribune blamed for this was Quintus Baebus. On the events leading to the second Macedonian war, see Eckstein, Mediterranean Anarchy, 280–288.

5. Galba’s speech: Livy 31.6; cf. Zonaras 9.15. For Roman concerns about their credibility and prestige in Greece, see E. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 391–398. Exemptions of previous soldiers from repeat service: Livy 31.8.6.

6. Philip’s defenses against Galba: Zonaras 9.15. Flamininus’s breakthrough: Zonaras 9.16. Sabotage of negotiations: Appian, Mace., 8; Polybius 18.1.1–12.5; Zonaras 9.16. See as well A. Eckstein, “T. Quinctius Flamininus and the Campaign against Philip in 198 BC,” Phoenix 30 (1976): 119–142.

7. The superiority of the Roman formation over the phalanx at Cynoscephalae: Polybius 18.28–32. For the “Freedom of Greece,” see Polybius 18.46. The announcement at the games apparently freed only those cities in Greece, though it was communicated separately to representatives of Antiochus III that the cities of Asia Minor once controlled by either Philip or the Ptolemies were to be free as well. For liberation of Asia Minor: Polybius 18.47. Livy 33.30 and Zonaras 9.16 both affirm that the freedom of Greek cities in Asia was part of the set of terms dictated to Philip by the Senate.

8. For an analysis of the situation after Antiochus’s defeat, see Eckstein, Mediterranean Anarchy, 342–381. Roman disinterest subsequently is described at, for example, Polybius 24.8–10.

9. Perseus filling the leadership void left by Rome: Livy 42.12.2. Offenses detailed by Pergamum: Livy 42.11–13.

10. The most thorough assessment of the Republic’s second-century involvement in Spain is J. S. Richardson, Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism, 218–82 BC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 62–155. A change in the intensity of the warfare after 178 is illustrated by the relative lack of triumphs or ovations awarded for service in Spain between 177 and 166, after averaging almost one a year between 195 and 178 (noted by Richardson, Hispaniae, 105).

11. For example, Polybius 36.9. On this point, see the excellent study of C. Champion, Cultural Politics in Polybius’s Histories (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004).

12. The numbers for 234–233 appear in Livy, Periochae, 20. Those for 209–208 are found in Livy, History, 27.36.7. The question of how to trace Roman population trends during and after the Second Punic War has received a great deal of recent attention. Among the most important studies, see S. Hin, The Demography of Roman Italy: Population Dynamics in an Ancient Conquest Society, 201 BCE–14 CE (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); L. De Ligt, Peasants, Citizens, and Soldiers: Studies in the Demographic History of Roman Italy 225 BC–AD 100 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); and N. Rosenstein, Rome at War. These revise the more pessimistic assessment of Brunt, Italian Manpower.

13. For casualty numbers in the second century, see Rosenstein, Rome at War, 143, though note the cautions of Hin, Demography, 157–160.

14. Livy, Periochae, 54. This was a census of 142–141. For a table with all known Republican and early imperial census figures, see Hin, Demography, 351–353.

15. Rosenstein (Rome at War, 162–169) argues persuasively that colonies were of only limited use as a release valve for building population pressures.

16. Rosenstein, Rome at War, 165. On the Aelii, see Valerius Maximus 4.4.8. As Rosenstein notes, poverty was not the only reason that multiple generations of the same family might live together. It must have been the cause of the situation with the Aelii because Valerius Maximus places his discussion of the Aelii with other anecdotes illustrating poverty (the section heading is De paupertate). For a similar case in another context, note, for example, Plutarch, Crassus, 1.1 (LCL).

17. Rosenstein, Rome at War, 144–145. This figure is derived from N. Morley, Metropolis and Hinterland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 39, 46. For a survey of various other figures put forward for the population of the city, see Hin, Demography, 220n31.

18. Livy’s comment: 39.3. Tooth enamel patterns: Hin, Demography, 218–220.

19. Livy 30.45.3 (Scipio); 31.20 (Lentulus).

20. Scipio brought 1,720 talents of silver; the combined tributes from Carthage, Antiochus, and Greek states totaled between 1,200 and 1,300 talents between 187 and 177 BC. For a chart tracing this, see Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 39, table 2.2.

21. On Roman mining income, see Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 43–58. New supply crashing the gold market: Polybius 34.10.10–15.

22. Tax refund: Livy 39.7.1–5. As Tan (Power and Public Finance, 141–142) has shown, the abolition of the tributum eliminated a fiscal burden, but it also diminished the influence that Roman citizens could have over the conduct of wars that they no longer funded. Denarii minting: Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, 640ff. sees 157 BC as a date when a regular and steady increase in the amount of denarii minted began. See, too, the discussion of K. Hopkins, “Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 BC–AD 400),” Journal of Roman Studies 70 (1980): 101–125, at 106–112.

23. Cloaca Maxima: Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom., 3.67.5. Aqua Marcia: Frontinus, de aquis., 1.7 (LCL). For discussion of this and other construction in the period, see Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 217–220.

24. Polybius 6.17.

25. Cato’s Spanish plunder: Livy 34.46.2–3. Cato’s interest in commercial farming in Italy is best indicated by his treatise de Agricultura (hereafter Agr.).

26. Cato recommended that thirteen slaves work on a 180-acre olive farm (Cato, Agr., 10—LCL) and sixteen work on a 66-acre vineyard (Agr., 11).

27. Plutarch, Cato Maior, 21.5 (LCL). For discussion, see Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 230–231.

28. The restriction on seaborne trade using a vessel that carried more than 300 amphorae came with the plebiscitum Claudianum of 218 (Livy 21.63.3). For Cato’s partnerships, see Plutarch, Cato Maior, 21.5–6, as well as the excellent explanation of Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 145–146.

29. For the use of credit in the Roman economy, see the important work of W. Harris, “A Revisionist View of Roman Money,” Journal of Roman Studies 96 (2006): 1–24. For the implications of this development on Roman economic growth and wealth creation, see Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 107–268.

30. Land grant and property for self: Livy 31.49.4–5. Lavish games: Livy 37.3.7.

31. Fulvius Flaccus gave his foot soldiers the equivalent of 30 denarii, his centurions 60 denarii, and his cavalry 90 denarii (Livy 40.59.3).

32. Twenty-five pairs of gladiators: Livy 31.49.9; 120 gladiators: Livy 39.46. For temples, see the cases of M. Acilius Glabrio (Livy 40.34.5; Valerius Maximus 2.5.1) and L. Aemilius Regillus (Livy 40.52.4–6). Public feasts in 180s: Livy 39.46. Limits on silver: Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticus (hereafter NA), 2.24.2 (LCL).

33. For Antiochus: Livy 39.6.7–9; Pliny, HN, 33.138; for Perseus: Polybius 31.25. For Crassus: Pliny, HN, 33.134. See discussion of Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 194.

34. Cato, Agr., 144–150, details his recommendations for the use of seasonal laborers based in nearby towns.

CHAPTER 4

1. Tan, Power and Public Finance, 61–64, on contracting and tax farming.

2. On hesitancy to serve in Spain, see Rosenstein, Rome at War, 276–277n76, with references to earlier scholarship.

3. For discussion of this, see W. Kunkel, Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des römischen Kriminalverfahrens in vorsullanischer Zeit (Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1962).

4. First corruption court: Flower, Roman Republics, 69–70. Brennan, Praetorship in the Roman Republic, 1:235–256, speaks about earlier steps to prevent misconduct by governors abroad.

5. For a figure “observing” the votes, see Livy 4.49, 45.39.20; Plutarch, Aemilius Paullus, 31.10: “But come, take these people off to their voting; and I will come down and follow along with them all, and will learn who are base and thankless and prefer to be wheedled and flattered in war rather than commanded.” On these processes more generally, see Flower, Roman Republics, 73; Lintott, Constitution of the Roman Republic, 46–61; U. Hall, “Greeks and Romans and the Secret Ballot,” in Owls to Athens: Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover, ed. K. Dover and E. Craik (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 190–194.

6. Gabinian reform: Cicero, Laws, 3.35; Livy, Per., 54.193. For discussion, see A. Yakobson, “Secret Ballot and Its Effects in the Late Roman Republic,” Hermes 123 (1995): 426–442; and Yakobson, “Popular Power in the Roman Republic,” in A Companion to the Roman Republic, 383–400, at 388–390. Cassian reform: Cicero, Laws, 3.35; Brutus, 97. Reform of 131: Cicero, Laws, 3.36.

7. Gabinius: Cicero, Laws, 3.35 (a sordid nobody); De Amicitia, 42 (estranging Senate and people). Cassius: Cicero, Laws, 3.36. Carbo: Cicero, Laws, 3.35.

8. The fact that observation remained a possibility after the reforms of the 130s is suggested by the fact that, in 119, Marius attracted a great deal of resistance when he pushed for narrowing the platform on which a voter walked when presenting his ballot. On Marius’s reform, see Plutarch, Marius, 4.2–4; Cicero, Laws, 3.38; Yakobson, “Secret Ballot,” 438–439.

9. Yakobson, “Popular Power,” 390.

10. The Dioscuri were most often depicted on the reverse through the 180s BC, though they continued to appear regularly through the 150s (e.g., RRC 198/1, a coin of 157–156 BC). They again became the most common reverse from c. 150 BC through the end of the 140s BC (e.g., RRC 209/1, a coin of 149 BC, and RRC 224/1) and occasionally after that as well. The divine figures in chariots began appearing in the 180s. Luna was most popular in the 180s, though she continued to appear intermittently after that (e.g., from the 180s, RRC 140/1, 141/1, 163/1, 187/1; from the 140s, RRC 207/1). Diana appeared most frequently in the 170s and 160s (e.g., RRC 158/1, 159/2). Victory was common in the 150s and 140s (e.g., RRC 197/1a–b, 199/1a–b, 202/1a–b, 203/1a–b, 204/1, 205/1, 206/1, 208/1). The gods and goddesses depicted in the chariot begin to vary more widely at the end of the 140s, with Victory, Diana, Juno, and Jupiter all appearing in issues from 142 and 141 BC.

11. Four moneyers signed off on denarius issues that year. Two of them used standard designs (P. Aelius Paetus had the Dioscuri on the reverse [RRC 233/1] and M. Baebius Q. f. Tampilus depicted Apollo in a chariot [RRC 236/1a–e]). The other two were radically different.

12. The coin is RRC 234/1, issued by Ti. Veturius. For discussion of this coin and its significance, see Crawford, RRC, p. 266 (with bibliography). The connection of this coin with the foedus Numantinum of 137 has been debated by, among others, C. Stannard (“Numismatic Evidence for the Relations between Spain and Central Italy at the Turn of the Second and First Centuries,” Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 84 [2005]: 47–79, at 58–60) and Flower, Ancestor Masks, 79–86. Stannard’s argument that this coin should be dated later seems implausible because the coin was tariffed at 10 asses and the retariffing of the denarius to 16 asses is clearly evident on later issues.

13. These moneyers were C. Minucius Augurinus (moneyer in 135 BC, responsible for RRC 242/1) and T. Minucius C. f. Augurinus (moneyer in 134 BC, responsible for RRC 243/1). For discussion of these coins, see Crawford, RRC, 273–276; T. P. Wiseman, “The Minucii and their Monument,” in Imperium Sine Fine, ed. J. Lindersk (Stuttgart, 1996), 57–74. On the grain distribution of 439 BC, see A. Momigliano, “Due Punti di Storia Romana Arcaica,” in Quarto Contributo alla Storia degli Studi Classici e del Mondo Antico (Rome: Ed. di Storia e Letteratura, 1969), 329–361, at 331–349.

14. For a survey of the family background of Tiberius Gracchus, see D. Stockton, The Gracchi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 23ff.

15. For Tiberius’s intervention in the trial, see Valerius Maximus 4.1.8; Livy 38.57, among others. On the fanciful nature of elements of this account, see Stockton, The Gracchi, 23–24.

16. His teachers were said to have been the rhetorician Diophanes of Mytilene and the Stoic philosopher Blossius of Cumae. For this, see Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 1.3 (LCL); Cicero, Brutus, 104; Tacitus, Dialogus, 28 (LCL); Quintilian 1.1.6.

17. Bravery in war: Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 4. Triumph of Appius Claudius: Cicero, de Cael., 34; Valerius Maximus 5.4.6.

18. For the context of the treaty, see Appian, Spain, 80. For Tiberius’s role in the negotiations, see Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 5–6.

19. On the treaty: Appian, Spain, 13.83; Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 7. Scipio’s army: Appian, Spain, 14.84.

20. For Tiberius’s sense that Scipio had betrayed him, see Cicero, Brutus, 103, de har. resp. 43; Velleius Paterculus 2.2 (LCL).

21. Tiberius’s concerns are summarized in Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 8. Appian, BC, 1.1.7 echoes the same point. On the reality of Italian landholding patterns in the second century, see, among many others, Rosenstein, Rome at War, 141–169.

22. On the probability that he campaigned on this issue, see C. Steel, The End of the Roman Republic, 146 to 44 BC (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013), 16. For slogans painted across the city, see Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 9. For the speech, see Appian, BC, 1.9.

23. Appian, BC, 1.8. Cato (in the pro Rhodiensibus, found in ORF², 65–66) suggests that the law was in effect without enforcement mechanisms in 167 BC.

24. The status of non-Roman Italians under this law is unclear. Cicero (de Re Publica, 3.41) says that Italians did not benefit, though Appian (BC, 1.12.7) seems to suggest otherwise. For discussion, see Stockton, The Gracchi, 42–43.

25. Laelius’s proposal: Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 8. See, too, Stockton, The Gracchi, 33. Tiberius’s prominent supporters: Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 9.

26. Republic balancing wealth distribution: Appian, BC, 1.11. Land rented mainly by Italian allies: Appian, BC, 1.19–21, though note the critical reading of this passage in H. Mouritsen, Italian Unification: A Study in Ancient and Modern Historiography (London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London, 1998), 16–22.

27. Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 10.

28. Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 10.4–6.

29. Plutarch (Tiberius Gracchus, 11–12) offers a dramatic ancient account of this action. For a more measured assessment, see Appian, BC, 1.12.5; Stockton, The Gracchi, 65–67.

30. Both Plutarch (Tiberius Gracchus, 12) and Appian (BC, 1.12) mention that the threat of violence by mobs or armed associates of Tiberius hovered over the proceedings.

31. Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 13.

32. Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 14–15. Livy, Per., 58, suggests that Tiberius proposed gifting the money to the urban poor who did not receive land allotments. On this, see the comments of Stockton, The Gracchi, 67–69. For finance and foreign relations as the unquestioned preserve of the Senate, see Polybius 6.13.

33. On this point, see Arena, Libertas and the Practice of Politics, chap. 3.

34. Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 14; suggested as well in Cicero, de Amicitia, 41.

35. This was Titus Annius. The speech he gave and the particular question he framed would both become so legendary that grammarians later studied them (Festus, in ORF² 106 for the speech; Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 14.5, preserves the question). Annius’s most powerful comment was framed as a sponsione provocare, a sort of judicial wager in which Annius invited Tiberius to legally contest with him the validity of the charge that Tiberius had dishonored a fellow tribune in violation of the law. For this, see J. Crook, “Sponsione Provocare: Its Place in Roman Litigation,” Journal of Roman Studies 66 (1976): 132–138, at 133.

36. According to Cicero, the Campanian public land only becomes subject to redistribution in 59 BC, under actions taken by Caesar. On this, see F. De Martino, Storia della costituzione romana, 2nd ed. (Naples: Eugenio Jovene, 1973), 3:169n3; Stockton, The Gracchi, 55. There exists, however, a boundary stone with the names of land commissioners found near Capua (H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, vol. 1 [Berlin: Weidmann, 1892] [hereafter ILS], number 24) that suggests activity in the region.

37. For the estimate of fifteen thousand families: K. Bringmann, A History of the Roman Republic (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2015), 151. On the limitations on the power of the Roman poor, see, for example, the discussion of H. Mouritsen, Politics in the Roman Republic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 61–64.

38. Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 13 (poisoning rumor); Appian, BC, 1.1.13 (escorted by crowds).

39. Second tribunate: Appian, BC, 1.2.14; Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 16. Personal canvassing in advance of the vote: Appian, BC, 1.2.14.

40. Supporters spending the night on guard: Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 16; Appian, BC, 1.2.15. For accounts of Tiberius’s murder, see Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 18–19; Appian, BC, 1.2.14–17; Dio, 24.83.8. For a modern summary, see Stockton, The Gracchi, 75–77.

41. Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 20.1.

42. Cicero, de Re Publica, 1.31.

43. Appian, BC, 1.1.2 (first to die in civil strife), 1.2.17 (polarization).

44. Appian, BC, 1.2.17.

45. (Appian, BC, 1.2.17, lines 9–11).

46. Functioning and funding of land commission after Tiberius’s death: Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 21; Appian, BC, 1.3.18. For the idea that work continued until 118 (based on a reading of Appian, BC, 1.27), see D. Gargola, “Appian and the Aftermath of the Gracchan Reform,” American Journal of Philology 118 (1997): 555–581. For later land laws, see, for example, Cicero, Brutus, 136 (on the lex Thoria) and an agrarian law of 111 BC. For discussion of the latter, see A. Lintott, Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic: A New Edition, with Translation and Commentary, of the Laws from Urbino (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 49–55.

47. Cicero (de Re Publica, 1.6) and Valerius Maximus (3.2.17) both suggest that the appointment to Asia was made out of concern for his safety or to prevent a trial.

48. Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 21.

49. Appian, BC, 1.3.19–20.

50. Flaccus’s citizenship proposal: Appian, BC, 1.3.21; Valerius Maximus 9.5.1. Note, too, the discussion of Mouritsen, Italian Unification, 112–113. Revolt of Fregellae: P. Conole, “Allied Disaffection and the Revolt of Fregellae,” Antichthon 15 (1981): 129–141.

51. Appian, BC, 1.3.21.

52. Appian, BC, 1.3.21; Cicero, Sest., 103, Livy, Per., 60. For a summary of Gaius’s reforms in 123, see Stockton, The Gracchi, 114–176.

53. Tan, Power and Public Finance, 61–64.

54. The sources for the violence include Cicero, De oratore, 2.132–134; Plutarch, G. Gracchus, 13–18; Appian, BC, 1.3.25–26. For a narrative reconstruction, see Stockton, The Gracchi, 176–205. For the unsanctioned public policy discussion as the cause of the disturbance that led to Gaius’s death, see R. Morstein-Marx, Mass Oratory, 39, on the basis of de vir. ill. 65.5; Orosius 5.12.5; Plutarch, C. Gracchus, 13–14. On the broader moment, see J. Lea Beness and T. W. Hillard, “The Theatricality of the Deaths of C. Gracchus and Friends,” Classical Quarterly 51.1 (2001): 135–140.

55. Plutarch, C. Gracchus, 1. This dream is also mentioned by Cicero, Div., 1.56, citing as his source Gaius’s contemporary Lucius Coelius Antipater.

CHAPTER 5

1. For Opimius’s construction of the temple, see Appian, BC, 1.26; Plutarch, G. Gracchus, 17; Cicero, pro. Sest., 140.

2. Caecilii Metelli were consuls in 123, 119, 117, 115 (the year of the consulships of M. Caecilius Metellus and M. Aemilius Scaurus), 113, and 109. Other consuls belonging to the same family in this period included Q. Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus (consul in 121) and Q. Fabius Maximus Eburnus (consul in 116); C. Papirius Carbo (consul in 120) and Cn. Papirius Carbo (consul in 113); and M. Porcius Cato (consul in 118) and C. Porcius Cato (consul in 114).

3. Sallust, Jugurtha, 41.9 (LCL).

4. On this incident, see Plutarch, Quaest. Rom., 83 (LCL) and the discussion of Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 27.

5. On the live burial of the two Greeks and two Gauls, see Z. Várhelyi, “The Specters of Roman Imperialism: The Live Burials of Gauls and Greeks at Rome,” Classical Antiquity 26 (2007): 277–304. For the conviction of the priest C. Sulpicius Galba as part of the corruption investigations related to the activities of Jugurtha, see Cicero, Brutus, 128, as well as the discussion below. For politicians seizing on this moment: E. Rawson, “Religion and Politics in the Late Second Century BC at Rome,” Phoenix 28 (1974): 193–212.

6. On Jugurtha’s background, see Sallust, Jugurtha, 5–16. For his friendships with Scipio and other Romans: Sallust, Jugurtha, 7.7.

7. Sallust, Jugurtha, 8.1.

8. Bribery of senatorial commission: Sallust, Jugurtha, 13.8. Attack on Cirta: Sallust, Jugurtha, 26. On the likelihood that these merchants had been active participants in the defense of Cirta and, thus, were not civilians killed indiscriminately, see R. Morstein-Marx, “The Alleged ‘Massacre’ at Cirta and Its Consequences (Sallust Bellum Iugurthinum 26–27),” Classical Philology 95 (2000): 468–476.

9. Sallust, Jugurtha, 30.1–2.

10. “Not to forsake Republic”: Sallust, Jugurtha, 30.3. “Arrogant cabal”: Sallust, Jugurtha, 31.2. For the context, see Morstein-Marx, Mass Oratory, 267–269. For a parallel idea in a speech of Gaius Gracchus (quoted in Gellius, NA, 11.10), see F. Millar, “Politics, Persuasion and the People before the Social War (150–90 BC),” Journal of Roman Studies 76 (1986): 9. This Gracchan speech suggests the basic plausibility that Sallust may indeed reproduce the sentiments Memmius expressed.

11. Sallust, Jugurtha, 31.6 (no violence), 31.18 (courts). Jugurtha’s bribery of tribune: Sallust, Jugurtha, 34.

12. Workings of tribunal: Sallust, Jugurtha, 30. See the concise summary of Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 28–29. “Bitterness and violence”: Sallust, Jugurtha, 40.5. For the corruption tribunal generally, see Sallust, Jugurtha, 30. See the concise summary of Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 28–29.

13. Sallust, Jugurtha, 63; Plutarch, Marius, 8 (LCL).

14. Depending on the context, the term novus homo (new man) could mean either the first member of a family to qualify for the Senate or the first to hold the consulship. See the discussion of D. R. Shackleton Bailey, “Nobiles and Novi Reconsidered,” American Journal of Philology 107 (1986): 255–260.

15. On Marius’s connection to the Caecilii Metelli: Plutarch, Marius, 4, and E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (264–70 BC) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), 194–195. Voting law: Cicero, Laws, 3.39; Plutarch, Marius, 4; Lintott, Constitution of the Roman Republic, 46. For an assessment of Marius’s subsequent electoral failures (and Sallust’s attempts to skate over them), see R. Syme, Sallust, 2nd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), 161. On the bribery charges, see Plutarch, Marius, 5.2–5; Valerius Maximus 6.9.14.

16. Sallust, Jugurtha, 63.7.

17. Sallust, Jugurtha, 64.2; cf. Plutarch, Marius, 8.

18. Plutarch, Marius, 8; Dio 26.3; and Sallust, Jugurtha, 64.4, all preserve the same comment.

19. Sallust, Jugurtha, 64.

20. Plutarch, Marius, 8; Sallust, Jugurtha, 65.5, 73.3–7.

21. Sallust, Jugurtha, 73.4.

22. Command given to Marius: Sallust, Jugurtha, 73.7. Consulships as spoils: Sallust, Jugurtha, 84.1.

23. Cicero (de Re Publica, 2.40) indicates that the lowest property class eligible for military service possessed at least 1,500 bronze asses, a modest amount equaling less than 150 denarii. On the poor seeing Marius’s command as a plunder opportunity, see Sallust, Jugurtha, 84.4. For Marius enrolling the poor, see Plutarch, Marius, 9; Sallust, Jugurtha, 86; Valerius Maximus 2.3.1; Gellius 16.10.10.

24. For the casualty numbers at Aurasio, see Livy, Per., 67 (80,000); Granius Licinianus (70,000). For the defeat, see as well Sallust, Jugurtha, 114; Plutarch, Life of Camillus, 19.7; Life of Lucullus, 27.7 (both LCL); and Granius Licinianus, Book 33 in Grani Liciniani Reliquae, ed. N. Criniti (Leipzig: Teubner, 1981); Dio 27 (91.1–3) on the incompetence of the Roman commanders.

25. Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus prosecuted Scaurus (Dio 27 [92.1]). Norbanus prosecuted Caepio (see Cicero, Brutus, 163, for the defense of Caepio). Ahenobarbus was consul in 96, and Norbanus became consul in 83, albeit in a very different political climate.

26. Saturninus’s quaestorship: Cicero, Sest., 17.39. Pushing Marius to run for consulship: Plutarch, Marius, 14.

27. The coin is RRC 326/1. For Marius as the third founder of Rome, see Plutarch, Marius, 27.

28. Plutarch, Marius, 28.

29. This is the comment of Plutarch, Marius, 28.1, though admittedly Plutarch was extremely hostile to Marius.

30. For Metellus getting credit for victory against Jugurtha, note Plutarch, Marius, 10. This is, of course, as untrue as the idea that Marius had won the war despite Metellus. For Marius’s cooperation with allies against Metellus: H. Evans, “Metellus Numidicus and the Elections for 100 BC,” Acta Classica 30 (1987): 65–70, and E. Gruen, “The Exile of Metellus Numidicus,” Latomus 24 (1965): 576–580. On the bribery charges, see Livy, Per., 69; Velleius Paterculus 2.12.6; Plutarch, Marius, 28.5.

31. Plutarch, Marius, 29; Appian, BC, 1.29.

32. For previous laws with oaths attached and the senatorial discomfort with the violent circumstances of this law’s passage, see Appian, BC, 1.30; Gruen, “Exile of Metellus,” 576nn2–3.

33. Plutarch, Marius, 29; Appian, BC, 1.30.

34. Livy, Per., 69, and Orosius 5.17.4 both indicate that the trial of Metellus was to be conducted before the people, not before an equestrian jury. So, apparently, do Cicero (Laws, 3.26) and Appian (BC, 1.31). Given that Saturninus was a tribune, this must refer to some sort of trial before the concilium plebis, the only assembly he could lawfully summon.

35. Such is the interpretation of Gruen, “Exile of Metellus,” 579–580.

36. The dating of the maiestas law is unclear. Brennan (Praetorship in the Roman Republic, 2:366–367) dates it to 103 and connects it to the prosecutions of the commanders in the war against the Cimbri. For consideration of its place in 100, see Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 32; Millar, “Politics, Persuasion and the People,” 3.

37. Appian (BC, 1.32) comments, “Memmius was the more illustrious man by far, and Glaucia and Apuleius [Saturninus] were anxious about the result.”

38. Crowd chanting: for example, Appian, BC, 1.32. Plutarch (Marius, 30) speaks about Saturninus being killed in the forum. For these events, see J. Lea Beness and T. W. Hillard, “The Death of Lucius Equitius on 10 December 100 BC,” Classical Quarterly 40 (1990): 269–272, as well as the longer reconstruction of E. Badian, “The Death of Saturninus,” Chiron 14 (1984): 101–147.

39. Appian, BC, 1.33.

40. Plutarch, Marius, 30.

CHAPTER 6

1. Appian, BC, 5.1.

2. Furius’s actions and murder: Appian, BC, 1.33; A. Russell, “Speech, Competition, and Collaboration: Tribunician Politics and the Development of Popular Ideology,” in Community and Communication: Oratory and Politics in Republican Rome, ed. C. Steel and H. van der Blom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 101–115. Metellus’s return: Appian (BC, 1.33) comments that “a whole day was not sufficient for those who wanted to greet Metellus at the city gates.”

3. Tooth enamel from skeletons offers an interesting portrait of the sorts of Italian immigrants in Rome in the late second and early first centuries. For discussion, see Hin, Demography, 218–221.

4. The introduction of Gaius Gracchus’s grain dole, for example, required the Republic to create an organized system of tax collection in Asia Minor to fund the program. On this, see Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 59–86.

5. This law is the lex Licinia Mucia, described by Cicero, de Off., 3.47. For this as a response to Italian elite requests for help, see C. Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 35–36.

6. Steel (End of the Roman Republic, 37–38) plausibly suggests that Drusus’s measure proposed mixed juries of equites and senators, which would be a dilution, but not an elimination, of the effects of the earlier reform.

7. Appian, BC, 1.35–36.

8. A situation made clear by Marius’s decision to violate the law by granting Roman citizenship to some of his allied soldiers from Camerium so that they might be eligible for land in his veteran colonies. For discussion, see H. Mouritsen, Italian Unification, 90. On the Drusus reform, see Mouritsen, 142–151.

9. As Appian (BC, 1.36) indicates.

10. Velleius Paterculus 2.14.

11. Velleius Paterculus 2.14; Appian, BC, 1.36.

12. For the events in Asculum, see Appian, BC, 1.38; Velleius Paterculus 2.15. For the background to the revolt as an action motivated by a desire to push back against Roman power rather than a drive for Roman citizenship, see Mouritsen, Italian Unification, 130–142.

13. Asconius 22C. For discussion, see E. Badian, “Quaestiones Variae,” Historia 18 (1969): 447–491; Mouritsen, Italian Unification, 133–137. For a list of prosecutions or possible prosecutions undertaken because of this law, see Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 82.

14. Arming slaves: Appian, BC, 1.49. Law of Caesar: Appian, BC, 1.49; Cicero, Pro Balbo, 21 (LCL). Note, however, the arguments against Appian’s version of events made by Mouritsen, Italian Unification, 153–156. Although Mouritsen is certainly correct that increases in Roman manpower led to the Roman successes of 89 BC, I am not persuaded that the Umbrians and Etruscans revolted after the law was issued. Lex Calpurnia: Cicero, Pro Archia, 4.7 (LCL). Extension of Latin rights: Asconius 3C.

15. Plutarch, Sulla, 1 (LCL). Sulla’s ancestor P. Cornelius Rufinus held the consulship in 290 and 277 BC as well as a dictatorship during the conflict with Pyrrhus. He was subsequently expelled from the Senate because he held more than ten pounds of silver plate, a violation of a sumptuary law in effect at that time.

16. Sulla styled himself “Lucky” (Felix in Latin). Sulla’s Memoirs, which were cited extensively by Plutarch, offer a detailed account of Sulla’s own recollections of incidents where such divine communications occurred. It is unclear when Sulla came to this realization. It was perhaps as early as 106 BC, when he was serving alongside Marius in the war with Jugurtha, though Plutarch (Sulla, 5) indicates that this may have grown out of a conversation with some Chaldeans during Sulla’s meeting with a Parthian envoy. For discussion of the origins of this conviction, see J. P. V. D. Balsdon, “Sulla Felix,” Journal of Roman Studies 41 (1951): 1–10, at 9 (for the year 106 BC); A. Keaveney, Sulla: The Last Republican, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2005), 33–34 (for 93 BC).

17. Plutarch, Sulla, 2 (inheritance); Sulla, 3 (signet ring); Sulla, 5 (use of Bocchus connection in campaign for aedile). Bocchus himself reinforced this when, in the 90s BC, he paid for the erection in the Roman Forum of a gold statue of Sulla accepting the surrender of Jugurtha (Plutarch, Sulla, 6).

18. Plutarch, Sulla, 5, describes this period in Sulla’s career. For discussion, see Keaveney, Sulla, 27–35; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor, Vol. 1 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015), 206–207.

19. Plutarch, Sulla, 5 (extortion case), 6 (Bocchus statue).

20. Plutarch (Sulla, 6) describes Sulla’s conviction that fortune ensured that his intuition would lead to good outcomes.

21. Plutarch, Sulla, 6.

22. On Nicomedes: Appian, Mithridates, 11–12 (on Nicomedes’s debts) and 13–17 (on the embassies). On Mithridates’s career and life, see A. Mayor, The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithridates, Rome’s Deadliest Enemy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009).

23. For a concise summary of the initial phases of the campaign, see J. Hind, “Mithridates,” in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 9, The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146–43 BC, 2nd ed., ed. J. Crook, A. Lintott, and E. Rawson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 129–164, at 144–148. For the massacre, see Appian, Mith., 22; Valerius Maximus 9.2.3; Dio fr. 109.8; Plutarch, Sulla, 24.4.

24. Cicero described how “very many people lost large fortunes in Asia… there was a collapse in credit at Rome, because repayments were interrupted. Indeed, it is not possible for many people in one state to lose their property and fortunes without the result that many others are dragged into the same calamity with them” (De imp. Cn. Pomp., 19—LCL). For the resultant reforms as well as the murder of Asellio, see, for example, Appian, BC, 1.54. For discussion of the financial crisis of 88 BC, see Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 243–252.

25. For Asian taxes funding the grain distribution program, see Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 59–83; Tan, Power and Public Finance, 158–160.

26. For Sulpicius’s private army, see Plutarch, Sulla, 8.

27. On this shift, see the comments of Cicero, Har. resp., 43 (LCL); Velleius Paterculus 2.18.5–6; T. Mitchell, “The Volte-Face of P. Sulpicius Rufus in 88 BC,” Classical Philology 70, no. 3 (1975): 197–203; and the cautions of Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 87–93. Steel’s suggestion that Sulpicius’s tribal reforms are separate from the Marian command proposal (92n49) is sensible, even though Appian, BC, 1.55–56, conflates the two.

28. Though, as Steel (End of the Roman Republic, 93) notes, there was no precedent for ending a command before it even began.

29. Appian, BC, 1.57.

30. For Sulla’s advance and capture of the city, see Appian, BC, 1.58; Plutarch, Sulla, 9; Velleius Paterculus 2.19.

31. Punishment of soldiers: Appian, BC, 1.59, probably following Sulla’s memoirs in its account of these events. Condemnation of Marius and others: Appian, BC, 1.60, makes this clear.

32. A point made most powerfully by Flower, Roman Republics, 117–134.

33. Appian, BC, 1.62.

34. Marius’s Etruscan army: Appian, BC, 1.67. Samnites: Dio, fr. 102.7.

35. Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 97, gives a list of the dead. Appian (BC, 1.72–74) gives a litany of the ways the condemned lost their lives. For heads on the speaker’s platform, see Appian, BC, 1.73; Cicero, De or., 3.8–10.

36. Plutarch, Sulla, 12.

37. Death of Cinna: Appian, BC, 1.78. Defection of Italian armies: Velleius Paterculus 2.25.2.

38. Appian, BC, 1.82, speaking of the forces of the consuls arranged to meet Sulla on his approach.

39. On the Battle at the Colline Gate, see, for example, Velleius Paterculus 2.27.1–3; Appian, BC, 1.93; Plutarch, Sulla, 29. Paterculus is notable for describing this battle as one against a foreign adversary, describing the Samnite leader as presenting a threat to Rome as severe as anything since Hannibal. Steel (End of the Roman Republic, 106n105) is likely correct in seeing this view of the battle as ultimately deriving from Sulla’s own memoirs.

40. Executions of Samnites: Plutarch, Sulla, 30; Dio 109.6–7. On the proscriptions and confiscations, see Velleius Paterculus 2.28.1–4; Appian, BC, 1.95–96; Plutarch, Sulla, 31; F. Hinard, Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1985). For convictions simply because of wealth, see the anecdotes in Plutarch, Sulla, 31.

41. On these figures, see, for example, Sallust, Catiline, 28. On their loyalty, see Appian, BC, 1.96.

42. Appian, BC, 1.101.

43. Appian, BC, 1.79.

CHAPTER 7

1. Sallust, Histories, 1.49.1 (LCL).

2. Sallust, Histories, 1.49.2.

3. Sulla’s use of the property of the proscribed as a way to spread guilt: Plutarch, Crassus, 2 (LCL); Sallust, Hist., 1.49.18–19. Sulla fronting the money for purchases: Sallust (Hist., 4.1) and Cicero (2 Verr., 3.81), both of whom speak about proposals in the later 70s to get some of the beneficiaries of these policies to pay the money back to the state. Livy values the land confiscated by Sulla at 350 million sesterces (Per., 89). Appian counts 120,000 Sullan veterans settled on seized land (Appian, BC, 1.104).

4. Crassus, who was one of these men, was even said to have remarked that no one could be thought rich unless he had the resources to buy an army (Plutarch, Crassus, 2).

5. On the integration of new citizens in 86 BC, see Livy, Per., 84; Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 125; M. Crawford, “How to Create a municipium: Rome and Italy After the Social War,” in Modus Operandi: Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Rickman, ed. M. Austin, J. Harries, and C. Smith (London: Institute of Classical Studies, University of London, 1998), 31–46.

6. Sulla stripping citizenship: Sallust, Hist., 1.49; Cicero, Dom., 79 (LCL). The case of Roscius: Cicero, Rosc. Am., 20 (LCL); Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 133–135. Oppianicus: Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 21–25 (LCL). Pompey in Picenum: Plutarch, Pompey, 6 (LCL). Punishment of later generations: Sallust, Hist., 1.49.6.

7. Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 21, 162. For discussion, see Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 135.

8. For the Sullan elimination of the grain dole in 84 BC and its consequences, see Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 300–301.

9. On the dispute and the funeral, see the description of Appian, BC, 1.105–107.

10. For the grain measure, see Sallust, Hist., 1.55, 67; Granius Licinianus Bk. 36, p. 34F; Exsuper. 6 (37Z), and R. Seager, “The Rise of Pompey,” in Cambridge Ancient History, 9:208–209. For the land restorations, see Appian, BC, 1.107; Sallust, Hist., 1.67. On Lepidus’s position regarding the tribunate, Granius Licinianus Bk. 36, pp. 33–34, indicates that Lepidus was first to oppose an attempt by tribunes to get Sulla’s restrictions removed. Sallust (Hist., 1.49) indicates that he quickly reversed this position, likely after Sulla’s funeral.

11. Sallust, Hist., 1.60.

12. The sources describing these events make the chronology difficult to reconstruct. Appian mentions the provincial assignment and conflict with Catulus (BC, 107), but not the revolt in Eturia. Sallust (Hist., 1.57–72) describes the revolt in Etruria, but not the assignment in Gaul. Granius Licinianus (Bk. 36, pp. 34–35) suggests the chronology laid out above, though Lepidus’s provincial governorship can only be inferred based upon one of the text’s final fragments. For this reconstruction, see, too, Seager, “Rise of Pompey,” 208. On the coup more generally, see E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (264–70 BC), 275ff.; E. Gruen, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 12–16.

13. For the second consulship demand, see Sallust, Hist., 1.67.15. Death of Lepidus and survivors fleeing to Spain: Appian, BC, 1.107. For discussion, see Seager, “Rise of Pompey,” 209.

14. For these points, see, for example, Plutarch, Pompey, 16 (on Sulla’s example inspiring Lepidus), Sallust, Hist., 1.67.7–8 (which places Lepidus amid the litany of other challenges facing Rome at that time).

15. Plutarch, Pompey, 20; Sallust, Hist., 2.86. This situation will be discussed below. Sallust, however, makes it clear that Pompey’s request for supplies covers both his army and that of Metellus, who, he indicated, was supplied from Gaul in the previous year but could not get supplies in 74 because of a food shortage in that province.

16. Sallust, Hist., 2.41.

17. This was the campaign of M. Antonius, launched in 74 BC. Given that the grain shortage hit Italy, Gaul, and the armies in Spain, a climate event seems a more likely cause of the grain shortage than pirate activity.

18. lex Aurelia: Sallust, Hist., 2.44. For context, see B. Marshall and J. Lea Beness, “Tribunician Agitation and Aristocratic Reaction 80–71 BC,” Athenaeum 65 (1987): 361–378. Grain allowance passed in 73: Sallust, Hist., 3.15.19; Cicero, 2 Verr., 3.163 (LCL).

19. Sallust, Hist., 3.15.1, 3.15.13.

20. For an excellent survey of materials related to the revolt of Spartacus, see B. Shaw, Spartacus and the Slave Wars (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001); T. Urbainczyk, Slave Revolts in Antiquity (Stocksfeld: Acumen, 2008), 64–73. For free laborers joining the revolt, see Appian, BC, 1.116; Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 115.

21. On his machinations, see Appian, BC, 1.66–68; Plutarch, Pompey, 1. For discussion of his career, see R. Seager, Pompey the Great, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 20–23; A. Keaveney, “Pompeius Strabo’s Second Consulship,” Classical Quarterly 28 (1978): 240–241.

22. On this strategy as practiced by Strabo, see Seager, Pompey, 23.

23. Described in Plutarch, Pompey, 4–5. For Pompey’s situation at this time, see the discussion of A. Keaveney, “Young Pompey: 106–79 BC,” L’Antiquité Classique 51 (1982): 111–139, at 113–117.

24. Pompey leaving camp of Cinna: Plutarch, Pompey, 5. Raising revolt in Auximum: Plutarch, Pompey, 6–8; Diodorus Siculus 38–39.9. For discussion, see Keaveney, “Young Pompey,” 117–118. Soldiers from other districts: Plutarch, Pompey, 6; Appian, BC, 1.80. This secondary recruitment probably occurred after Pompey had reached Sulla (Keaveney, “Young Pompey,” 120).

25. Appian, BC, 1.80; Valerius Maximus 5.2.9 (Sulla rising at Pompey’s entrance); Plutarch, Pompey, 8; Crassus, 6 (Sulla greeting Pompey as imperator).

26. Imperium in Sicily: Cicero, Leg. Man., 61 (LCL); Livy, Per., 89.2; Granius Licinianus Bk. 36, p. 31, as well as the discussion of Keaveney, “Young Pompey,” 122–123. Execution of Carbo: Plutarch, Pompey, 10.3–4. adulescentulus carnifex: Valerius Maximus 6.2.8. For discussion of this passage, see B. X. de Wet, “Aspects of Plutarch’s Portrayal of Pompey,” Acta Classica 24 (1981): 119–132. Building relationships in provinces: Seager, Pompey, 27; Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 304.

27. On Pompey’s marital alliances, see the survey of S. Haley, “The Five Wives of Pompey the Great,” Greece and Rome 32 (1985): 49–59. Haley (on p. 49) dates this marriage to 82. For a date of 81 BC, following Pompey’s return from Africa, see Keaveney, “Young Pompey,” 132–133.

28. Plutarch, Pompey, 13. For discussion of how Strabo’s example influenced Pompey, see Seager, Pompey, 28–29.

29. Keaveney (“Young Pompey,” 128–130) and T. P. Hillman (“Pompeius in Africa and Sulla’s Order to Demobilize [Plutarch, Pompeius, 13, 1–4],” Latomus 56 [1997]: 94–106) both argue against the idea, put forward by Ernst Badian (“The Date of Pompey’s First Triumph,” Hermes 83 [1955]: 107–118, at 115) and others, that Pompey had orchestrated the mutiny. This is almost certainly true, but Pompey also managed the affair so that the soldiers’ will was clearly expressed in a way that insulated Pompey himself from charges of inciting rebellion.

30. Plutarch, Pompey, 14.

31. Plutarch, Pompey, 14.

32. Plutarch, Pompey, 14. On the significance of the elephants and the larger thematic program of the triumph, see G. Mader, “Triumphal Elephants and Political Circus at Plutarch ‘Pomp.’ 14.6,” Classical World 99, no. 4 (2006): 397–403.

33. Plutarch, Pompey, 15; Sulla, 34. For the idea of Pompey anticipating chaos by backing Lepidus, see Seager, Pompey, 30. Syme (Sallust, 185) is certainly correct that no candidate could stand for the consulship while exhibiting active hostility toward Sulla, but Sulla clearly did not favor Lepidus even if Lepidus’s animosity may not have been clear during the campaign. The speech that Sallust puts in his mouth (Hist., 1.49) ostensibly dates to when Sulla was still alive, but, if Sallust accurately reproduces the sentiments of Lepidus’s original, the speech likely reflects an evolution of Lepidus’s public position after the election. It is certainly possible, however, that Pompey either anticipated this evolution or knew that Lepidus’s private hostility toward Sulla would likely manifest itself publicly over time.

34. Plutarch, Pompey, 15.

35. Plutarch, Pompey, 16; Appian, BC, 1.108; Sallust, Hist., 1.67 (on calls for the Senatus consultum ultimum [SCU]), 68–72 (on the fight against Lepidus).

36. Post-Lepidus command: Plutarch, Pompey, 17. Pompey’s self-financing in Spain: Sallust, Hist., 2.84, 2.86. Ratification of Spanish citizenship extensions: Cicero, Balb., 19, 32–33, 38 (LCL). Burning of Perpenna’s papers: Plutarch, Pompey, 20.

37. If Sallust is to be believed, Pompey may have floated his support for such a restoration as early as 73 BC (Sallust, Hist., 3.15.23). On the background to this, see Gruen, Last Generation, 24–25. For other populist ideas floated by Pompey before the election, see Sallust, Hist., 4.32; Plutarch, Pompey, 21.

38. Sallust, Hist., 2.17–18.

39. Livy, Per., 80.7; Plutarch, Crassus, 4.

40. For his actions under Sulla, see Plutarch, Crassus, 6.

41. Plutarch, Crassus, 2, 6.

42. Gruen, Last Generation, 67, drawing on statements about his ambitions in Cicero, De Offic., 1.25; Dio 37.56.4; and Velleius Paterculus 2.44.2.

43. Plutarch, Crassus, 2.

44. For this characterization of Crassus, note Gruen, Last Generation, 66–74. For his lending activities, see Sallust, Catiline, 48.5; Plutarch, Crassus, 3. For his support of political initiatives of his allies in the 70s, note Plutarch, Crassus, 7.

45. Plutarch, Crassus, 3 (trans. Warner, slightly adapted).

46. For the nature of his position, see Brennan, Praetorship in the Roman Republic, 432–434.

47. The ferocity of Spartacus’s forces is made clear from Plutarch’s comment (which is certainly exaggerated) that, of the 12,000 followers of Spartacus killed by Crassus in one battle, only 3 had wounds in the back (Crassus, 11). The other 11,997 presumably were killed while standing and fighting Crassus’s forces. On Crassus’s use of decimation, see Plutarch, Crassus, 10; Appian, BC, 1.118. On the “improvement” in Roman morale because of this, note Appian, BC, 1.119.

48. Plutarch, Crassus, 11; Appian, BC, 1.120.

49. Plutarch, Crassus, 11; Appian, BC, 1.121.

50. Gellius, NA, 5.6.20–23. For discussion, see Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 117. For the difference between an ovatio and a triumph, see Plutarch, Crassus, 11; Marcellus, 22. On Crassus’s ovatio in particular, see B. A. Marshall, “Crassus’ Ovation in 71 B.C.,” Historia 21 (1972): 669–673.

51. Appian (BC, 1.121) is the main source.

52. Plutarch, Crassus, 12; Sallust, Hist., 4.40 (collegam minorem et sui cultorem exspectans).

53. Pompey’s push for court reforms: Cicero, Verr., 1.45; F. Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East, Vol. 3 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002), 169–170; Seager, Pompey, 36–39. On the land grants to his troops, see Dio 38.5 (which indicates that the law was passed and some land distributions occurred but others were postponed). Plutarch (Lucullus, 34) suggests that troops serving under other commanders knew of Pompey’s success in getting land for his veterans and felt angry that their commanders could not do the same for them. For discussion of this larger issue, see R. E. Smith, “The Lex Plotia Agraria and Pompey’s Spanish Veterans,” Classical Quarterly 7, nos. 1–2 (1957): 82–85.

54. Crassus, obtrectans potius collegae quam boni aut mali publici gravis exactor (Sallust, Hist., 4.41); cf. Plutarch, Crassus, 12.

55. Calls for reconciliation: Plutarch, Crassus, 12; Appian, BC, 1.121.

CHAPTER 8

1. Gabinius and mob of supporters: Dio 36.24. Cornelius: Asconius 57C–59C (in A. C. Clark, ed., Q. Asconii Pediani Orationum Ciceronis Quinque Enarratio [Oxford: Clarendon, 1907]) details some of the issues Cornelius sought to address. For discussion of the larger situation, see Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 144–146. Manlius: Asconius 45C, 65C–66C.

2. On this command, note Velleius Paterculus 2.31.1; Plutarch, Pompey, 25; Dio 36.24.3; Appian, Mith., 94.428. On the expectation that Pompey would hold it, see Cicero, leg. Man., 44; Dio 36.23.5.

3. Caesar’s advocacy for Pompey command: Plutarch, Pompey, 25; Seager, Pompey, 44n49. Hortensius’s comment: Cicero, leg. Man., 52; Seager, Pompey, 44. Roscius’s gesture: Dio 36.30.3. On the size of his forces, see Plutarch, Pompey, 26.2; Seager, Pompey, 45n62 (passage), 63 (increase in forces). Price of bread: Plutarch, Pompey, 26.2.

4. Dio 36.23 (attempt to secure patronage), 36.24.5 (disgrace he could not bear), 36.34.4 (Catulus’s speech).

5. For a thorough survey of piracy in this period, see P. de Souza, “Rome’s Contribution to the Development of Piracy,” Memoirs of the American Academy at Rome, Supplementary Vol. 6, The Maritime World of Ancient Rome (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press for the American Academy in Rome, 2008), 71–96. On Roman maritime domination as a cause, see N. Rauh, Merchants, Sailors, and Pirates in the Roman World (Stroud, UK: Tempus, 2003), 33. The connection of poverty and piracy is explained in Dio 36.37.5. Note, too, Seager, Pompey, 48. On Pompey’s campaign, see P. de Souza, Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 167–178.

6. It was, of course, impossible to end piracy. Piracy is not a state of being but an activity that people engage in—and the definition of what constitutes this behavior is similarly fluid. For discussion, see de Souza, “Rome’s Contribution,” 89–94, and, in a different time period, L. Mylonakis, “Transnational Piracy in the Eastern Mediterranean, 1821–1897” (PhD diss., University of California, San Diego, 2018), 6. On renewed pirate activity in the 50s, see de Souza, Piracy, 179–185.

7. Timing after tribal reform: Dio 36.42.1-3; Asconius 45C, 65C–66C. On the ability to wage war without senatorial consultation and the precedent it set, see Seager, Pompey, 52.

8. On these various motivations, see Dio 36.42–44.

9. Both Pliny (Letters, 10.79–80, 112, 114, 115 [LCL]) in the early second century AD and Dio in the early third century AD (37.20.2) make reference to Pompey’s laws and constitutions still being in use in their times.

10. Seager, Pompey, 80; E. Badian, Publicans and Sinners (Cornell University Press, 1983) (hereafter PS), 100ff. on the ways that senators could underwrite business undertaken by equites.

11. Dio 38.12.7.

12. The examples of this are myriad, but note, for example, the comments of Dio 38.12.6.

13. Plutarch, Caesar, 1; Suetonius, Caesar, 1 (LCL).

14. Velleius Paterculus 2.22; Florus 2.9 (LCL).

15. For evidence of these views of Sulla, see, for example, Dio 36.34.4; Appian, BC, 1.104.

16. Plutarch, Caesar, 5.1–2. Suetonius, Caesar, 6.1, preserves a small section of the speech on Julia that describes her mother’s family as descended from the king Ancus Martius and her father from Venus. For the date of 69, see T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (hereafter MRR), vol. II (New York: American Philological Association, 1952), note 7; MRR, vol. III (Atlanta: American Philological Association, 1986), 105–106.

17. Plutarch, Caesar, 5.2.

18. So says Plutarch (Caesar, 4.5).

19. Plutarch, Caesar, 5.9; Dio 37.8.1–2.

20. Plutarch, Cato, 1.1 (LCL).

21. Not laughing: Plutarch, Cato, 1.2. Dangled from a window: Valerius Maximus 3.1.2b; Plutarch, Cato, 2.1–4. Killing Sulla: Plutarch, Cato, 3.4.

22. Inheritance: Plutarch, Cato, 4.1. Plutarch (Crassus, 2.2–3) explains that Crassus inherited 1.8 million denarii and grew the fortune to 42.6 million denarii. In 62 BC, Cicero (ad Fam., 5.6.2; Gellius 12.12) bought a house from Crassus for 3.5 million sesterces (875,000 denarii). Ostentatious modesty: Plutarch, Cato, 6.4, though Plutarch interprets Cato’s motivation differently.

23. Plutarch, Cato, 7.2.

24. Dressing as a common soldier: Plutarch, Cato, 9.1–5. Soldiers placing garments on ground: Plutarch, Cato, 12.1. Conflict with Catulus: Plutarch, Cato, 16. Legal proceedings against Sullans: Plutarch, Cato, 17.4-5.

25. Cicero (de lege agraria 3) would comment that his election as a new man was “almost the first [such instance] in living memory.”

26. Cicero (Letters to Atticus, 1.2.1, LCL) actually contemplated defending Catiline in this case.

27. The speech itself is lost, but such is the testimony of Asconius, 84–85. Antonius too was attacked in the speech. For analysis, see D. Berry, Cicero Pro Sulla oratio (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 265–272.

28. For Catiline’s cynical appeals to the downtrodden, see Sallust, Catiline, 35.3–4 (LCL); Cicero, Mur., 50–51 (LCL). On the plausibility of Cicero’s report, see Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 154. For the Sullan fondness of some of his other supporters, note Sallust, Catiline, 5.6, 37.6. Cato’s threat (which apparently happened in early July of 63) is recorded by Cicero, Mur., 51. The election was held in mid-July.

29. This is the suggestion of Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 157–158.

30. On this sequence of events, see Plutarch, Cicero, 15 (LCL); Crassus 13.3; Dio 37.31.1–3.

31. Letters read aloud: Sallust, Catiline, 47.2–3. Supplicatio: Cicero, Cat., 3.15; speech to people: Sallust, Catiline, 48.

32. Sallust, Catiline, 48.7.

33. Sallust, Catiline, 49.

34. Sallust, Catiline, 51.27. Sallust has likely adapted the texts of both Caesar’s and Cato’s speeches, but, because Cicero had ordered the minutes of the senate proceedings on these days recorded by a stenographer, Sallust and his audience both likely had access to the transcripts of the original speeches. Sallust must then be generally true to the sentiments spoken at the time.

35. Sallust, Catiline, 52.

36. Rumored punishment of Caesar: Plutarch, Caesar, 8.4–5. Execution of conspirators: Sallust, Catiline, 55. Cicero’s escort: Plutarch, Cicero, 22.2–4; Appian, BC, 2.6; Velleius Paterculus 2.35.4.

37. Cicero, Fam., 5.2, Pis., 6–7; Asconius 6C. For discussion and additional bibliography, see Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 159n65.

38. Nepos blocked from reciting law: Plutarch, Cato, 28.1–2. For the incident in general: Dio 37.43–44; Plutarch, Cato, 26–29; Suetonius, Caesar, 16.

39. Sallust, Catiline, 51.34.

CHAPTER 9

1. The location of Jericho comes in Josephus, Bellum Judaicum (hereafter BJ), 1.138 (LCL); Jewish Antiquities (hereafter JA), 14.53 (LCL). In a complicated section designed perhaps to foreshadow the deaths of both Pompey and Caesar, Dio 37.10–13 groups the deaths of Mithridates and Catiline together and prefaces the discussion with the comment that “changing circumstances often render very weak even those who are exceedingly powerful.”

2. Plutarch, Pompey, 42.

3. On the implicit expectation from some that Pompey would march: Cicero, ad Fam., 5.7.1 (LCL). On Cicero’s arrogant suggestion that Pompey ought to congratulate him more heartily: Cicero, ad Fam., 2–3. On Crassus’s flight: Plutarch, Pompey, 43.1.

4. Disembarking in Brundisium: Dio 37.20.4. Dismissing army: Plutarch, Pompey, 43.2.

5. With some exaggeration, Plutarch writes that the army of soldiers that Pompey had dismissed was soon replaced with a new civilian army made up of “people streaming forth to show their gratitude” who accompanied the victorious general to the gates of Rome (Plutarch, Pompey, 43.3).

6. Dio 37.20.6.

7. Plutarch, Pompey, 42.7, offers adultery as an explanation. Cicero, Att., 1.12.3, can be read as supporting this. For the divorce as a repudiation of Nepos, see Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 160–161.

8. Cato seeing Pompey’s marriage proposal as a plot: Plutarch, Pompey, 44.3; compare Plutarch, Cato, 30.1–5.

9. Cato had already used this coalition to block Pompey’s request to help his former legate Pupius Piso campaign for consul in the summer of 62 (Plutarch, Pompey, 44.1–2; Cato, 30; Dio 37.44.3).

10. Indeed, by emphasizing the shock that Cato’s wife and female family members had at his decision to reject Pompey, Plutarch demonstrates how counterintuitive his resonant decision had seemed.

11. Seager, Pompey, 78, on the basis of Cicero, Att., 1.14.2.

12. On Pompey’s triumph, note M. Beard, The Roman Triumph (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), 7–41; Seager, Pompey, 79–80.

13. For Pompey’s list of regions and revenues: Diodorus Siculus 40.1.4 (LCL).

14. On Metellus Celer’s animosity toward Pompey because of the divorce, note Dio 37.49.

15. Dio 37.50.6.

16. Cicero, Att., 1.17.8–9, describes this incident.

17. Cicero, Att., 2.1.8.

18. On Caesar’s Spanish command and the triumph, see, for example, Plutarch, Caesar, 11–12; Dio 37.52.

19. Bibulus feared being overshadowed: Suetonius, Caesar, 19. Cato’s filibuster: Plutarch, Cato, 31.3, Caesar, 13.2; Dio 37.54.2. Woods and pastures: Suetonius, Caesar, 19.2. Seager (Pompey, 84) has suggested that this appointment may have been an effort to hold the consuls in reserve in case their forces were needed elsewhere. Cato’s bribery: Suetonius, Caesar, 19.1.

20. Plutarch, Crassus, 7.6.

21. Dio 37.55.1–3.

22. Plutarch, Crassus, 14.2.

23. Ancient sources differ over when the reconciliation actually took place. For the formation of the agreement before the election, see Livy, Per., 103; Plutarch, Crassus, 14.1–3, Caesar, 13.1–2, Pompey, 47, Cato, 31.2–5. For formation after the vote, see Suetonius, Caesar, 19; Velleius Paterculus 2.44.1. For discussion, see Gruen, Last Generation, 88–90.

24. Dio 37.57.1.

25. Dio 38.2.2.

26. Dio 38.3.

27. Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 165.

28. Threat of force: Plutarch, Pompey, 47, Caesar, 14. For discussion, see Seager, Pompey, 87. Opponents’ fear when recognizing alliance of Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus: Dio 38.4.5.

29. Dio 38.7.3.

30. On the chronology, see L. R. Taylor, “On the Chronology of Caesar’s First Consulship,” American Journal of Philology 72 (1951): 254–268, at 255, on the basis of Cicero, Att., 2.16.2. Cato refusing to mention Caesar’s name: Dio 38.7.6.

31. Taylor, “Chronology,” 264, on the basis of Cicero, Att., 2.16.

32. Dio 38.7.3.

33. Dio 38.8.2; dating suggested by Cicero, Att., 2.18.3 and 2.19.5. Note the discussion of Taylor, “Chronology,” 265–268.

34. On Clodius’s career generally, see W. Jeffrey Tatum, The Patrician Tribune: Publius Clodius Pulcher (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010). For Cicero “overwhelming Clodius in the senate to his face,” see Att., 1.16, a letter of May 61.

35. Clodius was the son of Appius Pulcher (consul in 79 BC) and the grandson of Appius Claudius Pulcher (consul in 143).

36. The process of approval usually involved the scrutiny of the college of Roman priests and then a formal approval by the concilium plebis, following a three-week delay. For discussion of this process and Clodius’s divergence from it, see C. Meier, Caesar (New York: Basic Books, 1982), 215.

37. On this incident, see Seager, Pompey, 91–92. Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 167, doubts that this event could have precipitated Caesar’s actions.

38. Dio 38.10–12.

39. For this as a legislative package, see Dio 38.13.1–2.

40. Milo occupying Campus Martius: Cicero, Att., 4.3.4–5. Senate disruptions: Cicero, Q Fr., 2.1.1–3.

41. On Caesar’s commentaries, see T. P. Wiseman, “The Publication of De Bello Gallico,” in Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter: The War Commentaries as Political Instruments, ed. A. Powell and K. Welch (Swansea, UK: Duckworth, 1998), 1–9. For his ability to inspire troops, see, for example, Plutarch, Caesar, 15–17.

42. On this particular historical moment, see T. P Wiseman, “Caesar, Pompey, and Rome, 59–50 B.C.,” in Cambridge Ancient History, 9:368–424, at 184n143; Asconius 30C–42C; Dio 40.46.

43. Asconius 35–36.

44. Cicero, Att., 7.1.4. On the law permitting this, which Pompey and all ten tribunes backed, see Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 186n152. Caesar was also explicitly exempted from a later law sponsored by Pompey requiring all candidates to present themselves in person when seeking election (Seager, Pompey, 138–139; Cicero, Att., 8.3.3).

45. The comment appears in Cicero, Fam., 8.8.9. For analysis, see Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 190.

46. Cicero, Fam., 8.6.5.

47. For Caesar’s fear that his election might be blocked or delayed, see R. Morstein-Marx, “Caesar’s Alleged Fear of Prosecution and His ratio absentis,” Historia 56 (2007): 159–178. For a survey of other possibilities, see Steel, End of the Roman Republic, 193–194.

48. Appian, BC, 2.118.

CHAPTER 10

1. These preparations are described in Gallic Wars (henceforth BG), 8.49–51 (LCL), reports written by a narrator other than Caesar. The report of these spectacles would also have enhanced perceptions of Caesar in Rome, which was certainly part of the purpose of these displays of enthusiastic loyalty.

2. Caesar, BG, 8.52.

3. Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 146. Note as well Arena, “Invocation to Liberty,” 58.

4. On sedition of this sort in the context of Roman Republican political thought, see, for example, Cicero, de Re Publica, 6.1.

5. On this incident, see Caesar, BG, 8.55; Dio 40.66; Appian, BC, 2.30–31; Cicero, ad Fam., 2.17.5.

6. On the SCU, see Caesar, BC, 1.4 (LCL). For Pompey’s command of the forces, see Appian, BC, 2.33.

7. Pompey and Senate conspiring against him: Caesar, BC, 1.4–5. Pompey concerned about dignity: Caesar, BC, 1.6.

8. Appian, BC, 2.30; Plutarch, Caesar, 16.1.

9. Caesar, BC, 1.11.

10. Pompey’s retreat is discussed in Caesar, BC, 1.14–27; Appian, BC, 2.36–39; Dio 41.5–13.

11. Appian, BC, 2.40; Plutarch, Caesar, 34.6–9.

12. Cato’s retreat: Appian, BC, 2.41; Caesar, BC, 1.30–31. Curio’s defeat and death in North Africa: Appian, BC, 2.45.

13. For example, Appian, BC, 2.43.

14. Steel (End of the Roman Republic, 197) offers a list of the imperium holders. Dio 41.43.2 speaks of two hundred senators. For a survey of Pompey’s forces, see Appian, BC, 2.49; Caesar, BC, 3.3.

15. Appian, BC, 2.63; Caesar, BC, 3.73–74.

16. Senators force Pompey to move aggressively: Appian, BC, 2.67; Caesar, BC, 3.82; Plutarch, Caesar, 40–41. Caesar’s victory at Pharsalus: Caesar, BC, 3.88–89, and Appian, BC, 2.70 (following Caesar), give the sizes of the two armies.

17. On Pompey’s fate, see Plutarch, Pompey, 77–80; Appian, BC, 2.83–86; Caesar, BC, 3.103–104; Velleius Paterculus 2.53. Excepting Caesar, most of these sources drew on the earlier account of Asinius Pollio. For discussion, see L. Morgan, “The Autopsy of Asinius Pollio,” Journal of Roman Studies 90 (2000): 51–69, at 52.

18. Appian, BC, 2.91, and Plutarch, Caesar, 50, both preserve the phrase in Greek translation. Dio (42.48.1) paraphrases it. Appian indicates that the phrase formed the text of a report of the campaign that Caesar sent by letter to Rome. Suetonius (Caesar, 37) gives the Latin, indicating that it was displayed on a tablet during Caesar’s triumph.

19. The loan situation is described in Caesar, BC, 3.20. Appian, BC, 2.48, seems to follow Caesar’s narrative here. Dio (41.37.3) indicates that the issue involved repayment of the principal of loans in cash. For discussion, see Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 260–264. For the hoarding of precious metal, see Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 261, on the basis of Dio 41.38.1.

20. For Caesar’s responses, see Caesar, BC, 3.1.2; Dio 41.37.3; Kay, Rome’s Economic Revolution, 260–264.

21. Caelius’s loan measures: Dio 42.22; Caesar, BC, 3.20–21. Caelius’s alliance with Milo and their eventual defeat: Dio 42.24–25; Caesar, BC, 3.22.

22. Antony occupying the Forum: Dio 42.29–33 discusses these events in detail. Appian, BC, 2.91, alludes briefly to them. Caesar’s return: Dio 42.33.2 says explicitly that Caesar’s mere presence served to calm the city. On the other measures, see, for example, Dio 42.50.

23. Dio 42.52–55; Appian, BC, 2.92–94.

24. Appian, BC, 2.94. Dio records the riot at greater length but does not mention the promise to use his own money to fund supplies for the discharged soldiers.

25. Caesar’s triumph and forum: Appian, BC, 2.102; Dio 43.21–22. Caesar’s control of the public revenues: Dio 43.45.1, dated by Dio to 45 BC.

26. Cicero, Fam., 7.30.1, repeated by Dio 43.46.4.

27. Caesar approving election results: Dio 47.1. Octavian as master of the horse: Dio 43.51.6–7.

28. Dio 43.20.3, cf. Horace, Ep., 1.59–60.

29. Caesar greeted as king: Suetonius, Caesar, 79, reproduced almost verbatim in Appian, BC, 2.108. Lupercalia: Suetonius, Caesar, 79; Plutarch, Caesar, 61; Dio 44.11; Nicolaus of Damascus, Aug., 21 (in M. Toher, ed., Nicolaus of Damascus: The Life of Augustus and the Autobiography [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017]); among others. For discussion, see J. North, “Caesar at the Lupercalia,” Journal of Roman Studies 98 (2008): 144–160.

30. For a summary of these measures, see Dio 43.45.

31. The Roman hatred of kingship is often expressed in Republican authors (e.g., Cicero, de Re Publica, 2.30). For the selection process, note, for example, the description of Cicero, de Re Publica 2.23–24.

32. Dio alone devotes the first eleven chapters of the forty-fourth book of his history to the decrees passed honoring Caesar in those years. For these lists as a later comment on Caesar’s arrogance, see A. Lintott, “The Assassination,” in A Companion to Julius Caesar, ed. M. Griffin (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 72–82. For statues in cities and temples: Appian, BC, 2.106; Dio 44.4; Suetonius, Caesar, 76.

33. This coin is RRC 443/1. For the interpretation of its iconography, see D. Backendorf, Römische Münzschätze des zweiten und ersten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Vom italienischen Festland (Berlin: Phillip von Zabern, 1998), 210. For the dating, see Crawford, RRC, p. 89.

34. This coin is RRC 458/1.

35. These coins are RRC 480/2a–c (DICT QUART); 480/3, 480/4, 480/5a–b, 480/17 (variations of IMP); and 480/6-15, 480/18 (variations of DICT IN PERPETUO). The last group must have been first issued before February 15, 44 BC—which suggests that the other two must date to the beginning of the year. On their chronology and iconography, see Crawford, RRC, pp. 492–495.

36. For example, Appian, BC, 2.112.

37. On the person of Brutus more generally, see K. Tempest, Brutus the Noble Conspirator (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017). The Libertas coin is RRC 433/1. The date of 54 BC is suggested by Crawford. For alternative dates, see S. Cerutti, “Brutus, Cyprus and the Coinage of 55 BC,” American Journal of Numismatics 5–6 (1993–1994): 69–87. The Ahala coin is RRC 433/2. On the Ahala incident, see Livy 6.13, 14.

38. On this conception of political liberty in the late Republic, see Arena, Libertas and the Practice of Politics, chap. 2.

39. This question prompted a shift in Cicero’s definition of liberty from a judicial conception tied to one’s rights within a state in de Re Publica to one centered on the freedom of the individual from the interference of others in works from the 40s such as de Officiis and the Philippics. On this evolution, see Arena, “Invocation to Liberty,” 49–73.

40. Plutarch (Brutus, 8–10) describes how Cassius’s persuasion of Brutus to take part in the plot against Caesar centered on the idea that the defense of liberty required the dictator’s murder.

41. Suetonius, Caesar, 82.

42. Brutus’s choice of the Senate: for example, Appian, BC, 2.114. On this response within the city: Appian, BC, 2.118.

CHAPTER 11

1. Appian, BC, 2.119, describes the cap and spear.

2. Appian, BC, 2.122; Dio 45.21.

3. For Cicero’s actions: Cicero, Att., 14.10.1 (call the Senate), 15.11 (kill Antony). For Lepidus: Appian, BC, 2.124; Dio 44.34.5; Nicolaus of Damascus, Aug. 27.

4. Cicero, Att., 14.10.1, 15.11.2.

5. The date of his speech is not completely clear, though Plutarch’s placing of it on the sixteenth seems most likely (Plutarch, Caesar, 67.7; see E. Rawson, “The Aftermath of the Ides,” in Cambridge Ancient History, online edition [2008], 9:468–490, at 459). Appian (BC, 2.137–142) offers a re-creation of the address, though evidently places it after the meeting of the Senate on March 17, timing that would be curious. The actual speech, probably the contio Capitolina that was later published, is described by Cicero, Att., 15.1a.

6. Dio (44.34.6) rightly emphasizes that Lepidus would gain the most by using force immediately.

7. The meeting is described at Dio 44.22.3; Appian BC, 2.126–129. For a summary, see J. S. Richardson, Augustan Rome, 44 BC to AD 14 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012), 13; J. Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy: Civil War and the Emergence of the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 13–14; Rawson, “Aftermath,” 469. For tentativeness of speakers: Appian, BC, 2.127. For Antony’s point: Appian, BC, 2.128.

8. Appian, BC, 2.131–132.

9. For Caesar’s will, see Dio, 44.35.1–4; Appian, BC, 2.143; Plutarch, Caesar, 68. For a concise description of the dating of its public reading, see Richardson, Augustan Rome, 15.

10. Appian, BC, 2.143. On Appian’s use of Pollio here, see Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 12n1.

11. Dio 44.35.4. Appian (BC, 2.147), by contrast, says that the body itself could not be seen by the crowd.

12. The most extensive account is that of Appian, BC, 2.144–147. See, too, among others, Dio 44.35; Plutarch, Caesar, 68; Suetonius, Caesar, 84. On the theatricality of the production, see Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 13.

13. Appian, BC, 2.147.

14. On this character (also called Hierophilus), see Appian, BC, 3.2–3; Livy, Per., 116; Valerius Maximus 9.15.1; Cicero, Phil., 1.5; and the discussion of B. Scardigli, “Il falso Mario,” Studi italiani di filogia classica n.s. 52 (1980): 207–221.

15. Appian, BC, 3.2.

16. Appian, BC, 3.4–5.

17. Caesar’s intention to take Octavian on campaign: Appian, BC, 3.9. Octavian counseled to reject will: Appian, BC, 3.10–11; Nicolaus of Damascus, Aug., 18; Suetonius, Augustus, 3.

18. Appian, BC, 3.11.

19. For this date, see M. Toher, “Octavian’s Arrival in Rome, 44 B.C.,” Classical Quarterly 54, no. 1 (2004): 174–184, on the basis of Appian, BC, 3.105–106; Nicolaus, Aug., 28; Cicero, Att., 14.5.3 and 14.6.1.

20. This is suggested strongly by Nicolaus, Aug., 28, and Appian (BC, 3.28). For discussion, see Toher, “Octavian’s Arrival,” 175.

21. Dio, 45.5.3–4; Florus 2.15.2–3.

22. Legacies to Romans: Appian, BC, 3.21. Lawsuits: Appian, BC, 3.22. Prohibition on standing for tribune: Appian, BC, 3.31; Dio 45.6.3. Meetings of reconciliation: Appian, BC, 3.30.

23. On the comet appearance: Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 40–41; J. T. Ramsey and A. L. Licht, The Comet of 44 BC and Caesar’s Funeral Games (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). On the departures of Brutus and Cassius: Plutarch, Brutus, 24; Nicolaus, Aug., 30; Cicero, Phil., 10.8. For the dating, see Rawson, “Aftermath,” 476n50.

24. On this incident, see Cicero, Fam., 12.23.2, Nicolaus of Damascus, Vit. Aug., 30; Appian, BC, 3.39.

25. Octavian’s problems with his soldiers: Appian, BC, 3.44. Defection of Antony’s soldiers: Appian, BC, 3.45; Dio 45.13.

26. Octavian pledging forces against Antony: Appian, BC, 3.47; Dio 45.14 frames Octavian’s action as making himself a friend of Decimus Brutus rather than the Senate. Octavian dissuading his soldiers from demanding title in Rome: Appian, BC, 3.48.

27. Cicero’s praise: Cicero, Phil., 3.37–39, narrated by Dio 45.15; discussion at Richardson, Augustan Rome, 26–27. Authority to Octavian: Dio 46.29; Appian, BC, 3.48. Vote that Republic should not come to any harm: Cicero, Phil., 8.6; Augustus, Res Gestae, 1.3; Dio 46.29.5; Appian, BC, 3.63.

28. On the battles more generally: Dio 46.36–38. On the legio Martia in particular: Cicero, Phil., 14.29–35; Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 52.

29. Dio 46.40.3–4; Cicero, Ep. ad Brutum, 24.9, speaks about the honors voted in this meeting.

30. For larger narration: Dio 46.39, Appian, BC, 3.80–81.

31. On these events: Appian, BC, 3.86–88; Richardson, Augustan Rome, 31–32; Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 58–59.

32. Velleius Paterculus 2.69.5 indicates that Pedius introduced the law imposing banishment on all of Caesar’s murderers.

33. For this moment, see the concise description of Richardson, Augustan Rome, 34, and, for the many unknowns of the world it created, C. Pelling, “The Triumviral Period,” in Cambridge Ancient History 10:1–5. The ancient sources for the triumvirate include Appian, BC, 4.2–3; Dio 46.54–55; Suetonius, Augustus, 96; Plutarch, Cicero, 46; Antony, 18–19.

34. Osgood (Caesar’s Legacy, 63–150) offers the most compelling reconstruction of the consequences of the land confiscations and proscriptions. Ancient authors such as Appian, Dio, and Valerius Maximus provide catalogs of stories about the victims of the proscriptions and those who avoided their effects. Though these have been dismissed as fantasies by some scholars, Osgood (Caesar’s Legacy, 81) shows that there is good reason to believe that they capture something of the reality of the moment.

35. Triumvirs’ entry: Appian, BC, 4.7; Dio 47.2. Cicero’s capture: Appian, BC, 4.19–20; Dio 47.8, 11; Plutarch, Cicero, 47–48, Antony, 20. Initial killings: Appian, BC, 4.5, gives these numbers. Livy, Per., 120, notes 130 senators and many equites. Plutarch, Antony, 20, counts 300 senators but does not mention equites. Dio 47.3–14 gives no numbers. The tax on women and the response of Hortensia: Appian, BC, 4.32, and the analysis of Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 84–87.

36. Judaea: Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 88–89, following Josephus, JA, 14.272, and BJ, 1.220. Dio 47.28.3 alludes to this. Tarsus: Dio 47.31 (generally); Appian, BC, 4.64 (on the 1,500-talent fine). Rhodes: Appian, BC, 4.65–73 (the Rhodian proscriptions are found at 4.73) and Dio 47.33. Brutus’s sack of Xanthus and Patara: Appian, BC, 4.76–81; Dio 47.34. Brutus portrait on coins: RRC 507.1a and b.

37. On Philippi: Augustus, Res Gestae, 2; Dio 47.37–49; Appian, BC, 4.107–138; Suetonius, Augustus, 13; Plutarch, Brutus, 43–53. Note, too, the discussion of Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 95–104.

38. Casualty figures for Philippi: Plutarch, Brutus, 45; Appian, BC, 4.112. Former “liberator” soldiers joining triumviral armies: Appian, BC, 4.138; Velleius Paterculus 2.71.1; Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 103–104; Brunt, Italian Manpower, 485–488.

39. For a detailed discussion of the horrors of the Perusine war, see Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 152–166.

40. Brundisium: Appian, BC, 5.59, goes so far as to say that Octavian’s forces claimed they had come to defend Brundisium “with the intention of bringing them to an agreement or, if Antony refused and continued the war, of defending Octavian against him.” On Brundisium and its context, see Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 188–207; Pelling, “Triumviral Period,” 17–21. Agreement with Sextus Pompey: Appian, BC, 5.74.

41. On this question, see Appian, BC, 5.95, and Pelling, “Triumviral Period,” 27.

42. Territorial grants to Cleopatra: Plutarch, Antony, 36; Dio 49.32; Josephus, JA, 15.94–95. For discussion, see Pelling, “Triumviral Period,” 29; Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 244. Cleopatra as cause of Parthian calamity: Livy, Per., 130; Plutarch, Antony, 37–38; Pelling, “Triumviral Period,” 32.

43. For the Messana events and Lepidus’s reduction, see Appian, BC, 5.122ff.; Dio 49.12.4; Paterculus 2.80.4.

44. Combat injury: Appian, Illyricum, 28.82; Augustus, Res Gestae, 29.1. Contrast of vigor of Octavian with Antony: Appian, Illyricum, 16.46; Plutarch, Antony, 55. For these developments, see the discussions of Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 325–326; Pelling, “Triumviral Period,” 46.

45. Construction projects: Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 329–330. There were some projects undertaken by supporters of Antony, but, as Osgood shows, these were fewer in number and completed less efficiently. Agrippa activities: Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 330–336; Pelling, “Triumviral Period,” 47–48.

46. On this incident and its aftermath, see Plutarch, Antony, 53–54; Dio 49.33; and the discussion of Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 336. About Octavia returning to the marital home, Plutarch (Antony, 54.2) comments, “Without meaning it, she was damaging Antony by this conduct of hers; for he was hated for wronging such a woman.”

47. Dio 49.40; Plutarch, Antony, 50.4 (pseudo-triumph), 54.3 (territory distribution); cf. Horace, Ep., 9. On these events and the dubious nature of the ancient evidence, see Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 338–339.

48. For the senate meeting: Dio 50.2.3 (January 1 meeting), 50.2.4–6 (Octavian’s meeting).

49. Flight of senators to Antony: Dio 50.2.7. Antony’s will: Dio 50.3.4–5, 50.20; Plutarch, Antony, 58.3–4. On the validity of the will, see J. R. Johnson, “The Authenticity and Validity of Antony’s Will,” L’Antiquité Classique 47 (1978): 494–503. Antony ceased to act like a Roman: Suetonius, Augustus, 17.2. Library of Pergamum to Cleopatra: Plutarch, Antony, 58.5. Moving capital to Alexandria: Dio 50.4.1. For discussion of these rumors and their context, see Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 354–355.

50. Augustus, Res Gestae, 25.2.

51. This was Bononia, described in Suetonius, Augustus, 17.2, and analyzed in Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, 359.

52. Osgood (Caesar’s Legacy, 357–364) offers a thoroughly compelling reconstruction and contextualization of the oath, its Republican antecedents, and the precedent it set for loyalty oaths in the imperial period.

53. Dio 50.10 describes these riots.

54. For discussion of Egyptian property as a component of the patrimonium of the emperor, see D. Rathbone, “Egypt, Augustus, and Roman Taxation,” Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 4 (1993): 81–112, at 99–110, and D. Rathbone, “The Imperial Finances,” in The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 10, The Augustan Empire, 43 BC–AD 69, 2nd ed., ed. A. Bowman, E. Champlin, and A. Lintott (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 315–316.

CHAPTER 12

1. Suetonius, Caesar, 77.1.

2. Libations poured: Dio 51.19.6. Temple of Janus: Augustus, Res Gestae, 13.

3. Dio. 51.21.1–2.

4. Dio, 51.21.4.

5. Dio 51.20.6.

6. Augustus, Res Gestae, 34.

7. For this concept, see J. A. Crook, “Political History, 30 BC to 14 AD,” in Cambridge Ancient History 10:76ff.

8. Augustus, Res Gestae, 17.

9. For this moment, see Dio 53.11; Strabo 17.3.25.

10. On his illness, see Dio 53.31.1. Dio places the assassination attempt in 22 BC (54.3.4–8), though many scholars have redated it to 23 on the basis of a lacunose entry in the Fasti Capitolini related to the consulship of a Murena who may have been involved. These threats would then be seen a precipitating event for the constitutional redefinition. Against this see the concise summary of Richardson, Augustan Rome, 103–104. The dating question is, however, not important for our purposes.

11. Res Gestae, 34.

12. Dio 53.16.8. Compare Suetonius, Augustus, 7.2; Velleius Paterculus 2.91.1.

13. Dio 53.18.2.

14. Dio 54.1.1–2.

15. Intra paucos dies metu et periclo praesenti populum universum meis impensis liberarem (Res Gestae, 5).

16. Age range of senators: T. Parkin, Old Age in the Roman World (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 104.

17. J. A. Crook, “Augustus: Power, Authority, Achievement,” in Cambridge Ancient History 10:146.

18. Cicero expresses this idea frequently in the mid-60s, from at least 66 BC when it appears in Pro Cluentio, 151–153. For other references or allusions, see, for example, Catil., 4.14–17; Rab. Perd., 27; ad Fam., 5.2.8. The most recent substantial discussion of the concept in Cicero is J. Zarecki, Cicero’s Ideal Statesman in Theory and Practice (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014), 49–59.

19. For example, Cicero, Att., 1.18.3.