bject of this book is the transformation of state and society at Rome between 60 B.C. and A.D. 14. It is composed round a centr

erges as the dominant theme of political history, as the binding link between the Republic and the Empire: it is something real

entiments even submission to absolute rule was a lesser evil than war between citizens. 1 Liberty was gone, but only a minority

man to suggest and demonstrate a sharp line of division in his career between two periods, the first of deplorable but necessar

. His character and tastes disposed him to be neutral in the struggle between Caesar and Pompeius had neutrality been possible.

ndicated, it remains to choose a date for the beginning. The breach between Pompeius and Caesar and the outbreak of war in 49

murder of the best men; for the ambitions of the dynasts provoked war between class and class. Naked power prevailed. 4 The a

modern and parliamentary character, not by the ostensible opposition between Senate and People, Optimates and Populares, nobil

rty-qualification. The letter of the law likewise knew no distinction between rich and poor. 4 Nepos, Vita Attici 6, 2: ‘hono

s were their partners, allies or advocates. Concord and firm alliance between Senate and knights would therefore arrest revolut

agents. It took shape at first in his consulate as concordia ordinum between Senate and knights against the improbi, but later

e NotesPage=>018 1 Münzer, RA, 53 ff. 2 No Fabius was consul between 116 and 45 B.C. 3 Q. Fabius Maximus Aemilianus

of the governing coalition is revealed in the relations and alliances between that house and two other groups. The first is the

r personal ends and played an ambiguous game when civil war broke out between Marius and Sulla. Brutal, corrupt and perfidious,

r and ambitious orator of humble extraction, managed the negotiations between tribunes and army commanders when they united to

hich provoked long debate and intrigue, further sharpening the enmity between Pompeius and Crassus. In the spring of 56 B.C.

of Crassus, slain by the Parthians (53 B.C.), the danger of a breach between Pompeius and his ally might appear imminent. It w

counterbalance against the Catonian party until he made final choice between the two. Cato, standing for the consulate, was si

the People was incited against the Senate. The threat of a coalition between Pompeius and the Optimates united their enemies a

(49); the Marcelli, Marcus (cos. 51) and Gaius (49). For the kinship between these two families, above, p. 44, n. 1. Spinther’

ur. His enemies appeared to have triumphed. They had driven a wedge between the two dynasts, winning over to their side the p

head of an army in the field. Upon Caesar they had thrust the choice between civil war and political extinction. But Caesar re

the Senate, in Rome, and in Italy. They pretended that the issue lay between a rebellious proconsul and legitimate authority.

but subtle and grandiose to evacuate Italy, leaving Caesar entrapped between the legions of Spain and the hosts of all the Eas

patriots on the other is as schematic and misleading as the contrast between the aspirant to autocracy and the forces of law a

l, but not the Dictator: Augustus was careful sharply to discriminate between Dictator and Princeps. Under his rule Caesar the

essed outright or called up from time to time to enhance the contrast between the unscrupulous adventurer who destroyed the Fre

3 (especially the competition for Caesar’s office of pontifex maximus between Scipio, Lentulus Spinther and Ahenobarbus). Pag

purnius Piso. When hostilities were imminent, Piso offered to mediate between Caesar and Pompeius; and during the Civil Wars he

ng side for discerning judges like Caelius assessed the true relation between Pompeius’ prestige and Caesar’s war-trained legio

and high-minded tribune whose legislation precipitated the Civil War between Marius and Sulla, is appropriately discovered on

atening revolution, provoked a sacred and transient union of interest between Senate and knights. 5 The episode also revealed w

ough his family connexion with Brutus, might prove a bond of alliance between the Caesarians and the Liberators; and not Lepidu

estimony, a perpetual hazard in estimating the change and development between youth and middle age. The personality of Octavi

itor out of account. His primacy depended upon a delicate equilibrium between the support of the Caesarian interests, especiall

t;118 These hopes were shattered at a blow. The prospect of a split between the Caesarian leader and Caesar’s heir was distas

re from a competitor was now beginning to force him to choose at last between the Senate and the veterans. The Senate was hosti

inborn and Roman distrust of theory, an acute sense of the difference between words and facts, a brief acquaintance with Roman

for mediation or compromise then and later, both during the struggle between Caesar and Pompeius and when Roman politics again

would permit an independent and, if he chose, a conciliatory position between the parties. Being related to Brutus, to Cassius

and to Lepidus he might become the link in a new political alignment between Caesarians and Republicans. That prospect would c

not even a reformer. In the years following his consulate he wavered between Pompeius and the enemies of Pompeius, trusted by

over the earlier and private preliminaries in the anomalous alliance between oratory and arms, between the venerable consular

ate preliminaries in the anomalous alliance between oratory and arms, between the venerable consular and the revolutionary adve

s no mention of the Ludi Victoriae Caesaris and the consequent breach between Antonius and Octavianus. Yet of these events he w

evolutionary cause. By the beginning of November daily letters passed between them. Octavianus now had an army NotesPage=>

nterests, not of Octavianus, but of the truth. The political alliance between Octavianus and Cicero was not merely the plot of

o word of peace or compromise: he confronted Antonius with the choice between capitulation and destruction. Six years before, t

n and destruction. Six years before, the same policy precipitated war between the government and a proconsul. Fanatic intensi

es? quantam ∈ὐκαιρίαν amittis! ’ 4 For his views about the alliance between Cicero and Octavianus, cf. esp. Ad M. Brutum 1, 1

ed classes; and it was presumably in their interests that an alliance between the wealthiest members of the two orders, Senate

ly technique. As commonly in civil strife and class-war, the relation between words and facts was inverted. 3 Party-denominatio

iple than by mutual interest and by mutual services (officia), either between social equals as an alliance, or from inferior to

ovide more than rumours. But there is no evidence of concerted design between the Liberators and the constitutional party in Ro

was decreed to the immortal gods unprecedented and improper in a war between citizens, and never claimed by Sulla or by Caesar

the political maturity of the youth Octavianus. The unnatural compact between the revolutionary leader and the constitutional p

s of alliance. 3 Yet, even if this did not happen, he might be caught between Caesarians in the West and Republicans in the Eas

feguard the march of the weary columns along the narrow Ligurian road between the mountains and the sea. Antonius dispatched ca

The two armies lay against each other for a time. A small river ran between the camps. When soldiers are citizens, rhetoric i

st of evils, worse even than submitting to tyranny. 3 In these wars between citizens, the generals and the politicians found

that the criminal should be put to death: there was nothing to choose between Dolabella and any of the three Antonii; only prac

s an equal: but the apportionment of power revealed the true relation between the three leaders. After elaborate and no doubt

reed. If they had the leisure and the taste to draw fine distinctions between the three terrorists, it was hardly for Octavianu

s and Cassius, reinforced Murcus and won complete control of the seas between Italy and the Balkans. The communications of the

ned all hope of an accommodation with East and West so evenly matched between Republicans and Caesarians, the doubtful prospect

Rome and all Italy was in confusion, with murderous street battles between soldiers and civilians. 4 Towns and local magnate

putation and arranged a meeting of the adversaries at Gabii, half-way between Rome and Praeneste. It was arrested by mutual dis

ing for the heritage of Caesar seemed inevitable; for Rome the choice between two masters. Which of them had the sympathy of It

ent: he soon learned that a new and alarming civil war had broken out between his own adherents and the Caesarian leader. 5 T

lower course of the river Drin in the north of Albania, the boundary between the provinces of Illyricum and Macedonia, formed

rica, which for three years had been the theatre of confused fighting between generals of dubious party allegiance. The compact

may very well be several years later in date. The problem of priority between the Epode and the Fourth Eclogue is difficult. Th

last the mediation of Octavia was invoked to secure an accommodation between her brother and her husband or so at least it was

s probably L. Cornelius Cinna. Of Balbus himself, nothing is recorded between 40 and 19 B.C. 7 Dio 48, 30, 7. He was later an

e low pass of the Julian Alps: and the eastern frontier of the Empire between the Alps and Macedonia was narrow, perilous and i

an knights, by their incorporation in that order, reinforced the bond between the higher classes of the holders of property. Ve

otten and fraudulent was the Republican government that ruled at Rome between the two Dictatorships. Not Caesar’s invasion of I

l principle, all pretence, and showed the authentic features of a war between classes. Through experience of affairs, candour o

he Divinity of the Roman Emperor (1931), 100 ff. PageBook=>257 between absolute monarchy and national patriotism, betwee

PageBook=>257 between absolute monarchy and national patriotism, between a world-empire and the Roman People. The new orde

of kingdoms that ran north to Pontus and westwards to Thrace, wedged between or protecting on front and flank the Roman provin

peius and Caesar, developing and perhaps straining the balanced union between Roman party leader and Hellenistic dynast in one

esar’s heir or neutrality with safeguards, in fear of a new civil war between rival leaders. NotesPage=>266 1 Dio 49, 40

st should probably be added, as proconsuls of Asia, M. Cocceius Nerva between Plancus and Furnius. or perhaps before Plancus (c

ow much more than an accident in the contest, inevitable without her, between the two Caesarian leaders. Failing Cleopatra and

t soon assumed the august and solemn form of a war of ideas and a war between East and West. Antonius and Cleopatra seem merely

erents in the garb of peace, with concealed weapons. Taking his place between the two consuls, he spoke in defence of his own p

mpeius rufus (tr. pl. 52 B.C.), who was the offspring of the marriage between the son of Q. Pompeius Rufus (cos. 88 B.C.) and C

pid desertion were NotesPage=>281 1 Suetonius, Nero 4 (a clash between Ahenobarbus’ son and Plancus in 22 B.C.). 2 Vel

2 ‘Quo, quo scelesti ruitis? ’3 Another, yet another, criminal war between citizens was being forced by mad ambition upon th

tion. From the rivalry of the Caesarian leaders a latent opposition between Rome and the East, and a nationalism grotesquely

ulers of a divided empire. The temporary severance of East and West between the two dynasts after the Pact of Brundisium had

t what if the partition of the world was to be perpetuated? The limit between the dominions of the two dynasts, the Ionian Sea,

frontier given by nature, by history, by civilization and by language between the Latin West and the Greek East. The Empire mig

of the miracles of Roman history that in subsequent ages the division between West and East was masked so well and delayed so l

or divinity, but not before his rule on earth has restored confidence between men and respect for the gods, blotting out the pr

f legislation (Ann. 3, 28), passes at once from 52 B.C. to 28 B.C. In between , ‘non mos, non ius. ’ 4 Seneca, NQ 5, 18, 4.

tied classes and the traditional distinction in function and standing between the different classes of society. 3 Such was also

On all sides prevailed a conspiracy of decent reticence about the gap between fact and theory. It was evident: no profit but on

Nor are the other consuls of the age of the Revolution and the years between Actium and the first constitutional settlement an

ut that. Two different conceptions were at war, recalling the rivalry between Antonius, the deputy-leader and political success

to the young and untried Marcellus. Reports ran at Rome of dissension between the two. Agrippa’s departure to the East provoked

of natural and easy interpretation, into an allusion to the alliance between Augustus and Agrippa. 3 Absurd for the aftermath

ule it. Already the temporary severance of East and West in the years between the Pact of Brundisium and the War of Actium had

publican forms and phrases, the full irony in the ostensible contrast between Dictator and Princeps. The Caesarian party was in

ne of some of these officers are sufficient testimony. 2 Wars waged between Romans with veteran armies on either side set a h

f Caesar: a grave exaggeration, deriving from that schematic contrast between Caesar the Dictator and Augustus the Princeps whi

s alien and noxious to the understanding of history. 3 The difference between the policy of the two rulers will be explained in

enate under the new order. 5 Augustus exalted Italy; but the contrast between Italy and the provinces is misleading and erroneo

XXVII (1934), 122 ff. PageBook=>394 The partition of provinces between Princeps and Senate in 27 B.C. was likewise neith

egate of Syria. 8 NotesPage=>398 1 He is attested at some time between 13 and 8 B.C. (Josephus AJ 16, 270), perhaps as e

9–6 B.C. (P-W I A, 1519 ff.). There might be room for another legate between Titius and Sentius, but there is no point in inse

ir character and their composition must be deduced from the relations between the Princeps and the State and from their effects

ening the northern frontier and shortening the lines of communication between West and East, executed as an impressive example

t side, so that the War of Actium could be shown as a sublime contest between West and East. Rome was not only a conqueror Rome

as the small town received official commendation. Here too a contrast between appearance and reality. For all the talk about th

differences the curious or the uncritical might be disposed to infer between Mantua, in legend a foundation of the Etruscans,

ople or a vindictive noble a split in the party itself and dissension between its leaders. The crisis of 23 B.C., the secession

old scandals and the invention of new enormities. Strained relations between the principal members of the government were eage

s and Sulla had been a punishment and a warning. In the brief respite between the Dictatorships the old families, especially th

the son of Seianus (Tacitus, Ann. 6, 30), reinforcing an earlier link between their families (ILS 8996). The last consular Lent

pushing novi homines of Republican days were in the habit of drawing between their own ‘industria’ and the ‘inertia’ of the no

e enslavement was intolerable. The Principate provided the middle way between these extremes. 4 It was not long before the Pr

For the senator, as for the State, there must surely be a middle path between the extremes of ruinous liberty and degrading ser

ss in society had its peculiar functions, there was no sharp division between classes. Service to Rome won recognition and pr

e Hellenistic East but from Rome and Roman practice, as a combination between the elogium of a Roman general and the statement

exion with the descendants of Pompeius and Sulla through the marriage between Faustus Sulla and Pompeia the daughter of Magnus

V. THE DESCENDANTS OF POMPEIUS This table illustrates the alliances between the descendants of Pompeius, Sulla, Crassus, and