Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:57:28.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consular Provinces under the Late Republic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

J. P. V. D. Balsdon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

(i) Introduction

For a hundred years, ancient historians have been seeking to determine the date at which Caesar's Gallic command legally expired—a date which, curiously, no ancient writer has troubled to record. Little has been added, save repetition, to the arguments used by Mommsen in favour of 1st March, 49 B.C., by Zumpt in favour of 13th November, 50 B.C., and by Hirschfeld in favour of 1st March, 50 B.C. A few ‘freaks’ have sprouted, 29th December, 50 B.C., from Judeich, and an uncertain date between 31st July and early October, 50 B.C., from Stevens. And now, instead of offering a strange or even a familiar device for untying the Gordian knot, I want to suggest that it should be cut; that there was no exact terminal date for Caesar's tenure of his command. This I can only do by challenging what most scholars are content to accept, the foundations on which Mommsen placed his own discussion of the problem. Before I proceed to the problem itself, I hope to establish, in order, the following three points : (1) that Sulla did not, as Mommsen thought, make a clean severance between magisterial office and provincial government; (2) that it was not in the nature of long-term commands under the Republic to have a specific terminal date ; and (3) that sections 36 f. of Cicero's De provinciis consularibus do not supply incontrovertible evidence for certain facts and constitutional principles, for which their evidence is often assumed to be authoritative.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , 1939 , pp. 57 - 73
Copyright
Copyright ©J. P. V. D. Balsdon 1939. 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 I am deeply indebted to the kindness of H. M. Last, who read the first draft of this paper and assisted me, then and later, with much invaluable criticism and advice.

2 Ges. Schr. iv, 92 ff., ‘Die Rechtsfrage zwischen Caesar und dem Senat.’ Followed by Holmes, T. Rice, The Roman Republic ii, 299–310Google Scholar.

3 Stud. Rom., Berlin, 1859, 81Google Scholar ff., revived by Adcock, F. E., ‘The Legal Term of Caesar's Governorship in Gaul,’ CQ xxvi, 1932, 14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 ‘Der Endtermin der gallischen Statthalterschaft Caesars,’ Klio iv, 1904, 76–87;Google Scholar v, 1905, 236–240. I come very close to agreement with Hirschfeld’, though I do not agree with Hirschfeld's view that Caesar could expect to remain in Gaul until the end of 49 B.C.

5 ‘Das Ende von Caesars gallischer Statthalterschaft …,’ Rh. Mus. lxviii, 1913, 1–10Google Scholar.

6 Stevens, C. E., ‘The Terminal Date of Caesar's Command,’ AJP lix (1938), 169–208Google Scholar.

7 This point will be discussed in the second part of my paper, which will appear in a later issue of this Journal.

8 Ges. Schr. iv, 130. Cf. Staatsr. ii, i3, 94 f.

9 Ges. Schr. iv, 131 (of Julius Caesar's position, on Mommsen's theory, after 1st March, 49 B.C.).

10 ib. p. 122.

11 Hirschfeld, O., Klio iv, 84,Google Scholar n. 2; Pelham, H. F., Essays in Roman History, Oxford, 1911, 67,Google Scholar n. 4, and Outlines of Roman History, London, 216,Google Scholar n. 2; Cobban, J. M., Senate and Provinces 78–49 B.C., Cambridge, 1935, p. 72;Google ScholarLast, H. M., CAH ix, 295Google Scholar f. Cf. Boak, A. E. R., AHR xxiv, 1918/1919, 10,Google Scholar ‘Consequently we are bound to conclude that Sulla had passed no law making the consulship a purely civil office.’

12 Bruns, Fontes 7, 10, lines 7 f.

13 See Maranca, F. Stella, ‘Fasti Praetorii,’ Memorie della R. Accademia nazionale dei Lincei (Classe di Scienze morali storiche e filologiche) serie vi, 1929, 280–376,Google Scholar and especially 322–33.

14 E.g. Julius Caesar, who was quaesitor de sicariis in 64 B.C. See Greenidge, A. H. J., The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time (Oxford, 1901), 431Google Scholar f.

15 E.g. M. Antonius against the pirates in 74 B.C. (Ps.-Asc., in Verr. ii, 259,Google Scholar Stangl; Vell. ii, 31, 3), Crassus against Spartacus in 71 B.C. (Livy, Per. 97; Plut., Crassus 10), Q. Pompeius Rufus and Q. Metellus Celer against Catiline in 63 B.C. (Sallust, Cat. 30, 5;Google Scholar CD xxxvii, 33, 4).

16 E.g. Livy xxxv, 20, 7 (192 B.C.).

17 See below, p. 62, n. 37.

18 Vell, ii, 31, 1.

19 BC i, 6, 7.

20 In ‘Die Rechtsfrage’ Mommsen championed the genuineness of the text. Earlier, he sought to emend it: Ges. Schr. iv, 119, n. 71.

21 Att. viii, 15, 3 (TP iv, 350).

22 Phil. iv, 9. Cf. Phil. iii, 12.

23 xxxvi, 33, 1. Cf. xxxvii, 33, 3, where he explains why Cicero did not go to a province during his consulship: διὰ ταῦτα καὶ ὁ Κικέρων κατὰ χώραν ἔμεινεν. εἰλήχει γὰρ τῆς Μακεδονίας ἄρξαι, οὔτε δὲ ἐς ἐκείνην…οὔτε ἐς τὴν Γαλατίαν τὴν πλήσιαν, ἣν ἀντέλαβε, διὰ τὰ πάροντα ἐξήλασεν.

24 De lege agraria, i, 26.

25 Add De lege agraria ii, 30, ‘consuli, silegem curiatam non habet, attingere rem militarem non licet,’ and Fam. v, 10, 25 (How 25), ‘legemque curiatam consuli ferri opus esse, necesse non esse.’ Cf. H. F. Pelham, Proc. Ox. Phil. Soc., 1884–5, 15–18.

26 Sallust, Hist. i,Google Scholar fr. 127 M.

27 Sallust, Hist. i,Google Scholar fr. 66 M.

28 Cicero, Phil. xi, 8, 18,Google ScholarSchol. Gronov. p. 322, Stangl.

29 C. Sallusti Crispi Historiarum Reliquiae, Leipzig, 1891, fasc. i, p. 70,Google Scholar on the strength of Ps.-Frontinus iv, 1, 43. Münzer in P-W ii A, col. 864.

30 Cicero, Pro Murena 33, Livy, Per. 93, 94,Google Scholar Eutropius vi, 6. Cf. Appian, Mith. 71 f., against Vell. ii, 33, 1; Cicero, Acad. Prior. ii, 1, 1Google Scholar. Cf. Boak, A. E. R., AHR xxiv, 1918–1919, 7Google Scholar f., ‘The noteworthy features of these two commands are that they were entrusted by the Senate to the two consuls and that the latter undertook them during their year of office. Our sources do not comment on this as an unusual or unconstitutional proceeding.’

31 See note 29 above.

32 CD xxxvi, 14, 4; 17, 1.

33 CD xxxvi, 37, 2; Plutarch, , Cn. Pompeius 27, 1Google Scholar. Add Pompey's raising of troops when consul in 55 B.C. from Cisalpine Gaul (which Rice Holmes—ad BG vi, i, 2—explains, wrongly I think, by Att. iv, i, 7, and his command received in 57 B.C.).

34 Ges. Schr. iv, 118, n. 66.

35 Sallust, Cat. 36, 3Google Scholar.

36 Att. i, 19, 2 (TP i, 25; How 7).

37 33, 71. Cf. in Pisonem 31, ‘An cum proficiscebamini paludati in provincias vel emptas vel ereptas, consules vos quisquam putavit?’

38 See further, on this point, p. 67 below.

39 This inference is commonly drawn from their absence from the meeting of the Senate described by Cicero, ad QF ii, 1Google Scholar (TP ii, 93).

40 Att. iv, 13, 2 (TP ii, 130).

41 When Cicero (ap. CD xlv, 20, 4) taunts Antony with his behaviour in the months after Caesar's murder—ὅτι τὴν πόλιν ἐν τῷ τῆς ὑπατείας χρόνῳ ἐκλιπὼν περιέρχεται τὴν χώραν πορθῶν καὶ λυμαινόμενος, πάλαι φημὶ πολέμιον αὐτὸν ἁπάντων ἡμῶν εἶναι—the words to be stressed are πορθῶν καὶ λυμαινόμενος. There is no suggestion in Cicero's (copious) correspondence in the last half of 44 B.C., that Antony was acting unconstitutionally in leaving Rome during his consulship.

42 Cicero, Phil. viii, 27Google Scholar.

43 Fam. xii, 14, 5 (TP vi, 883).

44 Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. iv, 120,Google Scholar writes, ‘Allein diese Ausnahmen bestätigen die Regel, denn sie tragen alle den Charakter der Ausserordentlichkeit an sich.’ But this begs the question, as far as ‘die Regel’ is concerned. And, as for ‘Ausserordentlichkeit’, Mommsen misunderstands the normal character of proconsular (as opposed to propraetorian) command. See p. 64 below.

45 I omit from this reckoning the consuls of 78 and 72, and C. Antonius Hybrida (63), who had fighting in Italy during their consulships and also the two consuls (one suffect) who died during office in 68 B.C.

46 P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura in 71, Pompey and Crassus in 70, Q. Hortensius (69), M'. Aemilius Lepidus (66), L. Aurelius Cotta (65), L. Julius Caesar, and C. Marcius Figulus (64), Cicero in 63, M. Calpurnius Bibulus (59), L. Marcius Philippus (56), L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (54), Cn. Domitius Calvinus, M. Valerius Messalla (53).

47 D. Iunius Brutus and Mam. Aemilius Lepidus (77), Cn. Octavius (76), Cn. Aufidius Orestes (71), Q. Volcatius Tullus (66), D. Iunius Silanus and L. Licinius Murena (62), M. Pupius Piso, and M. Valerius Messalla (61), Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus (56).

48 C. Scribonius Curio (76), M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (73).

49 See pp. 61 f. above: Lucullus and Cotta (74), Glabrio and Piso (67), Caesar (59) —because, though he did not go to Gaul in 59, there is no question that he held it in that year, Piso and Gabinius (58), Lentulus Spinther and Metellus Nepos (57), Crassus (55).

50 P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (79), Cilicia; Ap. Claudius Pulcher (79), Macedonia; L. Octavius (75), Cilicia; C. Aurelius Cotta (75), Gallia Cisalpina; C. Cassius Longinus (73), war against Spartacus; Q. Caecilius Metellus (69), bellum Creticum; Q. Marcius Rex (68), Cilicia; L. Manlius Torquatus (65), Macedonia; L. Afranius and Q. Caecilius Metellus Celer (60), the two Gauls; Pompey (55). Spain; Ap. Claudius Pulcher (54), Cilicia.

51 In this view I have the support of A. E. R. Boak (see above, p. 58, n. 11 and p. 61, n. 30); P. Willems, Le sénat … ii, 578 ff.; Nissen, A., Beiträge zum röm. Staatsrecht (Strassburg, 1885), 116–18,Google Scholar and Laqueur, R., ‘Cäsars gallische Statthalterschaft und der Ausbruch des Bürgerkrieges,’ Neue Jahrbücher für das klass. Altertum xlv, 1920, 241–255,Google Scholar where the relevant evidence is reviewed fully and, in my opinion, conclusively; the pity is that it is used to support an untenable theory that Kal. Mart. in De prov. cons. 37 is 1st March, 55 B.C.

52 Cf. Pro Murena 38, ‘Multum apud universum populum Romanum auctoritatis habet suffragatio militaris; imperatores enim comitiis consularibus, non verborum interpretes deliguntur.’ Compare, a century earlier, the replacement of praetors by consuls as governors of the two Spains during the wars of 143–134 B.C.

53 See Waddington, W. H., Fastes des provinces asiatiques de l'Empire romain (Paris, 1872), 43–62Google Scholar.

54 Appian, BC ii, 18;Google ScholarPlutarch, , Cn. Pompeius 52, 4Google Scholar.

55 See de Lessert, A. Clément Pallu, Fastes des provinces africaines (Paris, 1896), i, 27–36Google Scholar.

56 Macedonia in 79, 76, 73, ? 69, 65, 63, 58; Syria in 61, 58, 55; Cilicia in 79, 75, 68, 57, 54.

57 Even after Pompey's legislation of 52 B.C., the two consular provinces-in 51 were Syria and Cilicia. It is worth noticing, too, that, in spite of that legislation, L. Aemilius Paullus, consul in 50 B.C., hoped to receive the command against Parthia if the threat of war materialised: Cicero, Fam. viii, 10,Google Scholar 3 (TP iii, 226), Att. vi, 1, 7 (TP iii, 252). Since, unlike Mommsen, I do not consider that Caesar's prospects of remaining in Gaul after he was due for recall were materially affected by the legislation of 52 (see the second part of this article), I interpret Paullus' ambition at its face value and do not, like Mommsen, (Ges. Schr. iv, 134Google Scholar f.), see in it a subtle attempt, inspired by Caesar himself, to invalidate the legislation of 52 B.C.

58 Ges. Schr. iv, 136. I agree in part with this hypothesis of Mommsen, though, as Hirschfeld justly observes (Klio iv, 86, n. 3), the authorities which Mommsen quotes— Cicero, De provinciis consularibus 17; Fam. viii, 5, 2; viii, 9, 2 (TP iii, 210, 211)— have little relevance to his contention. The point is discussed below, pp. 65 ff.

59 In 77, 74, 67, 60, 59, 58, 55 B.C.

60 Att. i, 13, 1 (TP i, 19, How 4), Att. i, 15, 1 (TP i, 21). Mommsen's other instance (Qf ii, 3, 1, TP ii, 102, How 19) is unfortunately irrelevant since it concerns not the sortitio or comparatio of the praetors of 56 B.C., but the ornatio (which normally happened a good while later than the sortitio) of the praetors of 57 B.C., which had been delayed, I imagine, like much other business by the conflict of Clodius and Milo at the end of the year 57.

61 Stevens, C. E., AJP lix (1938), 181–3;Google Scholar 200–2.

62 O.c., 202.

63 De re militari iv, 39, ‘Ex die igitur tertio idus Novembres usque in diem sextum Idus Martias maria clauduntur.’

64 O.c., 202, n. 133. But Stevens wants to have it both ways. For him not only were the dates specified in the law as if the calendar were in order, but, in 51/50, they were actually observed, as if the calendar were in order.

65 So CAH ix, 629, n. 2, if I understand it rightly. The only evidence is Att. viii, 3, 3 (TP iv, 337, How 47).

66 Fam. viii, 8, 9 (TP iii, 223, How 32).

67 Att. i, 14, 5 (TP i, 20); i, 15, 1 (TP i, 21).

68 Fam. viii, 11, 3 (TP iii, 267). 13th November, 49, according to the followers of Mommsen; see especially, for a pretty piece of ingenuity, Frank, Tenney, CR xxxiii, 1919, 68Google Scholar f. I hold that the date was 13th November, 50 B.C.; on which cf. Adcock, F. E., ‘The Legal Term of Caesar's Governorship in Gaul,‘ CQ xxvi, 1932, 14–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 The relevant authority is Att. iv, 13, 2 (TP ii, 130), written between 14/17th November, 55 B.C.: ‘Crassum quidem nostrum minore dignitate aiunt profectum paludatum.’ Adcock, o.c. 24, writes, ‘That he went paludatus shows that he was then legally governor of Syria.’ But does it show that that was the first day of his legal governorship? Governors normally left Rome paludati, I think, when they started off for their provinces (cf. Fam. xiii, 6a, 1 (TP ii, 115), departure of Orca to Africa in 57 or 56 B.C.).

70 Qf ii, 1, 1 (TP ii, 93). Cf. P-W. iii, 1218.

71 Pro Sestio 71.

72 On Ornatio, see my article, ‘Q. Mucius Scaevola the Pontifex and Ornatio Provinciae,’ CR li, 1937, 8–10;Google Scholar and for the power of tribunes to put the screw on consuls by opposing their ornatio by veto, cf. Att. iii, 24 (TP i, 86).

73 Fam. i, 4, 1 (TP ii, 98); though (Qf ii, 3, 1, TP ii, 102, How 19), in the event, the legationes were postponed from 1st February to 13th February, in order to allow the sortitio of the quaestors of 56 B.C. and the ornatio of the praetors of 57 B.C. to be carried out. Cf. Att. i, 14, 5 (How 5).

74 Qf ii, 11 (13), 3 (TP ii, 135).

75 To the instances given in the text add P. Cornelius Dolabella, who left Rome for the East in October 44 B.C., Att. xv, 13, 5 (TP vi, 795).

76 Cf. Att. xv, 25 (TP v, 759), where Cicero writes of a prospective voyage from Greece to Italy in November/December, 44 B.C., ‘est enim hiberna navigatio odiosa’. Hateful, yes; but not impossible. Letters were dispatched at this season to provincial governors, e.g. Qf 1, ii (TP i, 53, How 13), sent from Rome late in November or early in December.

77 Livy xxxiii, 43, 6.

78 Livy xxx, i, 10.

79 Livy xxxii, 28, 9.

80 Livy xxvii, 7, 17.

81 The constitutional significance of these long-term commands of the late Republic is discussed in careful detail by Boak, A. E. R., ‘The Extraordinary Commands from 80 to 48 B.C.,’ AHR xxiv, 1918/1919, 1–25Google Scholar.

82 CD xxxvi, 23, 4; 34, 3; 37, 1: Appian, Mith. 14, 94Google Scholar.

83 Cicero, De lege agraria ii, 32, ii, 64Google Scholar.

84 Vell. ii, 44, 5; Orosius vi, 7; Plutarch, Caesar 14, 10;Google ScholarAppian, BC ii, 2, 13;Google Scholar CD xxxviii, 8, 5. Cf. Mommsen, Staatsr. i, 596,Google Scholar who thinks that this was the first occasion on which a proconsular command was extended with a definite time limit.

85 Cicero, Att. iv, 1, 7Google Scholar (TP ii, 90, How 15).

86 Livy, Per. 105; CD xxxix, 33, 2.

87 Plutarch, Pomp. 52, 4;Google ScholarAppian BC ii, 3, 18;Google Scholar CD xxxix, 33, 3; Niccolini, G., I fàsti dei tribuni della plebe (Milan, 1934), 309,Google Scholar accepts Plutarch's word that this was a second lex Trebonia. But De bello Gallico viii, 53, is good evidence in supporting Appian's account of it as a consular law.

88 Plutarch, , Cn. Pompeius 55, 12;Google ScholarAppian, BC ii, 4, 24;Google Scholar CD xl, 44, 2; 56, 2.

89 Cicero, Philippics ii, 109,Google Scholar v, 7, viii, 28; Att. xv, 11, 4 (TP v, 744).

90 Appian, BC iv, 2, 7;Google Scholar CD xlvi, 55, 3; xlvii, 2, 1; CIL 12, p. 64.

91 Appian, Ill. 28; CD xlviii, 54, 6.

92 Klio iv, 83.

93 ‘Laodiceam veni pridie Kal. Sext. Ex hoc die clavum anni movebis,’ Att. v, 15, 1 (TP iii, 207). Cf. Att. v, 14, 1 (TP iii, 204), v, 21, 9 (TP iii, 250).

94 Att. v, 16, 4 (TP iii, 208).

95 CD xxxvi, 43, 1.

96 Ges. Schr. iv, 118, 123.

97 § 36 f.

98 TP iii, 193–206. And, for the similar case of Bibulus, see Att. v, 16, 4 (TP iii, 208).

99 See above, pp. 66 ff.

100 De prov. cons. 17, might be quoted against my thesis: ‘ego idem, qui nunc consulibus iis qui designati erunt Syriam Macedoniamque decerno, decernam easdem praetorias, ut et praetores annuas provincias habeant et eos quam primum videamus quos animo aequo videre non possumus.’ If Cicero gained both his points then, it appears, the two provinces would be governed in 55 B.C. by the praetors of 56, and in 54 B.C. by the consuls of 55. But why does Cicero use the word ‘annua’ here ? All provinces, except in the case of extraordinary commands, were annuae in the first instance. The force of annuae here is, therefore, that in this case, the two provinces being consular for the following year, the command of the praetors cannot possibly be prorogued: that is to say, annuae means here ‘a maximum period of a year’. I should maintain that the consuls of 55 could have replaced the praetors of 56 in the government of their provinces within their consular year, had they needed to do so.

101 Livy, xxxiii, 25, 11.

102 CD xxxix, 33, 3; xliv, 43, 2. The importance of this statement is well emphasized by Hirschfeld, , Klio iv, 78Google Scholar f.

103 Plutarch, , Cn. Pompeius 55, 12;Google Scholar CD xl, 44, 2; 56, 2.

104 Philippics viii, 28 (cf. Att. xv, 11, 4 = TP v, 744); v, 7.

105 The sixth year is variously explained away—by Mommsen, , Ges. Schr. iv, 130Google Scholar f., n. 111, as ‘das Successionsjahr,’ i.e. the extra year of command which Antony, like Ceaser (on Mommsen's theory) could anticipate at the expiry of ‘die fünf Jahre des Gesetzes’. K. Halm, on the other hand, in his edition of the Philippics (on Phil. v, 7), explains it on the ground that Antony wished to assume his proconsular command in the December of his consular year.

106 CIL 12, p. 64.

107 See above, p. 57, n. 3.

108 See, e.g., Marsh, F. B., The Founding of the Roman Empire (2nd edition), Oxford, 1927, 272Google Scholar f.

109 DJ 26, 1.

110 xl, 59, 3.

111 DJ 28, 2.

112 BG viii, 53, 1.

113 Att. vii, 7, 6 (TP iii, 298; How 41).

114 Att. vii, 9, 4 (TP iii, 300; How 42).

115 On this, Professor H. M. Last writes, ‘Cicero and his correspondents were not writing for posterity. And the historians, on any showing, have failed to give a clear account of the facts.’ But, I must confess, I still find this silence (on any of the traditional views) very strange.

116 O.c., 176.