2. B.Ciu. 3.20–22; Dio 42.22–25.

3. Fam. 8.15.[149]; 16[153]; 17.[156]2: doloris causa; Dio 42.22.2.

4. Tyrrell and Purser's explanation for his actions (Bailey, D. R. Shackleton, Cicero's Letters to Atticus, 6 vols [Cambridge, 1966] [afterwards CLA], 1.497)Google Scholar.

5. Fam. 8.17.[156]2: ‘equidem iameffeci ut maxime plebs et, qui antea noster fuit, populus uester esset.’

6. B. Ciu. 3.21; Dio 42.23.2.

7. Caelius recognized that the difficulty of controlling the city from a distance was one of Caesar's major weaknesses (Fam. 8.17.[156]2: ‘uos dormitis nee haec adhuc mini uidemini intellegere, qua nos pateamus et quam imbecill.’).

8. Dio 42.22–23.

9. Although Caelius had been one of the young men who had ‘hung about’ Catiline in the late sixties and had been a pupil of Crassus (Cic, . Cael. 8–14Google Scholar), he had been a prominent supporter of Milo at his trial (Asc, . Mil. 33Google ScholarC; 34C; 37C; 55C; Marshall, B., A Historical Commentary on Asconius [Columbia, 1985], pp. 163, 171,194)Google Scholar.

10. B. Ciu.3.20–1; Dio 42.22.4: προσθέμενος δ⋯ ⋯κ το⋯του σνΧνοὺς ⋯π⋯λθε.

11. Antony had had to overcome his father's reputation for incompetence (MRR 2.101–2; Gruen, E. S., Last Generation of the Roman Republic [Berkeley, 1974], p. 22Google Scholar) and his uncle's infamia, caused first by his expulsion from the Senate in 70 (Comment. Pet. 8; Asc. Tog.Cand. 75; Gruen, , Last Generation, p. 134Google Scholar), and then his conviction for extortion in 59. The family had money, however. Rauh, N. K., Senators and Businessmen in the Roman Republic 242–44 B.C. (diss., Ann Arbor, 1986), pp. 436Google Scholar–7 provides details of Gaius' wide financial concerns, including profiteering from Sulla's proscriptions. More respectably, M. Antonius, his grandfather, had been an augur, consul (MRR 2.1), censor, (MRR 2.6Google Scholar), and one of the leading orators of his generation (Cic, . Brut. 138Google Scholar–42). The family of Antony's mother Julia was more than respectable. She and her brother Lucius, the consul of 64 (Att. l.l.[10]2), were distantly related to Caesar (App. 2.63). Lucius was regarded as a certainty for the elections in 64. He was an augur from at least 80 (Macrob, . Sat. 13.13.11; MRR 3.110). He maintained his position in the Senate from at least the sixties until 43Google Scholar.

12. Bononia, for example, was part of the Antonian clientela (Suet, . Aug. 17Google Scholar.2; Badian, E., Foreign Clientelae [Oxford, 1958], p. 309Google Scholar). Cisalpine Gaul was important to the Antonii (Phil. 2.76; Taylor, L. R., Voting Districts of the Roman Republic [Ann Arbor, 1966], p. 207Google Scholar; Frei-Stolba, R., Untersuchungen zu den Wahlen in den römischen Kaiserzeit[Zürich, 1967], p. 57Google Scholar; Bruhns, H., Caesar und die römische Obersicht in den jahren 49–44 B.C. [Göttingen, 1978], p. 146CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Crawford, (Coinage and money under the Roman Republic [London, 1985], p. 183Google Scholar, n. 18) suggests that the clientela dates from M. Antonius' (cos 99) involvement with land distributions in the area. That the area was a family stronghold may explain Gaius Antonius' strategy of campaigning outside Rome for the consulship of 63 (Comment. Pet. 8) and Cicero's comment that Cisalpine Gaul would be important in that year (Att. 1.1.[19]2).

13. Rauh, , Senators and Businessmen, pp. 432Google Scholar–5. According to inscriptions from the area, the family had been prominent from the middle of the second century. Shatzman, (Senatorial wealth and Roman politics [Collections Latomus, Bruxelles, 1975], p. 298Google Scholar) concludes that Antony's capital was ‘not altogether insignificant’. He was rich enough to lend money to Quintus Cicero in 58 (QFr. 1.3.[3]7).

14. Att. 16.11.[420] 1; Phil. 2.3; Huzar, E., ‘Mark Antony: marriage versus career’, CJ, 81 (1986), 97Google Scholar–8. Even if the association were not legitimate, Antony stood to profit from it.

15. Att. 10.8.[199]10; 13.[205]l; 16. [208] 5; 14.3.[357]2.

16. Att. 10.13.[205]l.

17. Apart from the more obvious examples of Fulvia and Cleopatra, one should not overlook Antony's mother, a redoubtable woman in the best tradition of the Roman matrona (Plut, . Ant. 1–2.1Google Scholar.; 20.3; App. 4.37; Dio 47.8.5; Pelling, C. B. R., Plutarch's Life of Antony [Cambridge, 1988], p. 117Google Scholar). There are hints that when she could be, she was constantly at Antony's side, even among the ‘drunks and actors’ who according to Cicero followed Antony around Italy during his tribunate in 49 (Phil. 2.58; Plut, . Ant. 9.4Google Scholar). If she were prepared to countenance what was an unusual retinue for a tribune, I would argue that it was because of her interest in political affairs, rather than for Cicero's reason, that Antony required her to attend to the needs of his mistress. Also indicative of a close relationship between the two is Phil. 2.49; ‘aude dicere te prius ad parentem tuam uenisse quam me’. According to Appian, Julia took part in the negotiations surrounding the treaty of Brundisium (App. 5.63, also Pelling, , Antony, pp. 117, 204)Google Scholar.

18. For example, the Senate meeting on March 17, 44 and the meeting of leading Senators on the previous evening (Dam, Nic.. Vit. Aug. 105Google Scholar; Syme, R., The Roman Revolution [Oxford, 1939], p. 98)Google Scholar.

19. Syme, , Roman Revolution, pp. 104Google Scholar–5. Huzar, (CJ, 81 [1986], 98Google Scholar) euphemistically puns, ‘Fadia faded from Antony's life’.

20. Plut, . Ant. 3.1Google Scholar; Huzar, E., Mark Antony (Beckenham, 1978), pp. 27–9Google Scholar. Antony was twenty-five years of age at the time. His successful request gave him the opportunity to command troops against Aristobulus of Judaea and Archelaus in Alexandria (Plut, . Ant. 3Google Scholar; Jos, . AJ, 14.84; 86; 92Google Scholar; BJ 1.162; 165; 171–2) and to increase his wealth (Rauh, , Senators and Businessmen, p. 439)Google Scholar.

21. Fam. 8.14.[97] 1.

22. Caesar, : Fam. 8Google Scholar.14.[97] 1; Hirtius, , B. Gall. 8Google Scholar.50.1. Curio, : Fam. 8Google Scholar.14.[97] 1; Phil. 3.4; Plut, . Ant. 5.1Google Scholar.

23. Ahenobarbus had been influential in the electoral processes (particularly the comitia centuriata) since the sixties (Att. l.l.[10]4).

24. Antony obtained assistance from Gaul, Cisapline (B. Gall. 8.50Google Scholar). Caesar travelled to the area after the election to thank the voters for their support and to seek help for his approaching election. In this way, he was making the most of Antony's electoral support as well as his own clientela. See also Hayne, L. C., ‘The political astuteness of the Antonii’, Acta Classica 47 (1978), 100Google Scholar.

25. On the importance of ancestors in the augurate for one's own success, see Staveley, E. S., ‘The conduct of elections during an interregnum’, Historia 3 (1954), 209Google Scholarff; DRBailey, Shackleton, Cicero: epistulae ad familiares, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1977) [afterwards CEF], 1.430Google Scholar.

26. Phil. 2.4.

27. Fam. 2.18. [115] 2.

28. Roman Revolulon, p. 108.

29. Hirtius, (B. Gall. 8.2.1Google Scholar) refers to Antony as Caesar's quaestor in 51, although we know he campaigned for 52 (Phil. 2.49).

30. Phil. 2.49. Caesar had asked Cicero to assist Antony.

31. Mil. 40–1; Asc, . Mil. 36Google Scholar 41C; Marshall, , Asconius, p. 189. The earlier quarrel between Antony and Clodius possibly even sprang from rivalry for popularity in Clodius' stronghold, especially as it arose during Antony's first major political campaignGoogle Scholar.

32. Linderski, J. & Kaminska-Linderski, A., ‘The quaestorship of M. Antonius’, Phoenix 28 (1974), 213–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This reconstruction has been accepted by Shackleton Bailey (CEF 1.455) and Broughton, T. R. S. (MRR 3.19–20Google Scholar).

33. Fam. 2.18.[115]2: ‘…tris fratris summo loco natos, promptos, non indisertos … quos uideo deinceps tribunos pl. per triennium fore’.

34. In the late forties, Lucius had built up such a following that he was named patron of all thirtyfive tribes (Phil. 7.26; 13.26).

35. Asc, . Mil. 28 32CGoogle Scholar.

36. Asc, . Mil. 35 40CGoogle Scholar.

37. Val. Max. 3.5.3; Babcock, C., ‘The early career of Fulvia’, AJP 86 (1965), 20Google Scholar.

38. Syme, (Sallust [Berkeley, 1974], p. 135Google Scholar) believes that her mother Sempronia was the sister of the Sempronia of the Catilinarian Conspiracy and is followed by Earl, (‘The early career of Sallust’, Historia 15 [1966], 309Google Scholar). Münzer, (RE II.4 ‘Sempronia’ 102; 103Google Scholar) postulates that the mother of Decimus Brutus was possibly the daughter of Gaius Gracchus, where Sempronia, the mother of Fulvia, was the daughter of Sempronia Tuditana. Recent tendencies to accept either relationship as established should be rejected (e.g. Bauman, R. A., Women and Politics in Ancient Rome [Routledge, 1992], p. 83)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. Dom. 139. Cicero here refers to the sister of a L. Pinarius Natta, the pontifex who presided over the dedication of Cicero's house. Taylor has argued convincingly that in all probability, this was Fulvia herself (‘Caesar's colleagues in the pontifical college’, AJP 63 [1942], 396–7)Google Scholar.

40. Babcock, , ‘Fulvia’, 4Google Scholar; Delia, , ‘Fulvia reconsidered’, p. 198; below n. 45. The key passage for this remains Phil. 3.16: ‘tuae coniugis, bonae feminae, locupletis quidem certe, Bambalio quidam pater, homo nullo numero. nihil illo contemptius, qui propter haesitantiam linguae stuporemque cordis cognomen ex contumelia traxerit.’ In the context, Cicero is implying that Fulvia was wealthy not through inheritance but through her ill-gotten gains. Her father, therefore, was not necessarily important to the equation. Her maternal grandfather Tuditanus, by contrast, was nobilis but a mad wastrel. I thank Mr Patrick Tansey for alerting me to the full significance of this passage in ascertaining Fulvia's social status. I should also alert the reader who has no Latin to a bad error in the Loeb translation of the Philippics at this point. For At auus nobilis, Cicero clearly refers to Fulvia's grandfather Tuditanus. The given translation reads, ‘But his (Bambalio's?) grandfather was noble’. A very unhelpful mistranslation only matched by a similar error at 13.26Google Scholar.

41. Eg. Mil. 28. This should be compared to Fulvia's activity in 44 where her travels with Antony were viewed as highly political.

42. Vanderbroeck, P., Popular Leadership and collective behavior in the late Roman Republic ca. 80–50 B.C. (Amsterdam, 1987), pp. 52–5Google Scholar. Note Fulvia's later support for the gang leader and legal adviser, Sextus Cloelius, whom Caesar rejected (below p. 192).

43. Plut, . Caes. 5–6Google Scholar; Suet, . Iul. 1Google Scholar. It is significant that all Caesar's much publicized links with Marius and Cinna were through these two women. As was pointed out in the Exeter Research seminar by Richard Seaford, one should remember, if only in passing, the relevant examples of our own century. In the Philippines, former president Corazon Aquino was quickly identified with her murdered husband's policies and this was the most important factor in her ability to overthrow the existing government. The recent examples of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka all show the phenomenon of female political leaders whose claim to leadership and political power is based on their relationship to male relatives who have attained hero status. Bangladesh is particularly interesting in that the main rival of Begum Zia, whose husband was murdered in 1981, is Sheikh Hasina, daughter of Bangladesh's first prime minister who was murdered in 1971.

44. For example, Vell, . Pat. 2.74.2Google Scholar shows Fulvia's remarkable energy, which comes through in the source material even when that material does its best to depict it as a vice.

45. Delia, D., ‘Fulvia reconsidered’, in Pomeroy, S. (ed.), Women's History and Ancient History (North Carolina, 1990), pp. 197–217Google Scholar. One very valid point of the paper corrects the belief that Fulvia had a Phrygian city named after her. Delia argues cogently (p. 202) that the inscription on the relevant coin more probably refers to Octavia. Fulvia's influence was centred in Rome and then widened to include Italy, but never the East. Delia's corrections of Babcock's thesis that Fulvia's importance was due to wealth has been noted (above n. 40). But to deny her influence completely is to do Fulvia less than credit and takes no account of the specific circumstances which allowed its growth.

46. Delia, , ‘Fulvia reconsidered’, p. 197Google Scholar.

47. Cruelty, : Phil. 2.113; 3.4; 6.4; 13.18Google Scholar; avarice, : Phil. 1.33Google Scholar; 2.95; 3.10; 16; 6.4; interest in politics: Alt. 14.12.(366)1; Mil. 28; 55; Phil. 5.22.

48. Delia, , ‘Fulvia reconsidered’, pp. 199–200Google Scholar.

49. Babcock, , ‘Fulvia’, 25Google Scholar.

50. Babcock, , ('Fulvia’, 5–6Google Scholar) and Linderski, & Kaminska-Linderski, ('Antonius’, 222Google Scholar) see Fulvia's hand in Antony's change of sides in early 52. This may well be correct, although Cicero's comment in the Second Philippic (2.48) is so elliptical that it is difficult to say exactly what the nature of their relationship was. It is enough to say at this point that Antony should be placed in the circle of Curio and Fulvia in 51–50, and that, in consequence, his career benefited. Nevertheless, Curio enjoyed the more obvious change of fortune in 50.

51. Babcock, , ‘Fulvia’, 9Google Scholar. For Curio's career 51–50, Lacey, W. C., ‘The tribunate of Curio’, Historia 10 (1961), 318–29Google Scholar. Lacey commendably stresses that Curio had a life apart from Caesar, but does not examine the very probable situation that Curio was doing more than one thing at a time (ibid. 20).

52. Babcock, , ‘Fulvia’, 9Google Scholar.

53. Plut, . Ant. 5Google Scholar.1: μεγáλην μ⋯ν ⋯πò τού λ⋯γ;ειν τος πολλοῖς ἔχων ἔσχ⋯ν (Κουρ⋯ων). On the camitia tributa, Taylor, L. R. (Party Politics in the Age of Caesar [Berkeley, 1949], pp. 93–4). She proposes that the pontifical and augural elections were the province of this assembly after Labienus' law of 63, on the grounds that Caesar was elected pontifex maximus over important optimates. As Caesar did very well in the elections for the tribunate in that year, it would be interesting to know whether Curio presided over the concilium plebis on that occasionGoogle Scholar.

54. Lacey, , ‘Curio’, 323–6Google Scholar.

55. Fam. 8.4.[81]2; 6.[88]5; Tac, . Ann. 11.7Google Scholar; Suet, , Iul. 29.2Google Scholar; Plut, . Caes. 29.3Google Scholar; Ant.5.2; App. 2.26.

56. Lacey, , ‘Curi.’, 323–6Google Scholar.

57. Fam. 8.11.[91]2.

59. Q. Fufius Calenus, a former Clodian supporter, was already one of Caesar's legates (B. Gall. 8.39; Fam. 8.1.[71]4). For the early careers of Bursa, T. Plancus, Rufus, Q. Pompeius, and Sallust, Vanderbroeck, Popular Leadership, pp. 202,204, 205Google Scholar.

59. Plut, . Ant. 5Google Scholar.1; Pelling, , Antony, p. 127Google Scholar.

60. Phil. 2.49.

61. B. Gall. 7.81.6, from Autumn 52. This is possibly an anomaly, for Antony was merely quaestor designates at the time. It is the first of many signals of favour in this period (Tyrrell, W. B., ‘Labienus' departure from Caesar in January 49 B.C.’ Historia 21 [1972], 438)Google Scholar.

62. Fam. 2.15.[96]4; Att. 6.6.[121]4; 7.8.[131]5. Pompey called Caesar Antony's quaestor in 50 (ibid.). Linderski, & Kaminska-Linderski, (‘Antonius’, 216Google Scholar) suggests that Pompey used this term even after Antony had been elected tribune in order to emphasize his personal relationship with Caesar. It also served the purpose of putting Antony in his place.

63. Tyrrell, (‘Labienus' departure’, 438Google Scholar) offers the favour shown towards Antony as a reason for Labienus' dissatisfaction with Caesar.

64. Plut, . Ant. 5.2–3; App. 2.33; MRR 2.258Google Scholar.

65. B. Ciu. 1.18; Dio 41.1.2.

66. Plut, . Ant. 6.4; App. 2.41Google Scholar.

67. Att. 10.8[199]; 10.[201]; 11.[202]; 12.[203]; especially, 13.[205]l:‘tu Antoni leones pertimescas caue. nihil est illo homine iucundius. attende πρ⋯ξιν πο;λιτιкο⋯.euocauit litteris e municipiis denos et IIII uiros. uenerunt ad uillam eius mane, primum dormiit ad H III, deinde, cum esset nuntiatum uenisse Neopolitanos et Cumanos… postridie redire iussit; lauari se uelle et περ⋯ κο;ιοιολνσíαν γίνεσθαι.hoc here effecit. hodie autem in Aenariam transire constituit ut exsulibus reditum polliceretur.’ Also Plut, . Ant. 6Google Scholar; App. 2.48. The letters from Cicero written in 49 are significant because they reveal his attitude to Antony long before the commencement of the feud which produced the Second Philippic, and some of the reasons for his later prejudice. Syme, (Roman Revolution, p. 105Google Scholar) states that it is ‘necessary to forget both the Philippics and the War of Actium’ in assessing Antony. Caution and sensitivity are required in dealing with both, but the letters should not be treated with the same disdain. Nor should the fact escape us that this evidence indicates that the Second Philippic, as with all good propaganda, had a factual basis. See above p. 188 for a discussion of similar oversights in Delia's arguments.

68. Plut, . Ant. 6.5Google Scholar.

69. B. Ciu. 3.24–30; 34.1; 40.5, 46.

70. Dio 41.15.2; 17.3; 36.2.

71. Plut, . Ant. 4Google Scholar.3; 6.5, but cf. Pelling, , Antony, p. 132Google Scholar.

72. Dio 42.27; Huzar, , Mark Antony, p. 65Google Scholar.

73. Hirtius had passed the rogatio Hirtia in 48 giving Caesar the right to appropriate property (CIL 12.2.604; Phil. 13.32). Dio (42.20.1) dates the law to 48. Yavetz, (Julius Caesar and his Public Image [London, 1983], p. 76Google Scholar) denies Caesar's extensive use of the powers granted to him by this law. This attests the enduring nature of the propaganda of the period, but the many auctions and problems of inheritance and possession alluded to in Cicero's letters (Fam. 9.10.[217]3; 17.[195]; 13.4. [318]; 5.[319]; 29.[282]; 15.17.[214]2; also Phil. 2.103–105) would suggest that clementia was highly selective. Keppie, (Colonisation and Veteran Settlements in Italy 47–14 B.C. [London, 1983], p. 55) is more discerning when he questions Caesar's ability to finance the settlement of his veterans without resorting to such fund-raising measuresGoogle Scholar.

74. Dio 42.27.3–4.

75. Phil.2.62–7; Plut, . Ant. 8.1Google Scholar–10.1; App. 2.92; Dio 42.29–33; Liv, . Per. 113Google Scholar.

76. Att. 11.12.[223]4 (March);14.[225]2;11.23.[232]3.

77. 42.29–33, possibly based on Livy, as was Plutarch, (cf. Per. 113Google Scholar).

78. 42.29.2–4.

79. 42.32.1–3.

80. 42.31.3; 33.1.

81. Ant. 9.1. Livy was possibly responsible for these details also (Per. 113).

82. For Appian's use of Pollio as a source of and the ramifications of this for our knowledge of Pollio's career, see Bosworth, A. B., ‘Asinius Pollio and Augustus’, Historia 21 (1972), 468Google Scholar; 471; Gowing, A. M., ‘Appian and Cassius' speech before Philippi’, Phoenix 44 (1990), 158–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83. Especially Curio, (B. Ciu. 2.42Google Scholar; MRR 2.263).

84. Plut, . Ant. 9.2–3; Dio 42.29.3; 31.1–2Google Scholar.

85. Dio 42.33.1.

86. Dolabella's adoption: Dio 42.29.2; the statue to Clodius: Att. 11.23.[232] 3. The reference is based on a conjecture by Purser, which Shackleton Bailey describes as brilliant, (CLA 5.291Google Scholar).

87. Att. 11.23.[232]4: ‘nunc quidem ipse uidetur denuntiare.’

88. Phil. 2.98.

89. Phil. 2.99.

90. Att. 11.7.[217]2; 11.12.[223]4. Antony appealed to direct orders from Caesar to explain why he could not allow Cicero to return to Rome (December 47). Later (March 47) when Atticus suggested that Cicero request help from Antony, Cicero admits to not knowing what he should ask for (‘nihil enim mihi venit in mentem quod scribendum putem’).

91. Phil. 2.14; 18; Plut, . Ant. 2Google Scholar.2; Dio 45.42.6; 46.2.3; 20.5. Much of the Second Philippic is devoted to answering charges of being ‘anti-people’ with which Antony was needling Cicero very effectively. Again we must note that those who would deny any value to the document (Syme, , Roman Revolution, p. 105Google Scholar; Delia, , ‘Fulvia Reconsidered’, 200) are too quick to overlook this aspect of itGoogle Scholar.

92 Phil. 2.99. The amount of detail given in this anecdote (and the reflection upon Cicero's own daughter and a former son-in-law whom he had not yet completely cast aside) suggests that the story is in most respects true. Cicero makes it clear that Antony's reasons for such churlish behaviour principally involved his forthcoming marriage to Fulvia: ‘alia condicione quaesita et ante perspecta.’

93. Plut, . Ant. 10Google Scholar.3. Plutarch confuses the chronology at several points and so places the marriage after Caesar's return from Egypt. It suited his picture of ‘Antony reclaimed’ to place the marriage late (Pelling, , Antony, p. 142). However, their eldest son Antyllus was used as a hostage in 44 (Phil. 1.31; 2.90; 12.1), which would suggest an earlier date than that which is given. Even so, Antyllus could only have been at the most three years of age in 44. Cicero's date of very early in the year (Phil. 2.99) makes better senseGoogle Scholar.

94. Plut, . Ant. 10.2Google Scholar.

95. Cloelius, Sextus: Att. 14.13.[367]6Google Scholar; 13a.[367a]2; 13b.[397b]3; Phil. 1.3; 2.9 (Cloelius as Antony's adviser). This was not a new policy (13a.[367a]2: ‘a Caesare petii ut Sex. Cloelium restitueret’). son, Clodius': Att. 14.13aGoogle Scholar.[367a]2–3; 13b.[367b]4; Bursa, T. Plancus: Phil. 6.10; 10.22; 13.27Google Scholar; Calenus, Q. Fufius: ad Brut. 2.4; 17.1; Phil. 12.1–3; App. 3.51; Dio 46.1ffGoogle Scholar.

96. Deiotarus, : Att. 14.12.[366]1Google Scholar; Phil. 2.95. Brundisium, : Phil. 3.4; 5.22; 13.18Google Scholar. Sicilians, : Att. 14.12.[366]1Google Scholar. Cicero's account to Atticus of the grant of citizenship to the Sicilians immediately precedes his description of Deiotarus' expensive return to grace. He makes the telling comment, ‘Deiotari nostri causa non similis?’ Also, Bauman, R. A., Lawyers in Roman Transitional Politics (München, 1985), p. 56Google Scholar; Women and Politics, p. 84.

97. App. 5.14; 19; Plut, . Ant. 30.1Google Scholar; Vell, . Pat. 2.74.2Google Scholar; Dio 48.10–12.

98. The picture of Fulvia as an imperial prototype is sketched by Bauman, (Women and Politics, pp. 89–90). He stresses how different Fulvia was from her contemporaries, Mucia and Hortensia, who, as he puts it, seem ‘quite happy in their supporting roles’Google Scholar.

99. Hallett, J..‘Perusinae glandes and the changing image of Octavian’, AJAH 2 (1977), 151–71Google Scholar.

100. App. 5.19. For a different reading of the proceedings, Bauman, , Women and Politics, pp. 87–8Google Scholar.

101. Plut, . Ant. 30.2Google Scholar. There is confusion in Plutarch's account where Fulvia dies before Antony could reach her. Nevertheless, in his version, her letter caused him to change his plans and sail with two hundred warships for Brundisium. Appian stresses Fulvia's jealousy of Cleopatra, but he too makes it clear that Fulvia persuaded Antony to return to Italy to face Octavian (5.52). Fulvia knew that her ambitious husband would break his agreement with Octavian, and was banking on this and the support of his generals (App. 5.33; Bosworth, , Historia 21 [1972], 470Google Scholarff; cf. Syme, , Roman Revolution, p. 208Google Scholar). A closer survey of her clear-sighted strategies in this period, and her ability to make Antony move, however late, should cause us to relegate the belief that she died heartbroken and eaten up with jealousy of Cleopatra as popular (and unlikely) fancy. As Pelling, points out (Antony, p. 199Google Scholar), she had more reason to be concerned about Glaphyra, if she had had the time or the inclination to think about it.

102. The plan to blame Fulvia for the whole affair and let bygones be bygones can be traced directly to Octavian's adviser, Cocceius (App. 5.62; less specifically, Plut, . Ant. 30.3Google Scholar). It finds its way to Dio (48.28.2–3). Embellishments, such as Fulvia's alleged jealousy, could be added later. Antony's conscience possibly received additional encouragement from his mother Julia, who espoused a policy of reconciliation and who therefore might have urged him to sacrifice Fulvia (App. 5.63; Pelling, , Antony, pp. 117, 204Google Scholar).

103. Plut, . Ant. 11.3Google Scholar.

104. Especially interesting on this point is Frisch, H. (Cicero's Fight for the Republic [Copenhagen, 1946], p. 37), who stresses the independent nature and sovereignty of the men with whom Caesar and others had to deal in the fifties and fortiesGoogle Scholar.

105. Vanderbroeck, (Popular Leadership, pp. 141, 168Google Scholar) comments that Clodius alone out of all the popular leaders had organized support among what he termed the plebs contionalis (ibid., pp. 81–92) in such a way that the power he held could be maintained after he had finished his term as tribune and then by others after his death.

106. Debt laws: Dio 42.51; consulships of Calenus, and Vatinius, : MRR 2.286Google Scholar.

107. MRR 2.293–4.

108. Suet, . Iul. 42.3Google Scholar.

109. On these men see Malitz, J., ‘Die Kanzlei Caesars- herrschaftsorganisation zwischen Republik und Prinzipat’, Historia, 36 (1987), 51–72Google Scholar and Welch, K. E., ‘The praefectura urbis of 45 B.C. and the ambitions of L. Cornelius Balbus’, Antichthon 24 (1990), 53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.