We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 April 2014
Augustus opens the Res Gestae with his age: ‘nineteen years old’ (annos undeviginti natus). This places the reader firmly in the autumn of 44, rather than the aftermath of Caesar's assassination on the Ides when Octavian had been eighteen, presumably because the credibility of Octavian's claim to have liberated the res publica rested on his military intervention against Antony and the senate's commendation of it. Velleius Paterculus' summation (which echoes Augustus' formulation in the RG) is clear enough: although the domination of Antony was universally resented, no one was willing to take action against him ‘until Gaius Caesar, shortly after his nineteenth birthday, with marvellous daring and supreme success, on his private initiative (privatum consilium) showed a courage on behalf of the res publica which exceeded that of the senate. He summoned his father's veterans first from Calatia then from Casilinum; other veterans followed their example, and in a short time they united to form a regular army’. By raising an army, Octavian made himself politically relevant, but his move was strikingly illegal in two respects: he was too young (the entrance of politicians into public life had been subject to regulation since the formalization of the cursus honorum in 180 b.c.; Octavian, entering public life at the age of nineteen, was too young to have set foot on the lowest rung of the ladder, the quaestorship, for which the minimum age was thirty) and he was a private citizen with no authorization whatsoever to do anything of the sort. None the less, he advertises both aspects in the opening sentence: why?
Earlier versions of this paper were given at Durham University and at the Classical Association Conference in April 2011. I am deeply grateful to Prof. Bruce Gibson and the anonymous reviewer for their insightful comments, criticisms and corrections. The AHRC provided financial support during the writing of this paper.
1 Cooley, A.E., Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Cambridge, 2009), 36Google Scholar.
2 Cf. Brunt, P.A. and Moore, J.M., Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Oxford, 1967), 2–5Google Scholar; Ridley, R., The Emperor's Retrospect (Leuven, 2003), 53–66Google Scholar; Cooley (n. 1), 30–4.
3 Cooley (n. 1), 34; cf. also Ramage, E.S., The Nature and Purpose of Augustus' ‘Res Gestae’ (Stuttgart, 1987), 15Google Scholar.
4 Wirszubski, C., Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate (Cambridge, 1950), 100–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Braunert, H., ‘Zum Eingangssatz der res gestae Divi Augusti’, Chiron 4 (1974), 343–58Google Scholar, at 358; Woodman, A.J., Velleius Paterculus. The Caesarian and Augustan Narrative (2.41–93) (Cambridge, 1983), 127–8Google Scholar; Ramage (n. 3), 67; Galinsky, G.K., Augustan Culture (Princeton and Chichester, 1996), 45–6Google Scholar; Manuwald, G., Cicero, Philippics. Vol. 2: Commentary (Berlin, 2007), 336–8Google Scholar; Cooley (n. 1), 106–8.
5 Wiseman, T.P., ‘Augustus, Sulla and the supernatural’, in Smith, C. and Powell, A. (edd.), The Lost Memoirs of Augustus and the Development of Roman Autobiography (Swansea, 2009), 111–23Google Scholar, at 116; Raaflaub, K.A., ‘Caesar the liberator? Factional politics, civil war, and ideology’, in Cairns, F. and Fantham, E. (edd.), Caesar against Liberty? (Cambridge, 2003), 35–67Google Scholar, at 50, 66; Westall, R., ‘Review of A.E. Cooley (ed.), Res Gestae divi Augusti: Text, Translation and Commentary’, BMCR 2011.03.02Google Scholar. The similarity between Caesar's and Augustus' phrasing is noted by Carter, J.M., Julius Caesar. The Civil War Books I & II (Warminster, 1990), 176Google Scholar; Seager, R. ‘Factio: Some Observations’, JRS 62 (1972), 53–8Google Scholar, at 54; Wirzsubski (n. 4), 103; Mouritsen, H., Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic (Cambridge, 2001), 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hellegouarc'h, J., Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la République (Paris, 1963), 102Google Scholar.
6 Ramage (n. 3), 33.
7 Woodman (n. 4), 127–8; Cooley (n. 1), 106.
8 Vell. Pat. 2.61.1–2: … cum C. Caesar XVIIII annum egressus, mira ausus ac summa consecutus privato consilio maiorem senatu pro re publica animum habuit primumque a Calatia, mox a Casilino veteranos excivit paternos; quorum exemplum secuti alii brevi in formam iusti coiere exercitus.
9 Hopkins, K., Death and Renewal (Cambridge, 1983), 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Evans, R.J. and Kleijwegt, M., ‘Did the Romans like young men? A study of the Lex Villia Annalis: causes and effects’, ZPE 92 (1992), 181–95Google Scholar, at 181–2; Lintott, A., The Constitution of the Roman Republic (Oxford, 1999), 145Google Scholar; Brennan, T.C., The Praetorship in the Roman Republic, Vol. I (Oxford, 2000), 168–70Google Scholar.
10 Lintott (n. 9); Patterson, J.R., Political Life in the City of Rome (London, 2000)Google Scholar.
11 App. Pun. 112; Astin, A.E., Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford, 1967), 61Google Scholar; Scullard, H.H., ‘Scipio Aemilianus and Roman politics’, JRS 50 (1960), 59–74Google Scholar, at 60.
12 Cf. Seager, R., Pompey the Great (London, 2002 2), 27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for Pompey's career up to his consulship.
13 Vell. Pat. 2.29: sub adventum in Italiam L. Sullae Cn. Pompeius … XXIII annos natus … privatis ut opibus, ita consiliis magna ausus magnificeque conata executus, ad vindicandam restituendamque dignitatem patriae firmum ex agro Piceno, qui totus paternis eius clientelis refertus erat, contraxit exercitum. On the likelihood that this passage deliberately parallels Velleius' later account of Octavian's entry on to the scene cf. Woodman (n. 4), 127–8.
14 Galinsky (n. 4), 48; Cooley (n. 1), 106.
15 Galinsky (n. 4), 50.
16 On Sulla's reforms and their results see Lintott (n. 9), 105. For the need to ramify military imperium through a lex curiata see Lintott (n. 9), 96; Richardson, J.S., ‘Imperium Romanum: empire and the language of power’, JRS 81 (1991), 1–9Google Scholar, at 2; on the comitia curiata and its connection with the auspicia publica see Lintott (n. 9), 49; Nicholls, J.J., ‘The content of the lex curiata’, AJPh 88 (1967), 257–78Google Scholar; Develin, R., ‘Lex curiata and the competence of magistrates’, Mnemosyne 30 (1977), 49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Richardson (this note). On the process of levying troops see Rosenstein, N., ‘Military command, political power, and the Republican elite’, in Erdkamp, P. (ed.), A Companion to the Roman Army (Oxford, 2007), 132–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 136; Nicolet, C. (tr. Falla, P.S.), The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome (London, 1980), 102–5Google Scholar (on the importance of the oath administered to new recruits).
17 Linderski, J., ‘Rome, Aphrodisias and the Res Gestae: the genera militiae and the status of Octavian’, JRS 74 (1984), 74–80Google Scholar, at 76–78.
18 Seager (n. 12), 27.
19 Lintott (n. 9), 113–14; c.f. also Brennan (n. 9), 73–4 (prorogation), 76–7, 139–40, 154–63, esp. 157 on Scipio Africanus Maior, 193–5, 207–10, 220 (grants of praetorian imperium to privati).
20 Seager (n. 12), 45–6, 51.
21 Meier, C., Res Publica Amissa (Wiesbaden, 1966), 56Google Scholar; Rosenstein, N., Imperatores Victi (Oxford, 1990), 3Google Scholar; Hölkeskamp, K-J. (tr. Heitmann-Gordon, H.), Reconstructing the Roman Republic (Oxford, 2010), 56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
22 Acc. praet. 39, ORF fr. 10, Var. Ling. 5.80, Cic. Leg. 3.8, Quint. Inst. 1.6.32, Hor. Carm. 4.9.39.
23 Crook, J., Consilium Principis (Cambridge, 1955), 4Google Scholar; cf. Wiseman, T.P., ‘Competition and co-operation’, in id. (ed.), Roman Political Life 90 B.C.–A.D. 69 (Exeter, 1985), 3–19Google Scholar, at 15.
24 Beard, M. and Crawford, M., Rome in the Late Republic (London, 1985), 66Google Scholar; cf. Crook (n. 23), 4; Wiseman (n. 23), 15; Crawford, M., The Roman Republic (London, 1992), 25Google Scholar; Kunkel, W., Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der römischen Republik (Munich, 1995)Google Scholar, 135, 140.
25 Kunkel (n. 24), 136–40.
26 e.g. Cic. Sest. 42, 43, 97, Prov. cons. 25, Lig. 3, Phil. 4.14, Att. 7.11.1.
27 Cf. Lintott (n. 9), 86–7; Hölkeskamp, K-J., ‘The Roman republic: government of the people, by the people, for the people?’, SCI 19 (2000), 203–23Google Scholar, at 213–14.
28 Cic. Verr. 2.2.8, Leg. agr. 2.88, 2.91, Rab. perd. 4, Cat. 1.2, 3.7, Sest. 32, Vat. 35, Pis. 77, Rep. 1.47; Lintott (n. 9), 3–4; Kaster, R.A., Cicero. Speech on behalf of Publius Sestius (Oxford, 2006), 182Google Scholar.
29 Cic. Verr. 2.2.14, 2.2.163, Planc. 87; Livy 4.31.6, 4.53.1, 6.25.2, 7.13.8, 9.45.6, 21.18.2, 21.18.6, 21.18.8, 21.18.10, 26.30.2, 29.30.6.
30 Cic. Lig. 3, Sest. 43, Phil. 4.14, Att. 7.11.1; Livy 8.23.5.
31 Caes. BGall. 5.1, Livy 30.22.1.
32 See above, n. 5.
33 Cic. Phil. 3.5; cf. Galinsky (n. 4), 45, Ridley (n. 2), 162.
34 Béranger, J., Principatus: Études de notions et d'histoire politiques dans l'Antiquité gréco-romaine (Geneva, 1973), 243–6Google Scholar.
35 Cic. Off. 1.76, nec plus Africanus, singularis et vir et imperator, in exscindenda Numantia rei publicae profuit quam eodem tempore P. Nasica privatus, cum Ti. Gracchum interemit; cf. likewise Cat. 1.3, Dom. 91, Planc. 88, Brut. 212, Tusc. 4.51, Off. 1.76, 1.109, Mil. 72, Phil. 8.13.
36 Plut. Ti. Gracch. 21.1–3; cf. Astin (n. 11), 229, Binot, C., ‘Le rôle de Scipion Nasica Sérapion dans la crise gracquienne, une relecture’, Pallas 57 (2001), 185–203Google Scholar, at 195, Flower, H.I., The Art of Forgetting (Chapel Hill, 2006), 72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37 Cf. Cic. QFr. 1.2, written in late 59, where Cicero anticipates problems with Clodius and expresses his willingness to use force; compare also Cicero's explanation of Pompey's failure to take action on his behalf at Pis. 77: Pompey himself said that he ‘did not wish to match himself against an armed tribune of the people without publicum consilium; but should the consuls act upon a decree of the senate and defend the res publica, then he would take up arms’ (se contra armatum tribunum plebis sine publico consilio decertare nolle, consulibus ex senatus consulto rem publicam defendentibus se arma sumpturum). In other words, Pompey would have followed the example of one of L. Opimius' supporters, but was not willing to play Nasica.
38 Cf. also Cic. Planc. 88.
39 Cf. Braunert (n. 4), 344, Cooley (n. 1), 107; on Lepidus himself, cf. Weigel, R.D., Lepidus: The Tarnished Triumvir (London, 1992), 12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
40 Galinsky (n. 4), 45.
41 Cf. Cic. Cat. 1.1; Manuwald (n. 4), 326 (and see also Cic. Planc. 75, where the prosecutor had pointedly thrown the same phrase back at Cicero himself).
42 Braunert (n. 4), 347.
43 Cic. Cat. 1.2–4.
44 Stevenson, T., ‘Tyrants, kings and fathers in the Philippics’, in id. and Wilson, M. (edd.), Cicero's Philippics (Auckland, 2008), 95–113Google Scholar, at 103 argues for a ‘deliberate and programmatic’ contrast between Cicero's and Antony's consulships in the Philippics as a whole; he possibly overstates his case, but allusions to Cicero's consulship are certainly never hard to find in any of Cicero's post-consulship works. Cf. Manuwald (n. 4), 326.
45 Cic. Cat. 1.3.
46 Dunkle, J.R., ‘The Greek tyrant and Roman political invective of the Late Republic’, TAPhA 98 (1967), 151–71Google Scholar, at 159.
47 Cic. Leg. agr. 2.16, 20, 24, 29, 32, 33, 35.
48 Ibid. 2.57.
49 Cooley (n. 1), 168.
50 Scullard (n. 11), 72.
51 Eck, W. and Takács, S.A. (tr. Schneider, D.L.), The Age of Augustus (Oxford 2003), 9–10Google Scholar.
52 Livy 4.13–16, Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 12.1–4; Lintott, A., ‘The tradition of violence in the annals of the Early Roman Republic’, Historia 19 (1970), 12–29Google Scholar, at 13, Nicolet (n. 16), 190.
53 Manning, C.E., ‘“Liberalitas” – the decline and rehabilitation of a virtue’, G&R 32 (1985), 73–83Google Scholar, at 77–8.
54 Hellegouarc'h (n. 5), 215; Manning (n. 53), 78.
55 Cooley (n. 1), 109.
56 Brunt, P.A., The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays (Oxford, 1988), 283Google Scholar.
57 Wirszubski (n. 4), 88–90.
58 Cf. Kaster (n. 28), 21.
59 Wirszubski (n. 4), 1.
60 e.g. Cic. Rep. 3.23, QFr. 1.1.22, Flac. 16.
61 Wirszubski (n. 4), 88, 95, 119; Brunt (n. 56), 326–31. On the popularis form, cf. Seager, R., ‘Cicero and the word popularis’, CQ 22 (1972), 328–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 337–8, on vindicare plebem in libertatem as a popularis slogan with the implication not of setting a slave free so much as restoring freedom to someone who should never have been enslaved in the first place. Cf. also Arena, V., ‘Invocation to liberty and invective of dominatus at the end of the Roman Republic’, BICS 50 (2007), 49–73Google Scholar, who argues that Cicero provided libertas with a philosophical makeover in the De officiis and the Philippics, such that libertas is ‘founded on the moral autarkeia of virtue, which requires a commitment to what is morally good and control over one's own emotions’ (58), a reinterpretation that serves to rule out any compromise with a tyrannical figure, since tyranny ‘leaves its victims prone to a condition of slavery, that is a condition of dominance by an external agent’ (55).
62 Wirszubski (n. 4), 104.
63 Mouritsen (n. 5), 11; cf. also Nicolet (n. 16), 320.
64 Cf. Cooley (n. 1), 110–11.
65 Ramage (n. 3), 68; Galinsky (n. 4), 52.
66 [Caes.] BAfr. 22.2; Cooley (n. 1), 109; cf. also Galinsky (n. 4), 50–1.
67 Cf. Ridley (n. 2), 162.
68 Cooley (n. 1), 109.
69 Cf. Wiseman (n. 5), 116; Raaflaub (n. 5), 50; Braunert (n. 4), 357.
70 Hellegouarc'h (n. 5), 517–18; cf. Cic. Mur. 38, Pis. 7, Phil. 1.36, Att. 1.18.4, Fam. 10.12.4.
71 Raaflaub (n. 5), 52–3; Wiseman, T.P., ‘The publication of De bello Gallico’, in Welch, K. and Powell, A. (edd.), Julius Caesar as Artful Reporter (London, 1998), 1–9Google Scholar, at 3; Wiseman (n. 5), 116.
72 Raditsa, L., ‘Julius Caesar and his writings’, ANRW 1.3 (1973), 417–56Google Scholar, at 451.
73 B. Levick, ‘The Veneti revisited: C.E. Stevens and the tradition on Caesar the propagandist’, in Welch and Powell (n. 71), 61–83, at 71; cf. also Meier, C. (tr. McLintock, D.), Caesar (London, 1996), 259Google Scholar; Wiseman (n. 71), 4–5; J.G.H. Hall, ‘Ratio and Romanitas in the Bellum Gallicum’, in Welch and Powell (n. 71), 11–43, at 11; Osgood, J., ‘The pen and the sword: writing and conquest in Caesar's Gaul’, ClAnt 28 (2009), 328–58Google Scholar, at 350–1.
74 Wiseman (n. 71), 3.
75 See also Pompey's letter reported at Caes. BCiv. 1.8.
76 Stanton, G.R., ‘Why did Caesar cross the Rubicon?’, Historia 52 (2003), 67–94Google Scholar, at 74–6, argues that this complaint should be taken seriously as an indication that Caesar was concerned about facing trial for his activities as consul.
77 On the SCU issued against Caesar, cf. Caes. BCiv. 1.2, 1.6; Cic. Fam. 16.11.2; Greenhalgh, P., Pompey: The Republican Prince (London, 1981), 132Google Scholar; Seager (n. 12), 149–51. On the attitudes of magistrates and senate cf. Gelzer, M. (tr. Needham, P.), Caesar (Oxford, 1968), 196–7Google Scholar, Meier (n. 73), 368, Leach, J., Pompey the Great (London, 1978), 176Google Scholar, Seager (n. 12), 163.
78 Collins, J.H., ‘On the date and interpretation of the Bellum Civile’, AJPh 80 (1959), 113–32Google Scholar, at 119; Boatwright, M.T., ‘Caesar's second consulship and the completion and date of the “Bellum Civile”’, CJ 84 (1988), 31–40Google Scholar, at 31; Carter (n. 5), 18–20; Batstone, W.W. and Damon, C., Caesar's Civil War (Oxford, 2006), 41–9Google Scholar.
79 Collins (n. 78), 115; Raaflaub, K., ‘Bellum Civile’, in Griffin, M. (ed.), A Companion to Julius Caesar (Malden, Oxford and Chichester, 2009), 175–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 180–2.
80 Eo nomine senatus decretis honorificis in ordinem suum me adlegit C(aio) Pansa et A(ulo) Hirtio consulibus consularem locum sententiae dicendae simul dans et imperium mihi dedit; cf. Brunt and Moore (n. 2), 38–9; Cooley (n. 1), 112–13.
81 Populus autem eodem anno me consulem, cum consul uterque in bello cecidisset, et triumvirum rei publicae constituendae creavit; cf. Brunt and Moore (n. 2), 39; Cooley (n. 1), 113–14.
82 Braunert (n. 4), 352; Galinsky (n. 4), 58–9.
83 Cf. especially Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939), 317–18Google Scholar.
84 Ramage, E.S., ‘Augustus’ treatment of Julius Caesar’, Historia 34 (1985), 223–45Google Scholar, at 225.
85 Ramage (n. 84), 226; arguing against claims for a subtle Augustan damnatio memoriae in general, though, cf. White, P., ‘Julius Caesar in Augustan Rome’, Phoenix 42 (1988), 334–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and against the idea that Caesar is suppressed in the Res Gestae specifically cf. White p. 341; Ridley (n. 2), 71.
86 Seager (n. 5), 53.
87 ORF fr. 55.
88 ORF fr. 55.
89 Hellegouarc'h (n. 5), 104.
90 Sall. Cat. 34.2, Hist. 3.48.3; Taylor, L.R., Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (London, 1949), 9Google Scholar (and cf. 154–7 on the liberal use of factio in [Sall.] Ad Caes. sen. in reference to Caesar's opponents in Rome); Hellegouarc'h (n. 5), 102.
91 Caes. BGall. 8.50.2; BCiv. 1.22.5; Taylor (n. 90), 9–10; Hellegouarc'h (n. 5), 102.
92 Hellegouarc'h (n. 5), 102.
93 Cic. Rep. 1.68–9; Taylor (n. 90), 9; Seager (n. 5), 56.
94 Hellegouarc'h (n. 5), 109.
95 Seager (n. 5), 54.
96 Hellegouarc'h (n. 5), 443.
97 Ibid. 444.
98 Seager (n. 5), 57.
99 Hellegouarc'h (n. 5), 562.
100 Wirszubski (n. 4), 1; Hellegouarc'h (n. 5), 559; Brunt (n. 56), 291.
101 Vell. Pat. 2.61.1; Cooley (n. 1), 108; Woodman (n. 4), 126.
102 Cf. Luce, T.J., ‘Livy, Augustus, and the Forum Augustum’, in Raaflaub, K.A. and Toher, M. (edd.), Between Republic and Empire (London, 1990), 123–38Google Scholar; see also Galinsky (n. 4), 53–4.
103 Galinsky (n. 4), 53.
104 Cf. Ramage (n. 3), 13 on the date of composition.
105 Ibid. 19.
106 Ibid. 20.
107 Ibid.
