Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T12:40:17.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Allegiance of Labienus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Ronald Syme
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ill fortune bore down the family of the Labieni, and an ill repute hangs over their memory. Q. Labienus, an ally of Saturninus, perished miserably, cut down in the Curia by good citizens. His nephew, T. Labienus, Caesar's legate in Gaul from the first campaign to the last, deserted to Pompeius Magnus at the outbreak of the Civil War, conveying promises which he failed to implement, was held in scant honour by his new allies, and met his death at Munda. The son of Caesar's marshal, a renegade styling himself ‘Parthicus imperator,’ invaded the provinces of the Roman People and swept through Syria and Cilicia into Asia with an army of Parthian cavalry: he was defeated in battle and killed by Ventidius the Picene and the Marsian Poppaedius, generals of Antonius.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , 1938 , pp. 113 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © Ronald Syme 1938. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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

1 On the whole family of the Labieni, cf. Münzer, P-W xii, 257 ff. The principal evidence about the orator and historian T. Labienus is supplied by Seneca, , Controversiae 10, praef. 4 ffGoogle Scholar.

2 Ad Att. 7, 7, 6: ‘et Labieni divitiae et Mamurrae placent et Balbi horti et Tusculanum ?’ On the theory that T. Labienus is to be identified with the ‘Mentula’ of certain poems of Catullus, cf. Frank, Tenney, ‘Cicero and the Poetae Novae,’ AJP xl (1919), 396 ffGoogle Scholar.

3 As Caelius observed (Ad fam. 8, 14, 3): ‘illud te non arbitror fugere quin homines in dissensione domestica debeant, quam diu civiliter sine armis certetur, honestiorem sequi partem, ubi ad bellum et castra ventum sit, firmiorem et id melius statuere quod tutius sit.’

4 Ad Att. 7, 16, 2: Caesar, BC 3, 71, 4Google Scholar; 87, 7 ff.; Bell. Afr. 16, 1 f.

5 Cf. E. Meyer, Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompeius 3 (1922), 299 ff.; 309 ff.

6 Ad fam. 10, 31, 3 (Pollio); 11, 28, 2 (Matius).

7 Ad fam. 8, 14, 3; 17, 2.

8 For the ful1 list of his legates, cf. Drumann-Groebe, , Gesch. Roms. iii 2 (1906), 700 fGoogle Scholar.

9 Dio 41, 4, 4: αίτιον δἑ ὂτι αύτός τε καὶ πλοῦγοιʹ καὶ δόξαν περιβιλόμενος όγκηρότερον τῆς ήγεμονιας διάγειν γιρξατο, καὶ ὁ Καῖσαρ παρισούμενού οί αύτὀν Ιδὠν ούκέθʹ ὁμόιως ἠγάπα. τήν τε οὒν μεταβολήν μἠ ϕέρων, καὶ ϕοβηθεὶς ἂμα μἠ πάθῃ τι, μετέστη.

10 The History of Rome, v 2 (1901), 194 f. = RG iii, 375. Also E. Meyer, Caesars Monarchie 3, 347; F. Münzer, P-W xii, 266.

Adcock makes a further and very attractive suggestion—Labienus may have resented the advancement of Antonius, M. (CAH ix, 635)Google Scholar. This young nobilis had held a military command in 52 and 51; and in 50 Caesar canvassed the Cisalpina for Antonius' election to an augurship (BG 8, 50).

11 Dio 37, 37, 1.

12 On the whole question, cf. E. Meyer, Caesars Monarchie,3 549 ff.; Holmes, T. Rice, The Roman Republic i (1923), 452 ff.Google Scholar; E. G. Hardy, Some Problems in Roman History (1924), 110 ff.; Lengle, J., ‘Die staatsrechtliche Form der Klage gegen C. Rabirius,’ Hermes lxviii (1933), 328 ffGoogle Scholar.

13 Dio 37, 26 ff.; Suetonius, Divus Julius 12. He and L. Julius Caesar (cos. 64 B.C. ) were the duoviri who tried the charge of perduellio. The name of Caesar is nowhere mentioned in Cicero's speech Pro C. Rabirio perduellionis reo. This need occasion no surprise: Cicero was aware of the danger of incurring a feud with an influential nobilis. Moreover, Caesar's rôle in the whole matter may not have been so very important after all, cf. below, p. 117.

14 As by Mommsen and recently by Carcopino, Points de vue sur l'impérialisme romain (1934), 87 ff., and in his Histoire romaine ii, 2: César (1936).

15 Especially by Meyer, E., Hist. Zeitschr. xci (1903), 385 ff.Google Scholar = Kl. Schr. (1910), 443 ff.; Caesars Monarchie,3 508 ff. For remarks in criticism of this view, BSR Papers xiv (1938), 1 ff.

16 Tarn, W. W., ‘Alexander Helios and the Golden Age,’ JRS xxii (1932), 154Google Scholar.

17 Strasburger, H., Caesars Eintritt in die Geschichte (München, 1938)Google Scholar.

18 H. Strasburger, op. cit., 126 ff.

19 Comm. pet. 51, cf. 5.

20 For the list of his legates in the Pirate War and in the Mithridatic War, cf. Drumann-Groebe, , Gesch. Roms. iv 2 (1908), 420 ff.Google Scholar; 486.

21 The relationship is attested by Ad fam. 5, 2, 6, cf. Dio. 37, 49, 3 (the divorce when Pompeius returned from the East).

22 Dio 36, 54, 2 (Celer); Josephus, BJ I, 127 (Nepos).Google Scholar Nepos had also been in the Pirate War; Appian, Mithr. 95.

23 Dio 37, 44, 3. This was done despite Cato, cf. Plutarch, Cato minor 30; Pompeius 44, whose account of the whole affair is different but not inconsistent.

24 According to Plutarch, Caesar supported the bill of Gabinius (Pompeius 25): in Dio, however (36, 43, 2 ff.), it is the Lex Manilia. Strasburger (op. cit., 100 f.) suggests that they derive from a common source and produce, through an error somewhere, a doublet: there was only one speech by Caesar advocating the bill of a Pompeian tribune.

25 Dio 37, 21, 4. Velleius, however, (2, 40, 4) mentions only the tribunes who made the proposal. Note also Caesar's bill to take from Catulus and transfer to Pompeius the charge of restoring the Capitol: only in Dio (37, 44, 1 f.). Compare the observations of Strasburger, op. cit., 102 f.

26 As argued by Strasburger, o.c., 119.

27 Suetonius, Divus Julius 10: Plutarch, Cato minor 27 ff.: Cicero 25, etc.

28 Sallust, BC 49, 1. For the date, cf. Pro Flacco 98.

29 Dio 36, 24, 3; 39, 3; Plutarch, Pompeius 25 and 27; Asconius p. 58, Clark etc.

30 Valerius Maximus 3, 8, 3.

31 Dio 36, 37, 2. Piso, it is pretty dear, governed the Cisalpina and the Transalpina together; cf. also Ad Att. 1, 1, 2; 1, 13, 2, and the remarks of Larsen, J. A. O., CP xxvi (1931), 427 ffGoogle Scholar.

32 Dio 37, 27, 3.

33 Ad fam. 6, 12, 3: ‘tuba belli civilis.’ His circumstantial report of certain alarming statements of Caesar the Dictator (Suetonius, Divus Julius 77) need not be taken too seriously in view of his known political allegiance.

34 Note, for example, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus, consul 72 B.C., censor 70 B.C. and legate of Pompeius in the Pirate War (Appian, Mithr. 95): likewise Marcellinus, cos. 56 (ib. and SIG 3 750). Marcellinus had also been in Spain (BMC, R. Rep. ii, 491 f.). Further, it is quite likely that not only Balbus the Gaditane but also the parent of the poet Gallus derived the gentilicium of ‘Cornelius’ from Lentuli active under Pompeius in the provinces of the West, cf. CQ xxxii (1938), 42 f.

35 Plutarch, Pompeius 6; Velleius 2, 29, 1; Bell. Afr. 22, 2, etc. Cf. M. Gelzer, Die Nobilität der röm. Republik (1912), 77 f.

36 Duchesne, J., ‘Note sur le nom de Pompée,’ L'antiquité classique iii (1934), 81 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 ILS 8888, cf. C. Cichorius, Römische Studien (1922), 130 ff., esp. 158 ff. It does not follow, of course, that every person on this list was a personal adherent or permanent ally of the Pompeii. Among the names are ‘C. Rabirius C. f. Gal.’ and ‘L. Sergius L. f. Tro.’ That is to say, Rabirius Postumus and Catilina.

38 Sallust, Hist. 4, 43 MGoogle Scholar.

39 Pseudo-Asconius on Div. in Q. Caec., p. 189 St.

40 Valerius Maximus 3, 8, 3; Ad Att. 1, 1, 1.

41 Against Sertorius, Plutarch, Sertorius 19; Orosius 5, 23, 14. Against Mithridates, Plutarch, Pompeius 34, etc.; Dio 37, 5, 4. A dedication to Afranius discovered near Cupra Maritima makes his origin reasonably certain (ILS 878).

42 Cicero, Pro C. Rabirio perduellionis reo 22.

43 Caesar, BC 1, 15, 2Google Scholar.

44 Punica 10, 34.

45 For the fullest account of Ventidius, cf. Gellius 15, 4. He was captured at Asculum in infancy and led in the triumph of Pompeius Strabo. On certain Ventidii of Auximum, enemies of the Pompeii, cf. Plutarch, Pompeius 6.

46 Münzer, P-W xii, 260: ‘während seine Herkunft aus Picenum ihn in solche (sc. Beziehungen) zu Pompeius bringen möchte.’

47 Cicero, Pro C. Rabirio perduellionis reo 21.

48 Suetonius, Divus Julius 3: ‘meruit et sub Servilio Isaurico in Cilicia, sed brevi tempore. nam Sullae morte comperta, simul spe novae dissensionis, quae per Marcum Lepidum movebatur, Remain propere redit.’

49 Sallust, BC 59, 6Google Scholar: ‘homo militaris, quod amplius annos triginta tribunus aut praefectus aut legatus aut praetor cum magna gloria in exercitu fuerat.’

50 Münzer, P-W xix, 1183. He may have been the son of the primus pilus Cn. Petreius Atinas (Pliny, NH 22, 11Google Scholar).

51 Dio (37, 49, 1) states expressly that Celer was helped by Pompeius.

52 Dio 37, 49, 3; Ad Att. 1, 18, 5, etc.

53 Ad Att. 2, 16, 2. The validity of this interpretation of a much-plagued passage need not here be discussed.

54 Ad Att. 1, 19, 2.

55 Ad Att. 1, 20, 5; Dio 37, 51, 2; 38, 7, 1. C. Pomptinus went on holding Gallia Transalpina for a time—how long, it is uncertain. A supplicatio for his victories was proposed or voted in 59 B.C., cf. Schol. Bob., p. 149 St.

56 Cf. Gelzer, M., ‘Die Lex Vatinia de imperio Caesaris,’ Hermes lxiii (1928), 118Google Scholar; 135. Indeed, it appears that Afranius celebrated a triumph, cf. Cicero, In Pisonem 58. This is not conclusive, however. For all that is known, Afranius might have governed Gallia Transalpina or one of the two Spanish provinces in the period 70–66 B.C. Compare M. Pupius Piso, who triumphed from Spain in 69 B.C., Asconius p. 15 Clark.

57 On Pompeius' legate, L. Titurius Sabinus (Sallust, Hist. 2, 94 MGoogle Scholar), cf. Münzer, P-W vi A, 1575.

58 Dio 37, 47, 1.

59 ILS 8888, cf. C. Cichorius, Römische Studien 138; Münzer, P-W iv A, 768.

60 BG 8, 52, 2.

61 BG 8, 52, 3.

62 BG 8, 52, 2, following the Oxford text and all the manuscripts except one (Cod. Laurent. Ashburnham. 33) not of the best, which gives ‘maicr et commendatior’ for ‘maiore commendatione.’

63 The History of Rome v, 194 = RG iii, 375. As the English translation is obscure, it will be necessary to quote the German. ‘Nochim J. 704 hatte Caesar ihm den Oberbefehl im diesseitigen Gallien übertragen, um theils diesen Vertrauensposten in sichere Hand zu geben, theils zugleich Labienus in seiner Bewerbung um das Consulat damit zu fördern.’ It is to be regretted that Mommsen did not discuss and support his interpretation: he may subsequently have abandoned it. Münzer (P-W xii, 266), referring to Mommsen's view, is inconclusive—‘eine ganz sichere Deutung ist kaum zu geben.’ But Münzer protests against the assumption that Labienus' candidature is ‘unthinkable’ merely because we have no record of his praetorship. Why should we? Labienus was not a prominent politician. Further, the praetorian Fasti cannot be recovered in entirety Far from it. As many as six of the praetors of 59 B.C. are known by name, it is true: in 61 and 60, however, only three and two respectively. Cf. Maranca, F. Stella, ‘Fasti praetorii,’ Mem. r. Acc. dei Lincei, Ser. vii, ii (1927), 279 ffGoogle Scholar.

64 Namely the Teubner texts of Kübler and Klotz (1893 and 1927), Meusel's edition (Berlin, 1894) and Rice Holmes' annotated edition (Oxford, 1914).

65 In his Oxford edition (1914): he there states that ‘ei’ must be given the meaning of ‘sibi.’ In The Roman Republic ii (1923), 327, the reference to Caesar's consulate is assumed without discussion,

66 Koltz, Cäsarstudien (1910), 160, speaks of ‘eine gewisse Plumpheit und Schwerfälligkeit des Ausdrucks.’

67 Compare, for this purpose, the brief but fundamental study of Gelzer, Die Nobilität der römischen Republik (1912).

68 BG 8, 50.

69 Ad Att. 1, 1, 2.

70 On names of this type, extending from Etruria eastwards to Picenum and the Sabine country, cf. W. Schulze, Zur Gesch. lateinischer Eigennamen (1904), 109 f. They may be discovered among obscure Roman senators in the second century B.C. The first consul with a name ending in ‘—ienus’ was L. Passienus Rufus (4 B.C.). Earlier candidates had been unlucky, namely C. Bellienus ‘qui consul factus esset, nisi in Marianos consulatus et in eas petitionis angustias incidisset’ (Cicero, Brutus 175) and the ill-starred partisan of Octavianus, Q. Salvidienus Rufus, cos. des. for 39 B.C.

71 There is only the inscr., ILS 878.

72 On this interesting character and the precise degree of his relationship to Pompeius, cf. C. Cichorius, Römische Studten, 67 ff.; Münzer, P-W xiii, 1642 ff.; West, A. B., ‘Lucilian Genealogy,’ AJP xlix (1928), 240 ffGoogle Scholar.

73 ILS 881.

74 Caesar's legate L. Minucius Basilus was certainly Picene. Originally known as M. Satrius, and described as ‘patronus agri Piceni et Sabini’ (Cicero, De off. 3, 74), he was adopted by his maternal uncle, whose name he took. Note ‘L. Minucius L. f. Vel.’ in the consilium of Pompeius Strabo and ‘L. Mmicius L. f.’ on an inscr. from Cupra Maritima (ILS 5391). On this man, cf. C. Cichorius, R. Studien, 175 f.; Münzer, P-W xv, 1947. Another Picene, first occurring in historical record as a legate of Caesar in the Civil Wars, was L. Nonius Asprenas (Cichorius, op. cit., 170; Münzer, P–W xvii, 865): the founder of a family of long duration and high distinction—they intermarried with the Calpurnii Pisones.

75 Ad Att. 7, 8, 4: ‘vehementer hominem contemnebat et suis et rei publicae copiis confidebat.’

76 Ad Att. 7, 16, 2; Caesar, BC 3, 71, 4Google Scholar; 87. 2 ff.: Bell. Afr. 16, 1 ff. According to Dio (41, 4, 2 f.), Labienus revealed Caesar's military plans to Pompeius.

77 Bell. Afr. 19, 4, etc.

78 Cicero was enthusiastic at first, calling Labienus a ἤρως (Ad Att. 7, 13, 1) and a ‘vir magnus’ (ib., 7, 13a, 3), but soon cooled off (ib., 8, 2, 3).

79 Ad Att. 8, 2, 3.

80 Pliny, NH 22, 11Google Scholar, cf. Münzer, P-W xix, 1182.

81 Seneca, Controversiae 10, praef. 5. This passage should suffice to prove what is nowhere explicitly stated, that the orator belonged to the same family as the great marshal and his son, the ‘Parthicus imperator.’

82 Tacitus, Ann. 4, 34Google Scholar: ‘Titus Livius, eloquentiae ac fidei praeclarus in primis, Cn. Pompeium tantis laudibus tulit ut Pompeianum eum Augustus appellaret; neque id amicitiae corum offecit.’

83 For a brief indication about the novi homines, compare BSR Papers xiv (1938), 7. It will hardly be necessary to emphasise the value and significance of this evidence about Tiberius. F. B. Marsh, however, appears to deny the influence of Tiberius on the choice of consuls in the period A.D. 4–11 (The Reign of Tiberius (1931), 43 f., cf. 67), for inadequate reasons. His conception of Tiberius is therefore peculiarly vulnerable.