‘Asinvs Germanvs’

M. Cary

doi:10.1017/S0009838800006443

‘Asinvs Germanvs’

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

M. Cary

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

It is a familiar story that on April 5, 56 B.C., Cicero made a motion in the Senate concerning Caesar's Campanian land law, and that this action of his was one of the reasons for the conference of Luca. Query: What were the terms of the motion?

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 1923 , pp. 103 - 107

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800006443 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1923

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 103 note 1} Mommsen, , History of Rome (1894 ed.), Vol. V., p. 124Google Scholar; Watson, , Select Letters of Cicero (4th ed.), p. 140Google Scholar; Tyrrell, and Purser, , The Correspondence Cicero (2nd ed.), Vol. II., p. 53Google Scholar(note to letter 106, § 1); , Ferrero, The Greatness and Decline Rome, Vol. II., p. 42Google Scholar; Sihler, , Cicero of Arpinum, p. 232Google Scholar; Meyer, , Caesar's Monarchic, p. 136Google Scholar.

Ihne, (Römische Geschichte V., p. 387)Google ScholarFowler, Warde (Julius Caesar, p. 181)Google Scholargo no farther than to say that Caesar's legislation was to ‘considered’.

Strachan-Davidson, (Cicero, pp. 260–2)Google Scholar and Heitland, (The Roman Republic III., pp. 181–2)Google Scholarsuggest that Cicero desired, not to annul, but to suspend, Caesar's act.

^{page 103 note 2} Ad Atticum II. 19. 2.

^{page 103 note 3} Plutarch, Cato Minor, ch. 33.

^{page 103 note 4} Ibid., chs. 31–2; Cassius Dio, bk. 38, chs. 3, 6.

^{page 103 note 5} Ferrero (op. cit.) denies this. But he quotes no evidence insupport. In fact, the evidence goes against him.

^{page 103 note 6} Post Red. ad Senatum, § 29; Pro Sestio, § 19. Pro Milone, § 39; Caesar, Bell. Ciu. I. 14. 4.

^{page 103 note 7} Cicero, Philippic II., § 101.

^{page 103 note 8} In Legem Agrariam II., § 84; Ad Familiares XIII. 4. 2.

^{page 103 note 9} Ad Atticum I. 19. 4.

^{page 104 note 1} Mommsen, Watson, Sihler, Ihne, Meyer, loc. cit.; Drumann, , Geschichte Roms III., pp. 238–9, IV., p. 521Google Scholar.

^{page 104 note 2} Ad Familiares I. g. 7.

^{page 104 note 3} See especially §§ 46–50. The date of this speech has recently been fixed by Meyer, (op. cit., p. 138, n. 2)Google Scholar at the beginning or middle of April, i.e. very close to the motion on the Lex Campana.

^{page 104 note 4} Ad Familiares I. 9. 8.

^{page 104 note 5} Ad Quintum Fratrem II. 3. 3(written in February, 56).

^{page 105 note 1} Ad Atticum II. 16. 2.

^{page 105 note 2} The double game which Pompey played ever since 54 B.C. is described with great clearness by Meyer, pp. 193 sqq.

^{page 105 note 3} Ad Familiares I. 9. 9.

^{page 105 note 4} Philippic II. 23.

^{page 105 note 5} Ad Quintum Fratrem II. 1. 1.

^{page 105 note 6} Pauly-Wissowa, , s.v. Rutilius, No. 27Google Scholar.

^{page 105 note 7} Ad Familiares I. 1. 3; I. 2. 2.

^{page 105 note 8} Ibid. I. 9. 9.

^{page 105 note 9} Ibid. I. 9. 8.

^{page 105 note 10} Pompey had a decided penchant for acting the part of the heavy father. Witness his tragic gestures when he was commissioned to exercise command against Mithridates (Plutarch, Pompey, ch. 30), and when he decided on hostilities against Caesar (Appian, , Bell. Ciu. II. 31)Google Scholar. It is notorious that Cicero was frequently puzzled to discover Pompey's real feelings behind his ῥᾑσεις and his poses.

^{page 106 note 1} This is implied in De Haruspicum Responses, §31 (April, 56), and roundly asserted in De Prouinciis Consularibus, §11 (June, 56) and Pro Balbo, § 61 (summer 56).

^{page 106 note 2} Ad Quintum Fratrem II. 5. 1. In 61 B.C. the Roman revenues amounted to 340 million sesterces (Plutarch, Pompey 48). They had sincebeen diminished by the loss of rents in Campania.

^{page 106 note 3} This is the conclusion which Strachan-Davidson and Heitland (loc. cit.) have reached alter a more summary review of the case.

^{page 106 note 4} Suetonius, , Diuus Iulius 20,Google Scholar § 3; Appian II. 10. In view of the fact that the land distribution under the law of Tiberius Gracchus was far from completein 129 B.C., i.e. four years after the enactment of the law (Appian I. I9), we may assume that a good many of the applicants under Caesar's land legislation were still waiting for their allotments in 56 B.C.

^{page 106 note 5} In 56 B.C. it was Cicero's belief that the Gallic War would end in one or two years' time (De Prou. Cons., § 34).

^{page 106 note 6} Ad Familiarcs VIII. IO, 4.

^{page 107 note 1} It is probable that Lupus' motion in December 57 was a kite flown to ascertain how the wind was blowing in the Senate, and that the motion was withdrawn because the Senate gave it no hearty support. It is well known that Cicero bitterly complained of the Optimates' failure to play up to him (Ad Fam. I. 9. 10 sqq.; Ad Att. IV. 5. 1).

^{page 107 note 2} Ad Att. IV. 5. 3.

Article contents

‘Asinvs Germanvs’

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests