Politics in the Monuments of Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar [1 ed.] 0367521563, 9780367521561, 9780367531140, 9781003080503

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
List of figures
Preface
List of abbreviations
Introduction
1. Pompey and Caesar
2. Pompeian and Caesarian monuments in Rome
1 The Protagonists and Their Ideas
1.1 Foreword: Propaganda in Antiquity
1.2 ‘ita sullaturit animus eius et proscripturit iam diu’ (Cic., Att., 9, 10, 6): Pompey
1.2.1 Sulla
1.2.2 Alexander the Great
1.2.3 The Gods: Venus Victrix
1.2.4 The Gods: Hercules
1.2.5 The Gods: Minerva
1.2.6 The Gods: Dionysus
1.2.7 Felicitas
1.2.8 Scipio Aemilianus (and Africanus)?
1.3 ‘[…] nam Caesari multos Marios inesse’ (Suet., Iul., 1, 1): Caesar
1.3.1 Marius
1.3.2 The Gracchi Brothers
1.3.3 Scipio Aemilianus (and Africanus)
1.3.4 Furius Camillus
1.3.5 Romulus
1.3.6 Servius Tullius
1.3.7 Other Models: Ancus Marcius and Numa Pompilius
1.3.8 The Gods: Venus
1.3.9 The Gods: Veiovis – Iuppiter
1.3.10 The Gods: Quirinus
1.3.11 Clementia et Concordia
1.3.12 Felicitas
1.4 Final Remarks
2 The Rising Sun: Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs
2.1 Imago Alexandri? The Hercules Pompeianus
2.2 Pompey’s Temple of Minerva
2.3 Theatrum Lapideum
2.3.1 The Temple of Venus Victrix
2.3.2 The Presence (or not) of a Scaenae Frons
2.3.3 The Decorative Programme
2.3.4 A Place for a Hero?
2.3.5 A Gymnasium for Promenades and Otium
2.3.6 Further Interpretations – A Statesman’s Project
2.3.7 Different Levels of Messages
2.4 Preliminary Conclusions
3 Pacata Gallia? Caesar keeps an eye on Rome
3.1 The ‘Enlargement of the Roman Forum’ (Forum of Caesar)
3.1.1 A ‘new’ Caesarian phase
3.2 The Atrium Libertatis
3.3 A New Building for the Comitia: The Saepta
3.4 Basilica Aemilia, Basilica Iulia
3.5 Preliminary Conclusions
4 After the war, a new Rome
4.1 The Temple of Felicitas
4.2 The Temple of Quirinus on the Quirinal Hill
4.3 Preliminary Conclusions
5 The building affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar
5.1 The Forum of Caesar
5.1.1 Decoration: Griffins
5.1.2 Decoration: The Meander
5.1.3 Aedes Veneris Genetricis
5.1.4 Works of Art in the Temple: Statues and Gems
5.1.5 Works of Art in the Temple: The Pinakes of Ajax and Medea
5.1.6 Works of Art in the Forum: Statues
5.1.7 Changing Propaganda
5.2 Caesar’s Temporary Stadium and Naumachia
5.3 The Circus Maximus
5.4 A Plan for the City: The Lex Iulia de Urbe augenda, ornanda et instruenda
5.5 Jupiter or Apollo? The Theatre of Caesar
5.6 The Temple of Vesta and a New Platform for the Tribunes
5.7 Preliminary Conclusions
Conclusions: Let the City Speak
6.1 ‘[…] urbis oputissimei, / socer generque […]’ (Catull., 29, 23–24)
6.1.1 Pompey, Successful General, and Primus Inter Pares
6.1.2 Caesar, Moderate Popularis, and Civil War Victor
6.2 The Power of Architecture
6.2.1 A ‘Caesarian’ Forum
6.2.2 A ‘Triumph’ for Propaganda
6.3 Final Remarks
6.4 Conclusions: Rome as a Forum for Propaganda
Appendix A: Maps
Appendix B: Chronology Table
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

‘A comprehensive, thought-provoking, and innovative account of the competition between Pompey and Caesar in the sphere of monumental building.’ —Tom Stevenson, University of Queensland, Australia

Politics in the Monuments of Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar

This book explores the diachronic development of the ideological content of Pompey and Caesar’s monuments in Rome, emphasising the importance of the late Republican period as a precursor to imperial propaganda through architecture. In the final years of the Roman Republic, individuals such as Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar exploited the communicative power of architecture. The former promoted the first and largest stone theatre in Rome; the latter started comprehensive town-planning projects that arguably verged on the utopian. Yet the study of the politics expressed by these monuments and how complex late Republican politics shaped the monuments themselves has attracted less attention than that of subsequent imperial architecture. Zampieri addresses this imbalance, exploring the ideological meaning of late Republican monuments and highlighting that monuments were fluid, adaptable entities, even in the lifespan of a single individual. Accompanied by detailed maps and images, this volume shows how late Republican architecture should be considered an important source for understanding politics of this period. Politics in the Monuments of Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar will be of use to anyone working on the politics and social world of the late Roman Republic, and on Roman architecture and patronage. Eleonora Zampieri is Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow in Roman History at the Department of Historical, Geographical and Antiquity Studies of the University of Padua (Italy). Her research interests focus on Roman late Republican politics, elections, and institutions, as well as on provincial governance during the Roman Republic.

Routledge Monographs in Classical Studies

Recent titles include: Aristotle and the Animals The Logos of Life Itself Claudia Zatta The Aeneid and the Modern World Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Vergil’s Epic in the 20th and 21st Centuries Edited by J.R. O’Neill and Adam Rigoni The Province of Achaea in the 2nd Century CE The Past Present Edited by Anna Kouremenos Making and Unmaking Ancient Memory Edited by Martine De Marre and Rajiv Bhola Production, Trade, and Connectivity in Pre-Roman Italy Edited by Jeremy Armstrong and Sheira Cohen Taxation, Economy, and Revolt in Ancient Rome, Galilee, and Egypt Edited by Thomas R. Blanton IV, Agnes Choi, and Jinyu Liu Poverty in Ancient Greece and Rome Realities and Discourses Edited by Filippo Carlà-Uhink, Lucia Cecchet, and Carlos Machado Politics in the Monuments of Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar Eleonora Zampieri For more information on this series, visit: https://www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Monographs-in-Classical-Studies/book-series/RMCS

Politics in the Monuments of Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar Eleonora Zampieri

First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Eleonora Zampieri The right of Eleonora Zampieri to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-0-367–52156-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367–53114-0 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003–08050-3 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003080503 Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra

To my family

Contents

List of figures Preface List of abbreviations

xiii xvii xix

Introduction 1.  Pompey and Caesar 2 2.  Pompeian and Caesarian monuments in Rome 4

1

1 The Protagonists and Their Ideas 1.1  Foreword: Propaganda in Antiquity 9 1.2  ‘ita sullaturit animus eius et proscripturit iam diu’ (Cic., Att., 9, 10, 6): Pompey 13   1.2.1 Sulla 13   1.2.2  Alexander the Great 15   1.2.3  The Gods: Venus Victrix 16   1.2.4  The Gods: Hercules 18   1.2.5  The Gods: Minerva 20   1.2.6  The Gods: Dionysus 23   1.2.7 Felicitas 23   1.2.8  Scipio Aemilianus (and Africanus)? 24 1.3  ‘[…] nam Caesari multos Marios inesse’ (Suet., Iul., 1, 1): Caesar 27   1.3.1 Marius 27   1.3.2  The Gracchi Brothers 30   1.3.3  Scipio Aemilianus (and Africanus) 31   1.3.4  Furius Camillus 32   1.3.5 Romulus 34   1.3.6  Servius Tullius 35   1.3.7  Other Models: Ancus Marcius and Numa Pompilius 35   1.3.8  The Gods: Venus 37   1.3.9  The Gods: Veiovis – Iuppiter 38 1.3.10  The Gods: Quirinus 39

8

x

Contents 1.3.11 Clementia et Concordia 39 1.3.12 Felicitas 41 1.4 Final Remarks 41

2

The Rising Sun: Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs 2.1 Imago Alexandri? The Hercules Pompeianus 53 2.2 Pompey’s Temple of Minerva 55 2.3 Theatrum Lapideum 57 2.3.1 The Temple of Venus Victrix 58 2.3.2 The Presence (or not) of a Scaenae Frons 62 2.3.3 The Decorative Programme 63 2.3.4 A Place for a Hero? 72 2.3.5 A Gymnasium for Promenades and Otium 73 2.3.6 Further Interpretations – A Statesman’s Project 74 2.3.7 Different Levels of Messages 81 2.4 Preliminary Conclusions 83

53

3

Pacata Gallia? Caesar keeps an eye on Rome 3.1 The ‘Enlargement of the Roman Forum’ (Forum of Caesar) 95 3.1.1 A ‘new’ Caesarian phase 96 3.2 The Atrium Libertatis 97 3.3 A New Building for the Comitia: The Saepta 99 3.4 Basilica Aemilia, Basilica Iulia 101 3.5 Preliminary Conclusions 104

93

4

After the war, a new Rome 4.1 The Temple of Felicitas 111 4.2 The Temple of Quirinus on the Quirinal Hill 116 4.3 Preliminary Conclusions 120

110

5

The building affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar 5.1 The Forum of Caesar 124 5.1.1 Decoration: Griffins 125 5.1.2 Decoration: The Meander 128 5.1.3 Aedes Veneris Genetricis 135 5.1.4 Works of Art in the Temple: Statues and Gems 136 5.1.5 Works of Art in the Temple: The Pinakes of Ajax and Medea 138 5.1.6 Works of Art in the Forum: Statues 141 5.1.7 Changing Propaganda 144 5.2 Caesar’s Temporary Stadium and Naumachia 147 5.3 The Circus Maximus 149

124

Contents xi 5.4 A Plan for the City: The Lex Iulia de Urbe augenda, ornanda et instruenda 150 5.5 Jupiter or Apollo? The Theatre of Caesar 152 5.6 The Temple of Vesta and a New Platform for the Tribunes 154 5.7 Preliminary Conclusions 156 Conclusions: Let the City Speak 6.1 ‘[…] urbis o putissimei, / socer generque […]’ (Catull., 29, 23–24) 165 6.1.1 Pompey, Successful General, and Primus Inter Pares 165 6.1.2 Caesar, Moderate Popularis, and Civil War Victor 167 6.2 The Power of Architecture 172 6.2.1 A ‘Caesarian’ Forum 172 6.2.2 A ‘Triumph’ for Propaganda 174 6.3 Final Remarks 175 6.4 Conclusions: Rome as a Forum for Propaganda 176

165

Appendix A: Maps Appendix B: Chronology Table Bibliography Index

179 181 189 207

Figures

1.1 Silver denarius by P. Licinius Crassus, 55 BC (RRC 430/1) 1.2 Silver denarius by Faustus Cornelius Sulla, 56 BC (RRC 426/3) 1.3 Silver denarius by Faustus Cornelius Sulla, 56 BC (RRC 426/4a) 1.4 Recto of quinarius minted by Caesar in 48–47 BC (RRC 452/3) 2.1 Theatrical complex of Pompey in the Campus Martius. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Carandini 2012, pl. 220 2.2 Theatre of Pompey according to the reconstruction of Monterroso Checa. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Monterroso Checa 2009a, 187, fig. 1 2.3 Reconstruction plan of the theatre of Pompey. In black, the documented structures; in grey, the reconstruction proposed by Filippi et al. 2015b. The letter A marks a staircase surveyed by the authors; letter B marks a staircase seen by Pellegrini at the end of the 19th century; letter C marks a staircase seen by Baltard at the beginning of the 19th century 2.4 Plan of the theatre of Pompey drawn by V. Baltard and published in Monuments antiques, relevés et restaurés par les architectes pensionnaires de l'Académie de France à Rome (1912), Vol. 2 2.5 The curia-comitium complex of the Forum Romanum after Coarelli 1983. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Coarelli 1983, 139, fig. 39 2.6 Comparison between the curia-comitium complex of the Forum Romanum and the theatrical complex of Pompey: (a) curia-comitium complex and (b) theatrical complex of Pompey. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Coarelli 1983, 139, fig. 39 and Carandini 2012, pl. 220

17 17 20 36 59 59

60

61 75

77

xiv Figures 3.1 Reconstruction plan of the Forum of Caesar in its first phase (54–46 BC) (black) and second phase (42–29 BC) (grey). Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Delfino 2014, 149, fig. III.109 96 3.2 Reconstruction plan of the Saepta Iulia in the Campus Martius, 7 BC phase. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Carandini 2012, pl. 227 99 4.1 Schematic plan of the Roman Forum in 54 BC. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Palombi 2010, 80, fig. 10; Davies 2017, 248, fig. 7.1 111 4.2 Schematic plan and reconstruction of the third phase of the comitium, which shows the position of the steps (in the plan, located just above the curia Iulia) with the same orientation acquired by the curia Iulia (in dashed line in the plan) 112 4.3 Plan of the area later occupied by the curia Iulia during the 4th century BC (left), 2nd century BC (centre) and the Sullan period (right). (A) Location of the curia Hostilia according to Amici 2004–05; (B) location of the basilica Porcia according to Amici 2004–05; (C) sewer of the Sullan period; and (D) location of the curia Cornelia according to Amici 2004–05 113 4.4 Plan of the area around the church of the SS. Luca and Martina. In grey, excavation area on the south-eastern corner of the church, where the wall of tuff blocks and the black and white mosaic floor have been located in 1933.  Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic, on the basis of Amici 1991, 24, fig. 19; Delfino 2014, 149, fig. III.109 114 4.5 Reconstruction of the temple of Quirinus in the area of Palazzo Barberini by Coarelli. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Coarelli 2014, 98, fig. 21 117 5.1 Reconstruction plan of the Forum of Caesar in its first phase (54–46 BC) (black) and second phase (42–29 BC) (grey). Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Delfino 2014, 149, fig. III.109 125 5.2 Reconstruction of the ionic frieze which decorated the first order of the porticoes of the Forum of Caesar 126 5.3 Fragments of a cornice with simple meander (and reconstructive scheme) attributed to the Caesarian phase of the temple of Venus Genetrix 127 5.4 Fragments and reconstruction of frieze with standing griffins watered by cupids in acanthus and divided by kantharoi, attributed to the Caesarian phase of the temple of Venus Genetrix 127

Figures 5.5 Reconstruction plan of the Forum of Caesar (first phase), which shows the hydraulic system of the complex, with inflow and outflow systems. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Delfino 2014, 159, fig. III.117 5.6 Silver denarius minted by Caesar in 46–45 BC (RRC 468/1) 5.7 Recto of aureus minted by Hadrian in 128–132 AD (RE3, 307, n. 529) 5.8 Silver denarius minted by M. Mettius in 44 BC (RRC 480/3) 5.9 Recto of silver denarius minted by Mn. Cordius Rufus in 46 BC (RRC 463/1a) 5.10 Fragments of a pedestral crowning pertaining to the base of the equestrian statue of the Forum of Caesar 5.11 Schematic reconstructive section of the equestrian statue of the Forum of Caesar 5.12 Reconstruction of Caesar’s project of deviation of the river Tiber after Liverani (dashed and dotted line) and after Tortorici (dashed line). Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic, on the basis of Liverani 2008, 50, fig. 9 and Tortorici 2012, 30, fig. 17 6.1 Reconstruction of the ‘Tabularium’ and of the temples of Venus Victrix (centre), Fausta Felicitas (right) and Genius Populi Romani (left). Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Coarelli 2010, 126, fig. 15

xv

132 134 135 137 137 143 144

151

173

Preface

This book constitutes the re-elaboration of my PhD thesis, whose final submission at the University of Leicester took place in May 2017. Since when I wrote my MA thesis, which dealt with the Forum of Caesar, I had been under the impression that that monument needed to be read in the broader context of the politics of those years, and that a broader study on the political significance of (late) Republican architecture had not yet been carried out – a confirmation was the publication, in the same 2017, of Penelope Davies’ notable and necessary volume Architecture and Politics in Republican Rome. I hope this book, with its narrower scope, will bring a stimulating, if not convincing, contribution to the debate. I owe my thanks to many people who contributed to the realisation both of my PhD thesis and of this book. Firstly, I want to thank my PhD supervisors, Prof. Sarah Scott and Prof. Neil Christie, for their help, support, guidance, and for the inspiring conversations in their offices. I am likewise very grateful to my thesis examiners, Dr. Mary Harlow and Dr. Janet DeLaine, for their insightful and thought-provoking comments, which helped me improve this work. My gratitude also goes to Dr. Tom Stevenson and the other anonymous reader for Routledge, whose observations and suggestions have been fundamental to transform the thesis into the present book. I cannot forget the generous and essential help of my dear friend Dr. Damjan Krsmanovic for his linguistic consultation and for the re-elaboration of many images in this book. I would like to express my gratitude to all other English and foreign scholars who have in some way contributed to the improvement of this work, either by reading sections of it or by sharing materials and ideas; in particular, to my former supervisor and current friend, Prof. Guido Rosada, and my current Marie Skłodowska-Curie mentor at the University of Padua, Prof. Luca Fezzi. Any shortcomings, surely present, are my own. I am grateful beyond words to my family for their love and constant, patient, and unfaltering support and encouragement. Many friends who share my enthusiasm for the Roman world also helped me, and my heartfelt thanks go to them as well.

Abbreviations

Abbreviations used to reference ancient sources follow those used in Cancik H., Schneider H. (eds), Brill’s New Pauly, (2002–2010), Brill, Leiden. Abbreviations for journals are those used by the Année Philologique. CIL: ILLRP: InscrIt: LTUR: MRR:

RE: RE3: RRC: Urbs:

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Leipzig-Berlin, ReimerDeGruyter, 1862– Degrassi A. 1957–1963 (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, 2 vols, La Nuova Italia, Florence Degrassi A. 1953, Inscriptiones Italiae, Paris, Librairie d'A mérique et d'Orient Adrien Maisonneuve Steinby E. M. 1993–2000 (ed.), Lexicon topographicum Urbis Romae, vols 1–5, Rome, Quasar Broughton T. R. S. 1951–1952, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 509–31 BC, 2 vols., New York, The American Philological Association; Shannon T. R. 1960, Supplement to The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, New York, The American Philological Association Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, Metzler, 1894–1978 Mattingly H. 1976, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol.III: Nerva to Hadrian, vol.3, London, British Museum Press Crawford M. H. 1974, Roman Republican Coinage, London, Cambridge University Press AA.VV. 1987, L'Urbs: Espace Urbain et Histoire (Ier Siècle av. J.-C.- IIIe Siècle ap. J.-C.): Actes du Colloque International Organisé par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et l'Ecole Française de Rome (Rome, 8–12 mai 1985), Rome, École française de Rome

Introduction

Nam de ornanda instruendaque urbe, item de tuendo ampliandoque imperio plura ac maiora in dies destinabat… Day by day he was planning more and bigger projects to adorn and enrich the city and to enlarge the empire, and make it more secure…

With these words, Suetonius1 started the description of the monumental projects that Gaius Julius Caesar, not long before his death, was planning to carry out both in Rome and in the provinces. For Rome, this has often been deemed as the first holistic city-planning measure, and this was clearly in relation to the fact that, on account of his dictatorship, Caesar was the first to have the time and political capital to undertake projects on such a great scale. The activity of the censors, or even less so of other magistrates, was necessarily bound by the limited duration of their office.2 However, this does not mean that architecture during the Roman Republic was less important as a means for expressing political messages than during the Empire. Penelope Davies3 has recently brought back attention to the fact that the Republican period has been somehow more neglected from this point of view4; the propagandistic value of Rome’s cityscape and monuments is considered to be an obvious feature of the Imperial period, but it was not created from nothing by Augustus. The strong and ever increasing competition for magistracies, the need to constantly negotiate and legitimise the leading position of the upper class, the celebration of the Republic as the result of a unanimous collaboration between the Senate and the People (even when it was not), the glorification of the gods’ benevolence for the city all found their tangible representation in the permanent character of the monuments across the cityscape of Rome. Of course, Pompey and Caesar represent a peculiar situation. The former never had to go through the whole ladder of the cursus honorum, but was awarded a series of extraordinary commands and exceptionally elected to offices that made him, at the end of the Fifties of the first century BC, the most powerful man in Rome; his dedications were partly following the tradition of the viri triumphales, but his last, a stone theatre, defied the precedent

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080503-1

2 Introduction established in 151/150 BC5 and had characteristics that resemble private euergetism.6 Almost a decade later, Caesar, at the end of his career, could start a holistic project for the whole city single-handedly for the first time. Furthermore, in the case of both men, for the first time, the Senate limited its action in granting approval to monuments, a matter in which it did not have a say anymore.7 This book will explore the key period immediately preceeding the exploitation of the ‘power of images’ by Augustus. Namely, I will analyse the monuments promoted by Pompey and Caesar in the city of Rome, how these were affected by and contributed to influence the politics of their time, what impact they had on the cityscape, and what messages they conveyed. I will argue that monuments presented different layers of reading, aimed at different audiences, depending on the usage of the building, on the visibility of certain messages and on the cultural level of the audience. Also, it will be clear that, even in the life span of a single individual, monuments could be fluid entities, adaptable to shifting needs of self-representation and to contingent historical events. The focus will not be on the formal aspects themselves of the edifices, which have already been widely discussed, but on their ideological meaning.

1. Pompey and Caesar The decision to undertake the study of the monumental interventions of Pompey and Caesar in Rome might not seem very original, given the great number of publications devoted to these two protagonists of the end of the Republic. However, although academic interest in both figures has resulted in a substantial, stimulating, and diverse scholarship, the related historical and archaeological research has sometimes proceeded at a different pace. Often this means that the two disciplines have advanced independently, and the revised images of Pompey, and especially of Caesar, that historical research has recently put forward have for the most part not been taken into consideration in interpretations of the euergetic activity of the two figures, and vice versa. First of all, this book aims to offer an interpretation of Pompey’s and Caesar’s monuments relying on the latest interpretations of their political profile and objectives offered by historical research. This means, for example, that Pompey’s theatrical complex in the Campus Martius has not been analysed here only as a display of the ideology of a would-be Hellenistic monarch, an aspect which has constituted the prevailing view in archaeological scholarship, but in the light of his political projects for the Roman State and for himself in it. Recent scholarship has in fact resumed the idea that Pompey can be considered a model for political method and for the figure of the ruler later elaborated by Augustus, and has rightly underlined his attention for and his reformist attitude towards the many issues affecting Roman economy and society in his age.8

Introduction  3 The historiography on Pompey the Great has generally treated him negatively as a politician. In the 19th century a highly negative portrait of the commander was offered, which has influenced ensuing scholarship on him, describing him as vain and ordinary, if certainly a good commander, but without the makings of a statesman.9 A slightly different opinion was expressed by Eduard Meyer,10 who first brought attention back to the strong similarity between the form of government founded by Augustus and the position of power taken on by Pompey when he was elected as sole consul in 52 BC, and in so doing attributing well-defined political projects to the latter. According to Meyer, Pompey’s great historical significance lies in the fact that he sought to tailor for himself a position of government which would be very similar to that of the Augustan princeps.11 A further negative judgement was provided by Syme12; Gelzer,13 despite recognising the high value of Pompey’s administrative organisation of the Eastern provinces and his desire to become the princeps, did not attribute any political plan to him.14 The position of Drumann and Mommsen was heavily criticised by Miltner,15 who also considered Meyer’s interpretation to be too extreme and based only on the last part of Pompey’s life. He maintained that personal power was not Pompey’s aim; his was the last effort to save the institution of the Senate, and therefore the Republic, although his efforts involved the whole Roman dominion, not only the narrow boundaries of the city of Rome.16 A different approach came from Michel,17 who began to look at Pompey’s association with Alexander the Great as a way for the general to use his own great military achievements to respond to the arrogance of the aristocracy, given his inability to parade a long series of ancestors with consular or censorial rank, and in so doing to obtain legitimation. Positive judgements have been expressed by Van Ooteghem, Leach, and Greenhalgh,18 particularly on Pompey’s military achievements; while Seager19 concentrated more on explaining Pompey’s life in relation to the political events of his period and recognised the general’s refusal of absolute power. According to him,20 Pompey wanted to be a dominant figure but in the frame of the Senate’s rule, and aimed to have his achievements and position recognised and respected; nevertheless, his difficult character and the unprecedented extent of his power were the main reasons for his problems with the Senate and for his sometimes unorthodox actions. Girardet21 has challenged the notion of the derivation of the Augustan form of government from Pompey’s example: the latter’s powers were in the scope of the Roman constitution, unlike those of the first emperor. A similar view, that is, that Pompey wanted a legal position, is asserted by Christ,22 who also adds that the general might have been the solution to the crisis of the Republic. Nevertheless, an opposing view is held by Vervaet,23 who analysed the political career of Pompey by looking at his triumphs, pointing out the extraordinary character both of these and of all his magistracies. It is him who also argued that Pompey represented an example of political method for Augustus, who enacted the same techniques

4 Introduction of dissimulation and recusatio imperii in order to gain absolute power.24 Finally, an appraisal of the figure of Pompey as a reformer, following principles of good governance in the provinces and possibly being influenced by Stoic philosophy has been recently put forward by Morrell.25 Overall, then, a gradual tendency towards a more balanced judgement on the general’s life can be noticed, and this is the lens through which his propaganda is analysed in this work. As far as Caesar is concerned, modern historical scholarship has abandoned the idea that he had been seeking autocracy – or even monarchy –, a vision strongly influenced by the passionate and almost superhuman portrait elaborated by Mommsen. The historiographical trend fully elaborated by Meier,26 which inserts Caesar’s actions in their historical context, and point to the dictator’s inability to solve the crisis of his time, is what has characterised the last 20 years of scholarship. The last four years of Caesar’s life are the central topic, for example, of the volume edited by Urso,27 where Caesar’s plans and intentions, and his idea of a new government are discussed from different points of view. However, the earlier periods of his life have been re-examined as well, producing a more balanced portrait of the man.28 Greater importance has been given to his attachment to the popularis faction: see, for example, Canfora’s biography,29 plus the studies of Raauflaub,30 and space has been given to the idea that, at least in part, the dictator’s actions were guided by a real desire to solve the many problems of the State, and not only by the selfish pursuit of power. The picture of Caesar that emerges from the latest scholarship is therefore a much more complex one, where, in parallel with the groundbreaking innovations of his politics, many traditional aspects of his career, methods, and reforms have been recognised.31 Overall, the implication is that even the latest part of his life, the dictatorship, is nowadays judged as less revolutionary than was previously argued.32 This double-faced character of Caesar’s personality, of his political career and even of his legacy is well represented in some of the latest scholarship,33 and constitutes the main filter through which Caesar’s monuments are interpreted in this volume. The elaboration of more balanced and multi-faceted interpretations of the political personalities of Pompey and Caesar thus justify a re-appraisal of their activity as promoters of monuments in Rome and of the meaning of those monuments in the politics of the time.

2. Pompeian and Caesarian monuments in Rome Another objection to a work such as this can be that all the buildings that these two outstanding personalities promoted have been widely studied34; some clarifications are therefore in order. The purpose of this book is not to re-assess the interpretation of the excavation or survey data of the buildings, with the exception of a couple of cases where it has been deemed necessary to do so. The main focus is on what they aimed to communicate

Introduction  5 politically, because while emperors like Augustus have been examined in terms of their ideological impact in and through art and architecture,35 an overall ideological interpretation of the building activity of Caesar and Pompey is largely absent: in fact, most of the relevant monuments have been studied in isolation.36 Research on the structures has mainly analysed their archaeological evidence and their architecture; in contrast, studies on their decoration are mostly done either by considering a single typology of decoration (or even a single object) – architectural ornamentation, s­ tatues – or by analysing different types of decoration in individual groups.37 When an ideological interpretation has been given, this was mainly either circumscribed to a single building, or, as explained above, referring to longestablished, but partly disputed historical judgements of their promoters.38 This scholarship, in any case, has been fundamental, and constitutes the foundations of this book. A wider perspective on the Caesarian and Pompeian monuments and an analysis of their decoration that takes into account all their typologies enables a more complete vision of the building programmes of Caesar and Pompey. Thus, my main aim is to better understand the possible innovations or continuities, and similarities or contrasts in the Pompeian and Caesarian projects in the city of Rome, and to grasp the dynamics of power that lay behind them. These monuments and their context thus offer much to expanding our knowledge of a crucial phase in the nature of power politics in ancient Rome, and can significantly contribute to the historiographical understanding and evaluation of both figures. As the word ‘propaganda’ is here often employed, I could not avoid providing a reason for the use of this term. With the full awareness that the issue regarding its application to the ancient world is controversial and would require a discussion of its own, a section of Chapter 1 will at least give an explanation for its use in this book. The chapter then continues with a survey of the main reference figures used in the Pompeian and Caesarian political discourse: the gods whose support either Caesar or Pompey sought to emphasise; the historical or mythological figures whom they considered as moral or political models; and the main qualities attributed to both men, and which came to define their public personality. The list presented is not entirely comprehensive, but aims only to explain the reasons behind the choice of those propagandistic elements that later emerge in the analysis of the buildings in the following chapters, or that have a prominent place in the generals’ political language and are important for the understanding of their behaviour. The discussion is limited to setting out the evidence in order to corroborate the adoption of those propagandistic themes by Pompey and Caesar and to explain why these were important; therefore, the deeper religious or historical meaning that some of those elements possess has not been investigated. Regarding Julius Caesar, some research centred on the specific topic of his ideological models has already been carried out,39 whereas those of Pompey have been

6 Introduction sparsely treated. In particular, as Santangelo40 has recently underlined, the religious dimension of Pompey’s life has seldom been investigated. I hope, then, that this book will provide a valuable starting point for those who want to embark on a more detailed analysis of the commander’s propagandistic themes. Pompey’s and Caesar’s models and propagandistic themes were used in coins, referred to in speeches, in the political practice, in self-representation, counterpropaganda and, we might think, even in rumours. Monuments and the art they housed were one of the means that heavily contributed to their diffusion, and their analysis in this book is divided into four chapters. Chapter 2 presents Pompey’s interventions, spanning around 25 years. These followed his remarkable career to its top; his theatre, in particular, had an outstanding impact, both in the cityscape and historically: as it is argued here, it illustrated the idea that the commander had of the State and of himself in it. The events that followed Pompey’s second consulate and the dedication of his theatre in 55 BC saw a quick degeneration of the political situation, up to the breaking point of 48 BC and the beginning of the civil war. Caesar’s victory marked the beginning of a new era, characterised, in his words, by a ‘new style of conquest’41; however, Caesar’s attitude and politics changed in the course of the year 46 BC, becoming more aggressive, more ‘autocratic.’ His monuments mirror all these changes, and are accordingly treated in three separate chapters. What can these monuments tell us if we broaden our view to the whole extension of the city of Rome? After the Pompeian monuments have been put in the context of the commander’s developing idea of State, and then contrasted with Caesar’s building programme, in Chapter 6 the attention will focus on the triumphal path and the Roman Forum. As Caesar struggled to gain legitimation for his political position and eventually impose his supremacy and crush the Pompeian opposition, it will be clear how the monumental evidence can support the historical analysis of the last part of Caesar’s life. In summary, this book argues that, through monuments, Pompey presented his view of his own place in the Roman State and of Rome itself within its dominions; that Caesar’s urbanistic interventions are statements of popularis politics, and at the same time it is possible to glimpse in them an answer to each individual statement made by the Pompeian monuments, and subsequently a declaration of intent and absolute victory over the Pompeian faction after the battles of Pharsalus and Munda. More broadly, this work shows that messages in monuments possessed multiple levels of reading, which might have changed in time and could be addressed to different levels of society, in relation to their education and social background. Thus, this book attempts to convey that monuments can tell us much about the politics of the Roman Republican period, and they need to be used as an important part of the evidence for its study.

Introduction

7

Notes 1 Suet., Iul., 44. Latin text from Lanciotti and Dessì 2009; translations are by the author, unless stated otherwise. 2 However, see Steinby’s (2012, 79–80) observations on the coherent projects carried out by various subsequent magistrates. 3 Davies 2017, 1. 4 The most recent exceptions are Torelli 2010; Steinby 2012. 5 When the stone theatre built by the censors of 154 BC M. Valerius Messalla and C. Cassius Longinus (Liv. Per. 48) was demolished by decree of the Senate upon request of P. Scipio Nasica Corculum (App. BCiv. 1.28-125). 6 Steinby 2012, 70. 7 Steinby 2012, 82. 8 See below. 9 Drumann 1964, 336, 430–431; Mommsen 1901a, 271–275; 1901b, 273. 10 Meyer 1918. 11 Meyer 1918, 5. 12 Syme 1939. 13 Gelzer 2005. 14 Gelzer 2005, 107, 213 in particular. 15 Miltner 1952, 2203. 16 Miltner 1952, 2208. 17 Michel 1967, 133 in particular. 18 Van Ooteghem 1954; Leach 1978; Greenhalgh 1980; 1981. 19 Seager 1979. 20 Seager 1979, 188–189. 21 Girardet 2001. 22 Christ 2004. 23 Vervaet 2014. 24 Vervaet 2010. 25 Morrell 2017. 26 Meier 2004. 27 Urso 2000. 28 Most lately, Fezzi 2020. 29 Canfora 1999. 30 Notably Raauflaub 2010a; 2010b. 31 See, for example, Zecchini 2001; for a focus on religion, see Stepper 2003, 25–39. 32 A good example is Gardner 2009. 33 Gentili 2008; Griffin 2009; Urso 2010; Canali and Perilli 2015. 34 The relevant bibliography for each monument will be offered under the relevant subsections. 35 See, notably, Zanker 2006. 36 But recent studies on Caesarian town-planning include Liverani 2008; Gros 2010; Palombi 2010; Tortorici 2012; Davies 2017 inserts the Pompeian and Caesarian interventions in the wider context of late Republican architectural euergetism. 37 For example, Cadario 2011. 38 For example, Gros 2010. 39 See, in particular, Zecchini 2001, 117–135. 40 Santangelo 2007, 228. 41 Caes. in Cic. Att. 9.7C.

1

The Protagonists and Their Ideas

Among the various means used by late Republican politicians to seek consent, legitimate their position, and increase their popularity, there were references to (more or less) renowned past magistrates or generals (often ancestors or much more recent relatives of the people who were making those references), famous historical or mythical figures, as well as claims of favour from deities and possession of specific qualities (which were often considered deities too1). A glance at the coins of the period is telling under this point of view.2 All this could have an impact on the monuments that were built or refurbished: more specifically, on the choice of the deity to which a temple could be dedicated; on the location, function, or typology of monuments; on their decoration; and on the scale of the refurbishment. Our knowledge of the main propaganda themes of Pompey and Caesar primarily derives from literary sources; these can, for example, provide information on temple dedications, explicit models, physical or moral comparisons with famous figures made by others, and claims of descendance or favour. Numismatics is, of course, fundamental too, as together with architecture it was one of the main means of diffusion of images. The iconography on buildings and works of art is one of these sources too. Both the Pompeian and the Caesarian propaganda, in their diachronic development parallel to the generals’ evolving political projects, made use of several references to different historical or mythological figures (if this distinction has any meaning in the Roman world). Some of these seem to have been used only for a short period of time, or only when the need arose; furthermore, some of those models were probably aimed more at a specific segment of the population, and it will be argued that this fact influences the presence of certain themes and their position or visibility in the architecture. Nevertheless, as their political opponents and allies did, Caesar and Pompey sought to show that they were favoured by the gods in their achievements: their preferred deity/deities therefore received particular attention. As will be seen, in the group of tutelary deities there was normally one that was deemed more important than the others (usually for reasons of ancestry or for having demonstrated particular favour towards the individual), but which could nevertheless change throughout time.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080503-2

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  9

1.1 Foreword: Propaganda in Antiquity Before exploring the different characters that populated Pompey’s and Caesar’s propaganda, it is necessary to briefly discuss what is here meant for propaganda, and why this term is here considered suitable for use in the context of the ancient world, and of the late Republic in particular. Unfortunately, there is no space here to explore and analyse the topic of ancient propaganda in depth; this issue has in fact been the object of a debate that has developed until recent times. The reason for this is that the term has been generally applied to modern and contemporary history and art (such as war posters), and is consequently usually connected to social and political structures that did not exist during the Classical period3; it has also possessed a negative connotation, meaning something that is used for dishonest, selfish, or negative aims.4 Furthermore, the word first appeared in 1622 in the name of the congregation established by the Vatican in order to spread the Roman Catholic faith in the New World and to oppose Protestantism. As a result, some scholars argue that it would be methodologically wrong to use the concept of propaganda in the context of classical antiquity, without taking into sufficient account the particularities and differences of each historical period.5 Weber and Zimmermann6 have recently discussed the matter (with specific reference to the early empire) and have denied the possibility of use of the word ‘propaganda’ for the study of the ancient world. They justly criticise the acritical application of a modern conception of propaganda to it: one that sees it as the product of an organised system in the frame of a political party or government,7 and that conceives it as a top-down process, imposed on the subjects and aimed at the masses (some means of propaganda are often described as ‘mass media’). They also identify five main difficulties in the study of propaganda in antiquity8: (1) is it possible to always understand the message conveyed by the medium? (2) is it possible to always understand the intentions of the propagandist? (3) is it possible to say something about the way of diffusion of a specific medium? (4) is it possible to know whether the intended message was understood by the individuals it was aimed at or who, more in general, received it? (5) is it possible to always identify the effects of the intended message? The authors then argue that no precise and certain answer can be given to any of these questions, for any period in antiquity. Furthermore, exploring the debate specifically in relation to coins, works of art and monuments, and literature, they highlight that some scholars disagreed on their propagandistic function, questioning, for example, the emperor’s involvement in the choice of messages and images to be displayed, the ordinary people’s ability to understand iconography or abbreviations, the speed of coin diffusion.9 However, as Enenkel and Pfeijffer10 rightly argued, a conception of propaganda as the one presented above is far too restricted, and outdated even for our times. Taking into account the typologies of political organisation

10  The Protagonists and Their Ideas in classical societies, the scholars underline the importance, particularly for antiquity, of the awareness of interaction, integration, horizontal orientation, and upward movement when studying propaganda, in order to understand its aims and effects, and the need for a more balanced definition of the term.11 Furthermore, they point out that propaganda does not have to be necessarily aimed at the masses, nor imposed on them; this last aspect also implies that propaganda could be not always evident, but could try to blend in with accepted values or traditions. Thus, the difficulty in understanding the messages conveyed or the intentions of the propagandists might be due to a successful concealing of a propagandistic message.12 Many other scholars13 have asserted that propaganda was indeed used in the ancient world, and in particular in the Roman empire (although research on case studies in earlier periods has been carried out as well14). A precise definition of it, however, is difficult. Both Ellul and Galinsky15 suggested to avoid a too general one, and instead to consider each case individually, defining the specific characteristics of propaganda in relation to it. Attempts to formulate a comprehensive definition, though, have been carried out, and the one elaborated by Jowett and O’Donnell16 seems to be particularly suitable, at least for the period of the late Republic, the focus of this book. In fact, this definition explores the communicative aspect of propaganda; the scholars lay stress on the communication process between the ‘sender’ and the ‘receiver’, and in particular on the purposes of this process: ‘Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.’ This definition recalls those provided by Taylor and Evans,17 although the latter uses the expression ‘organised group’ instead of ‘propagandist,’ which, however, has to be preferred for the reasons explained above. Can those characteristics, laid out by Jowett and O’Donnell, be traced in the political communication and canvassing practices of the late Republican period? An important source under this point of view seems to be the Commentariolum petitionis, a small pamphlet attributed to Q. Tullius Cicero, brother of the more famous M. Tullius Cicero, and apparently written between 65 and 64 BC on the occasion of his brother’s candidacy to the consulate of 63 BC.18 The Commentariolum petitionis is a collection of recommendations for conducting an electoral campaign. It includes advice on how to behave with opponents and with different social groups, admonishments on possible dangers, and suggestions as to how to avoid them; it explains how to gain consensus, how to frighten opponents, and how to exploit friendship bonds (friendship here obviously intended as the Roman concept of amicitia). In this respect, it corresponds perfectly with the first part of Jowell and O’Donnell’s definition: propaganda implies a wellreasoned planning of a strategy to have a position that is stronger than that of the others and to convince other people of an idea, so it is deliberate. It is also systematic, methodical and continuous: Quintus recommends being

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  11 accompanied by a diverse group of sympathisers on every occasion, and being welcoming and available at any time.19 Caesar was even more systematic: he had an entourage of friends who actively helped him in the management of his political life.20 The second part of Jowett and O’Donnell’s definition describes the primary purpose of propaganda – namely, to induce a change in perception, cognition, or behaviour, or all three, in a selected audience: ‘an attempt at directive communication with an objective that has been established a priori.’21 Many passages of Quintus Cicero’s pamphlet offer evidence of this kind of practice in late Republican politics; thus, he suggests to his brother to keep the memory of the illegal behaviours and actions of his adversaries alive22; to inspire admiration in people23; to fascinate them and divert them from hindering his projects by mastering the art of eloquence24; and to have his competitors know that he keeps an eye on them, so as to take advantage of their fear of his authority, his eloquence, and of the support he cherishes from the equestrian order.25 The last piece of advice hints that the ultimate aim of propaganda is to obtain a response that facilitates the intent of the propagandist; and this constitutes the final part of Jowett and O’Donnell’s definition. This intent is a selfish one, as it always goes to the advantage of the propagandist, but not necessarily of the audience; however, this does not mean that it is always negative.26 At any rate, since nobody would willingly accept being manipulated by another person to help them reach their selfish interests, the propagandist cannot disclose their real purpose.27 Evidence for the Roman elite’s awareness of these important issues is again offered by Quintus’ pamphlet: for example, generosity, both in terms of money and in terms of helpfulness towards everybody, is always recommended, as people do not have to understand that one is hiding his intentions.28 Therefore, as long as propaganda is considered a subcategory of communication, it is feasible to apply the above- mentioned definition of it to the late Roman Republic, as the Commentariolum petitionis allows to affirm. The communication process always involves the presence of a ‘sender’ and a ‘recipient.’ This implies that in order to fully understand propaganda and how it worked it is necessary to be aware of the audience to which it was directed,29 and what its reaction was. The comparatively higher amount of sources that we possess in relation to other periods of antiquity notwithstanding, our grasp of this aspect of the late Republic is extremely limited, particularly when related to the lower classes. Nevertheless, historical research allows us to formulate some plausible hypotheses, which, although remaining in the field of intellectual speculation, might help delineate the different types of audience and their ability or possibility to grasp the meaning of a message. As far as architecture is concerned, one might speculate on the typology of audience they were aimed at by considering the location

12  The Protagonists and Their Ideas of a building (for example, whether it stood on a main street, or in private precincts), its relationship with other structures or streets, its typology, its decoration, and its function. In the city of Rome, propaganda reached the population in many different ways: not only through architecture, but also through images (paintings, statues, coins…), the written word (different types of inscriptions, literature, and pamphlets), recitations, ceremonies, celebrations, and other public events, and also through rumours. It is logical to assume that each social class had different levels of access to it, depending on their cultural level, education, frequency of visits to particular areas of the city, and right of access to certain places; furthermore, every expression of propaganda, in accordance with its complexity, possessed different levels of interpretation, and it seems obvious that the better educated a person was, the more they could read and understand a deeper and more complex meaning of it. Evans,30 on the contrary, affirms that ‘propaganda will only persuade people who are actively engaged in the culture and who can focus on the society as a whole’; accordingly, she infers that the lowest classes were excluded from it. This might be true if we consider not just the city population but also that of the surrounding and wider countryside; however, it might be pointed out that, for example, in the case of Rome, some of the rural population might have had occasion to go there sometimes (be it only for elections or for the ludi), or they might have seen the armies passing through their lands, they might have heard news about military victories or specific events in the Urbs. Within the city, it is very plausible that every social class was subject to propaganda, if to different degrees. As Evans points out, educated people had the highest exposure,31 whereas among the lowest classes the lack of literacy and, generally, the more restricted access to diverse forms of propaganda meant that the exposure was less continuous. It has to be noted, though, that rumours must have had a very high impact on the diffusion of news and messages: it is enough to read a passage of the Commentariolum Petitionis,32 where Quintus warns Cicero to keep good relations with his family, clients, slaves, neighbours, and freedmen, pointing out that the domestic environment is the origin of every talk that contributes to public reputation. However, difference in exposure to propaganda did probably not have a direct correspondence on the impact that it had on people. Evans’33 statement that better educated people were more susceptible to propagandistic messages because they were more frequently exposed to them does not seem convincing: education, of course, implies an ability to discern information, and to be critical; it also involves access to a greater amount of information, and thus to different perspectives. Broadly speaking, it can be said that there is an inversely proportional relationship between education and susceptibility to propaganda: while the upper classes were more exposed to it, the impact that it had on the lowest classes must have been stronger, despite being exposed to fewer messages.

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  13 Nevertheless, because of the nature of the sources it is almost impossible to find tangible evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda (and so the different degrees of susceptibility of the social classes): one of the ways in which this can be evaluated is in fact by examination of the audience’s reaction,34 seldom documented. Our knowledge of the Roman world is mostly limited to the upper classes, and yet it is extremely difficult to recognise the efficacy of propaganda even among them – in fact it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, even in relation to modern society.35 Hints identified in the literary sources might, nevertheless, help us understand if, at least, a message went through; sometimes even if it was understood, or accepted/refused. An example of this can help clarify the process. It will be seen that Caesar tried to connect himself with the figure of Romulus/Quirinus, or even to present himself as a second Romulus. Catullus, in his Carmen 29, while complaining about the actions of Mamurra during Caesar’s expedition to Britain, addresses the general not by his name, but by calling him cinaede Romule.36 The intent is clearly polemic, and this is an example of how propaganda can turn against its own promoter; yet, it is clear that the message that established an association between Caesar and Romulus had passed, it had been understood and was something obvious at least for Catullus’ readers, so much that it could be used for political satire. Aside from literary sources, it might be possible to evaluate whether a message was understood or not, and whether it was accepted or not, in the case of public or private dedications to the propagandist (or on his behalf), or by observing if certain messages were maintained as propaganda throughout time, or changed, or abandoned. It will be seen, for example, that, during the civil war, Pompey will not insist on the topic of Venus’ favour: Caesar’s identical claim, strengthened by the genealogy of his gens, could probably not be rivalled.

1.2  ‘ita sullaturit animus eius et proscripturit iam diu’ (Cic., Att., 9, 10, 6): Pompey Pompey’s propaganda has not been studied in its entirety,37 but some of its aspects are nevertheless debated in the numerous contributions dedicated to his life, deeds, or monuments. What follows is therefore an overview of the main ideological models, divine protectors, and qualities that emerge from the sources as exploited or highlighted in Pompey’s self-representation and propaganda; some of them, as it will be seen, are clearly present in the architecture he promoted in the Urbs. 1.2.1 Sulla Although his reform of the State was positively judged and subsequently defended by a part of the nobility,38 after his death Sulla became very quickly a symbol of cruelty; his name came to be permanently associated with the civil

14  The Protagonists and Their Ideas war between him and Marius and the proscriptions that he had endorsed, to which followed the creation, even among the optimates, of a ‘black legend’ surrounding his figure.39 Sulla was therefore heavily exploited as a negative model in the propaganda during the later civil war between Caesar and Pompey. In that context, Caesar had a much stronger, almost ‘natural’ right to be considered the ‘anti-Sulla’, because of his kinship with Gaius Marius40 and Cornelius Cinna,41 and because Sulla tried to have him killed42; Pompey, on his side, after the outbreak of the civil war did probably not even put much effort in silencing the rumours that described him as a second Sulla. It was in fact common knowledge that he had sided with the future dictator during the civil war against Marius43: when Sulla arrived in Brundisium in 83, the young Pompey assembled a private army and joined him. Sulla subsequently held the young man in great esteem.44 He entrusted to Pompey the campaign against Carbo and his last supporters in Africa and granted him (although reluctantly) the triumph for his victory, perhaps in 81.45 In 82, Sulla even decided to create a familiar connection with Pompey, and ordered him to divorce Antistia46 and marry his stepdaughter Aemilia, an order which the young general obeyed47; the woman died not much later, and probably a few years later48 the dictator had Pompey marry the half-sister of Metellus Celer and Metellus Nepos, Mucia.49 Even though, before his death, Sulla came to be ill-disposed towards Pompey, at the point of excluding him from his will, the young man ensured that his funeral be magnificent and at the State’s expense.50 He also dedicated the main temple of his theatre to Sulla’s favourite goddess, Venus Victrix, and next to it, two sacella to other ‘divine qualities’ that had been pivotal in the dictator’s propaganda – Victoria and Felicitas.51 It was then easy for the Caesarian propaganda to flag Pompey’s relationship with Sulla during the civil war. It is interesting, as Laffi52 notes, that Plutarch had Sertorius define Pompey as ‘the disciple of Sulla’,53 and that in many passages of his Pharsalia Lucan inserted several references to Pompey’s Sullan past in the speech that Caesar makes just before the beginning of the civil war.54 Laffi55 also points out that Pompey probably did not react to similar catch phrases but, on the contrary, exploited the fear that they instilled, since he himself often recalled the example of Sulla, as is evident from numerous passages of Cicero’s letters to Atticus.56 These constant references were taken seriously and probably discouraged some people from joining Pompey during the civil war.57 The paradigm of Sulla’s cruelty and the constant references to him by Pompey led even Cicero, who knew him well, to fear that the general was going to behave like Sulla on that occasion: ita sullaturit animus eius et proscripturit iam diu (‘so much he has in his mind to lord it like Sulla, and for so long he had the desire to issue decrees of proscription’).58 It had not always been like this for Pompey. On the contrary, on previous occasions he had been extremely careful to avoid being seen to act like the ruthless Sulla: for example, when, upon returning from Spain, after having defeated Sertorius’ army, he announced that after the triumph he would have

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  15 59

discharged his soldiers ; or when he came back from his military campaigns against Mithridates at the end of 62 BC, and immediately disbanded his army upon touching Italy’s shores60; or, finally, when he repeatedly denied his desire to become a dictator during the disorders characterising electoral campaigns in 54 and 53 BC.61 He even abolished, during his first consulate in 70 BC, some of the laws approved by Sulla.62 Indeed, it will be seen that during those years Pompey had worked to create a public image for himself of a moderate, approachable, modest, and considerate governor. The fears expressed by the Roman population and elite during those years, however, point to the fact that Pompey’s Sullan past stuck to his public image, and although he was always very careful to be seen avoiding the pursuit of the more ‘unconstitutional’ and violent aspects of Sulla’s action, that past prominently resurfaced, and was often used against him, before63 and during the civil war. 1.2.2 Alexander the Great Following the example of Pompey’s soldiers, and probably as a consequence of that, Sulla hailed him as Magnus after the campaign in Africa64; however, the comparison between the young general and Alexander the Great seems to have been cast early in his life. Plutarch65 states that many had noticed the resemblance between the two great men since Pompey’s youth, particularly with reference to the hairstyle (the anastolé, clearly recognisable on every portrait of Pompey) and the eyes, to the point that some called him ‘Alexander.’ The parallel was later fostered, especially following Pompey’s military achievements.66 Other factors contributed to this: his trophy erected in the Pyrenees for the victory over Sertorius in Spain featured an inscription boasting of the conquest of 876 cities,67 which reminded viewers of Alexander’s feats.68 It is also reported that, during the celebration of his third triumph, Pompey wore a cloak that was said to have belonged to Alexander.69 It has generally been affirmed, therefore, that Pompey engaged in imitatio Alexandri,70 and that this was an important part of his self-representation, certainly during the Eastern campaigns71; this process might have even started at the time of his campaigns in Spain, although none of the sources explicitly shows this.72 Recently, Villani has convincingly argued against Gruen’s negation of Pompey’s imitatio Alexandri, suggesting that in the Roman world the imitatio concerned more the figure of Alexander as a receptacle of moral values.73 If we consider that Pompey’s Eastern campaign also had the purpose of being a scientific expedition, this means that the aim of the general was not only to incorporate new territories, but also to bring new knowledge to Rome – an example that might have recalled the precedent of Alexander.74 For Rome, it would therefore have been not only a military but also a cultural and intellectual conquest. It has to be remembered that Alexander was conceived as the conqueror of the boundaries of the world; by setting his military endeavours in the same territories visited by Alexander (and by going beyond them, following the

16  The Protagonists and Their Ideas steps of Hercules, Dionysus, and Prometheus), Pompey could present himself not only as the conqueror of three continents, but of the three continents up to their extreme boundaries.75 This ‘strategy of the boundaries’ not only justified Pompey’s decisions during the military campaign in the eyes of the Senate,76 but also, by following the feats of great historical and mythical heroes, allowed Pompey to be placed among them.77 Many sources presented Pompey’s victories on the three continents as the means for Rome to extend its supremacy over the whole world.78 Practical reasons of politics could have also influenced Pompey’s imitatio Alexandri: king Mithridates VI, leader of the rebellion, claimed descent from Alexander on his mother’s side,79 and presented himself as a second Alexander.80 This was done probably to gather the support of the Greeks in the Near East; Pompey’s claim could thus be put in the context of Rome’s reaction against the king’s anti-Roman propaganda. The Eastern campaign of Pompey, called by Villani ‘moment-Pompée’,81 and the propaganda that surrounded and followed it, marked a fundamental passage from a Mediterranean perspective of Roman domination and representation of the world to a universalising perspective of domination of the whole world, which was later rivalled by Caesar and then exploited by Augustus in his own propaganda. This new way of conceiving Rome’s place in history – and Pompey’s role in it – is evident in the description of the campaign, in the inscriptions dedicated to Pompey in the Hellenistic area, in Pompey’s third triumph, as well as in the temple of Minerva and in the theatre that the general built shortly afterwards. 1.2.3 The Gods: Venus Victrix The model of Sulla can apparently be traced in Pompey’s choice of some of his protector gods: one of them is Venus, in her characterisation as Victrix (the victorious). In addition to the Cornelii Sullae, many families claimed the patronage of Venus, such as the Memmii, and, of course, the Iulii82; Venus is also represented, for example, in the denarius83 minted by P. Crassus, son of the triumvir, in 55 (Figure 1.1). There were other individuals who did not claim a kinship with her, but focused on the protection and favour that she chose to grant them.84 Sulla used Venus in her characterisation as Felix, the successful (in battle) Venus: the general had in fact dreamt of her in armour, and had dedicated an axe and a golden crown to her, accompanied by an inscription, at the temple of Aphrodite in Aphrodisias85; quite possibly he introduced the cult of Venus Victrix in Rome, with her temple on the Capitoline hill.86 Pompey dedicated the main temple at the top of the cavea of his theatre in the Campus Martius to the latter, in 55 BC87; aside from the connection with Sulla, it is possible that, at the time, he felt even more entitled to claim her as his protector: he had in fact married an exponent of the gens Iulia (Caesar’s daughter) a few years before.88 In any case, it is interesting to note that on a coin minted in 56 by Faustus Sulla (the dictator’s son) three

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  17

Figure 1.1 Silver denarius by P. Licinius Crassus, 55 BC (RRC 430/1). Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b104362350

Figure 1.2 Silver denarius by Faustus Cornelius Sulla, 56 BC (RRC 426/3). Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10432470s

trophies are represented on the reverse89 and a bust of Venus on the obverse (Figure 1.2)90; because of the name of the moneyer, there might have been an intention to recall the association of Sulla with the same goddess, and therefore to establish a relationship. However, when the conflict with Caesar broke out, and at least since Pharsalus, Pompey seems to have preferred Hercules as his protector: in fact, during the battle, Caesar’s watchword was ‘Venus Victrix’, whereas Pompey’s was ‘Hercules Invictus.’91 As Schilling92 notes, he must have recognised the weakness of this religious claim in opposition to Caesar’s.

18  The Protagonists and Their Ideas 1.2.4 The Gods: Hercules Perhaps on the occasion of the celebration of his first triumph,93 Pompey refurbished or rebuilt the temple of Hercules Invictus, which from that moment on was known as the ‘temple of Hercules Pompeianus.’ Hercules was the object of a very important cult in Rome; some prominent families claimed descent from him, such as the Fabii,94 and individuals established special relationships with him. One of these personalities had been Sulla, who had devolved one-tenth of his patrimony to the hero before the celebration of his triumph against Mithridates,95 and had probably refurbished a temple to Hercules Magnus Custos next to the Circus Flaminius.96 The temple therefore could have been another reference to Pompey’s Roman model, but at the same time it is not possible to ignore the fact that Alexander the Great considered Heracles as the ancestor of his family, and heavily used this association in his political propaganda.97 Rawson98 maintains that an identification with both figures might have come up to Pompey during his campaigns in the East, but in the light of the analysis of Alexander’s model presented above, it might be suggested that both themes were already present in Pompey’s self-representation, and that the Eastern campaign provided thus the context for their full exploitation in his propaganda. Potentially there had also been a component of political competition between Crassus and Pompey, since the former was trying to foster his connections with Hercules as well99; this would conform to the competition between Pompey and Crassus that, in spite of repeated claim of collaboration, characterised their relationship up to Crassus’ death. In this association with Hercules we find a clear reference to both of Pompey’s historical models, but there are also further and perhaps more important reasons for it. First, Hercules possessed both human and divine characteristics,100 and, as a mortal who became a god after his victorious deeds, he was connected with the ritual of Roman triumph: during the celebration a statue of Hercules Triumphalis in the Forum Boarium was dressed with the habitus triumphalis.101 Second, as mentioned above, Pompey, after his third triumph, was seen as the hero who had conquered the whole world, the oikoumene: Villani102 interestingly argues that the insistence of the Pompeian propaganda on the victory over the eastern Iberians should be understood in relation to Pompey’s previous triumph over the western Iberians (that is, over Spain), because a connection was thought to exist between the two populations, and their territories were considered the two extremities of the oikoumene. It is of particular importance that both of these two extremities were connected to different versions of the myth of Hercules103; the importance for the Pompeian propaganda of this figure (filtered through the model of Alexander) as the conqueror of the world up to its furthest boundaries is therefore clear. In particular, since Alexander saw in the hero the model of the conqueror and civiliser of the world, Pompey, by emulating Hercules, could claim for himself the qualities of both a military and a cultural hero.104

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  19 105

From this perspective, Villani underlines the insistence of the Pompeian propaganda on the effort on Pompey’s part to integrate the conquered populations and on him as peacemaker106: this is what constitutes his civilising action, ‘on land and sea.’ Ferrary notes that Pompey was the first to introduce the Hellenistic concept of domination ‘over land and sea’ in Rome.107 Interestingly he adds another observation: while analysing an inscription of the base of a statue erected by the Ionians in the sanctuary of Claros in honour of Pompey, he highlights that the formula used there (γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης ἐπόπτην) is also used on another inscription in honour of Pompey in Miletopolis (ἐπόπτην γῆς τε καὶ θαλάσσης); this formula recurs in Pergamon in honour of the Julio- Claudian emperors (γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης ἐπόπτην).108 Because that formula does not seem to have been used in the Hellenistic period, and the two Pompeian inscriptions are chronologically and geographically distant, Ferrary hypothesises that it was a product of the Pompeian propaganda, and, since the word ἐπόπτης was used as an epithet for the gods (Zeus in particular) in the Greek world, he wonders if, in Pompey’s case, the intent was to give a semi-divine or godlike character to the victories and power of the general.109 Accordingly, he conjectures that there must have been a Latin correspondence for the term, and he identifies it in custos, a word used both as an epithet for the gods, and to designate the politicians who protect the fatherland, the provinces or the empire: a theme which was to become pivotal in Augustan propaganda.110 While only a hypothesis, it is particularly interesting to note that the semi-divine or god-like character of the word ἐπόπτης would fit perfectly with Pompey’s appropriation of the civilising character of Hercules, and that, as mentioned above, the temple of Hercules that Sulla refurbished in Rome was that of Hercules Custos (could that have been a Sullan theme already?). If one also considers that a Greek epigram of the 3rd century BC analysed by Momigliano111 attributes the rule over land and sea to all the descendants of Heracles, it seems plausible that a reference to Hercules was the primary concern of Pompey. Pompey’s theme of the domination ‘over land and sea’, and his pacifying activity, both recognised by the Eastern cities, introduced the concept of the Roman domination in exchange for peace, strongly exploited by Augustus and throughout the Empire112; by integrating the subjugated enemies Pompey was promoting the image of Rome as unifying the world and integrating the populations thanks to its laws and valours – elements which he could bring to establish order, just as Hercules had brought civilisation.113 As evidence for this, Villani notes the coins114 minted in 56 by Faustus Sulla (Figure 1.3) which present, on the obverse, a head of Hercules wearing a lion skin, and on the reverse a globe (the oikoumene) surrounded by three small wreaths (Pompey’s three triumphs) and a larger wreath (the corona aurea granted to Pompey in 63); on the right, a corn-ear and, on the left, an aplustre most probably represent Pompey’s cura annonae of 57.115

20  The Protagonists and Their Ideas

Figure 1.3 Silver denarius by Faustus Cornelius Sulla, 56 BC (RRC 426/4a). Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10432477x

The model of Hercules was therefore used through the exploitation of the figure of Alexander the Great, and the values that they represented helped spread the acceptance of the idea of the diffusion, up to the boundaries of the known world, of a unified identity.116 It is perhaps in the light of this that the connection between Heracles and Venus, noticed in the dedication day of the temple of Venus Victrix on the day of Hercules Invictus117 and in the presence of both Venus and Hercules on the two ‘Pompeian’ coins minted by Faustus Sulla,118 has to be understood. Santangelo119 suggests that if Hercules referred to Alexander the Great, the presence of Venus stressed that Pompey was acting on behalf of Rome; moreover, Pompey was probably using his personal relation with Venus/Aphrodite, following Sulla’s example, as a way to justify the Roman presence in the East, as well as a unifying factor.120 1.2.5 The Gods: Minerva Another goddess seems to be present among Pompey’s favourites: after his return from the war against Mithridates, the general made a dedication de manubiis of a temple to Minerva in Rome.121 The reasons for this dedication have been often considered unclear, particularly because the goddess does not seem to appear anywhere else in Pompey’s propaganda. I have explored the question in a recent article,122 and I will thus provide here only a summary of my argument, referring to that work for any further doubt. Santangelo,123 in his interesting paper on the relationship between Pompey and religion, suggests that a possible explanation for the dedication is that Minerva was one of the gods of the Capitoline Triad, and Pompey

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  21 wanted to make up for the missed occasion of completing the refurbishment of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, which Caesar had tried to have assigned to him in 62 BC.124 Alternatively, the dedication was justified by Pompey’s good relations with cities where the cult of Athena was very important: for example, while returning from his Eastern campaigns Pompey visited Athens and donated 50 talents towards the reconstruction of the city, which had suffered much damage following Sulla’s siege in 86.125 However, Santangelo himself notes that the people in Rome might have not appreciated an association with a goddess established in the Greek East. Other explanations of Pompey’s choice have been offered: Palmer126 highlighted the connection between Pompey’s Minerva and the Athena of Troy, as the latter figured prominently in Alexander the Great’s history; Davies127 pointed to Minerva’s aspect as a war goddess. As I first investigated this question, I focused on the relation between Minerva and Hercules, which could have important implications in the context of Pompey’s ideology and propaganda. There were in fact two types of elaborations of the scene presenting Herakles’ introduction to Olympus, of which one shows the goddess Athena welcoming the hero: known blackfigure Attic vases produced around 550–500 BC offer around 25 instances of this scene128; but the same scene can also be found on red-figure vases, for example on the pelike from Etruria attributed to the Kadmos painter, now in the Staatliche Antikesammlungen und Glyptothek Museum in Munich. In this case, an explanation can be found in Pompey’s intention to honour the goddess who was commonly seen as the protector of Hercules: in this function she had already been portrayed in Rome on the statue programme of the sanctuary of Sant’Omobono of the 6th century BC.129 It seems plausible that, before deciding to celebrate Venus as the guarantor of his victories, Pompey honoured Minerva as the goddess which he most probably considered to have been his personal protector while accomplishing feats worthy of the hero whom she eventually welcomed among the gods. However, even though it is not possible to determine whether the general, with this dedication, aimed to underline the deification of the hero with whom he wanted to be identified, this type of reference would probably have been too strong a statement to be expressed in Rome at the time. Therefore, the answer seems to lie somewhere else; perhaps in the link with the Athena of Troy highlighted by Palmer, with which all other hypotheses suggested by other scholars are in some way connected. As I argued in my paper,130 the reasons for Pompey’s choice could stem from pro- and anti-Roman propaganda carried out during previous conflicts between Rome and the East, and, more generally, in the traditions connected to the conflicts between East and West. Sordi,131 in fact, recently analysed the use of oracles as psychological terrorism during the 2nd century BC, and re-examined a passage of Antisthenes of Rhodes.132 There, events of the Romano-Syrian war, in particular those between the Roman victory at Thermopylae in 191 BC and the defeat of Vulso in 188 BC are narrated,

22  The Protagonists and Their Ideas and the author mentions some prophecies against the Romans. In particular, he insists on the wrath of Athena, a novelty justified by the violation of the sanctuary of Athena Itonia in Coroneia by Glabrio after the battle of Thermopylae.133 Bearzot pointed out that the Athena Itonia was a Palladium, like the Athena of Troy,134 and had thus magic properties, such as the guarantee of protection and dominion over the whole world to the city that possessed it. Sordi connected this to some sacrifices to Athena Ilias performed by Antiochus III, Alexander the Great and Xerxes,135 and explained that the sacrifice to the goddess had become an almost necessary act for those who wished divine protection for the conquest of ‘the other side’ of the world, Asia or Europe.136 Antiochus III’s act and the antiRoman propaganda prompted a series of actions on the part of the Romans in order to ensure the protection of the goddess.137 I argued that the same type of anti-Roman propaganda, including the references to the Athena of Troy, could have been used during the Mithridatic wars too, particularly because, during that period, the goddess appears in four instances in connection to the Romans; therefore, it seems that the protection of the goddess was still considered as an important factor in the context of the conflicts between Rome and the East.138 As far as Pompey in particular is concerned, two inscriptions139 with dedications to him were found in Ilium; the second one has been dated to 63–62 BC,140 and is especially interesting, because it mentions the piety shown by the general towards Athena (Ilias) and presents some features that seem to be in line with Pompeian propaganda carried out during the Eastern campaign against Mithridates VI. Therefore, although there is no evidence of use of Athena Ilias in anti-Roman propaganda by the Eastern king, it seems probable that both he and the Romans were aware of the importance of the cult and of its significance in the context of the conflict between them; furthermore, it appears that the support of the goddess in order to obtain victory was still perceived as fundamental.141 In the light of all this, it is considered very likely that the Minerva of Pompey’s temple in Rome has to be identified with the Athena of Troy, a Palladium; this would have placed Pompey within a tradition of relationships and conflicts between Rome and the East, and would have decreed him (and Rome) as the final recipient of the goddess’ favour, and thus the winner and legitimate holder of the dominion over the whole world. At the same time, the temple created a direct connection between Rome and its place of origin, Troy, between Europe and Asia; it represented therefore the ecumenical character of Pompey’s victory and of Rome’s dominion. It could also justify Pompey’s conquests in the East in the eyes both of the Romans, and of the populations of Asia, strengthening the general’s image as a good governor and peacemaker (see below).142 It seems thus reasonable to affirm that claims of protection from Venus, Hercules, and Minerva formed a coherent picture at the time of Pompey’s victory over the Near East: they framed Rome as the centre of power of

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  23 the oikoumene in the general’s universalising perspective, and legitimated its dominion over west and east; Pompey, blessed by those deities, conqueror of the whole world, was the right man to govern those territories where he had brought peace. 1.2.6 The Gods: Dionysus As Cadario143 notes, a parallel between Pompey and Dionysus was cast by Pliny144 on the occasion of the general’s African triumph: in fact, Pompey tried to enter the city of Rome on a chariot pulled by four elephants,145 but was prevented from doing so because the triumphal gate was too narrow. The reference to Dionysus might be regarded as logical, since the god is often associated with victory,146 to the degree that Diodorus and Arrian claimed that he was at the origin of the triumphal ceremony.147 The Dionysiac theme, identified by Cadario148 in the iconography of two fountain statues in the porticus of the opera Pompeiana, could acquire further relevance in the context of the celebration of Pompey’s triumphs, since the arrival of Dionysus is associated with the unity of the community.149 This theme would fit with Pompey’s attempt at presenting himself as the guarantor of concordia ordinum which characterised his politics after his return to Rome from the East; however, aside from the aforementioned instances, it does not seem to be present anywhere else in the Pompeian iconography or to be elsewhere connected to Pompey’s figure. 1.2.7 Felicitas Felicitas was a divine quality that seems to have appeared quite late in the Roman cult: the first temple dedicated to her was built by L. Licinius Lucullus (cos. 151).150 Its definition has raised much scholarly debate, which developed into two main positions: whether Felicitas was a personal attribute or a blessing conceded by the gods to the deserving.151 Whereas the second opinion has enjoyed more success, Welch has recently argued in favour of the former, adding that even in the late Republic Romans were well aware of its personal character, which was exploited and problematised by Sulla in particular.152 In fact, Sulla assumed the cognomen Felix, and emphasised the theme of Felicitas in his Memories, affirming that it was responsible for his victories and the defeats of his adversaries153; he even dedicated a temple to Fausta Felicitas on the Capitoline hill, probably at the top of the socalled Tabularium and next to a larger temple of his patron goddess, Venus Victrix, and a smaller temple to the Genius Populi Romani.154 Welch underlines that the connection that Sulla highlighted between felix and faustus (propitious) – he even named his children Faustus and Fausta – was aimed at uniting personal success with good omens; the temple of Fausta Felicitas would have advertised his ability to overcome difficulties, defeat Rome’s internal and external enemies, and reform the Roman State.155

24  The Protagonists and Their Ideas Sulla thus came to be tightly related to Felicitas, but, as seen, his figure, unlike his reforms, soon acquired a negative reputation – so much that a debate developed in antiquity about how it could be possible for a cruel man to be felix.156 Pompey had thus to reckon with this legacy – already problematic for him, given his past – when he exploited the theme of his own Felicitas during the Mithridatic war. In fact, while the Felicitas of Pompey had already been recognised in his early successes,157 this theme was particularly stressed before, during, and after the Eastern campaigns158 and, accordingly, the divine quality featured prominently at the top the cavea of the theatre complex built some years later, next – similarly to the Sullan temples – a larger temple dedicated to Venus Victrix, as well as two other sacella to Honos and Virtus.159 Thus, by means of his sacellum to Felicitas, Pompey probably aimed at the appropriation of that quality from Sulla160; potentially he also aimed to ‘steal’ Felicitas from the Licinii Luculli too, who, as mentioned, had introduced it in Rome: with the last representative of that gens the general had strong rivalry.161 As Coarelli162 notes, however, the dedication may have been more than a celebration of one of the qualities that characterised the triumphator: it might have additionally entailed a political statement of concordia ordinum assured by Pompey as a man of government. Welch interestingly pointed out that in the speech pronounced by Cicero in favour of the conferment of the Eastern command to Pompey, the orator described Felicitas as a quality possessed by him,163 but did not make any reference to Sulla; what is more, in order to reject this connection, he focused on the positive aspects of Pompey’s character and actions, and on the fact that he put his Felicitas – which guaranteed the positive outcome of all his endeavours – at the service of Rome.164 Pompey, therefore was the perfect leader: he possessed Felicitas – like Sulla – but – unlike him –, protected by Venus Victrix, Minerva, and Hercules, he used this protection and his personal qualities to securely integrate new territories into Rome’s possessions and promote peace. 1.2.8 Scipio Aemilianus (and Africanus)? In his oration to support the military command in the Eastern provinces given to Pompey, Cicero justifies the conferring of these supreme powers with the precedents of Scipio Aemilianus and Gaius Marius.165 There are also two passages of the orator’s letters in which the name of Scipio Aemilianus is mentioned in strict connection with Pompey: the first in a letter to Pompey himself,166 where Cicero says that their relationship should be similar to that between Scipio Aemilianus and his friend Laelius. Notable is the date of this letter – April 62 (not long before Pompey returned from the East) – and the fact that Cicero stresses the correspondence of his and Pompey’s political visions: Sed scito ea quae nos pro salute patriae gessimus orbis terrae iudicio ac testimonio comprobari; quae, cum veneris, tanto consilio tantaque animi magnitudine a me gesta esse cognosces ut tibi multo maiori quam

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  25 Africanus fuit [a] me non multo minore quam Laelium facile et in re publica et in amicitia adiunctum esse patiare. But you shall know that what I have done for the safety of the State has been approved by the judgement and evidence of the whole world; and, when you will have returned, you will recognise that I have acted with such political cleverness and with such courage that you, who are so much greater than the Africanus (Minor; t.n.), will easily accept to be associated to me, not much lesser than Laelius, both for our political vision and for our friendship. The second mention comes in a letter to Cicero’s brother,167 where the orator reports Pompey’s fear of Crassus, whom the general suspected as plotting to kill him, as G. Carbo had done with Scipio Aemilianus: A. d. VI. Id. Febr. senatus ad Apollinis; senatus consultum factum est, ea, quae facta essent a. d. V. Id. Febr., contra rem publicam esse facta. Eo die Cato vehementer est in Pompeium invectus et eum oratione perpetua tamquam reum accusavit; de me multa me invito cum mea summa laude dixit, cum illius in me perfidiam increparet: auditus est magno silentio malevolorum. Respondit ei vehementer Pompeius Crassumque descripsit dixitque aperte se munitiorem ad custodiendam vitam suam fore, quam Africanus fuisset, quem C. Carbo interemisset. On 8th February the Senate met at the temple of Apollo; a senatus consultum was approved, which established that the events that had happened on 7th February had been against the Republic. On that day Cato violently attacked Pompey and he accused him throughout all of his speech as if he were guilty; he said many things about me, and with my disappointment he praised me in the highest terms, and condemned Pompey’s deceitfulness towards me: he was listened to in a deadly, ill-disposed silence. Pompey responded to him with vehemence, making veiled allusions to Crassus, and said clearly that he would take better care of defending his own life than what Scipio Africanus (Minor; t. n.), whom C. Carbo killed, did. Twice, therefore, Cicero compares Pompey with Scipio Aemilianus; the first instance is particularly interesting. Pompey was then trying to gain the approval of the optimates, particularly with the aim of having his set-up of the Eastern provinces recognised and his veterans duly rewarded; Cicero was a key connection with that group. If we take into account that a few years later (between 54 and 52) the orator wrote his philosophical dialogue On the Republic, with Scipio Aemilianus and Laelius as protagonists, delineating his own idea of the perfect State and depicting Scipio as the ideal statesman, it is especially thought-provoking that he chose to identify Pompey with the conqueror of Carthage, moreover stressing the identity of conception of the

26  The Protagonists and Their Ideas State between the former and himself. It is also to be noted that, in the first part of that letter,168 Cicero had praised the spem otii that Pompey had offered with the official letter he had sent before arriving in Italy. In that message the general had probably announced that he would have disbanded his army upon reaching Brundisium,169 thus dispelling the fear that, like Sulla, he would have marched on Rome.170 Again it is possible to see that Pompey was trying to present himself as a peacemaker, as a part of the creation of an image of himself as the perfect statesman. Yet the last passage sees Cicero only reporting what Pompey said at a Senate meeting: thus, it is the general himself who makes the connection with Scipio. This was done, again, at a moment when Pompey was trying to regain the support of the Senate, by offering the ager Campanus back to the treasury (Caesar’s legislation in 59 BC had assigned it to public distribution) and opposing Clodius. The parallel between Scipio and himself (‘the statesmen’) on the one side and Crassus and Carbo (‘the populists’) on the other might therefore be a clue of Pompey’s intention to use Scipio Aemilianus as a political model. Perhaps the general exploited the parallel which someone else (Cicero?) had drawn, and subsequently used it himself, as he seems to have done in the case of the comparison with Alexander the Great, if we are to believe Plutarch.171 Considering the events that took place between the Catilinarian conspiracy and the dedication of the Pompeian theatre, the political situation of the period in Rome can be described as characterised by social unrest, deep divisions among classes and the use of violence; it is thus understandable why it could be important for Pompey to cast a comparison with Scipio Aemilianus. In this context, the general, while seeking public recognition of his glorious deeds, was not only trying to be popular among the lower classes (for example thanks to his triumph, or to his appointment as curator annonae at the end of 57 BC), but was constantly seeking to obtain the support of the Senate172 and thus to present himself as a moderate. His conciliatory behaviour towards the Senate upon his return from the East in 62 contrasted sharply with his previously bold stance, which was the reason for the Senate’s fear of Pompey’s return.173 Senators thus were very surprised by his unexpected move.174 Justification for this in modern historiography involved statements that he was aiming at being a primus inter pares – the greatest man in the State, but not above the State.175 It seems in any case evident that particularly during the Eastern campaigns Pompey modified his approach to politics in Rome, and that he began to build an image of himself as the right man for government. Scipio Aemilianus possessed some characteristics that made him, particularly in the eyes of Cicero, the perfect man for government176; it will be seen that Caesarian propaganda similarly tried to attribute Scipio’s characteristics to the popularis leader, but it is very unlikely that less effort was put into that by Pompey. Both Plutarch’s biography and Velleius Paterculus’ description attribute to him many characteristics that matched those of Scipio Aemilianus, as described by Polybius177: the simplicity of lifestyle178;

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  27 179

180

temperance ; nobility of character ; family affection181; and generosity.182 His own philhellenism, furthermore, could have made him even more similar to the great general, as well as his ability in war. There might even have been an intent to recall the image of Scipio Africanus before the model of the Aemilianus was used: in fact, the Africanus, according to Silius Italicus,183 was following the example of Heracles, being one of the first Roman generals to be connected with Alexander the Great.184 Plutarch also reports that when Pompey asked Sulla to be allowed a triumph after his campaign in Africa, the dictator answered that not even Scipio Africanus had been allowed one after his remarkable victories in Spain against the Carthaginians.185 The model of Scipio Africanus would have helped Pompey to approach the more conservative faction of the Senate, who subsequently used it against Caesar186; however, the reference to Scipio Aemilianus seems to be stronger. Pompey therefore seems to have selected Scipio Aemilianus as a model for building his own image after his return from his Eastern campaigns; the need to refer to such an important historical figure, respectful of the moral precepts of the mos maiorum and at the same time a philhellenist, might have helped Roman people to forget Pompey’s Sullan past. Furthermore, it could be seen as a parallel to Venus: both Venus, in the scope of divine protection, and Scipio Aemilianus, in the scope of models of behaviour, constituted the essential Roman elements that confirmed that Pompey was acting on behalf of Rome.

1.3 ‘[…] nam Caesari multos Marios inesse’ (Suet., Iul., 1, 1): Caesar Caesar’s propaganda has attracted more attention than Pompey’s in modern historiography, and many of his moral and ideological models have been identified; one of the first scholars to systematically list them, following the chronology of their adoption, was Zecchini.187 The list that follows, therefore, partly mirrors his, with some integrations. 1.3.1 Marius According to Zecchini, the first model was Marius.188 Suetonius189 attributes to Sulla words probably said after having been implored to spare Caesar’s life by his collaborators: Vincerent ac sibi haberent, dum modo scirent cum, quem incolumem tanto opere cuperent, quandoque optimatium partibus, quas secum simul defendissent, exitio futurum; nam Caesari multos Marios inesse. May they have their way, and may they keep him, but they should know that one day he, whom they so insistently want to save, will be fatal to

28  The Protagonists and Their Ideas that part of the optimates which we together saved. In fact, there are many Marii inside Caesar. These words are generally not thought to be authentic by modern scholars, but to have been attributed to Sulla by Suetonius, or perhaps by his sources, post eventum.190 Nonetheless, they attest that a strong parallel had been cast between the two figures, one that Caesar himself had promoted. The first attested occurrence of the young patrician’s claim of his kinship with the champion of the populares (Caesar’s aunt Julia had married him) was in 69 BC, when, on the occasion of the funeral of his aunt, he paraded the imagines of the two Marii, the general and his son.191 In the same year, Caesar stressed again his affiliation with the faction of the populares: during the funeral celebrations for his wife Cornelia, daughter of another popularis leader, Cornelius Cinna, he recited – somewhat unusually – a eulogy for her.192 Both these acts met the favour of popular opinion.193 A few years later, in 65, when he became aedile, Caesar re-erected the trophies of Marius, thus becoming the heir of that political tradition.194 Yet Gruen195 disputes that Caesar intended to state his political stance at that point of his career, instead arguing that he simply aimed to celebrate Marius as a military hero and so enhance the prestige of his own family through that kinship. Gruen notes that, although Caesar refused to divorce Cornelia, Sulla’s insistence notwithstanding,196 he escaped the dictator’s wrath, mainly because of his powerful connections (for example, his mother Aurelia came from the gens of the Aurelii Cottae, who were strong allies of Sulla197). Gruen therefore asserts that Caesar’s actions in 69 and 65 need not be interpreted as ‘a partisan act’ but more as a move to enhance Marius’ endeavours and the Iulii’s image.198 On the other hand, Giardina199 points out that, after his refusal to divorce, Caesar was prevented from entering the office of Flamen Dialis, and his properties and his wife’s dowry were confiscated. But he also attributes Sulla’s decision to spare the life of the young patrician to his attempt to ‘recover’ him by putting him under the guidance of trusted people: thus, Caesar was first sent to the province of Asia as a legate of M. Minucius Termus, and then served under P. Servilius Vatia – two faithful Sullan supporters.200 According to Giardina, then, it was a question of political interest, and it is likely that the conflict between Sulla and Caesar was dramatised by the sources; the young Caesar was clearly cautious, and his refusal to divorce from Cornelia might have been more due to the conservation of his dignitas and to other political factors, such as the relationships with other gentes, amici, or clientes.201 Otherwise, as Syme argued, Sulla might not have wanted to alienate an exponent of such an ancient patrician family as the Iulii to his cause, and decided to spare Caesar’s life in order to try and convince him to become his ally.202 That Caesar might have not wanted to take a clear political stance under the dictatorship of Sulla is understandable. However, Caesar’s decision not

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  29 to divorce Cornelia is sharply in contrast with Pompey’s (and other people’s) behaviour upon the same request: the latter immediately divorced his wife Antistia, and got engaged with Sulla’s stepdaughter Aemilia (who died in childbirth not much later),203 thereby being introduced among the most influential families in Rome, as she was the daughter of Caecilia Metella.204 Caesar’s decision, as mentioned, involved the loss of the possibility of becoming Flamen Dialis, of his inheritance, and Cornelia’s dowry.205 Taking into account the political character of Roman marriages (testified by Caesar himself, when he married his daughter Iulia to Pompey upon the creation of the first triumvirate), it is difficult not to think that Caesar wanted to take distance from what Sulla was doing. When, immediately after the death of Sulla, in 78, the critical voices against his government, which had continued throughout his dictatorship and had been raised by some members of the nobility itself, re-appeared, and the reformist currents prevailed in the political debate,206 it is possible that Caesar decided to exploit this new political climate to follow his personal belief in some political programmes that had characterised some leading populares, perhaps also inspired by his disapproval of some policies adopted by the optimates on important questions.207 By means of the connection with Marius he was presenting himself as the worthy heir of the popularis tradition. He was clearly already recognised as such: Suetonius208 says that the consul of 78 BC, Lepidus, had tried to involve him in his attempt to revolutionise the State. By 63 Cicero refers to him as following the popularis trend 209: ‘If you will approve of Caius Caesar’s motion, because he follows that way, considered as “popular”, in politics […]’ (‘Si eritis secuti sententiam C. Caesaris, quoniam hanc is in re publica viam, quae popularis habetur, secutus est[…]’) and ‘One can understand what stays between the superficiality of the windbags and a truly popularis soul, devoted to the people’s interests’ (‘Intellectum est quid interesset inter levitatem contionatorum et animum vere popularem, saluti populi consulentem’). Zecchini210 observes that the connection with Marius was resumed at the beginning of the Gallic campaigns: the homo novus had in fact defeated the tribes of the Cimbri and Teutones211; as a consequence, Caesar presented his wars and those of Marius almost as two phases of a conflict between Rome and the barbarians. Canfora adds that Cicero, in an attempt to ingratiate himself with Caesar in 56, explicitly compared Marius’ Gallic campaigns with Caesar’s, favouring the latter.212 He also maintains that the choice of Gaul as a proconsular province was mainly a propagandistic one, an attempt for Caesar to present himself as ‘the best’ Marius – the hero of the whole Roman population for defending them against the looming Gallic threat.213 The connection with Marius resurfaced on several occasions during the civil war, when a clear parallel between Sulla-Marius and PompeyCaesar was established by the optimates.214

30  The Protagonists and Their Ideas 1.3.2 The Gracchi Brothers The second model identified by Zecchini is that of the Gracchi brothers, exploited between 63 and 59 BC, ‘the most seditious moment of Caesar’s life.’215 In 63, Caesar backed Rullus’ proposed agrarian law and the related project to re-colonise Carthage; he also spoke in favour of the Catilinarians against the use of a senatusconsultum ultimum; and during his consulate, in 59, he himself proposed two agrarian laws and a lex de repetundis.216 Furthermore, Zecchini argues, this Gracchan model was again important at the beginning of the civil war, when Caesar justified his actions by saying that he was defending not just his own dignitas but also the ius intercessionis of the tribunes and the libertas of the citizens, a typical theme of the Gracchi.217 However, he notes that in the contio held by Caesar to his soldiers before crossing the Rubicon, the general distanced himself from the violence and the methods that the Gracchi employed in their political strife; being seen as a moderate popularis at the moment when he was going to perform the most seditious act of his career was critical.218 Nevertheless, Caesar never rejected the basic themes of the popularis tradition (his legislation after Pharsalus testifies to this), but only condemned the violent methods of previous populares: Caesar ‘condemns the past extremisms, not his, but rather those back in the years 130/120 and then in 100.’219 However, Caesar seems to have begun building his image as a moderate member of the populares early in his career, in spite of his methods not always reflecting this; the Gracchan themes that he resumed (principally, as Zecchini220 underlines, colonisation, and of Carthage in particular) were only one amongst many themes characterising the general’s popularis politics. Consequently, his condemnation of extremism is not a novelty of the period after 54. In fact, as Raauflaub221 notes, Caesar had learned from the failures of the Gracchi and, although Gaius Gracchus had already tried to secure the support of several different sections of the population,222 Caesar aimed to represent the interests of various groups. This seems to be a distinctive feature of his consulate and of the creation of the triumvirate.223 Already in 63 Cicero, who clearly did not want to antagonise Caesar, underlined the difference between him and the contionatores, the demagogues.224 During Caesar’s very aggressive praetorship in 62, the patrician supported the tribune Metellus Nepos against Cato, and the attempt resulted in their suspension from the office by force of a senatusconsultum ultimum; Caesar decided to back down and retire into private life, for which reason he was reinstated in office by the Senate,225 while Nepos fled to Pompey.226 In addition, in 63, when Caesar argued against the death penalty for the Catilinarians, he tried to convict Gaius Rabirius for having condemned to death Roman citizens 40 years earlier; the future dictator was trying to avoid creating precedents for the use of emergency measures by the Senate, as they had done against the Gracchans.227 Finally, Caesar’s attitude when presenting to the Senate his first Agrarian Law in 59 was open to discussion and collaboration.228

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  31 It could also be pointed out that Caesar had already taken distance from the ‘seditious’ methods of a consul – M. Aemilius Lepidus, cos. 78 BC – proposing populares measures at the beginning of his career. It looks like the young patrician, at that time in Asia to avoid Sulla’s revenge, was already renowned for having some ‘Gracchan’ themes at heart, since Lepidus approached him to have his support.229 The consul’s plans included the abolition of the Sullan ban on the corn dole,230 and the re-distribution of the lands given to Sulla’s veterans to its owners231; it is more difficult to say whether they included the restoration of the powers of the tribunes of the plebs.232 However, Suetonius says,233 Caesar considered Lepidus’ abilities not up to the task, and esteemed that the times were not ripe for such measures; he thus refused to lend him his support. Caesar thus appeared determined to stress his affiliation to the popularis cause, but also to be considered the moderate side of it (mainly concerned about the needs of the Roman State, as Cicero pointed out) from the beginning of his career, and not only from the outbreak of the civil war. 1.3.3 Scipio Aemilianus (and Africanus) Related to this public image that Caesar intended to build is the frequent comparison between him and Scipio Aemilianus. As Zecchini234 highlights, this is particularly evident from the years of the Gallic Wars, when, after the consulate, Caesar refined his propagandistic efforts in order to be also seen as the right man for government. The possible turning point for this could have been the death of his daughter Julia, and the subsequent break in the alliance with Pompey, who, as it has been seen, was most likely already working towards the same purpose. However, Caesar perhaps started creating that public image of himself (or at least elaborating it) already with his consulate in 59, as a natural consequence of his previous stance for moderation. Zecchini235 points out that in his De re publica, written around 55 and 54 BC (when the debate on a reform of the Republic was particularly lively236), the Caesarian legate L. Aurunculeius Cotta praised the fact that, at the time of the invasion of Britain, Caesar possessed only three slaves.237 In this way a direct comparison was made with Aemilianus, who had five, and who was portrayed as symbolising the perfect man for government by Cicero.238 Furthermore, the portrait of Caesar subsequently outlined by Balbus, Oppius, and Sallust possessed the same characteristics previously attributed to Scipio Aemilianus by Polybius, making his private image very similar to the model of the ancient good Roman, respectful of the precepts of the mos maiorum.239 Another key aspect of Scipio’s character held by Caesar was the ability to control passions, notably rage. Interest in philosophy had become a valued trait of educated persons after the Social War, and during the late Republic it was essential for the upper classes to possess a certain degree

32  The Protagonists and Their Ideas of knowledge of the primary ethical views: thus anger control was a characteristic of the ethically upright man.240 The debate on anger control was so lively that Cicero could make some general references to it during his public speeches. It seems that a reputation for being subject to iracundia could be truly damaging241 and accordingly the orator in his De re publica described the ideal ruler as free from that passion.242 Clearly it was pivotal for Caesar to represent himself as a controlled person,243 especially in a historical period in which civil war was seen as a situation in which iracundia prevailed.244 This aspect of Caesar’s propaganda might have had reflections in the architecture, as it will be seen in the following chapters. Later in the dictator’s life Scipio Africanus too seems to have become a model, even if he had been previously used for different and irreconcilable purposes by his adversaries. Indeed, a statue of the great general had been dedicated in the temple of Jupiter (as a statue of Caesar was placed in the temple of Quirinus245); another one was allowed to be carried together with those of the gods during the pompa circensis.246 In addition, he had been deified after his death. All this made him an appealing figure for late Caesarian propaganda.247 Furthermore, Oppius, one of Caesar’s most trustworthy collaborators, wrote a biography of Scipio Africanus,248 around whom a legend of sorts had developed.249 Depending on the interpretation of Caesar’s intentions after his first dictatorship, this interest in the figure of Scipio Africanus can be interpreted in two different (but not necessarily opposing) ways: either as a means to legitimate his assumption of the dictatorship and, perhaps, of a more stable power, or as a (failed) attempt to dispel the suspicion of adfectatio regni by drawing comparison between himself and such a strong (aristocratic) model of behaviour. The model of Scipio Africanus could also have helped to justify the strong connection that Caesar had long sought to establish between himself and Jupiter, which will be analysed further ahead in this chapter. 1.3.4 Furius Camillus A further model attributed to Caesar’s last years by Zecchini is Furius Camillus, primarily in connection to the title of parens patriae received by Caesar between 45 and 44 BC.250 It is interesting to see how the figure of Camillus had become an exemplum through subsequent overlapping of comparisons with other famous characters; Zecchini notes that he might have been included in Caesar’s propaganda because of the tradition that established parallels between him and the Scipiones.251 He also points to two other appealing characteristics of Camillus: he had been the winner of the conflict against the Gauls which had followed the disastrous sack of the city in 390, and he had been a strong supporter of concordia, by dedicating a temple to it in 367 and by supporting the approval of the Liciniae-Sextiae laws.252 The significance of that figure was such that Zecchini deems it likely that the attribution to Camillus of the building of the temple of Concordia,

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  33 as well as other events in his life (triumph on a quadriga drawn by four white horses; repetition of the Feriae Latinae on the occasion of his victories against the Gauls), had been invented by the Caesarian propaganda, which aimed to create precedents for the Caesar’s deeds and honours.253 Zecchini here follows Weinstock’s254 hypothesis, which refers in particular to the use of a chariot pulled by four white horses by both Camillus and Caesar during their triumphs. In fact, Weinstock says that the models for the use of white horses lie both in the Greek world (the gods Zeus and Helios, the kings Amphiaraus and Rhesus and the tyrants Dionysius I, Dionysius II, Nysaeus and Hieronymus had chariots pulled by white horses; the Dioscuri, Eos, Hemera rode them255), but also in the Roman world, since Aeneas saw them when he reached Italy256 and they pulled the chariot of king Latinus.257 Propertius258 even states that Romulus held a triumph with a chariot pulled by white horses. Weinstock259 then mentions a passage from Plautus260 from which it is possible to infer that by the beginning of the 2nd century BC the white horses were commonly regarded as a divine attribute. Potentially, therefore Camillus aimed to represent himself as Jupiter (and the triumphator was likened to the father of the gods on the day of the triumph), also because he painted his face red during the triumph,261 and he was perhaps the first one to do so.262 Weinstock asks if it was the historical Camillus who brought these innovations to the triumphal ceremony, and concludes that it would have been too early for him to introduce a Greek innovation to Roman practice in the 4th century BC; he therefore hypothesises that either it was a pre-Caesarian reinterpretation by a Greek historian (which attracted Caesar’s attention) or a post-Caesarian one, either by a Caesarian supporter trying to create an illustrious precedent for Caesar or by an opposer, to make it a sign of arrogance.263 Weinstock’s argument seems a little convoluted, and it rests on the controversial interpretation of Caesar seeking a Hellenistic monarchy at the end of his life. Zecchini’s hypothesis of a use of Camillus’ model by Caesar can nevertheless be still accepted in light of a recent contribution by Gärtner,264 who challenges the vision that in Livy’s fifth book of the Ab Urbe condita Camillus possesses characteristics that are a clear reflection of the Augustan ones, making it therefore an expression of the régime. Gärtner proposes that the figure of Camillus underwent a reinterpretation during the 60s of the 1st century BC, and was thus already exploited for self-representation by late Republican political figures. It is generally agreed that the information regarding Camillus belongs partly to an older layer of transmission (a ‘historical core’) and partly to a younger layer of transmission, which was elaborated between the third and the first centuries BC.265 The fact that the ‘younger layer’ was established one generation before the Principate is argued by Gärtner through comparison of the three sources which transmit it, namely Livy, Dionysius, and Plutarch. Although Dionysius must have known Livy’s first pentad, he only mentions pre-Livian sources, and in any

34  The Protagonists and Their Ideas case he must have found Livy’s account too short for his use; in any case, there are many differences between the two accounts, and the shared similarities might be due to common earlier sources.266 As far as Plutarch is concerned, it is not possible to establish if his similarities with Livy belong to an earlier account, but he often offers a more detailed picture than Dionysius and Livy, or incompatible versions, presenting a more traditional account that most likely derives from a pre-Livian source.267 In order to find a terminus ante quem, Gärtner firstly explains that, since Livy and Dionysius tend to present and discuss variants of the same event, it is reasonable to assume that the ‘younger layer’ of the Camillus legend derive from earlier works consulted by the two historians, such as Licinius Macer, Valerius Antias, and Claudius Quadrigarius, and was thus accepted as early as the 60s BC. Secondly, he maintains that Plutarch’s statement that Camillus was the only one to have had white horses for his triumphal procession must come from a source pre-dating Caesar’s triumph of 46 BC, and that the quantity of ransom money to be paid to the Gauls after the Gallic sack referred by Livy and Plutarch (1,000 pounds – a seemingly too ‘round’ amount) goes back to sources older than the year 52 BC, when 2,000 pounds of gold (the amount reported by Dionysius) were found in the base of the statue of Jupiter in the Capitol.268 Most importantly, Gärtner269 identified a number of passages in which Cicero mentioned Camillus and used the dictator’s story as a meter of comparison for his own life (especially after his return from the exile), perhaps even implicitly presenting himself as a second Camillus (a good number of ‘Camillan’ motifs can be found in Cicero’s speeches written after the exile). From this, the scholar suggests that Camillus was probably an important figure of reference in late Republican political discourse and was used (and, it could be added, was easily recognised) as a model for self-representation.270 Furthermore, he points out that the crossing of the Rubicon by Caesar is presented like a second Gallic invasion in the poem of Lucan (who probably used Livy as a source), and that similar themes are also found in Cassius Dio and Appian; Gärtner therefore hypothesises that these motifs, in the light of Cicero’s use of Camillus as a model, could derive from a historiographical tradition that so presented Caesar’s actions, and saw Pompey as a second and less fortunate Camillus; this could point to an exploitation of the Camillus’ paradigm in late Republican politics.271 Overall, it is difficult to state that the refashioning of Camillus’ figure was due to the Caesarian propaganda, but it is more likely that Caesar exploited a tradition that had been established in that period, and that was recognisable and understood in the context of late Republican political discourse. 1.3.5 Romulus The first king of Rome had been pater patriae as well, and Zecchini connects this with Caesar’s monarchy and deification. It is likely that the paramount

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  35 reason for Caesar’s link with Romulus is the fact that Rome’s founder was his ancestor; furthermore, according to one of the legends related to Romulus’ deification, when the king had ascended among the gods, it had been a member of the gens Iulia who witnessed the event.272 The dictator tried therefore to promote the image of Romulus as Rome’s founder rather than as a tyrant, and endorsed the cult of Quirinus273; his interest in Romulus was already clear when in 58 Sex. Julius Caesar, Caesar’s cousin,274 was elected flamen Quirinalis, and became more obvious in 45 when, as it will be seen, a statue of Caesar was dedicated inside the temple of Quirinus, which he probably refurbished.275 1.3.6 Servius Tullius The sixth king of Rome remained in the minds of the citizens as the one who guaranteed the people’s freedom by instituting the comitia centuriata, and who established the cult of Fortuna on the other side of the river Tiber. The model had been fostered by Sulla, who made him a precedent for the optimates, but during the 1st century BC there seems to have been a re-elaboration by the populares: in Appian276 and Dionysius277 the king is represented as a champion of the people.278 Was this change due to Caesar? Zecchini struggles to find parallels between the two figures, but accepts the hypothesis of Sordi279 that the imperium of Servius Tullius, albeit individual but considered distinctly ‘mild and moderate’,280 was taken as a historical model for Caesar’s dictatorship. This was probably conceived as an office subordinated only to popular consent, ideally a diarchy between the imperator and the people in arms against the factio paucorum (before crossing the Rubicon, Caesar held a contio with his soldiers, whereby he appealed to them as citizens281). 1.3.7 Other Models: Ancus Marcius and Numa Pompilius The last paragon that Zecchini282 identifies is Dionysios, the tyrant of Syracuse, primarily because his form of government is the most similar to the Caesarian one; however, the author is very cautious in this respect. It is nevertheless possible to propose two further models for Caesar, which seem to go back to the tradition of his family: Ancus Marcius and Numa Pompilius. In his speech at the funeral of his aunt Julia in 69, Caesar emphasised her descent from the goddess Venus, through the gens Iulia; but he also claimed that she was descended from the king Ancus Marcius, on her mother’s side.283 Smith284 points out that by the time of Ennius (between the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 2nd century BC), Ancus Marcius was considered a ‘popularis’ king, who had redistributed land to the people,285 and that the relationship between the king and Caesar’s gens was most likely already established. It is therefore understandable why Caesar chose to lay emphasis on a figure that, being a monarch, might not have been well accepted by the

36  The Protagonists and Their Ideas Roman public opinion: considering his family ties with Marius, his previous experience of having perhaps been proscribed, the trials he had started against Sullan figures, the fact that Lepidus had tried to bring him on his side, this was another way to strengthen his position as popularis leader in the political scene of Rome. With time, and with the growth of his political profile and prominence, the lineage from Venus became more and more important, overshadowing this one. It is nevertheless intriguing that the Forum of Caesar – with its temple dedicated to Venus Genetrix – was built in close proximity to a derivation of the Aqua Marcia, the aqueduct promoted in 144 BC by the praetor Q. Marcius Rex and thought to have been built by Ancus Marcius.286 According to Eutropius,287 Ancus Marcius was a grandson of king Numa; many gentes claimed descent from him.288 As far as Caesar is concerned he undertook, through L. Aemilius Paullus (cos. 50), the refurbishment of the basilica Aemilia, which was probably connected with Numa, between the years 51 and 50. Even though there were other reasons for Caesar to promote this building, a reference to the figure of the second king might have fitted with his propagandistic needs: in fact, not only had Numa been the first pontifex,289 but he had a reputation for being able to control his passions, for being modest and averse to any form of luxury,290 and even for preferring peace to war.291 Later in Caesar’s life the model of Numa became even more appropriate: the king instituted the third flamen, the flamen Quirinalis292; he carried out a reform of the calendar293; and when the Romans asked him to become king of Rome, ‘in order to avoid another sedition and civil war’, he initially refused294 (an episode that interestingly reminds of Caesar’s refusal of the crown during the Lupercalia in 44 BC295). Finally,  among

Figure 1.4 Recto of quinarius minted by Caesar in 48–47 BC (RRC 452/3). Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10435497s

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  37 the prodigies that preceded Caesar’s death, Cassius Dio refers to 12 shields of Mars which stood in the house of the pontifex maximus (one of which had been received from the god by Numa, who gave an order to disguise it among 11 other identical ones, lest it was stolen296), resonated during the night before the assassination.297 Furthermore, during the first years of the civil war, when Caesar needed to legitimate his position through his office of pontifex maximus, one of those shields is represented on a quinarius298 (Figure 1.4). 1.3.8 The Gods: Venus As far as Caesar’s references to the protection of gods are concerned, Venus clearly occupies a prominent place. There is no space here to unravel the complex issues connected to Venus and to the particularities related to her characterisation of Genetrix in the temple of Caesar’s Forum; however, it is important to stress that, particularly from a certain moment in his political career – which largely coincides with the beginning of his proconsulate –, Caesar attributed a leading role to this goddess in his propaganda, stressing her function as ancestor of his gens. But already at the beginning of his quaestorship, in 69 BC, in his famous speech at his aunt Julia’s funeral he stated that the Iulii descended directly from Venus,299 with Iullus, the ancestor of the gens Iulia, being the son of Aeneas. Caesar was not the first in his family to underline this divine descent: this effort is already evident in the coins minted in 129 BC by Sex. Julius Caesar, praetor of 123 BC, and in those minted in 103 BC by L. Julius Caesar, consul in 90, BC in which Venus is represented in a biga with Cupid.300 Furthermore, the consul of 64, L. Julius Caesar, established a strong relationship with the city of Ilion.301 As discussed above, many gentes claimed their origin from the mother of the Romans, Venus; the actions of the young Caesar can therefore be placed in the context of the political struggle among the gentes of the late Republic, where the celebration of the ancestors during funerals was meant to justify the family’s present pre-eminence.302 Caesar seems to have had the intention of presenting himself as the favourite of Venus at least from the beginning of the Gallic War, when he allowed his legions to bear the image of a bull on their standards – referring to the constellation of Taurus, under which Venus was ascendant.303 In direct competition with Pompey, he chose Venus Victrix as his password at Pharsalus,304 and during the night before the battle he vowed a temple to her.305 He subsequently dedicated the temple in his Forum to Venus Genetrix in 46.306 The reasons for this change in epithet of the goddess, that help explain the ideology of concordia and the strong claim to victory against Pompey which are present in the propaganda conveyed by the Forum of Caesar, will be analysed in the context of the ideological interpretation of the complex.

38  The Protagonists and Their Ideas 1.3.9 The Gods: Veiovis – Iuppiter In the context of the efforts expended by Roman gentes to ennoble their origin as much as possible, one can note that the Iulii also aimed to connect themselves to the god Veiovis. Evidence for this is the inscription of the altar at Bovillae, dated to around 100 BC,307 which reads VEDIOVEI PATREI GENTEILES IULEI VEDI[OVEI] AARA ǀ LEEGE ALBANA DICATA.308 Interestingly, the god was strongly connected to Jupiter,309 being either his chthonic counterpart or a ‘young Iuppiter.’310 In order to explain this interest of the gens Iulia in the cult of Veiovis, Weinstock311 analyses the name Iulus, and highlights that L. Iulius Caesar (consul in 64 BC) connected it with the Greek words iobólos and íoulos – ‘the good archer’ or ‘the youth whose first beard is growing’ (this the aspect of Ascanius when he fought against and defeated the king Mezentius). Furthermore, in the Origo gentis Romanae312 the form Iullus is explained as the diminutive of Iovis, and thus denotes the young Jupiter, his son. Weinstock313 proves both etymologies to be incorrect, but rightly points out that what is fundamental is that this connection was created by the gens Iulia because they believed in this etymological derivation. They therefore identified Veiovis with Iulus, particularly because, at his death, Aeneas became Iuppiter Indiges, and was dedicated a temple by his son Ascanius-Iulus. In his propaganda, while Caesar prioritised Venus, in emphasising his gens’ connections with Jupiter, the general seems to have followed a trend: Caesar’s family tried to establish this link early in his life, when he was designated Flamen Dialis, even though the inauguration, because of Sulla’s opposition, never took place.314 As Smith315 notes, in light of Caesar’s very young age, the appointment would have brought honour mainly to his family rather than to him, but it shows the gens’ ongoing interest to maintain a connection with the father of the gods. Some hints point to attempts by Caesar himself to connect to Rome’s most important god. Cassius Dio316 informs us that, in 62 BC, Caesar apparently tried to strip Catulus of his commission for the completion of the refurbishment of the temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus by entrusting it to Pompey, but without success. Suetonius317 reports the same event, but without specifying who had to take care of the refurbishment (he just says in alium). Unfortunately, no contemporary source attests this. Yet it is interesting to note that such an action on Caesar’s part would be consistent with events at the time: in 62 BC Caesar was praetor,318 but had just been elected pontifex maximus in the previous year, when he heavily defeated Catulus against every expectation,319 thereby attracting the hatred of the old senator.320 According to Cassius Dio321 it also seems that in 46 Caesar obtained the approval of the Senate for including his name on that temple’s inscription.322 In the same year he made his devotion to the god clear by climbing the stairs of the temple on his knees during the first day of his triumph, in order to

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  39 323

avert a bad omen. These and other pieces of information324 come from Dio, and might therefore be biased325; nevertheless, we can highlight that a ‘familiar’ connection with Rome’s most powerful god would have proved pivotal for Caesar after 48 BC, in order to legitimise his dictatorship: the imperium of the dictator, in fact, directly emanated from Jupiter Optimus Maximus.326 1.3.10 The Gods: Quirinus Together with Jupiter and Mars, Quirinus was the third god of the archaic Capitoline triad. Having been identified with the deified Romulus from at least the 3rd century BC,327 it is not surprising that Caesar aimed to connect his person with him; in this respect, we should note what Zecchini328 says about a legend concerning Romulus/Quirinus and an ancestor of the gens Iulia. Cicero, in his De re publica,329 refers to the legend of Julius Proculus, a vir agrestis to whom Romulus, after his death, appeared to announce his deification and his subsequent transformation into Quirinus; Plutarch mentions the same story, but describes Proculus as a noble man from Alba.330 Zecchini331 notes that this established a particular relationship between the Iulii and Romulus/Quirinus, and consequently argues that, if not invented by Caesar himself, this story was exploited by him to stress the predilection of the gods for the Julian family. Another sign of Caesar’s interest in Quirinus was the election of his cousin, Sex. Julius Caesar, to the flaminate of Quirinus in 58. Zecchini332 hypothesises that this strong claim of the cult of Quirinus to the gens Iulia might be connected with Cicero’s first mention of Proculus’ story a few years later. The identification of Romulus with Quirinus and his descent from Iulus, the ancestor of the gens Iulia, therefore justify his strong interest in this god, and provides a powerful reason for the dedication of Caesar’s statue in the temple of Quirinus and the probable reconstruction of the temple itself by the dictator. 1.3.11 Clementia et Concordia Caesar Oppio Cornelio sal. Gaudeo mehercule vos significare litteris quam valde probetis ea quae apud Corfinium sunt gesta. Consilio vestro utar libenter et hoc libentius quod mea sponte facere constitueram ut quam lenissimum me praeberem et Pompeium darem operam ut reconciliarem. Temptemus hoc modo si possimus omnium voluntates recuperare et diuturna victoria uti, quoniam reliqui crudelitate odium effugere non potuerunt neque victoriam diutius tenere praeter unum L. Sullam, quem imitaturus non sum. Haec nova sit ratio vincendi ut misericordia et liberalitate nos muniamus. Id quem ad modum fieri possit non nulla mihi in mentem veniunt et multa reperiri possunt. De his rebus rogo vos ut cogitationem suscipiatis.333

40  The Protagonists and Their Ideas Caesar to Oppius and Cornelius I am very glad that you communicated to me by letter your unconditional approval for the events that have happened in Corfinium. I will readily accept your advice, and even more so because I had decided by myself to act in a way so as to present myself as most moderate and to make every effort towards a reconciliation with Pompey. Let us try in this way to see if we can win back the general consent and avail ourselves of a long-term victory, since the others, by means of cruelty, were not able to escape the hatred, nor preserve the results of their victory for a long time, with the only exception of L. Sulla, whom I have no intention of imitating. Let this be the new method to win; that we make clemency and magnanimity our strong point. As to how this can be achieved, several ideas spring to my mind, and many others can be devised. I ask that you reflect on these issues. This first paragraph of Caesar’s letter (written on 5th March 49) to his collaborators Oppius and Balbus,334 who subsequently sent it to Cicero, is considered to be the prime testimony of the course of politics that Caesar aimed to pursue after the beginning of the civil war, and which developed after the siege of Corfinium.335 Following the terminology employed by Cicero in his letters after the beginning of the civil war and in the Caesarian orations, this type of policy is described as resorting to the virtue of clementia – a word not commonly used before that conflict, with other words preferred, such as misericordia, lenitas, modestia, temperantia, humanitas.336 Weinstock underlines that before the civil war clementia seems to have been applied either to denote Roman rule abroad or in a legal context, and that Caesar used it only twice in the de bello gallico (in two reported speeches) and never in his de bello civili337; he therefore concludes that Cicero must have been the first to start using this word to describe Caesar’s course of politics, and that, through the help of his friends and other senators, the meaning of this word changed from indicating the virtue of the Roman State and of the general towards the enemies to describing that of the ruler towards his citizens.338 It would be interesting to know whether, at least at the outset, this particular word was used with a polemic intent, Caesar having been declared a hostis publicus when the civil war broke out (it would have been clementia in reverse: by the enemy towards the Roman people); regardless, the clementia Caesaris became a watchword of that kind of policy, so that a temple to it was decreed.339 Canfora340 describes Caesar’s clemency as the response of the general to his need to find a political way out of the civil war, and states – as Caesar himself stressed in the letter mentioned above – that his main objective was to obtain the largest possible consent, or, in Cicero’s words, the consensus bonorum omnium. Nevertheless, the pursuit of the largest possible approval – without giving up on the core points – seems to have characterised Caesar’s political life from the beginning, and could also be described as the pursuit of concordia.

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  41 341

One can agree with Raauflaub’s opinion that Caesar, being a brilliant politician, was able to combine his own interests with those of the State. The scholar also argues that Caesar aimed to form what he calls a ‘grand coalition of good citizens and true Romans’, which drew on the experience of the Gracchi brothers and of Livius Drusus and resembled Cicero’s concordia ordinum.342 This effort towards the attainment of the broadest possible support stands out during Caesar’s consulate, particularly in relation to his agrarian laws,343 and especially during the civil war.344 Leaving aside the real intentions of the future dictator and how these evolved, there was certainly an intention to appear, even though decisively lined up with the populares, as a moderate and conciliatory leader from at least 63.345 It is therefore possible to suggest that, in Caesar’s self-representation, the theme of the pursuit of moderation and concordia was present from at least his election to the pontificatus maximus, and that, in the scope of this broader ideology, he decided to add the theme of clementia, as a natural consequence of his politics up to that point, once the civil war had started. These two themes remained in the propaganda of the dictator, in spite of the sharp change in his politics registered from 46346: both the theme of clementia and that of concordia, represented by the clasped hands, can be found, for instance, in the coinage of 44 BC,347 and, as mentioned above, a temple to the clementia Caesaris was decreed, as well as one to the Concordia Nova in 44.348 1.3.12 Felicitas In 47 BC, Caesar commissioned the building and dedication of a temple to Felicitas to M. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 46).349 The temple was placed in the Forum, on the site of the curia of the Senate which had been enlarged by Sulla and rebuilt by his son after the fire caused by Clodius’ funeral pyre in 52 BC350; it was therefore in a place of strong ideological relevance. However, as Welch351 notes, Felicitas does not enjoy prominence in Caesar’s writings, neither in the Gallic nor in the civil war; sometimes it is mentioned, often in traditional formulae, but not boasted about, and this also happens in the Bellum Alexandrinum and in the Bellum Africanum. Nevertheless, Welch warns, this should not be deceiving: the careful use of these mentions in particular contexts, and some other elements (such as the use of Felicitas as watchword at the battle of Thapsus352) reveal that Felicitas was, particularly during the war in Africa, of great ideological importance, as it is shown by the dedication of its temple in Rome, perhaps advertised by a coin minted by M. Lollius Palicanus353 in 45, representing Felicitas on the obverse.354

1.4 Final Remarks From this brief analysis of the propaganda themes of Pompey and Caesar some important aspects can be underlined. Firstly, that they included historical figures (of both recent and more ancient, if not mythical, past), gods,

42  The Protagonists and Their Ideas heroes, and divine qualities. All these were not exclusive to Pompey and Caesar – they were part of Rome’s culture and tradition, and in accordance to the high level of political competition among the nobility, they were widely used by other gentes or individuals to ennoble their origins or legitimate either their position or their actions in the society. Both Pompey and Caesar used the models of the political tradition to which they wanted to belong, and re-fashioned and used these or other ones according to their own political projects; Caesar could also partly count on the tradition of his old gens, whereas no elements allow to say the same for Pompey, whose plebeian gens had climbed the ladder of the cursus honorum only recently. The two generals also shared some models and themes, but sometimes there are differences in their respective use, which can even affect their efficacy. Caesar, having connected his public image to the respect of traditions more than Pompey, could use the themes of Venus and Scipio Aemilianus more effectively and for longer (particularly in the case of Venus, because of the connection with his family). Secondly, it can be noticed that not all propaganda themes are in constant use, but could be employed temporarily and then discarded or, in some cases, subsequently revived to fit propagandistic purposes or contingent events. One example is the use of the figure of Hercules by Pompey, who revived it as his main propaganda theme when Venus was no longer seen as appropriate; or the use of the figure of Marius by Caesar, who re- emphasised it in his propaganda at the time of the Gallic Wars. Thirdly, the groups of models and themes used by the commanders seem to form a coherent ideological picture for each of them. For Pompey, they back his promotion of himself as the successful conqueror of the whole world, as peacemaker and right man of government, who possesses all the right characteristics and moral qualities to rule, as primus inter pares, a Rome as the centre of the oikoumene; although the figure of Sulla was always problematic, it allowed him to place himself politically on the side of the Senate after the beginning of the civil war. As far as Caesar is concerned, his models and themes both put him very firmly on the side of the populares, whose leadership he had claimed from early on, and at the same time link him tightly – in accordance, one can think, with the antiquity of his gens and its patrician status – with the most ancient traditions of Rome, smoothing any too subversive trait of the popularis past with the purpose of finding a compromise – but without giving up on the core points. Even though the ancient sources often compare Caesar with Alexander the Great, this link is not included in the list of his propaganda themes, since there seems to be no evidence of its use in politics by Caesar himself. What has already been observed by some scholars355 is, by contrast, that the commander sought to overcome the exploits of his political enemy Pompey, who wanted to go beyond Alexander’s feats. It will be seen that this aspect emerges strongly in the architectural outputs of the two commanders.

The Protagonists and Their Ideas 43

Notes 1 On divine qualities, see Clark 2007. 2 See Hölscher 1982 for coins and the political value of the art represented on them. 3 See for example Ellul 1971, ix, especially xvii–xviii. 4 Jowett and O’Donnell 2006, 2; Ellul 1971, x; Doob 1949, 240. 5 See Weber and Zimmermann 2003, 14, and more in general the summary of the debate and the arguments that they present. 6 Weber and Zimmermann 2003. 7 For example, Zanker denies the existence of a system of propaganda in the Augustan age, and thus does not accept the use of the term (Zanker 2006, 3). 8 Weber and Zimmermann 2003, 13. 9 Weber and Zimmermann 2003, 24–33. 10 Enenkel and Pfeijffer 2005a, 6; but see also some reflections in Ellul 1983, 7 (first French edition: 1967), even though the idea of a ‘propaganda machine’ is present (p. 26). 11 Enenkel and Pfeijffer 2005a, 6–7. See also the papers included in the volume, which develop the reflection on these characteristics of propaganda in the context of different periods of ancient history. 12 Enenkel and Pfeijffer 2005a, 7–8. 13 For example Ellul 1976, 17–34; Thomson 1977, 55–67; Evans 1992; Lasswell 2001, 13–14; Taylor 2003, 35–48; Jowett and O’Donnell 2006, 54–56. 14 See, for example, Sordi 1972, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978; Enenkel and Pfeijffer 2005; most lately, Walsh and Baynham 2021. 15 Ellul 1983, 8; Galinsky 1996, 40. 16 Jowett and O’Donnell 2006, 7 (first edition: 1986). 17 Evans 1992, 1; Taylor 2003, 6. 18 Canali 2004a, 67. On the authenticity of the Commentariolum petitionis much has been said. Eussner, in his 1872 edition of the pamphlet, was the first to raise doubts regarding its authenticity, and the debate has been lively since. The main objections to the attribution to Q. Cicero relate mostly to chronological, stylistic, or historical inconsistencies: these constitute strong but not irrefutable arguments, as is clear from Henderson’s 1950 highly critical article, which has been contested and disproved point by point by Balsdon 1963, and later by David et al. 1973, 251–252. Discussion has also concerned the purpose of the pamphlet, which seems to be too polished to be a simple private letter between brothers, yet also too cynical to be addressed to a wider public; this aspect has been highlighted in particular by Nisbet 1961, 84. Overall, those who assert the authenticity of the work are divided into three groups: those scholars who think that it was not meant for publication; those who think it was; and those who take a more balanced stance, and propose a limited circulation, either among the intellectuals or inside Cicero’s entourage (see the bibliography in Lucrezi 2011, 88, nn. 33, 34; Canali 2004a, 68). Strictly connected to this is the question of why Quintus would have written a manual for candidacy to the consulate for the benefit of his much more experienced brother (experience that is acknowledged by the author himself: Comm. Pet., 1, 1). Nardo 1970, 80, 90, therefore presumes the existence of a very limited public, which most recently Lucrezi 2011, 91, identifies with Cicero’s collaborators and supporters (an opinion also expressed by Canali 2004a, 68), pointing, nonetheless, to all the dangers of a potential ‘leak’ of the document among Cicero’s adversaries. It has to be highlighted that, in general, the arguments against the authenticity of the Commentariolum Petitionis have been all disproved or explained, as

44

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

The Protagonists and Their Ideas can be gathered, for instance, from Balsdon 1963, or from the detailed arguments of Nardo 1970 and the balanced analysis of Lucrezi 2011. The clues in favour of its attribution to Q. Cicero all point to the fact that the work would perfectly fit in the atmosphere of 65–64 BC, and can be found on a linguistic level (Nardo 1970, 22), on a historical level (Till 1962; Nardo 1970, 129; Richardson 1971, 442), and on a prosopographic level (David et al. 1973). However, as Lucrezi 2011, 89 stresses, it is clearly not possible to fully prove the authenticity for this as for any other ancient work (see also Büchner and Hofman 1951, 217; Balsdon 1963, 249; Richardson 1971, 436). Yet while the issue of the work’s purpose is important, the arguments in favour of its authenticity are compelling. Nevertheless, in agreement with the most recent research, even if the Commentariolum were not authentic, the very detailed knowledge of the period around 64 BC that it reveals does make it a very reliable source for that period; accordingly, the question of its authenticity might be considered of secondary importance (Gruen 1974, 138 n. 76; Morstein-Marx 1998, 261; Yakobson 1999, 74–75; Fezzi 2007, 14; Lucrezi 2011, 92). For this reason and for ease of description, the author of the Commentariolum will be here referred to as Quintus Cicero. Comm. Pet. 9, 34; 11, 44. Mainly Gaius Oppius and Lucius Cornelius Balbus; see Canfora 1999, 107, 438, 444. Jowell and O’Donnell 2006, 8. Comm. Pet., 3, 10. Comm. Pet., 13, 50. Comm. Pet., 14, 55. Comm. Pet., 14, 55–56. Jowett and O’Donnell 2006, 14. Jowett and O’Donnell 2006, 38. Comm. Pet., 11, 44. A point also made by Weber and Zimmermann 2003, 24; however, the scholars affirm that the term ‘propaganda’ cannot be used if it is not possible to establish who this audience was. Evans 1992, 6. Evans 1992, 6. Comm. Pet., 5, 17. Evans 1992, 6. Jowett and O’Donnell 2006, 285. See Ellul 1971, 260–265. Catull., 29, vv. 5; 9. Sauron’s article (Sauron 2011) focuses only on Pompey’s theatrical complex. The debate on Sulla and his legacy has lately raised much interest; the established opinion that his reforms were conservative, aiming at restoring the traditional power of the nobility, and that after his death a more reformist current prevailed (see, for example, Laffi 1967, 263–264) and all his reforms were abrogated is being questioned; see, for example, Brizzi 2004; Santangelo 2014; Zecchini and Schettino 2018; Rosenblitt 2019. Laffi 1967, 265; Zecchini 2018, 255. Laffi 1967, 266; for Gaius Marius and Caesar, see below. Whose daughter he had married: Suet., Iul., 1, 1; Plut., Caes., 1. Plut., Caes., 1, 4; also suggested by Suet., Iul., 1. Laffi 1967, 268. See, for example, Cic., Leg. Man., 30; Plut., Pomp., 8, 3–4. The date of Pompey’s first triumph is much debated; see Chapter 2. See RE entry: Antistia (60).

The Protagonists and Their Ideas 45 47 Plut., Pomp., 9; Sull., 33; it needs to be pointed out that Caesar, when ordered to do the same, refused and was thus perhaps proscribed: Suet., Iul., 1, 1–2; Plut., Caes., 1. For Aemilia, see RE entry Aemilia (154). 48 Seager 1979, 12, suggests 80 BC; Haley 1985, 50, points to 79 BC. 49 See RE entry: Mucia (28). 50 Plut., Pomp., 15, 3–4; Sull., 38, 1–2. 51 See Chapters 2 and 4, n. 46. 52 Laffi 1967, 269. 53 Plut., Sert., 18, 8. 54 Luc., 1, 326; 330–331; 334–335; and also 7, 307. 55 Laffi 1967, 270. 56 See, for example, Cic., Att., 9, 7, 3: ‘nihil ille umquam minus obscure tulit’, ‘he makes no mystery out of it’; Cic., Att., 9, 10, 2: “Quam crebro illud ‘Sulla potuit, ego non potero?’” “How often he said ‘Sulla could, so should I not?’” 57 Barden Dowling 2000, 310. 58 Cic., Att., 9, 10, 6; see also 8, 11, 2; 9, 7, 3. 59 Plut., Pomp., 21, 7; many, on that occasion, feared that he would march on Rome and establish a dictatorship, following Sulla’s model: Plut., Pomp., 21, 3; cfr. Eutr., 5, 8, 2. Indeed, during that war he had threatened the Senate to do so: Sall., Hist., 2, 86 (Loeb). 60 Vell., 2, 40, 3; Plut., Pomp., 43; Dio, 37, 20, 6; App., Mith., 116, 566. 61 Cic., Q. fr., 3, 6, 4 (54 BC; on this occasion, however, Cicero points out that Pompey did not hide his desire in private conversations with him); Plut., Pomp., 54, 4; Dio, 40, 45, 4 (53 BC). 62 Plut., Pomp., 22; Vell., 2, 30, 4; Pseud. Asc., 189 St. 63 See, for example, the episode reported by Valerius Maximus (6, 2, 8), which probably took place around 55 BC (Steel 2013, 155): a certain Helvius Mancia answered Pompey’s jeering remark by reminding him of the Roman senators that he had killed during the civil war. 64 Plut., Pomp., 13, 7–8; Plin., HN., 7, 26, 96. 65 Plut., Pomp., 2, 2–4. 66 Sall., Hist., 3, 62; Plin., HN., 7, 26, 95; Cic., Arch., 24. 67 Sall., Hist., 3, 63; Plin., HN., 3, 3, 18; 7, 26, 96; 37, 15. 68 Arr., Anab., 5, 29; Diod. Sic, 17, 95, 1; see Weinstock 1971, 37; Gelzer 2005, 59. 69 Which he had allegedly found among Mithridates VI’s properties: App., Mith., 117; contra Weinstock 1971, 335. 70 For a definition of this term in comparison to aemulatio and comparatio see Green 1989; contra the existence of the phenomenon: Gruen 1998, 183–186; Martin 1998. 71 See, for example, Plut., Pomp., 46, 1–2. 72 Leach 1978, 53; Gelzer 2005, 59; see also Villani 2013, 337. 73 Gruen 1998, 183–186; Villani 2013, 339. 74 Villani 2013, 340; see also Leach 1978, 78. 75 Villani 2013, 341–343. 76 Sablayrolles 2006, 352. 77 Sablayrolles 2006, 345–346. 78 Cic., Balb., 9; 16; Sest., 31; 67; 61; 129; Vell. Pat., 2, 53, 3; Plut., Pomp., 45, 7. 79 Just., Epit., 38,7,1. 80 McGing 1986, 101–102. 81 Villani 2013, 335–336. 82 Wardle 2009, 102; Smith 2010, 252. 83 RRC 430/1. 84 Beard et al. 1998, 144. 85 App., B civ., 1, 97.

46

The Protagonists and Their Ideas

86 Coarelli 2010, 127; there is a strong correlation between the two epithets: Torelli 2010, 153–154. 87 Plin., HN., 8, 7, 20; Tert., Spect., 10, 3; see discussion in Chapter 2. 88 Plut., Pomp., 47, 6. 89 Referring to the triumphs of Pompey; they were represented on Pompey’s signet ring too: Dio, 42, 18, 3. 90 RRC 426/3. 91 App., B civ., 2, 76. 92 Schilling 1954, 300. 93 See Chapter 2 for a discussion of the problem; contra Weinstock 1971, 39; Marshall 1974, 83; Santangelo 2007, 232. 94 Plut., Fab. Max., 1. 95 Plut., Sull., 35, 1; see Santangelo 2007, 229. 96 Ziolkowski 1992, 46; see also Rawson 1970, 31 for further evidence of Sulla’s association with Hercules. 97 Stafford 2012, 142–145. 98 Rawson 1970, 35. 99 See the festival in honour of Hercules Invictus which Crassus promoted in occasion of the ovatio after his victory over Spartacus: Plut. Crass. 2, 2; see Stafford 2012, 152. 100 Santangelo 2007, 230. 101 Plin., HN., 34, 16, 33; Mastrocinque 2005, 192. 102 Villani 2013, 344, with sources and further bibliography. 103 Villani 2013, 344. 104 Villani 2013, 344–345. 105 Villani 2013, 345–347. 106 See, for example, Cic., Prov. cons., 31; Sest., 31, 68. 107 Ferrary 2000, 343. This concept was very common in the Hellenistic world: Momigliano 1942b, 54. 108 Ferrary 2000, 344. 109 Ferrary 2000, 344. 110 Ferrary 2000, 345, n. 38. 111 Anth. Gr., 6, 171; Momigliano 1942a, 55. 112 The formula ‘over land and sea’ had also been used in Greece in the treaties of peace and alliance: Momigliano 1942b, 62. 113 Villani 2013, 347. 114 RRC 426/4 a–b. 115 Crawford 1974, 449; this interpretation should be preferred to that offered by Villani 2013, 347, who affirms that the corn-ear represents the land and the aplustre the sea, so referring to Pompey’s imperium terra marique. 116 Villani 2013, 348. 117 See, for example, Rawson 1970, 36; Santangelo 2007, 230. 118 RCC 426/3–4. 119 Santangelo 2007, 232. 120 Santangelo 2007, 230. 121 Plin., HN., 7, 26, 97; for a discussion of the archaeological aspects of the temple, see Chapter 2. 122 Zampieri 2020. 123 Santangelo 2007, 232. 124 Dio, 37, 44, 1–2. 125 Plut., Pomp., 42, 11. 126 Palmer 1990, 3–9. 127 Davies 2017, 219. 128 Stafford 2012, 164.

The Protagonists and Their Ideas  47 1 29 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 1 40 141 142 143 144 145 1 46 147 148 149 150 151 152 1 53 154

155 1 56 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 1 69

Ley 2006, 941. See footnote 118. Sordi 2006. The passage was handed down by Phlegon of Tralles: FgrHist 257, 36, III. Bearzot 1982a, 13. Bearzot 1982b. Sordi 1982a, 140–143; 2006, 142. Sordi 1982a, 142. Sordi 1982a, 142; 2006, 142. Zampieri 2020, 332–338. First inscription: IK 3, nr. 74 = IGR IV, 198 = CIG 3608; second inscription: AE 1990 nr. 940. The second inscription has been published by Schwertheim 1989; Winter 1996. Winter 1996, 176–177. Zampieri 2020, 340. Zampieri 2020, 341–342. Cadario 2011, 27, n. 53. Plin., HN., 8, 2, 4. However, this type of chariot was also strongly associated with Venus (Beard et al. 1998, 145) or with Alexander the Great (Mader 2006). Seaford 2006, 45. Diod. Sic., 3, 65, 8; Arr., Anab., 6, 28, 2. Cadario 2011, 26. Seaford 2006, 45. Str., 8, 6, 23. For Lucullus, see RE entry L. Licinius (102). Summary of the main opinions and bibliography in Welch 2008, 182–186. Welch 2008, 183; she also elaborates on the difference between Felicitas and Fortuna, often confused: 183–186. Weinstock 1971, 114; Gabba 1975, 14. Coarelli 2010, 127. Coarelli (2010), on the basis of the archaeological evidence interpreted as a temple on the top of the ‘Tabularium’ in the Roman Forum by Tucci (2005) and of an analysis of the Fasti fratrum Arvalium and of the Fasti Amiternini, suggested that this temple on the ‘Tabularium’ was dedicated to Venus Victrix and was flanked by two smaller temples: the northern one dedicated to Fausta Felicitas and the southern one to the Genius Populi Romani; the whole structure would have been planned by Sulla and completed by Lutatius Catulus. Welch 2008, 188. Welch 2008, 189–190. Weinstock 1971, 114. See, for example, Cicero’s remarks in Leg. Man., 48. See Chapter 2 for a detailed analysis of the theatre complex. See Beard et al. 1998, 144–145. Coarelli 1997a, 570; see also Clark 2007, 239. Coarelli 1997a, 570. Cic., Leg. Man., 47. Welch 2008, 193–194. Cic, Leg. Man., 60. Cic., Fam., 5, 7, 3. Latin text from Shackleton Bailey 1999b. Cic., Q. fr., 2, 3, 3; written in February 56, the year of the conference of Luca. Latin text from Shackleton Bailey 2002. Cic., Fam., 5, 7, 1. Gruen 1970, 239; in fact, this is what he did: Vell., 2, 40, 3; Plut., Pomp., 43; Dio, 37, 20, 6; App., Mith., 116, 566.

48 The Protagonists and Their Ideas 170 These were in fact the rumours that had been spread before his arrival: Vell., 2, 40, 2; Dio, 37, 44, 3; cf. Plut., Pomp., 43, 1; App., Mith, 116. 171 Plut., Pomp., 2, 2–3. Morrell 2017, 60 n. 19, is inclined to think that Pompey himself was the origin of this comparison. 172 Even of the most conservative part of it: in 62 he asked to marry Cato’s niece and to have her sister married with his son: Cic., Att., 1, 12, 3; Plut., Pomp., 42; 44; Plut., Cato, 30. 173 See, for example, Plut., Pomp., 43, 1; for Pompey’s threats during the Sertorian war: Sall., Hist., 2, 86 (Loeb). Plutarch (Pomp., 21, 5) says that, when Pompey returned to Rome and remained outside the city with his army, waiting to celebrate the triumph, there were some who feared that he would march on Rome and establish a dictatorship; see also Eutr., 5, 8, 2. 174 Cic., Fam., 5, 7, 1. 175 Meyer 1918, 42, followed by Van Ooeteghem 1954, 276; Greenhalgh 1980, 167. 176 Zecchini 2001, 125. 177 Polyb., 31, 25–30. 178 Plut., Pomp., 1, 4; 2, 11; 40, 8–9. 179 Plut., Pomp., 2, 9; 8, 5. 180 Vell. Pat., 2, 29; Plut., Pomp., 1, 4; 27, 6. 181 Plut., Pomp., 2, 10; 53, 2. 182 Vell. Pat., 2, 29; Plut., Pomp., 42, 11; 52, 5. 183 Sil., Pun., 13, 615–649; 15, 18–128; 17, 149–150. 184 See, for example, the legend narrating that Scipio’s mother conceived him thanks to a huge serpent, as it happened for Alexander: Liv., 26, 19; Gell., 6, 1, 1; Ruebel 1991, 17; Spencer 2002, 168. 185 Plut., Pomp., 14, 1–3. 186 Zecchini 2001, 125. 187 Zecchini 2001, 117–135. 188 Zecchini 2001, 117–120. 189 Suet., Iul., 1, 1. Latin text from Lanciotti, Dessì 2009. 190 Zecchini 2001, 117; Giardina 2010, 39; contra Meier 2004, 122; Canfora 1999, 4. 191 Plut., Caes., 5, 1–2. 192 Plut., Caes., 5, 4. 193 Plut., Caes., 5, 3 ; 5, 5. 194 Zecchini 2001, 118. Re-erection of Marius’ trophies: Plut., Caes., 6, 1–3; Suet., Iul., 11; Vell. Pat. 2, 43, 4. 195 Gruen 2009, 24–25. 196 Vell. Pat., 2, 41, 2; Suet., Iul., 1, 1; Plut., Caes., 1, 1. 197 Gruen 2009, 24. 198 Gruen 2009, 25. 199 Giardina 2010, 36. 200 Giardina 2010, 37. 201 Giardina 2010, 36–38. 202 Syme 1984, 1244 n. 61. 203 Plut., Pomp., 9, 2–4; Syll., 33, 4. 204 Fezzi 2019, 36. 205 Suet., Iul., 1. 206 Laffi 1967, 263–264. Santangelo (2014, 16) maintains that it would be reductive to read the events of this period as an anti-Sullan reaction, though, since many of the reforms that were carried out responded to precise social issues, rather than simply being popularis reactions to Sulla’s legislation. 207 Raauflaub 2010a, 142–143. 208 Suet., Iul., 3.

The Protagonists and Their Ideas 49 209 Cic., Cat., 4, 9. 210 Zecchini 2001, 118. 211 Zecchini 2001, 118. He observes that this would justify Caesar’s attack on Ariovistus (Caes., B Gall., 1, 40, 5), and that a comparison with Marius on this occasion is made explicitly by Plutarch (Caes., 19, 4). 212 Cic., Prov. cons. 32; Canfora 1999, 101. 213 Canfora 1999, 102. 214 Berti 1988, 60; Zecchini 2001, 118–119. For the comparison Pompey/Sulla, see above. 215 Zecchini 2001, 120–124 (quotation on page 120). 216 Zecchini 2001, 120. Most lately, on the lex de repetundis: Morrell 2017, 129–152, who argues that it was mostly inspired by previous laws proposed by Pompey. 217 Zecchini 2001, 121. 218 Zecchini 2001, 121–122. 219 Zecchini 2001, 122. 220 Zecchini 2001, 123. 221 Raauflaub 2010a, 144. 222 Vanderbroeck 1987, 71. 223 Raauflaub 2010b, 164. 224 Cic., Cat., 4, 9. 225 Suet., Iul., 16. 226 Plut., Cato, 29; Dio 37, 43, 4. 227 Raauflaub 2010a, 145. 228 Raauflaub 2010a, 144. 229 Suet., Iul., 3. 230 Gran. Lic. 34. 231 App., BCiv., 1, 107; Gran. Lic. 34; Exup., Opusc., 6. The restoration of the rights of the sons of the proscribed was also in the plans (Gran. Lic. 34; Exup., Opusc., 6; Flor., Epit., 2, 1, 23, 3; Sall., Hist., 1, 77, 6); Caesar will have the sons of the proscribed reintegrated to public life during his dictatorship (Plut., Caes., 37, 2; see also Dio, 61, 18, 2, who places this measure at the beginning of the civil war). 232 Hayne 1972, 664 supports this interpretation; contra Burton 2014, 411. 233 Suet., Iul., 3. 234 Zecchini 2001, 124. 235 Zecchini 2001, 124. 236 Zecchini 1995, 601. 237 Athen., 6, 105, 273b = Cotta, HRR, 1. 238 Zecchini 1995, 601; 2001, 124–125. Sordi 2009, 118 disputes this statement, arguing that Cotta’s fragment is too short to affirm that this parallel was explicitly cast by him; the exemplum of Aemilianus, together with Caesar’s, was probably in the list compiled by the source of Athenaeus, who provides Cotta’s fragment. She rather thinks of Marius (as styled by Sallust, Iug., 85, 33) as a model for Caesar in this respect. 239 Zecchini 2001, 124–125. 240 Harris 2009, 204. 241 Harris 2009, 206–207. 242 Cic., Rep., 1, 38, 59–60. 243 Harris 2002, 26. 244 Harris 2009, 209; see Cic., Marcell., 9. 245 Dio 43, 45, 2–3; Cic., Att., 12, 45, 2 and 13, 28, 3. 246 App., Hisp., 23, 89. 247 Zecchini 2001, 125–126.

50 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297

The Protagonists and Their Ideas Gell., NA, 6, 1, 1; see Canfora 1999, 303. Gabba 1975. Zecchini 2001, 127–129; for the title of parens patriae: Dio, 44, 4, 4. Zecchini 2001, 127; see also Momigliano 1942a, 112–113. Zecchini 2001, 127–128; for the dedication of the temple of Concordia: Plut., Camill., 42; Ov., Fast., 1, 641–644. Zecchini 2001, 127–128. Weinstock 1971, 68–75. See Weinstock 1971, 71–73 for primary sources. Verg., Aen., 3, 537. Verg., Aen., 12, 161. Prop., 4, 1, 32. Weinstock 1971, 69. Plaut., Asin., 278. Plin., HN, 33, 111. Weinstock 1971, 73. Weinstock 1971, 74. Gärtner 2008. Gärtner 2008, 29–32 with extensive bibliography. Gärtner 2008, 32–33. Gärtner 2008, 34. Plin., HN, 33, 14; Gärtner 2008, 35. Gärtner 2008, 45–49. Gärtner 2008, 49. Gärtner 2008, 49–51. Cic., Rep., 2, 20; Liv., 1, 16; Plut., Rom., 28, 1–3; this version had perhaps been fostered by Caesar himself; see Zecchini 2001, 45, 129. Zecchini 2001, 129. Cic., Har. resp., 12. Dio, 43, 45, 2–3; Cic., Att., 12, 45, 2 and 13, 28, 3; see Zecchini 2001, 45–46; Coarelli 1999a, 185. See discussion in Chapter 4. App., Lib., 17, 112. Dion. Al., Ant. Rom., 4, 9–13. Zecchini 2001, 130. Sordi 2000, 311–312. Liv., 1, 48, 9. Caes., B civ., 1, 7, 7. Zecchini 2001, 131–132. Suet., Iul., 6, 1. Smith 2010, 254. Enn., Ann., 37 Skutsch. Plin., HN, 31, 41 and 36, 121; Frontin., Aq., 1, 7. Eutr., 1, 5. Smith 2006, 35–36; for example, the Aemilii Lepidi: Gaggiotti 1985, 60–61. Plut., Numa, 9, 1. Plut., Numa, 3, 7–8. Plut., Numa, 5, 7. Plut., Numa, 7, 9. Plut., Numa, 18; Caes., 59. Plut., Numa, 5–6. Nic. Damasc., Vita Aug., 20–21; Plut., Ant., 12; Caes., 61. Plut., Numa, 13, 2–6. Dio, 44, 17, 2.

The Protagonists and Their Ideas 51 298 RRC 452/3. Usually this ancile is interpreted as that of a salius, and considered the only evidence for Caesar holding this priesthood (see Crawford 1974, 735 n. 5). 299 Suet., Iul., 6, 1. 300 Smith 2010, 252; RRC 258/1 and 320/1. 301 Smith 2010, 253. 302 Lincoln 1993, 390–391. 303 Wardle 2009, 107. 304 App., B civ., 2, 76. 305 App., B civ., 2, 68. 306 App., B civ., 2, 102. 307 Weinstock 1971, 8; Smith 2010, 252. 308 CIL XIV 2387. 309 Weinstock 1971, 8; Smith 2010, 252. 310 Weinstock 1971, 8–9; Distelrath 2010, 257. 311 Weinstock 1971, 9–11. 312 Orig. 15, 5; see Weinstock 1971, 9, n. 7 313 Weinstock 1971, 10. 314 Plut, Caes, 1, 1; Suet., Iul., 1. On Caesar’s flaminate see Fezzi 2020, 54–57, 59. 315 Smith 2010, 253. 316 Dio, 37, 44, 1–2. 317 Suet., Iul., 15. 318 Vell. Pat., 2, 43, 4; Dio, 37, 44. 319 Plut., Caes., 7, 4; Suet., Iul., 13; Dio, 37, 37, 2. 320 Sall., Bell. Cat., 49, 2; the hostility between the two men is even attested by Cicero, Att., 2, 24, 3. 321 Dio, 43, 14, 6. 322 This measure was never carried out: see Tac., Hist., 3, 72. 323 Dio, 43, 21, 2. 324 For example the Senate addressing Caesar as Iuppiter Iulius, and electing Anthony his flamen: Dio, 44, 6, 4. 325 Although Cicero, Phil., 2, 110 confirms the role of Anthony as flamen. 326 Sabbatucci 1988, 312. 327 Weinstock 1971, 183. 328 Zecchini 2001, 44–46. 329 Cic., Rep., 2, 20; followed by Livy, 1, 16. 330 Plut., Rom., 28, 1–3. 331 Zecchini 2001, 45. 332 Zecchini 2001, 45. 333 Latin text from Shackleton Bailey 1999. 334 Cic., Att., 9, 7c, 1. 335 Lassandro 1991, 198–199 with further bibliography. 336 Weinstock 1971, 236. 337 Weinstock 1971, 236. 338 Weinstock 1971, 238–239. 339 App., B civ. 2, 106; Dio 44, 6, 4; Plut., Caes., 57, 4; see also the denarius of P. Sepullius Macer: RRC 480/21. 340 Canfora 1999, 169. 341 Raauflaub 2010a, 145. 342 Raauflaub 2010b, 162–164. 343 Raauflaub 2010a, 146; 2010b, 162–164. 344 Raauflaub 2010a, 148–151; 2010b, 165–167. 345 See above; see also Raauflaub 2010a, 152. 346 Raauflaub 2010a, 152.

52

The Protagonists and Their Ideas

347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355

RRC 480/6, 21, 24. Dio, 44, 4, 5. Dio, 44, 5, 2. Ascon., 33C. Welch 2008, 195–203. Bell.Afr., 82–83. See RE entry M. Lollius (21, cf. 8). RRC 473/3. See, for example, Vervaet 2014, 146, n. 79.

2

The Rising Sun Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs

Pompey’s building activity started rather early in his career, and it was always connected to military triumphs. The sources mention three buildings: two temples and a third that was initially presented as a temple with a large staircase, but turned out to be the first stone theatre complex of Rome. The dedication date of the first temple is debated, but it is possible that it took place when Pompey was very young, on the occasion of the triumph that he so insolently (he had never held an office) demanded from Sulla, after fighting the Marians in Africa and having been hailed as Magnus by his soldiers and Sulla himself. The second and third dedications were made after Pompey had wiped out piracy from the Mediterranean and had defeated the king Mithridates, whereby expanding and securing Rome’s territories in Asia. At this point, he was almost at the peak of his military and political career (he will reach it a few years later, in 52, with his consulship sine collega), and these two monuments expressed his conception of and plans for the Res publica, Rome’s dominion over the oikoumene, and his own role within them.

2.1 Imago Alexandri? The Hercules Pompeianus The southern area of the Forum Boarium1 had been strictly connected, from the archaic period, to the cult of Hercules, being the place where, according to the legend, the hero slew the monster Cacus.2 It is here that Pompey decided to dedicate to him a temple, which was called aedes Herculis Pompeiani after the general, and was located ad circum Maximum.3 There has been much discussion on the localisation and denomination of the cults of Hercules in the Forum Boarium, and the Pompeian temple has been identified with that of Hercules Invictus, in connection to the Ara Maxima, also located next to the Circus Maximus4; in fact, as noted in the previous chapter, the general’s devotion to Hercules Invictus is demonstrated, for example, by the fact that the name of that hero had been used as a watchword at Pharsalus.5 The fact that the temple is described by Vitruvius6 as having archaic features, such as presenting an aerostyl style, being low and wide, with terracotta or bronze statues on the pediment, tuscanico

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080503-3

54  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs more, has been taken as a suggestion that the intervention of Pompey only involved a refurbishment,7 but no evidence to support this statement is extant. The original temple had perhaps been dedicated, in connection to the Ara Maxima, by the censor of 312 BC Appius Claudius Caecus, who might have introduced the cult of Hercules Invictus, connected to the Hellenistic ideology of victory.8 As the epithet Invictus (corresponding to the Greek ἀνίκητος) had been firstly attributed to Hercules and to Alexander the Great at the latter’s time, the reason for Pompey to choose this particular cult is clear9; furthermore, the general’s action might have also been inspired by Sulla’s rebuilding of the temple of Hercules Magnus Custos next to the Circus Flaminius,10 or by his construction of the monument to Hercules Sullanus.11 The precise date for the temple’s dedication by Pompey has not been established yet, and it is doubtful whether it will ever be possible.12 The Fasti Amiternini13 and the Fasti Allifani14 report the existence of a festival of Hercules Invictus on 12th August, on the same day of the festival for Venus Victrix, Honos, Virtus, and Felicitas in theatro marmoreo (that is, the day of the inauguration of Pompey’s theatre),15 but the sources do not allow greater accuracy regarding the year of dedication of the temple. Nevertheless, Rawson16 and Marshall17 have attempted to identify at least a likely time range for the dedication: after Pompey’s first triumph (between 81 and 79 BC), in competition with Sulla, or after his return from the campaign in Spain, in occasion of his consulate and in competition with Crassus (70 BC).18 Alternatively, in 70 BC or in 55 BC, together with the dedication of the temple and shrines at the top of Pompey’s theatre cavea.19 Nevertheless, for the reasons explained by Rawson,20 an early chronology of the temple, in connection with Pompey’s first triumph, is here considered more likely.21 It is therefore interesting to note that the temple stood along the triumphal path, just before the triumphator would enter the Circus Maximus in order to parade around the spina. Every other triumphing general would have seen the temple, and would have therefore cast a comparison between themselves and the youngest triumphator of Rome, the one who had even defied Sulla’s will to obtain a triumph.22 Furthermore, the area where the temple of Hercules Pompeianus stood was also occupied by other temples dedicated to the same hero. Most interesting is the fact that among them there was the temple of Hercules Aemilianus (aedes Aemiliana Herculis). This, identified with a temple destroyed at the time of pope Sixtus IV (r. 1471–1484 AD), was a circular building,23 probably located north of the road leading to the main entrance of the Circus Maximus, and opposite the Ara Maxima Herculis,24 or east of the temple of Portunus and close to the destroyed church of St. Aniano.25 Its construction has been attributed to Scipio Aemilianus.26 Pompey, then, for the building that would celebrate his triumph over Africa chose a location very close to the temple of the conqueror of Carthage, arguably casting a comparison between himself and Scipio.27 Both had chosen to intervene in a location linked to one of the traditions of Rome’s

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  55 foundation, near the most ancient place of cult of Hercules in Rome (the Ara Maxima); however, if the latter had preferred to build a new monument with an innovative ‘Greek’ plan, the former chose to maintain the archaic features of his monument. Thus, there seems to be a tradition/ innovation duality in Pompey’s building, which seeks to connect him to Hellenistic ideology (through Hercules, Alexander the Great and Scipio Aemilianus) on the one hand, and to the most ancient traditions of Rome on the other.

2.2 Pompey’s Temple of Minerva Pliny28 records that, after the Eastern campaign, Pompey dedicated a temple to Minerva de manubiis, in 61 BC, perhaps in the context of his triumph,29 and also reports the dedicatory inscription for it. The same monument is perhaps mentioned by Diodorus Siculus too,30 who cites a dedicatory inscription, very similar to that reported by Pliny.31 The location of the temple has not yet been established: Palombi32 lists three possibilities, of which the second and the third one – namely, that the temple was either the aedes Minervae outside Porta Capena, recorded by the Cataloghi Regionari, or the templum Minervae between the Forum and the Velabrum33 – are deemed as the most likely ones. In either cases, the temple would have been located in a place connected to the triumph,34 therefore in accordance to the context of the dedication and in line with Pompey’s previous intervention. At the current state of studies, the impossibility to locate the building with certainty impedes us to further reflect on its implications on a topographic level; however, it might be possible to speculate on the dedication itself. As already mentioned in Chapter 1, the reasons for the choice of that goddess might be connected to the patronage of Minerva over Hercules, with whom Pompey aimed to be assimilated. However, it is more likely that Pompey’s Minerva was Athena Ilias, the goddess worshipped in Troy; this second aspect would also fit more with the fact that Pompey had made a votum to Minerva35 – arguably before completing his campaigns in the East. This temple in fact constituted the fulfilment of that vow, as the goddess had allowed the general to become the conqueror ‘of the whole world’, and as she had demonstrated her predilection for the Romans, who were thus the rightful holders of the dominion over the world. Connected to this interpretation is also Palmer’s36 suggestion that Pompey’s choice of Minerva was justified by the particular predilection that Alexander the Great showed to that goddess; a reference, through her, to the great Macedonian conqueror would have surely strengthened the ecumenic character of Pompey’s deeds. The connection with Troy, and so with Rome’s origins, would have nevertheless placed Pompey within the most ancient tradition of Rome, and would have perfected his image as the good governor and statesman, by smoothing the references to Hellenistic ideology and putting him at the same level of those gentes who claimed Trojan origins.

56  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs Finally, another important aspect has to be underlined. The appropriation of the favour of Athena Ilias by Pompey and its material reification through the temple has also to be seen in competition with other important figures in Rome’s political life of recent and contemporary times, that is Sulla, Lucullus, and, perhaps, some members of the Iulii Caesares. In the previous chapter it was mentioned that during the period of the Mithridatic wars Athena Ilias appears in connection to the Romans in four instances: two of them relate to the close involvement of a quaestor and a censor L. Iulius Caesar in the affairs of the temple of Athena Ilias and of the koinon of Athena Ilias37; one to the appearance of Athena Ilias to the Ilians in a dream, on the occasion of the siege of Cyzicus by Mithridates.38 The goddess declared that she had just come back from helping the people of the besieged city; the Romans ended up victorious, and Lucullus was honoured with the institution of games.39 Finally, the last instance relates to the destruction and burning of Ilium and of its temple of Athena by the Roman commander Fimbria in 85 BC40; the statue of the goddess (probably the Palladium) was allegedly found undamaged. The information about this event might derive from the Memoirs of Sulla, which were probably the direct or indirect source of Appian and Livy (from whom Augustine, Obsequens, and Servius ultimately derive)41; thus it might be possible that the prodigium of the survival of Athena’s statue was an invention of Sulla,42 with the aim of underlining the goddess’ support for the general himself against Fimbria, a supporter of Marius, acting against the interest of the Republic.43 It is most interesting that Servius44 reports that after the statue had been found by Fimbria, it was brought to Rome; even this tradition might have its origin in Sulla’s Memoirs,45 although it was probably abandoned soon, as Cicero, in 54 BC, affirms that the Palladium was already in Rome in the middle of the 3rd century BC.46 It might then be possible that Sulla and Lucullus had claimed the protection of Athena Ilias in the context of the Mithridatic wars before Pompey; the dictator might have even affirmed that he had brought the Palladium (and thus its guarantee of protection and dominion over the whole world) to Rome. However, since neither Sulla not Lucullus had been able to conclude the war against Mithridates, it could have been easy for Pompey – who did put an end to that war and extend Rome’s dominion in that area – to claim the support of Athena in competition with the two commanders. This would have shown that he was a better commander than the dictator, and would have also fit in the unfriendly relationship between Pompey and Lucullus. In relation to the Iulii Caesares, some elements need consideration. First, inscriptions showing the name of a L. Iulius Caesar in relation to Ilium are not surprising, given the claims of descendance from Venus (and thus Aeneas) by the members of the gens Iulia; in relation to the identity of this person, the main issue lies on whether the inscriptions mention the consul of 64 BC or his father, consul in 90 BC.47 Although the question has been much debated, scholarship tends to agree on the former for both inscriptions.48

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  57 As far as the connection with Athena Ilias / the Palladium is concerned, it is interesting to point out that our first iconographic representation of Aeneas carrying the Palladium while escaping from Troy (an alternative tradition to the one attributing the same action to Diomedes and Ulixes) is from a coin minted by Julius Caesar after the battle of Pharsalus.49 This tradition was already known in the Greek world,50 but it might have been re-activated and imposed in Rome by Caesar himself.51 Assenmaker also pointed out that the Origo Gentis Romanae mentions one or more Iulii Caesares who wrote about the legend of Aeneas and Iulus; a L. Caesar appears twice, and he is usually identified with the consul of 64 BC; he might have fostered, before or at the same time, the same tradition promoted by his more famous relative.52 L. Iulius Caesar, consul in 64 and censor in 61 BC, had been quaestor in Asia in 77 BC53 (when he also went to Ilium), but the ancient sources do not seem to offer any element to identify a specific reason for competition or enmity between him and Pompey during that period. Julius Caesar had become pontifex maximus in 63 and praetor in 62, and had consistently shown his support for Pompey54; in 60 BC, together with Crassus, they stipulated the secret pact known as ‘the first triumvirate.’ It is then possible that, at the time of the dedication of the temple of Minerva, Pompey put himself in competition more with Lucullus and Sulla (with whom he might have even been in continuity), rather than the Iulii Caesares; however, it is very likely that, after the battle of Pharsalus, Caesar was perfectly aware of the use of the Palladium in the Pompeian (and Sullan) propaganda when minting his coin.

2.3 Theatrum Lapideum In the same period, during the 60s BC, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus possessed a vast area in the central part of the Campus Martius.55 The characteristics of this part of the city, which was located just outside the pomerium56 and hosted structures and monuments connected to military triumphs (and in particular to maritime victories),57 made it Pompey’s chosen area to locate his personal triumphal monument: an enormous complex composed by a theatre and a porticus post scaenam. The cavea of the theatre hosted a temple dedicated to Venus Victrix, as well as sacella dedicated to Honos, Virtus, and Felicitas; a curia for the meetings of the Senate looked onto the centre of the eastern side of the porticus. The building extended from the via Triumphalis to the area of the temples of Largo Argentina, and was dedicated on 29 September 55 BC,58 during Pompey’s second consulship. It seems that in 52 BC, during his third consulship, the commander also dedicated a sacellum to Victoria inside the complex.59 Despite its remarkable dimensions, not many structures of the theatre are visible today.60 The measure of the impact that this monument had on Rome’s cityscape can be inferred from the fact that its shape can be still

58  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs recognised in modern topography, as later buildings re-used its structures, particularly those of the cavea. Nevertheless, because of the relatively scant archaeological evidence, many aspects of the structure, both of the theatre and of the portico and curia connected to it, are still a matter of debate. Some fragments of the Forma Urbis Romae 61 provided partial help, even though two of them are known only by Renaissance drawings.62 However, discussion concerned these fragments too. Recently, the attribution of fragment 39f to Pompey’s theatre complex has been disputed by Monterroso Checa,63 who suggested instead a connection with the stadium of Domitian.64 The Forma Urbis also shows a further portico, running along the northern side of Pompey’s, called Hecatostylum; however, the chronology of this structure, which has to be identified with the Porticus Lentulorum, and perhaps also with the Porticus ad Nationes, has not been clearly established and is very controversial.65 The chronology for the Porticus Lentulorum accepted in this book will be that of Coarelli,66 who dates it to the Augustan period (although not later than 18 BC) but remains open to other possibilities; therefore the building shall not be considered here as a part of the Pompeian project. 2.3.1 The Temple of Venus Victrix Pompey’s complex is most famous not only for having been the first stone theatre in Rome, but also because its construction was allegedly justified by saying that the cavea was not a theatre, but a staircase to the temple of Venus Victrix.67 Tertullian, who is the source of this information, thus places the temple at the top of the cavea. Much discussion about the architecture and position of this building has characterised the scholarship on the monument. The most commonly accepted interpretation places the temple at the top of the structure protruding from the centre of the external part of the cavea (Figure 2.1). This reconstruction is based on the discovery of the northern and southern walls of it by Baltard and Righetti, respectively,68 and on the identification of a curved structure under the Palazzo Pio (which now overlies the theatre) as the apsis of the cella of the temple by Baltard.69 Monterroso Checa70 recently disputed this reading, and placed the temple on the top of the cavea but inside its perimeter; the platform protruding from the latter should be interpreted, according to him, as a staircase to the media and summa cavea. Furthermore, he maintains that the temple of Venus possessed a transversal cella71 (Figure 2.2). This suggestion has been accepted by more than one scholar,72 and thus needs to be analysed, particularly because temples with transversal cella are not very common. The arguments that Monterroso Checa73 presents concern architectural features: he maintains that the thickness of the northern and southern walls (made of peperino stone) of the platform where the temple should have stood, which is slightly less than 2 m, would not have been enough to sustain the weight of such a building placed at around 37 m from the ground. This is particularly because, since there is no evidence

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  59

Figure 2.1 Theatrical complex of Pompey in the Campus Martius. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Carandini 2012, pl. 220.

Figure 2.2 Theatre of Pompey according to the reconstruction of Monterroso Checa. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Monterroso Checa 2009a, 187, fig. 1.

of binding structures between them, the weight would have made them fall outwards: in fact, he considers them a self-supporting structure. Furthermore, Monterroso Checa adds, the space between the two walls is too wide to allow the construction of a vault that would have directed the weight

60  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs towards them. The scholar also disputes the presence of the apse of the temple, asserting that there is no autoptic evidence for it and, if it exists, it is not possible to verify its chronology. He therefore offers a series of examples of theatres that present a similar protruding structure, often hosting a staircase.74 While fascinating, this interpretation presents some issues that merit consideration. It is surely not possible to verify the presence or the chronology of the apsis of the temple that Baltard drew in his plan of the theatre, mainly because the scholar himself admits to having found evidence of it only in old reports.75 It is also true, however, that the survey of the French architect, upon verification of the position of some structures with modern technologies, has proved to have been very accurate,76 so it might be supposed at least that he thoroughly checked the data in his possession. Moreover, it is difficult to ignore the fact that the façade of Palazzo Pio towards Campo dei Fiori follows a curved line that seems to

Figure 2.3 Reconstruction plan of the theatre of Pompey. In black, the documented structures; in grey, the reconstruction proposed by Filippi et al. 2015b. The letter A marks a staircase surveyed by the authors; letter B marks a staircase seen by Pellegrini at the end of the 19th century; letter C marks a staircase seen by Baltard at the beginning of the 19th century. Source: Filippi et al. 2015b, 357, fig. 12.

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  61 correspond to the curved wall on Baltard’s plan77: its chronology can be reasonably questioned, but it seems more difficult to do so with regard to its presence. With regard to the inadequacy of the thickness of the walls of the platform to sustain a structure like a temple placed at 37 m from the ground, doubts can be raised78; it is also not clear why Monterroso Checa considers this platform as a self-supporting structure, when it would be easier to suppose that it leaned on the cavea of the theatre, and that it was toothed to it. This might also explain the hypothesised presence, on the western end of the central radial walls of the theatre in correspondence to the platform, of two chambers79 (see Figure 2.3), presence suggested by the shorter length of the (known) radial walls of the theatre in that sector. Furthermore, a part of these structures is showed on the plan published by Baltard in 1837 (Figure 2.4). Unfortunately this area is no longer accessible, due to the superimposition of modern buildings80; nevertheless, Baltard’s survey has proven to be very accurate, and his documentation can therefore be used for areas that are no longer accessible.81

Figure 2.4 Plan of the theatre of Pompey drawn by V. Baltard and published in Monuments antiques, relevés et restaurés par les architectes pensionnaires de l'Académie de France à Rome (1912), Vol. 2. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

62  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs Monterroso Checa82 also argues that the two walls of the platform are too far from one another (16 m) to allow them to be bound by vaults in order to sustain the weight of the temple, which could not be borne by anything else, as the space between them ‘is empty.’ Nevertheless, when he reconstructs a staircase between them, he hypothesises a third parallel wall between these two.83 The examples that Monterroso Checa draws on in order to demonstrate his point are various and are taken both from Italy and from the provinces.84 However, in most of the buildings where the platform protruding from the cavea has been interpreted as a staircase on the basis of archaeological evidence, the theatre is only partly exaggeratum, since the ima cavea still leans on a slope. This implies that in these buildings it was impossible to build internal staircases between the radial walls of the cavea, and the only way to access the seats was therefore either from the aditus or from an external staircase. This is not the case for Pompey’s theatre though, where evidence of internal staircases, with travertine steps, has been found85; it is therefore difficult to understand why there would have been the need to build an additional staircase outside the cavea. In the case of theatres built in plano, such as the one of Carsulae or Iguvium,86 the presence of an external staircase is justified by the lack of evidence for the presence of internal staircases in the cavea. A particular case is that of Saepinum,87 where the theatre leaned against the city walls, and the external staircase protruding from the cavea provided therefore a direct access from the outside of the city to the theatre. Finally, it has to be noted that Sear,88 contesting Richardson’s suggestion that the squares in fragment 39f of the Forma Urbis Romae represent trees and not columns, presents other examples of theatres with temples protruding considerably from the cavea, such as the one in Caesarea (whose chronology has been established between 25 and 10 BC89). In addition to these observations, the hypothesis of an external staircase has been disproved by Packer.90 The excavations carried out in the area of the structure protruding from the cavea between 2002 and 2011 showed that the space was earlier occupied by a small temple, that was demolished at the time of the theatre’s construction; the space between the walls of the structure was open and public and it might be possible that on the upper floors it hosted rooms, perhaps used as lobbies.91 Lack of archaeological evidence for the temple of Venus Victrix also means that it is unfortunately not possible to reconstruct its architectural aspect or decorative programme in the Pompeian phase. What might be argued is that its location on the protruding platform would have strengthened the impression of the cavea as a staircase to it, whereas, if it had stood inside the perimeter of the theatre, the illusion would have been less powerful. 2.3.2 The Presence (or not) of a Scaenae Frons A second point of debate is related to the scaenae frons; in particular, whether it was made of stone or of wood at Pompey’s time (and therefore if it was a permanent or a temporary structure). The question is not just an

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  63 erudite one, but it impacts on the broader problem of the vectors of visibility in the complex. The scaenae frons that is shown on the Forma Urbis, fragment 39de, is commonly considered to be either the reconstruction after the fire of 80 AD92 or to belong to the Severan period93; that part of the theatre was in fact repeatedly destroyed by fires.94 For this reason, and also for a question of visual perspectives from the curia in the portico to the temple of Venus, there are some who hypothesise that, in Pompey’s time, the scaenae frons was a wooden structure,95 and could thus be removed; however, the majority of the scholars agree that it was made of stone, and they maintain that a wooden structure would not have been compatible with the grandiosity of the rest of the theatre.96 In this respect, it has to be pointed out that even if it is appealing to imagine a line of vision going from the curia to the temple of Venus, facilitated by the presence of two groves of plane trees, one on each half of the area enclosed by the porticoes, the efforts of late Republican magistrates were directed to the scaenae frontes of temporary theatres, so Pompey would have hardly renounced to a magnificient one. At the same time, the extreme luxury and grandiosity of the temporary scaenae frons set up by M. Aemilius Scaurus97 during his aedileship a few years earlier, in 58 BC, demonstrates that such a structure did not need to be permanent to inspire awe. In the absence of secure archaeological data regarding the Pompeian phase of it,98 the problem will remain unsolved. However, the passage where Suetonius99 reports that Augustus moved the statue of Pompey from the curia to the top of a marble arch placed contra theatri eius (of Pompey) regiam is not, in my opinion, to be taken as a proof of the existence of a permanent scaenae frons at that time.100 In fact, it might be highlighted that regiam has mostly been translated not as an adjective but as a noun meaning ‘a roofed colonnade, basilica, portico’,101 without reference to the theatre’s stage and its valva regia. 2.3.3 The Decorative Programme Being a monument built for propagandistic purposes, the Pompeian complex presented a vast decorative programme that has received much attention.102 Since, as mentioned above, scant archaeological evidence concerning the complex is available, debates are mainly based on the evidence provided by the literary sources. Nevertheless, on the whole, the picture of the monument’s decoration can only be very partially reconstructed, particularly because, even if fragments or entire statues were found in the area of the Pompeian complex,103 their relationship to its original decoration is not always verifiable.104 The same problem concerns the literary sources: works of art described or mentioned by authors who lived after the Augustan refurbishment might not belong to the original Pompeian project, but might be the result of a later addition or modification. In addition, other parts of the architectural decoration such as the portico’s or the temple’s friezes, or the decoration of the scaenae frons, are completely unknown to us. The interpretations of the decorative programme of the complex that have been

64  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs offered by scholars are therefore necessarily founded on suppositions, and those presented in this book are no exception. Cadario105 has convincingly argued that, because of its propagandistic importance, the decoration of the complex was carefully set up: in fact, Cicero shows that Pompey asked the orator’s friend Atticus for help in order to obtain and place the statues to be displayed in it.106 Furthermore, Sauron suggested that behind the project of the complex the presence of Varro might be recognised.107 It is thus plausible to affirm that both the decoration and the architectural form of the monument had been accurately planned, since they had to convey a series of messages which were fundamental for the general’s public image. Atticus’ involvement in the choice and placement of the statues implies that it was not enough for Pompey to display his triumphal booty, but that he needed an expert to organise the decoration of his complex. Some possible and perhaps co-existing interpretations are presented below, in order to make sense of the available evidence and compare it with what is known about Pompey’s political plans and self-promotion. 2.3.3.1 Coponius’ Nationes There are some elements that can be securely linked to the decoration of the complex as it was before the Augustan interventions of 23 BC. The presence of 14 statues representing the populations (nationes) that Pompey had subdued is confirmed by Suetonius108 and particularly Pliny,109 who also indicates Coponius as their author. Where these statues were located in the complex is however a matter of debate, since if Pliny says circa Pompeium, Suetonius provides an even more vague ad Pompei theatrum. Many scholars have placed them, for reasons of denomination, in the porticus ad Nationes,110 which nevertheless, as noted above, was most probably built during the Augustan age; furthermore, its identification with the Hecatostylum of the Forma Urbis Romae, which seems to correspond to the porticus Lentulorum111 is now doubted.112 La Rocca113 suggested that these statues were previously placed on the northern side of (or perhaps around) the porticus post scaenam, and subsequently moved to the porticus Lentulorum; on the other hand, because of Pliny’s use of the preposition circa (which indicates a circular disposition), Monterroso Checa and Cadario114 place them around the portico that ran along the top of the theatre cavea. A further suggestion is that of Gagliardo and Packer,115 who hypothesise their location at the top of the scaenae frons. Coarelli and Palma Venetucci116 identified the 14 nations in a series of statues discovered in the area of the theatrical complex: the Melpomene (now at the Petit Palais in Paris), the Ceres-Demetra (at the Vatican Museums), the Urania Farnese (at the National Museum of Naples), three statues from Palazzo Borghese, the Tusnelda Della Valle (Florence, Loggia dei Lanzi), and the Girl of Palazzo Doria. Nevertheless, these statues have been subsequently identified as a group of Muses117; Cadario118 has argued most convincingly that since stylistic differences can be identified in

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  65 the statues, these cannot correspond to the 14 Nations of Coponius, which would have been the result of a single order. Already from this example it can be clearly seen that, even if it is possible to know with certainty that the statues of the Nationes had been commissioned by Pompey, their aspect and position in relation to the complex are most likely impossible to determine, highlighting the fact that any interpretation of the propagandistic messages of the building is necessarily hypothetical. One thing, however, can be said: they were clearly a reference to the conquest of the oikoumene by Pompey. 2.3.3.2 Mirabiles Fama Effigies Pliny119 also informs us of the presence in the complex of mirabiles fama effigies (statues or portraits which were exceptional because of their fame), and provides the names of Eutyches of Tralles (who had given birth to 30 children) and Alcippe (who had given birth to an elephant). In a well-known article, Coarelli120 noticed that in the oration Ad Graecos of the Christian apologist Tatian the same two statues are mentioned in a list of other statues which the author himself had seen in Rome.121 Furthermore, a ‘Mystis’ is also included, whose name also appears in an inscription found in the storage room of Largo Argentina, and therefore, Coarelli thinks, most probably coming from the Pompeian complex.122 The scholar therefore hypothesised that some of the other statues listed by Tatian could have been among the number of those included in the portico of Pompey, although he maintains that some of them were most likely not located there.123 Coarelli singled out the representations of Phryne, Glykera, Argeia, Neaera, Lais, Pannychis, Sapphos, Corinna, Telesilla, Melanippe, Praxilla, Myro, Anyte, Alkippe, Pasiphae, Besantis, and Euante, but Evans124 and Cadario125 added all the other ones mentioned by Tatian to the list: Learchis, Erinna, Myrtis, Praxagoris, Cleito, Mnesarchis, Thaliarchis, Panteuchis, Harmonia, a ‘woman with bracelets’ and other statues of famous men. The latter stance seems the more sensible one, since, although Coarelli’s selection is clearly justifiable (he chooses the statues connected with the themes of Venus, theatre, and poetry), it will be seen below that other themes might have also been present in the decoration of the theatre. Since the inscription with the name of Mystis and four fragments of similar inscriptions have been found on three different sides of the porticus post scaenam, it is very likely that the statues were located inside the portico,126 even though Pliny describes them as ornamenta theatri.127 According to the different interpretations presented by the scholars, the statues of women can be divided into different groups: 1 2

Those related to the cult of the Pompeian Venus and those related to the sphere of theatre and poetry128; Nine mortal Muses, nine ‘lesser mortal’ Muses, theatrical heroines, marvels of nature129;

66  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs 3 4

Women poets, immoral women (women who had remarkable births and courtesans), mythical heroines130; One group representing the female intellect, the other group the female body.131

At the beginning of paragraph 33 of his oration, where Tatian presents the first part of the list of statues under consideration, the apologist reacts to the opinion of the Greeks, who, he says, jeer at the discussions of Christian women, boys, and girls, considering them nonsensical. He answers that Greek women talked nonsensically too, and nonetheless some of them were represented in statues, which testifies to the madness of the Greeks’ behaviour. This first sub-list begins with Praxilla (who ‘said nothing useful in her poems’) and ends with Thaliarchis; since Praxilla is clearly a poet, and some of the other women mentioned are known to be poets, it seems highly probable that this was the occupation of all women at the beginning of his list. As mentioned, some of them are known to us,132 such as:

The other women mentioned among them are unknown to us, but they are thought to be poets as well: Learchis, Praxagoris, Cleito, Mystis,141 Mnesarchis, and Thaliarchis. Evans142 includes a Nossis as well, but Cadario143 correctly notes that Nossis was a conjecture in order to correct the name Mystis, not otherwise attested before Coarelli’s144 article, on the manuscripts. This group, as Cadario145 states, is therefore to be considered as composed of 14 poets.146 As far as the other women are concerned, a group of them were famous for their prodigious childbirths: as stated above, Alcippe gave birth to an elephant147 and Eutyche had 30 children; Euante, daughter of Dionysos and Ariadne,148 gave birth in the Peripathos149; Besantis, queen of the Paeonians, had a black child.150 It is here suggested that Pasiphae and Melanippe should be added to this list, since the first one bore the Minotaur, and the second had two children by Poseidon, and they were raised by a cow151; perhaps Panteuchis has to be added as well, since she became pregnant after having been raped.152

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  67 The last group is made up of at least four courtesans:

It would be very appealing to put in relation the presence of this latter woman to the verses 10–12 of Catullus’ carmen 55157: ‘Camerium mihi, pessimae puellae!’ Quaedam inquit, nudum reduc, ‘en, hic in roseis latet papillis’.158 ‘Give me back Camerius, you shameful girls!’ One of them says, stripping her breasts: ‘here, he hides between my pink nipples’. In fact, it is said by Athenaeus159 that the breasts of Lais from Corinth had been used as a model by painters such as Apelles. Among the courtesans, Coarelli160 includes Argeia as well, even if Tatian161 only says that she was a lyre player, and Pannychis, who is not listed by Tatian; Evans162 includes Mystis among them. The fact that images of famous courtesans were placed in public locations was appreciated from the 4th century BC onwards163; for example, Plutarch164 reports the dedication of a portrait of the courtesan Flora in the temple of the Castores by Caecilius Metellus, and their presence in the Pompeian complex, as noted by Kuttner,165 might be a reference to the temple of Venus Erycina outside Porta Collina in Rome, where prostitutes worshipped Venus on 23rd April, dies natalis of the temple and date of the Vinalia Priora.166 Another interesting interpretation has been suggested by Evans.167 The scholar points out that Phryne, Glycera, Lais, and Neaera were in fact names of famous courtesans (she also adds Mystis to the list), but they were also the names of characters of some Greek comedies: Glycera and Lais168 featured in two plays of Menander, Neaera was the title of two comedies by Philemon and Timocles169 and Phryne was the name of a prostitute in a play of Timocles.170 Evans171 notes that the representation of comedy heroines would be more logical inside a theatrical complex, and she also adds that Melanippe, who is called ‘the wise’ by Tatian,172 perhaps as a reference to the tragedy Melanippe sophé by Euripides, might represent one of a group of tragic heroines (even though, as argued above, she could be inserted among the ‘natural marvels’). Tatian did not recognise them as such because these women were most probably represented without any recognisable characteristic other than the saffron-coloured pallium which denoted

68  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs them as courtesans173; nevertheless, if, as Evans hypothesises, the connotation of comedy heroines was expressed by the inscription of the statues, Tatian would have read it, since he knows the names of the women represented. However, it is also true that in Roman society there was an established connection between the profession of actress and that of prostitute,174 and the Christian apologist could probably have exploited this bias in favour of his attack against Greek costumes. This interpretation has been questioned by Cadario,175 who, while admitting that the theatrical theme was present in the decoration of the building,176 maintains that Phryne, Glycera, Neaera, and Lais were renowned more as courtesans than as main characters of comedies.177 He therefore believes it to be very unlikely that people could recognise them in this latter role, even if they were probably represented with the iconography of the actress (or actor) that impersonates a courtesan,178 particularly because the inscription of the statue would have reported the profession of the character and not her literary success.179 Both interpretations can be reconciled, as one does not exclude the other. At Pompey’s time, most people, even those who were not educated or who could not read, would have most likely recognised the type of the prostitute by the attitude and the clothes in which these women were probably represented, and would have connected it both to the general theatrical environment and to the profession of the character. People who could read Greek,180 would have read their names and maybe their profession of ἑταίραι; more educated people could have also made all the mental connections with the historical biographies of those women and the story of their literary counterparts.181 It might be possible, therefore, that these statues represented both the courtesans and the corresponding comedy heroines at the same time, making in this way reference to both the theatrical environment and to the above mentioned connection between courtesans and the cult of Venus.182 Τhe presence of the statue of Harmonia (if it was there in Pompey’s time) might be interpreted in a different way. She could be read as the personification of the concept expressed by her name183; this would be in agreement with some aspects of Pompey’s ideology at the end of the sixties – beginning of the fifties, when he tried to present himself as the guarantor of stability. In any case, Harmonia was the daughter of Ares and Aphrodite as well as the wife of Cadmus,184 and she was also considered the mother of the Muses185: her presence would therefore fit with the messages and the other characters presented in the complex.186 2.3.3.3 Statues of Men In Tatian’s list, among the women that he considers shameful and unworthy of being immortalised in works of art, there is space, as mentioned before, for some male figures: Sophron and Aesop.187 These two characters might fit

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  69 with the presence of other ‘intellectuals’ in the complex,188 and the same can be valid for the possible existence of statues of philosophers.189 If actually present in the original decorative apparatus of the Pompeian complex, they might have been a counterpart to the statues of female poets mentioned above. The Christian apologist also includes Phalaris, who was considered as the stereotype of the cruel and ruthless tyrant,190 and Hephaestion; this latter character might have been part of a group of statues of Macedonians, as the presence of an inscription for a statue of Seleucos might suggest.191 To these statues, connected with the heroic-military theme, a torso of a male statue found in the area of Largo Argentina might be added.192 As it will be seen below, these themes would be congruous with the ideology of triumph expressed by the Pompeian complex, as well as with the desire of Pompey to be compared with Alexander the Great. 2.3.3.4 Paintings Cadario193 puts these statues, related to the ‘Alexandrian’ ideology of Pompey, in connection with a painting representing the great Macedonian general, which was executed by Nicias and which Pliny places in the portico in a very prominent location.194 Other paintings adorned Pompey’s porticoes, and the ones we know about, thanks to Pliny, are probably only few of them: one, painted by Antiphilus, represented Cadmos and Europa195; another featured a sacrifice of oxen and had been a work of Pausias.196 Finally, a work of Polygnotos represented a man holding a shield; according to our source it was not possible to tell if he was ascendens or descendens.197 This last painting was originally placed just outside the curia Pompeia, and moved when Augustus walled up the place after Caesar’s murder. The meaning that these pictures might have had within the broader Pompeian ideology expressed by the theatrical complex has not often been discussed. Apart from the obvious connection between Alexander’s portrait and Pompey’s desire to be compared to him, Cadario198 suggests that the presence of Cadmos and Europa is directly connected to the insistence on geographical themes that characterised both Pompey’s triumphs and the theatre itself (for example, through the statues of the Nations); the subject of this picture would be an allusion to myths connected to Asia. The man holding a shield mentioned by Pliny is interpreted as an apobates, one of the athletes who during the celebration of the Panathenaia competed in a chariot race by stepping on and off running chariots, so re-enacting the games in which the Homeric heroes took part. This is seen as an allusion to the ludi in the Circus Maximus that took place for the inauguration of the theatre, even if the scholar also underlines that the presence of this artwork might also be justified by the simple artistic valour of a picture of Polygnotus.199 However, Gros200 suggests that the man pictured there has to be identified with Capaneus, one of the heroes who fought with Polynices in the myth of the Seven against Thebes. The painting representing the sacrifice of

70  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs oxen has been studied by Brendel,201 who recognised it as the prototype of the representation of sacrifices of bovines in Roman art. Cadario202 argues that these pictures were already part of Pompey’s project for the decoration of his complex, as were the curtains or tapestries203; the scholar points to the presence of tabulae pictae and vestes attalicae among the ornaments retrieved by Aemilius Scaurus when his wooden theatre was dismantled a few years earlier204 as a hint that those objects were already used in the middle of the 1st century BC. Furthermore, to back his argument he refers to Varro,205 who mentioned the aulea attalica and Sardiana tapeta, and to the fact that, according to Pliny206 Polygnotus’ painting was originally located ante curiam, but then moved.207 2.3.3.5 Pompey’s Statue The last piece of decoration that can be certainly referred to Pompey’s time is a statue (or one of the statues) of the general, which was the result of a public dedication,208 placed inside the curia Pompeia in a very prominent position.209 Cadario210 places the dedication of this statue in 52 BC, since he hypothesises that the exaedra on the eastern side of the portico had not been used as a meeting place for the Senate from the beginning, but only after the funerals of Clodius on 18th January 52 and the consequent fire of the curia Hostilia. In fact, at that time Pompey still held the proconsular imperium (he could not therefore enter the pomerium), he had yet to be made consul and was afraid of being assassinated by Milo, so he persuaded the Senate to meet inside his complex.211 However, it has to be highlighted that Plutarch reports that the statue was dedicated ‘when he adorned the place with the porticoes and the theatre’,212 thus probably as a consequence of both the complex’ dedication and Pompey’s second consulship, in 55 BC. It must be also added that, at the time, Pompey had been curator annonae since the end of 57 BC213: although throughout 56 BC he was probably allowed case-by-case dispensations by the Senate to cross the pomerium,214 there were instances in which the Senate had to meet outside of it in order to allow Pompey to take part to the debate.215 He was also already fearing for his life.216 He might thus have planned in advance a curia inside his complex, thinking that it might have been of use in the future, especially when, after the conference of Luca in April 56, he and Crassus were destined to be consuls in the following year, and then proconsuls as a consequence (in 55, the lex Trebonia,217 proposed by a tribune, but certainly fostered by Pompey, conferred him the proconsulate in Hispania Citerior and Ulterior for five years). The aspect of the statue is not known218; the most widely accepted interpretation219 identifies it with the Pompeo Spada exhibited in Palazzo Spada in Rome. Coarelli220 states that the stylistic characteristics of it are compatible with a late Republican chronology (the head is a 14th-century refurbishment), and that the presence of the sphere does not constitute a problem:

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  71 in fact, this element appears on a coin minted by Faustus Sulla in 56 BC in honour of Pompey himself, with a likely reference to his third triumph in 61 BC.221 Nevertheless, this identification is challenged by various scholars, who attribute it to the Flavian or Trajanic periods, or to Domitian222; Cadario223 suggests that because of the public dedication it is probable that the statue was wearing the habitus consularis.224 La Rocca,225 on the contrary, hypothesises that the statue portrayed Pompey as Poseidon, perhaps with his foot on a ship’s prow, or a personification of a defeated nation, or a panoply of weapons. What it is possible to say, though, is that, although the public dedication of the statue could have been ‘directed’ by Pompey himself, and it surely is the evidence of the general’s popularity, it cannot be included in the original decoration project for the complex. Any analysis of the whole monument must thus take this factor into account. 2.3.3.6 Other Statues The sources report the existence of other statues in the complex, but it is not possible to establish whether they were already part of Pompey’s decorative programme or a later addition. The first group is made up of statues of wild animals, whose presence next to plane trees226 is attested by Martial227; Palma Venetucci228 interprets them as a reference to Pompey’s wars against the pirates (in this way the complex would have made reference to all the wars that the general fought). She connects them to a passage of Plutarch’s Life of Pompey,229 where the author casts a comparison between wild beasts and pirates. However, it can here be noticed that, if they belong to the original project, they might have been simply a reference to the wild beasts hunts held in the Circus Maximus on the occasion of the dedication of the theatre.230 The second group, whose chronology is uncertain, is that of the statues decorating the fountains along the central path of the portico framed by the two plane groves: their first mention is to be found in Propertius.231 The author describes statues of Triton232 and of Maro; Cadario notes that this latter character is more rare and is normally connected to the Dionysiac theme,233 which was frequent in late Republican private gardens.234 He considers then as possible that these statues were part of the original project, pointing to the parallel established by Pliny between Pompey and Dionysos as conqueror of India235 and considering it an element of the Pompeian propaganda.236 Two statues of Hercules, both now in the Vatican Museums, were also found in the area of the theatre of Pompey. The first one was discovered in 1507, and represents Hercules with his son Telephus; the other, made of gilded bronze and representing Hercules resting his club on the ground, had been struck by a lightning and ritually buried south of the platform for the temple of Venus Victrix, near the cavea.237 Davies hypothesises that they might have decorated the scaenae frons of the theatre.238 The same location,

72  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs and the function of stage supports, is assigned to two colossal statues of Pan, discovered in that area; they might have belonged to the theatre’s original project, as one of them is made of Greek marble and can be dated to that phase.239 Furthermore, a statue of Victory mentioned by Cassius Dio240 might also have been located on the scaenae frons of Pompey’s theatre. 2.3.3.7 Trees A characteristic feature of the Pompeian complex that can be attributed to the time of its dedication is the presence of plane trees,241 organised in what Martial calls nemus duplex.242 Already common in the gardens in Rome,243 this species of tree was connected to the cults of Venus and Dionysos, which had such importance in the general’s propaganda244 and can justify its presence there. Furthermore, since the plane tree was considered to have Asiatic origin, it recalled the Asiatic location of the last triumph of its promoter.245 Cadario points out that, apart from evoking a literary environment, this species of tree was recommended by Vitruvius246 in order to offer some shade in the gymnasia.247 The porticus post scaenam of Pompey’s theatre looks indeed like a Greek gymnasium, a model that had already been exploited in other theatrical contexts in the Roman world.248 If the detachment from pedagogic and sport-related activities had already become a reality in the Greek gymnasia of the 4th century BC,249 the most important innovation of Pompey’s portico would have been, according to Coarelli,250 the presence of the heroic cult of its promoter. In fact, according to him, the curia Pompeia in the portico had most probably a temple-like aspect, which means that Pompey’s statue, situated inside it, acquired the characteristics of a divine effigy, connoting the place as a heroon. Being on the main eastwest axis of the complex, the statue was also in direct relationship with the temple of Venus and therefore with the goddess herself.251 However, for the reasons mentioned above, this cannot have been a message included in the initial project – at least not with as strong a connotation. 2.3.4 A Place for a Hero? It is from similar considerations to Coarelli’s that Sauron252 starts his interpretation of the Pompeian complex. He states that the real innovation of Pompey was the decoration programme that was displayed inside the portico, as well as the iconography of the statue of Pompey in the curia253: he considers it to be that of a mythical hero, to which the portrait of Pompey and the symbol of the kosmokrator had been added. The key point, according to Sauron, is the relationship between the statue of Pompey as a hero and those of the women: people would have recognised there the theme of the hero visiting the Underworld and meeting groups of heroines, as Ulysses did.254 The three groups that Pompey as a hero encounters are,

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  73 as noted above, the courtesans, the poets, and the women who had exceptional births, who can be connected, respectively, to the goddesses Venus, Minerva, and Juno.255 These three goddesses were also the protagonists of the myth of Paris’ judgement, and this is the reason why the Venus worshipped in the theatre’s temple has the epithet of Victrix; similarly, the other divine qualities hosted in the nearby sacella have a reference to Minerva (Honos and Virtus seen as the talent of the individual – in the Pompeian complex the poetic talent) and to Juno (Felicitas intended as fertility).256 In this context, Pompey would have been presented as under the protection of a Venus who, having won Paris’ judgement, is the guarantor of the victories of Rome and of its imperator; furthermore, he would also feature as the hero who visited the Underworld while alive, equalling the deeds of Hercules and Dionysos.257 Starting from this interpretation of the portico’s decorative programme, Sauron then suggests an analysis of the whole complex through the topography presented in Homer’s works: the cavea of the theatre (where the Trojan myths were staged) represented the oikoumene, above which the gods stand (Venus, Honos and Virtus, Felicitas). The porta regia of the scaena symbolised the entrance to the Underworld, illustrated in the portico.258 This interesting reading of Pompey’s monument has recently been convincingly challenged by Cadario259; as explained above, the statues of the women included in Tatian’s description (if they can all be linked to the portico of Pompey) were probably only a small part of the statues hosted in the complex, and while they (or at least those of Eutyches and Melanippe) may be attributed to the original project, the statue representing Pompey in the curia is the result of a public dedication, and cannot therefore have been included in the original iconographic programme (even if it can be argued that this does not exclude a symbolic reading of the theatre and of the temple on it). Furthermore, the courtesans and the women that had extraordinary births should be seen in relation to Venus, with allusions to her power of seduction, fertility, and eros; whereas for the women poets, whose presence would be proper in a theatre in any case, there might have been an allusion to the erotic themes of their poems. The presence of statues of women was therefore more likely meant to emphasise the centrality of Venus in the complex and her role as protector of Pompey.260 2.3.5 A Gymnasium for Promenades and Otium Referring back to the derivation of Pompey’s portico from the model of the gymnasium, Cadario261 has also highlighted that one of the main themes that emerges from the written sources in relation to the complex is the act of frequenting it in order to go for a walk. The idea of the stroll as a social activity had begun to be introduced in the Greek world around the end of the 5th century BC, and the portico of Pompey was the first structure in Rome to offer adequate space for it and for the citizens’ otium.262 This space was

74  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs nevertheless characterised by a decorative setting that referred to the world from which it derived, but because of the presence of the gardens and of other elements it also bore a reference to the houses of the élite.263 Wallace-Hadrill264 states that it was not the porticus themselves that created the mental connection with the Greek gymnasia, but the way in which they were fitted out.265 It was the fact that Pompey decorated his portico with statues, paintings, and gardens that facilitated its reading as a space for leisure, and even more, it was because he decorated the portico with works of art from Greece that the place could evoke a defined Greek context.266 Pompey’s purpose was therefore to present to his public a space that had to be perceived as a Greek gymnasium. This type of building was originally used in Greece for athletic and military training, and, particularly because Pompey’s monument was located in the Campus Martius, it was most probably meant to evoke that original function to the majority of the Roman population: in Cicero’s De oratore, one of the protagonists, the illustrious orator L. Licinius Crassus, states that those buildings had been devised by the Greeks exercitationis et delectationis causa (for training and leisure), and not for philosophical discussion.267 By decorating it with statues, fountains, and gardens Pompey wanted to stress the aspect connected to entertainment and relaxation, that is, in Latin words, to otium. 2.3.6 Further Interpretations – A Statesman’s Project The description of the complex and the interpretations of it summarised above show how problematic it is to attempt a reconstruction of the decorative programme that Pompey had in mind. As already underlined, the monument should be considered primarily a triumphal one: it clearly celebrated the figure and deeds of Pompey himself through the centrality given to his protector goddess and through the constant reference to his victorious campaigns, thanks to its architectural typology and parts of the decoration. Davies268 even argued that through his complex Pompey framed himself as king. It has to be added, though, that some scholars pointed out that the typology of the imperial fora can already be glimpsed in the Pompeian complex,269 that its construction offered an alternative focus to the Roman Forum for the city’s population,270 and that the open space of the portico in the complex paralleled the Forum.271 So what more can it tell us about Pompey’s politics and the dynamics of power during the 50s BC? A more detailed analysis of its architectural organisation can yield further insights. 2.3.6.1 Curia-Comitium, Curia-Theatrum If the complex aimed at moving the focus away from the original political heart of the city, the Roman Forum, it is then necessary to look back to it, and in particular to the structure of the old Republican complex of the

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  75 curia – comitium, in the reconstruction proposed by Coarelli (Figure 2.5). Analysing the sources, Coarelli proposed a reconstruction of the curia – comitium complex placing the curia on its northern side, the Rostra opposite the curia, the Graecostasis on the western side and the tribunals of the praetors on the northern side of the comitium, in front of the curia.272 Furthermore, he suggested that the comitium was a circular building, similar to the Greek ekklesiasteria or to some other examples of comitia in the Roman colonies (the most notable one is the comitium of Cosa) since the beginning of the 3rd century BC.273 While the circular shape of the comitium is still a matter of debate,274 what is interesting here is to point out that the Rostra, that have been excavated, certainly followed a curved line from the phase 5 of the comitium (first half of the 3rd century BC).275 The comitium, and particularly the Rostra inside it, was the place where originally the comitia tributa took place, as well as some contiones; it was therefore the place where the people as a civic body held some of their assemblies and were summoned by magistrates and could, in the forms established by Roman law, express their will and, in the case of contiones, being informed or externate its approval or rejection. In fact, Cicero, in his oration Pro Sestio, delivered in 56 BC (therefore one year before the dedication of the Pompeian complex), stated276:

Figure 2.5 The curia-comitium complex of the Forum Romanum after Coarelli 1983. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Coarelli 1983, 139, fig. 39.

76  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs Etenim tribus locis significari maxime de re publica populi Romani iudicium ac voluntas potest, contione, comitiis, ludorum gladiatorumque consessu. In fact, the opinion and the will of the Roman people on the subject of politics can be most clearly expressed on three occasions: during the public assemblies, during the comitia, and during the shows of the ludi and of the gladiatorial games. From this passage, as well as from another one where Cicero refers to the theatre and the curia in Rhodes as the two places where political decisions were taken,277 it can be inferred that not only comitia, but also theatres were considered a place for politics in which it was possible for the people to convene (especially during the late Republic). According to Frézouls278 this is one of the reasons why the optimates were so hostile to the construction of a permanent theatre inside the Urbs. Considering the shape and functions of the comitium and Cicero’s statements, as well as the importance that theatres began to acquire as places for the expression of political opinion during the late Republic, it is possible to draw the attention back to the Pompeian complex. As stated above, it was composed of a theatre (on its western side), a curia279 on the opposite side, and a porticus; on the eastern side of this porticus, in front of the curia, justice was administered.280 It can be noticed therefore that the Pompeian complex hosted some of the most important functions of the curia-comitium complex, and in the same relative topographical position (Figure 2.6); furthermore, it did so in a historical moment in which most parts of the Republican comitium in the Roman Forum had already been obliterated by consecutive refurbishments (the last of which had taken place under Sulla), and thus the curia-comitium complex did not represent the collaboration between the Senate and the popular assemblies anymore. Pompey’s monument, then, could have been conceived, at a theoretical level, as a reproduction, on a much larger scale, of the curia-comitium complex of the Forum.281 There are clearly some striking differences: the similarity does not imply that the theatre of Pompey was used exactly as the Rostra in the Forum. Nevertheless, because of its typology, the theatre was tied to the idea of Greek democracy,282 and during the late Republic strong political messages were conveyed in those buildings through dramatic performances.283 It is not easy to answer the question of who might have understood the reference of the Pompeian complex to the curia-comitium complex; however, Cicero’s statements show that at least the upper class would have linked the theatre with the public assemblies. Furthermore, one has to consider a very important factor: up to Pompey’s time, the only curia Senatus was the curia Hostilia/Cornelia (the other curiae were mainly used on the occasion of sacred festivals). It is plausible therefore that the presence, on one side, of a building reminiscent of popular assemblies and, on the opposite

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  77

Figure 2.6 Comparison between the curia-comitium complex of the Forum Romanum and the theatrical complex of Pompey: (a) curia-comitium complex and (b) theatrical complex of Pompey. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Coarelli 1983, 139, fig. 39 and Carandini 2012, pl. 220.

side, of the only other curia Senatus (before the reconstruction of the curia Hostilia and then, after its demolition, the building of the curia Iulia) could induce a mental connection with the traditional curia-comitium complex of the Roman Forum. The message was probably clear to senators, that had summoned Pompey in many times of crisis, and whose collaboration the commander always sought. It can be further noted that the position of the Augustan Porticus Lentulorum284 in relation to the curia and the theatre is similar to that of the Graecostasis of the comitium, the place where foreign ambassadors were received,285 with respect to the curia Hostilia and the Rostra (see Figure 2.6b). Another analogy that might be noticed between Pompey’s cavea and the Rostra can be then found in the characteristics of the Pompeian cult. Coarelli’s observations are relevant here: Plutarch286 refers to what happened during a ceremony for Mithridates, in which the king was being crowned by a Victory in a theatre; a very similar scene was later represented, but in a private context, by Metellus Pius in Spain, on the occasion of the

78  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs war against Sertorius.287 Therefore, in the celebrations for the dedication of the theatre by Pompey, with plays that represented his victories under the gaze of the goddess Venus Victrix, Coarelli288 underlines a strong reference to the power of the Hellenistic monarchs. However, it might also be noted that Plutarch289 reports the presence in the Volcanal, next to the Rostra of the comitium, of a statue of Romulus crowned by a Victoria; this would constitute another analogy between the theatre and the monument in the Forum, and would further prove the intention of Pompey to provide new spaces for public business, but away from the traditional political centre of the city and on private land (it will be seen below how Caesar responded to this political initiative). If this interpretation is correct, the fact that, in order to provide a new focal point for the city populace, Pompey chose a shape and topographical position of the functions of the complex which were reminiscent of the old political heart of the Republic290 tells us something about his conception of the new order that the Roman State should have taken. A fundamental difference with the curia-comitium complex of the Forum was that while the latter was dominated by the towering presence of the curia, in the former not only is the curia dwarfed by the dimension of the theatre, but both are on the same, lower plane in relation to the temple of the Pompeian goddess, Venus Victrix.291 If Coarelli292 is right in reconstructing a temple of Venus Victrix, dedicated by Sulla, at the top of the structure known as the ‘Tabularium’ of the Forum, it is easy to make a parallel between the position of the two sacred buildings in relation to the places meant for politics. Pompey, however, did not pursue Sulla’s same plans for the Republic. Apart from being a reference to the extraordinary military powers conferred to Pompey in the East, and to his consequent position of primus inter pares, the setting of his complex reset the balance between the two components of the Roman State, at the same time subjecting both of them to the gaze of the goddess, protector of the Roman people and guarantor of its predominance, who also happened to be the one who had favoured the great general. From this, the notion that Pompey was the right man for government might follow as a consequence. Keeping in mind this fundamental concept, it is necessary now to turn the attention to the porticus post scaenam. Taking into account the caveats about our knowledge of its decoration, it is important to note that usually the groups of statues and the pictures have been considered and analysed in separate groups, not in connection with one another. Nevertheless, there seems to be a theme that connects at least some of them: the cycle of Thebes. 2.3.6.1 ‘[…]flamma […] geminoque cacumine surgit Thebanos imitata rogos’ (Luc., I, 550–552) Coarelli293 observes that the statues of Eteocles and Polynices listed by Tatian,294 sculpted by Pythagoras, are to be connected to the seven statues of

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  79 the same sculptor described by Pliny,295 who said they were ad aedem Fortunae Huiusce Diei, therefore in the proximity of the Pompeian complex. In a recent article, Sande296 has convincingly suggested that the two authors might be speaking of two different groups of statues. The presence of statues of Eteocles and Polynices inside the portico of the theatre of Pompey could acquire an intriguing meaning. In the lists of other statues and paintings in the porticus, it might be noticed that some of their subjects are in fact in some way related to the Theban cycle:

Furthermore, some other characters share a connection with the city: Myrtis the poet came from Thebes, and was the master of Pindarus302; another one of her disciples, Corinna, wrote a ‘Seven against Thebes’303; the courtesan Phryne offered to rebuild Thebes after Alexander destroyed it.304 It is also to be taken into account that both divine models of Pompey, Hercules and Dionysus, had been born in Thebes.305 How were the city of Thebes and its myths perceived by the Romans, and so what reason might have led Pompey to insert this theme in his complex? The Theban material was present both in poems and in tragic poetry in the Greek world,306 but even in the Latin world, in the works of Pacuvius and Accius, in Ovid, Seneca, Lucan307 and clearly in Statius’ Thebaid. Braund308 has interestingly noticed that the myths of Thebes are more common in the literature of the late Republican period than in the Augustan age: this is clearly due to the fact that the myth, and the events of the Seven against Thebes in particular (which is the episode of Thebes’ mythology most commonly represented in ancient art309), was a reference to the civil war or, more generally, to Roman political tension.310 It is no coincidence that Accius, who died in 80 BC, wrote tragedies with a Theban theme, since, as Braund311 states, ‘we can readily accept the notion that any ancient poet’s choice of mythological material is likely to be imbued with significance for his contemporary audience.’ Thus, the possible presence of a statue group of (at least) Eteocles and Polynices and the other references to the vicissitudes of that city in Pompey’s

80  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs portico might be connected with what happened before Pompey’s return from the East to Rome. After his successes in the Eastern provinces, Pompey had increased his power and influence, and his return to Italy reminded a worried aristocracy of Sulla’s return to Italy from the East in 83 BC, which was followed by a series of bloody events ending up in his dictatorship and proscriptions. In contrast, Pompey decided to disband his troops and to return to Rome as a private citizen, after having also written some dispatches to the Senate at the beginning of 62 BC, in order to assure the assembly that he had no intentions of causing civil strife.312 The key for understanding the presence of the kings of the Seven against Thebes might be the presence of the painting of Alexander the Great (and perhaps of the statues of the Macedonians): as Alexander razed Thebes to the ground, sealing its downfall,313 Pompey returned to Rome with the firm intention to end the civil strife that had plagued it in its recent past and to restore social peace (there is nevertheless a fundamental difference between the two generals, which will be analysed below). 2.3.6.2 Guarantor of Social Peace How does this ideology fit in the frame of the historical events unfolding between the late 60s and the early 50s BC? The events that took place between the Catilinarian conspiracy and the dedication of the Pompeian theatre testify how difficult the situation in Rome was, and how Pompey, particularly after his Eastern campaigns, aimed at presenting himself as a moderate, as ‘the right man for government.’ He was in fact seeking both the approval of the people (for example, by backing Caesar, or through his cura annonae) and that of the Senate (for example, by working to recall Cicero from exile, or by repeatedly trying to become closer with Cato), aiming at presenting himself as a man who had social peace and welfare at heart. In this context, the observations of Frézouls314 are particularly interesting. He has tried to understand the political reasons for the construction of the theatre of Pompey, and has drawn the attention to the senatusconsultum of 64 BC, whereby the collegia ‘which appeared to be against the Republic’ were suppressed315; these collegia organised their own ludi, which were also forbidden as a consequence of the senatusconsultum. From the political utilisation of the collegia it can be inferred that their ludi were in some way connected to the current political events, and that therefore their suppression frustrated the population, both politically and on the entertainment level. The theatres became in this way the only place where the collective expression of political opinion was tolerated. Nevertheless, in January 58 Clodius re-established the collegia by means of a plebiscite, but, because of the use that the tribune made of them for his violent purposes, the Senate abolished again all the associations in February 56 BC. By building a stone theatre, Pompey could offer a permanent (and easily controllable) space that

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  81 responded to the entertainment needs of the population, without reconstituting the collegial ludi – a ‘solution of compromise’ and ‘a work of pacification and good sense.’316 For these reasons, one of the political messages underlying the Pompeian complex aimed to celebrate Pompey as the right man for government, the one who could re-establish, maintain and guarantee, under the protection of Venus Victrix, the concordia ordinum; the one who could ensure the domination on the Roman territories, thanks to his personal military ability and to the protection of the goddess; the one who could secure the moral and material prosperity of the State,317 putting himself at the service of the Republic. 2.3.7 Different Levels of Messages 2.3.7.1 Victory and Triumph The theatre of Pompey therefore expressed different messages at different levels. The basic message was very likely the one connected to Pompey’s military victories and triumphs, and could almost certainly be understood by everybody. The epithet of the goddess Venus, Victrix, was a clear reference to it, and the same must have been valid for the representations of the 14 nations conquered by the general, as well as for the ‘exotic’ (or at least ‘nonRoman’) environment exhibited in the portico. The impressive dimensions of the complex, a reflection of the greatness of Pompey’s successes, must have awed the population, that was most probably pleased by having been offered such an extensive and permanent (and comfortable) place for entertainment; in fact, it was the largest Roman theatre ever built.318 It seems that performances in public festivals or triumphal celebrations could attract diverse audiences, although the relative proportion of the different social classes is uncertain.319 The audience of a performance could be partly selected, but, as Manuwald320 observes, Cicero’s comments on the behaviour of audiences make sense only in the light of a certain freedom of access. As far as the aristocracy is concerned, by building a permanent stone theatre Pompey saw not only that his successes be remembered long after their celebration, but also that nobody could outdo his glory for promoting such a monument (or at least that it was very difficult and expensive in terms of money and time). Klar321 has in fact suggested that the reason wherefor Scipio Nasica approved the demolition of the stone theatre promoted by C. Cassius Longinus and M. Valerius Messalla in 154 BC was that otherwise he would have been denied the glory of building a scaenae frons and a temporary theatre for the games for his triumph. It is useful to remember that there was more than one similarity between what Aemilius Scaurus did during his spectacular aedileship – the dedication of an awe-inspiring temporary theatre, crammed with statues and adorned with attalicae vestes and tabulae pictae, the exhibition of many wild beasts (even of some that had never been seen before, such

82  Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs as a hippo) and of miracula during his games, the possession of a collection of gems322 – and what Pompey did during his triumph and on the occasion of the dedication of his theatre. Furthermore, the notable size of Pompey’s theatre implied that most probably it could be seen from the beginning of the via Triumphalis, where the triumphing generals and their armies crossed the river Tiber to enter the city. This meant that the monument forced every other triumphator to cast a (disadvantageous) comparison between themselves and the conqueror of the three known continents.323 2.3.7.2 A ‘Scipionic’ Man of Government It was said that an environment such as the portico324 was clearly meant to be perceived as a ‘Greek’ space, with statues that could be grouped into themes, following a typical Hellenistic taste for eclectism, and allowing the introduction of the ‘stroll’ as a social activity (as it was customary in Greece). In this way, Pompey was not only trying to transform the physical aspect of Rome, in order to contribute to its remodelling into a more Hellenistic (and hence ‘modern’) city, but also the habits of its inhabitants, thus ‘educating’ them towards the new cultural challenges posed by the expansion of the Roman territories. This aspect is particularly interesting if put in connection with the conception of the good man of government which, in Rome, has its origins in the ideology expressed by the Scipionic circle, subsequently re-elaborated following the evolving needs of the Roman State. The aim of the leader is to provide for the common good, and against the moral decadence of the citizens, since a society founded on good moral principles is also characterised by social order and peace; in order to achieve and maintain this, it is nevertheless necessary to continuously pursue those principles, and the leader must possess unselfishness, moderation, and wisdom, and seek glory for the service of the State.325 In light of this, it seems easier to understand the lavish display of the material benefits of Pompey’s conquests, his ‘perpetual triumph’ in the complex of the Campus Martius; the presence, next to Venus Victrix, of the sacella dedicated to Honos, Virtus, and Felicitas (and perhaps Victoria) acquires an even stronger significance as well. An attempt to moral admonishment might be grasped in the display of the statues of Eteocles and Polynices: in relation to the debate on the control of passions by men of government that was taking place in the late Republic,326 the two brothers fighting each other, a metaphor for civil war, can be seen as symbols of wrath. In fact, in the words of Cicero327 civil war is a time of iracundia,328 but the story of Eteocles and Polynices was used as an example against rage for moral educational purposes already in the 6th century BC.329 It is also interesting to note that both Plato and Xenocrates, whose statues, as seen, were perhaps present in the portico, discussed anger and control of passions in their works, and that the possible presence of a statue of Phalaris, the stereotype of the cruel tyrant, can be justified by the fact that tyrants were known to

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  83 330

be subject to wrath. Alexander the Great was also famous in the Greek world for his fits of anger,331 and, in particular, the destruction of Thebes was seen as a consequence of that.332 In contrast to the kings portrayed in the portico, Pompey was known to be moderate, and capable of controlling his passions333 and, in addition, the prominent position of the temple of Venus Victrix and of the connected sacella was clearly an affirmation of the fact that his actions were under the guide of that goddess and those ‘divine qualities,’ making the aforementioned statues an admonishment and a political statement. As mentioned, one of the aims of the good leader is to maintain social peace: that is concordia (ordinum). By creating a structure that in its topography of functions recalled the curia-comitium complex in the Forum, Pompey re-established the relationship between the two assemblies; furthermore, by subordinating them to Venus Victrix, Honos, Virtus, and Felicitas, he might have also tried to symbolise an intent of reunification of the divine entities that had been the respective protectors of two violently opposed factions in recent times.334 Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that the complex stood on private land, connected with Pompey’s private villa; he might have wanted to stress the necessity of a good, illuminated governor (clearly, Pompey himself) in order to achieve and maintain that social peace so indispensable for the survival of the Roman State.

2.4 Preliminary Conclusions As it has been seen, Pompey’s interventions all (probably) took place along the triumphal path; this is not surprising, if we consider the insistence of his propaganda on his military victories and the fact that all monuments were dedicated on the occasion of or connected to his military triumphs. The deities chosen were strictly associated to the Roman triumph (Hercules), or guarantors of (military) victory and dominion (the Minerva of Troy and Venus Victrix). Being along the triumphal path, the monuments forced other triumphatores to compare their feats with Pompey’s; the comparison would probably be disadvantageous for them, as Pompey had triumphed the first time when he was very young and not yet consul, and then had celebrated three triumphs on three different continents. People could also contrast his monuments with those left by previous triumphatores: again, the grandiosity and sheer remarkable dimension of the theatre complex shadowed everything else. Taking into account Pompey’s career, and the brand new position of government as primus inter pares that he desired for himself after the Eastern campaigns, it is interesting to notice that the avoidance of the traditional political centre of the city as a place for his monuments might point to a refusal on his part of an ‘institutional framing’ of his political position, and is in line with the extraordinary character of his magistracies (particularly of his third consulate).

84

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs

Another aspect to be highlighted is the emergence of an innovation/tradition duality. Pompey’s monuments, while expressing an ideology with Hellenistic characters, were also, in some way, tied to the most ancient Roman tradition. This dual aspect seems to reflect, particularly in the years after Pompey’s return from the East, his attempts of gaining consent both from the people and the Senate; furthermore, his respect for the tradition highlighted his suitability to become the right man for government, whom the Senate could trust.

Notes 1 For the definition of the extension of the Forum Boarium, see Coarelli 1988a, 9–13. 2 Ziolkowski 1992, 46. 3 Vitr., De arch., 3, 3, 5. 4 Coarelli 1988a, 77–80 with relevant bibliography. See also Coarelli 1996a; Ziolkowski 1992, 46–50; Davies 2017, 187. The latest study on the Ara Maxima is in Torelli 2006. 5 Plut., Pomp., 69, 1–3; App., B civ., 2, 76, 319–320. 6 See n. 3. 7 Coarelli 1988a, 80; 1996a, 20. 8 Although it is not possible to exclude that the temple’s construction had taken place in the archaic period; Coarelli 1988a, 82; 1996a, 20–21. Contra Torelli 2006, 586. 9 Coarelli 1988a, 82; see Chapter 1 for Alexander the Great and Hercules as models for Pompey. 10 Ziolkowski 1992, 46; see Chapter 1 for Sulla as a model for Pompey. 11 Michel 1967, 55; Davies 2017, 187. 12 Rawson 1970, 36–37; Marshall 1974, 84. 13 CIL I2 p.244 = Inscr. It XIII 2.191. 14 CIL I2 p. 217 = InscrIt XIII 2.181. 15 Marshall 1974, 81. 16 Rawson 1970. 17 Marshall 1974. 18 Rawson 1970, 31, 33. 19 Marshall 1974, 83, following Weinstock 1971, 39. 20 Rawson 1970, 31–32. 21 81BC: Badian 1955; 1961, 254–256; Keaveney 1982, 131–132. 80 BC: Twyman 1979. 79 BC: Itgenshorst 2005, n. 246. 22 Plut., Pomp., 14; 15, 3; Sull., 38, 2. 23 See Liv., 10, 23, 3. Another ancient source mentioning the temple is Fest., p. 282 L. 24 Coarelli 1988a, 88–91. 25 Zaccagnino 2019, 215. 26 Coarelli 1988a, 85–87, confirming the hypothesis of both Pais 1920 II, 501 and Latte 1960, 218. 27 It is interesting to note that he cast a comparison between himself and a member of the family of the Scipiones, when Sulla, initially denying him a triumph after the African campaign, had rebuked him affirming that not even Scipio Africanus maior had asked for a triumph after his vistories in Spain, even though his deeds had been great (Plut., Pomp., 14, 1–2). 28 Plin., HN., 7, 26, 97.

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs

85

29 Greenhalgh 1980, 176. 30 Diod. Sic., 40, 4. 31 Palombi 1996b, 253; contra Davies 2017, 231, who thinks it refers to Pompey’s temple of Venus Victrix. 32 Palombi 1996b, 253–254. 33 Identification accepted by Cecamore 2002, 182. Cecamore adds that the drills carried out by Ammermann (see Ammermann and Filippi 1998) in the valley between the Palatine hill and the Capitoline hill identified the presence of an important structure in opus caementicium, and that this would confirm the presence in that area of a temple, represented in a lost fragment of the Forma Urbis Romae. Contra: Coarelli 2012, 101–102. 34 Palombi 1996b, 253–254. 35 Plin., HN., 7, 26, 97. 36 Palmer 1990, 3–9. 37 IK 3, no. 10; IK 3, no. 71. 38 Plut., Luc., 10, 4. 39 App., Mith., 76. 40 App., Mith., 53; Obs., 56b; August., Civ., Dei, 3, 7 quoting Liv., 83, fr.17. 41 Mastrocinque 1999, 62. 42 Ballesteros-Pastor 2009, 218; Zampieri 2020, 334. 43 For a detailed analysis see Zampieri 2020, 334–336. 44 Serv., Aen., 2, 166. 45 Assenmaker 2007, 395–399. 46 Cic., Scaur., 48; see Zampieri 2020, 336 for details. 47 For L. Iulius Caesar cos. 64: RE entry L. Iulius (143); for the cos. 90: RE entry L. Iulius (142). 48 Robert 1966, 16–17; Nicolet et al. 1980, 119–122; Erskine 2001, 246–247; see also MRR 2.89 and 3.110; contra Rose 2014, 223. 49 RRC 458; see Assenmaker 2007, 384. 50 Dion. Hal., Rom. Ant., 1, 68, 2–69, 4 dates this tradition back to Arctinos (first half of the 8th century BC). 51 Assenmaker 2007, 386, 402. 52 Assenmaker 2007, 402–403 with relevant bibliography. 53 MRR 2.89. 54 In 67: Plut., Pomp., 25, 8; in 66: Dio, 36, 43, 2–4; in 63: Vell., 2, 40, 4. 55 Coarelli 1997a, 545. 56 Dio, 40, 50, 2. 57 Coarelli 1997a, 543–544. 58 Cic., Fam., 15, 1; Pis., 27, 65; Ascon., Pis., 11; see Coarelli 1971–72, 99, n. 2. 59 Gell., NA., 10, 1, 6–9; see the discussion in Coarelli 1997a, 567–570. Sear 2006, 58 considers this the date of the dedication of the temple of Venus. 60 Data on most recent surveys in Gagliardo and Packer 2006, 93–122; Packer 2007, 257–278; Packer et al. 2007, 505–522; 2010, 71–96; Filippi 2015b, 323–333; Packer and Gagliardo 2020, 83–103. 61 Fragments 37a, 37b, 37c, 37d, 37e, 37l, 39ac, 39b, 39de, 39f, 39g. 62 Fragments 37b; 39de. 63 Monterroso Checa 2007; 2010, 187–197. 64 Monterroso Checa 2007, 141–144. 65 Coarelli 1997a, 165–168; 1996d; Sear 2006, 61; the correspondance of these three denominations to the same building is the object of a strong debate: see Orlandi 1999, 126; Monterroso Checa 2008; 2009a; Cadario 2011, 20. 66 Coarelli 1997a, 165–168. 67 Tert., Spect., 10, 5. 68 Packer et al. 2007, 511, n. 19.

86

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs

69 Baltard found evidence of it in old reports, but never saw it; Gagliardo and Packer 2006, 112 n. 60, 64. 70 Monterroso Checa 2010, 247–261. 71 Monterroso Checa 2010, 270. 72 See, for example, Schröter 2008, 33; Gros 2011, 281; Sauron 2011, 144. 73 Monterroso Checa 2010, 247–248. 74 Monterroso Checa 2010, 251–257. 75 Gagliardo and Packer 2006, 115 n. 64. 76 Packer 2014, 20; Monastero et al. 2015, 349, but see the observations in n. 7 on the same page. 77 Gagliardo and Packer 2006, 112 n. 60. 78 My deepest gratitude goes to prof. Fulvio Cairoli Giuliani, whom I informally consulted. 79 Monastero et al. 2015, 357, fig. 12. 80 Monastero et al. 2015, 349, n. 6. 81 Packer 2014, 27; Monastero et al., 2015, 349, n. 7. 82 Monterroso Checa 2010, 248. 83 Monterroso Checa 2010, 249. Even Monastero et al. 2015, 361 hypothesise that the stucture could have hosted additional accesses to the higher levels of the cavea, but do not deny the presence of the temple at the top. 84 Monterroso Checa 2010, 251–257. 85 Packer 2014, 23. Monastero et al. 2015, 356–357. For the latest reconstruction of the access paths to the theatre, see Monastero et al. 2015, 354–361. 86 Monterroso Checa 2010, 251–252, 258–261. 87 Monterroso Checa 2010, 252–254. 88 Sear 2006, 60. 89 Sear 2006, 271–272. 90 Packer and Gagliardo 2020. 91 Packer and Gagliardo 2020, 92–93. 92 Sear 1993, 688; see the chronology of the fragments of decoration attributed to the scaenae frons of Pompey’s theatre by Filippi and Von Hesberg 2013; 2015, 346. 93 Tosi 2003a, 22. 94 Tosi 2003b, 667. 95 More recently Gleason 1994, 21; Beacham 1999, 65. 96 Sear 1993, 687; Gros 2011, 282; Davies 2017, 230; Schröter 2008, 32 does not take a side. 97 For Scaurus’ theatre see Plin., HN., 34, 17, 36; 36, 2, 5–6; 36, 8, 50; 36, 24, 113– 115; 36, 64, 189. For Scaurus, see RE entry: M. Aemilius (141); for his aedileship see MRR 2.195. 98 Davies 2017, 230 reports the discovery of a block of travertine, apparently belonging to this phase, according to Packer (see n. 117). 99 Suet., Aug., 31. 100 As Schröter 2008, 32 suggests. 101 This is the translation provided by the Oxford Latin Dictionary, where Suetonius’ passage is taken as an example. 102 For example, Coarelli 1971–72; Sauron 1987; 1994, 249–314; Coarelli 1997a; Cadario 2011; Davies 2017, 229–236, to cite but a few of them. 103 Coarelli 1971–1972, 107–118. 104 Schröter 2008, 33–34; Cadario 2011, 22–23. 105 Cadario 2011, 11–12. 106 Cic., Att., 4, 9, 1. 107 Sauron 1987, 467–473. This interpretation has been accepted by Coarelli 1997a, 575–576; Gros 1999a, 149, but it has to be noted that no ancient source mentions Varro’s involvement.

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123

124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132

133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141

142 143 144 145 146

87

Suet., Nero, 46. Plin., HN., 36, 4, 41. Coarelli 1996b, 10; 1997a, 167. See Coarelli 1997a, 167. See Liverani 1995, 245; Monterroso Checa 2008: 2009a. La Rocca 1988, 287. Monterroso Checa 2009a, 186; Cadario 2011, 21. Gagliardo and Packer 2006, 151. Coarelli 1971–72, 374–375; Palma Venetucci 2008–09, 179. La Rocca 1990, 434; Sauron 1994, 261–262; Coarelli 1997b, 518; Gagliardo and Packer 2006, 155; Cadario 2011, 22. Cadario 2011, 22. Plin., HN., 7, 3, 34. Coarelli 1971–72. Tat., Graec., 33–35. Davies (2017, 232) refuses this hypothesis. Coarelli 1971–72, 100–101; contra Davies 2017, 232. Like the Ganimedes, located in the Templum Pacis, as Juvenal, 3, 9, 22 affirms; the group of Eteocles and Polynices, perhaps located in front of the temple of the Fortuna Huiusce Diei, as it could be inferred from Pliny, HN., 34, 19, 60, although see below; the Europa, which was in Taranto at Pompey’s time, as Cicero, Verr., 2, 4, 135 states, and probably remained there in the Republican period, as Varro, L.L., 5, 31 seems to imply; see Coarelli 1971–72, 103–104. Evans 2009. Cadario 2011, 31–43. Coarelli 1971–72, 101–102. Plin., HN., 7, 3, 34; Cadario 2011, 43 points out that only in book 35 is Pliny more precise when he describes the location of decorative elements. Coarelli 1971–72, 105. Evans 2009, 129–141. Cadario 2011, 31–37. Sande 2014, 56. These eight female poets are also listed as such in an epigram of Antipater of Thessalonica (Anth. Pal., 9, 26); see also Gow and Page 1968, 2, p. 36. For Sande 2014, 46 this does not mean that Antipater saw the statues in Pompey’s portico, but that both reflect a literary canon. Robbins 2007, 784. Tatian, Graec., 33. Cic., Verr., 2, 4, 57; 2, 4, 126–127; see Evans 2009, 127. Anth. Pal., 9, 190, 3. Coarelli 1971–72, 104. Degani 2002, 812. Robbins 2009, 231. Robbins 2003, 789. Whom Coarelli 1971–72, 102 identifies as a courtesan, restoring an inscription with her name, found in the storage rooms of the sacred area of Largo Argentina, as Μύστις [ἑταίρα]/ Ἀριστόδοτ[ος Ἀθηναῖος (?) ἐποῖει]. Contra Thorsen 2012, 710, who proposes to restore the inscription as Μύστις [ποιήτρια]/ Ἀριστόδοτ[ος Ἀθηναῖος (?) ἐποίει]. Evans 2009, 129–130. Cadario 2011, 33, n. 78. Coarelli 1971–72. Cadario 2011, 35. Cadario 2011, 35, n. 84 notices that their inclusion in the two groups of 9 ‘mortal Muses’ and 9 ‘lesser mortal Muses’ proposed by Evans 2009, 129–141 finds no comparisons.

88 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168

169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs After being raped by Halirrhotus, the son of Poseidon; Apollod., 3, 14, 2. Hes., Theog., 947; Hyg., Astr., 2, 5. Tatian, Graec., 34. Tatian, Graec., 33. See Cadario 2011, 37, n. 93. Tatian, Graec., 33. Thorsen 2012, 697 adds her to the group of ‘mothers’ as well. See Walter 2007, 198. See Badian 2004, 880. Ath., 13, 5. A courtesan from Corinth – see Strothmann 2005, 174; there was nevertheless another courtesan with the same name who was killed in a temple of Aphrodite; see Plut., Mor., 767F and Ath., 13, 589ab. For an interpretation of that carmen in relation to the statues, see Wiseman 1980. Latin text from Cornish 1988. Ath., 13, 54. Coarelli 1971–72, 104. Tat., Graec., 33. Evans 2009, 134. See Cadario 2011, 40. Plut., Pomp., 2, 4. Kuttner 1999, 347. Ov., Fast., 4, 863–876; Plut., Quaest. Rom., 45. Evans 2009, 132–135. Prop., 2, 6, 3–18. Thorsen 2012, 705–705 affirms that Propertius mentions a Thais rather than Lais, but she also points out that Lais appears in other comic works (Arist., Pl., 179; Epic. Fr. 3.1, 10 K-A; Eriph., fr. 6.1 K-A; Philet., fr. 27.3 K-A, Str., fr. 9.4 K-A). Ath., 13, 590A; 5910. Ath., 13, 567E-F. To this list Thorsen 2012, 707 adds Sappho, as she was also attested as comic heroine. Evans 2009, 134. Tat., Graec., 33. Evans 2009, 138. French 1998, 296. Cadario 2011, 38–39. Fragments with inscriptions related to the attic theatre – see Coarelli 1971–72, 105 – and masks pertaining to the Augustan refurbishment – see Cacciotti 2008–2009. Cadario 2011, 39, n. 101. See the example of Prassiteles, who according to Pliny, HN., 34, 70 sculpted Phryne as meretrix gaudens, a character of the attic comedy; Cadario 2011, 39, n. 102. Cadario 2011, 39. The inscriptions found in the area of Largo Argentina were in that language; see Coarelli 1971–72, 100–101. Thorsen 2012, 707 remarks that the female images in Pompey’s theatrical complex would have been hardly scandalous for people at that time, and that they would evoke many different associations. It has to be underlined that even if Praxiteles’ meretrix gaudens is thought to have been in the theatre of Dionysus in Athens – Corso 2004, 311 – some dedications for courtesans were in Greek sanctuaries: see Keesling 2006. See, for example, Aesch., Supp., 1039–1042. Waldner 2004, 1145.

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs

89

185 Eur., Med., 831. 186 For the painting representing Cadmus and Europa that had been hung in the portico see Plin., HN., 35, 37, 114 and below. 187 Tatian., Graec., 34. 188 And Aesop might be a reference to the plays held at the dedication of the theatre, when a poet with the same name appeared on stage: Cic., Fam., 7, 1. 189 Inscriptions with the names of Plato, Xenocrates, Maximos, and Cratippus have been attested during the 16th century in the area of the Campus Martius; see Palma Venetucci 2008–2009, 184. 190 See, for the Late Republic, Cic., Att., 7, 12; 7, 20; Off., 2, 26; Verr., 2, 4, 73; Rep., 1, 44. Sande 2014, 50 thinks that the statue Tatian saw was made in the 2nd century AD. 191 Cadario 2011, 44–45; for the inscription, see Coarelli 1971–72, 102, n. 14. 192 Cadario 2011, 44; for the torso, see Coarelli 1971–72, 117–118, who also points out another torso kept in Palazzo Spada. 193 Cadario 2011, 45. 194 ‘in Pompei porticibus praecellens’; Plin., HN., 35, 40, 132. 195 Plin., HN., 35, 37, 114. 196 Plin., HN., 35, 40, 126; see Brendel 1930, 218–219. 197 Plin, HN., 35, 35, 59. 198 Cadario 2011, 29–30. 199 Cadario 2011, 30–31. 200 Gros 1999a, 148. 201 Brendel 1930, 218–219. 202 Cadario 2011, 28. 203 ‘aulaea attalica’; Prop., 2, 32, 11. 204 Plin., HN., 36, 115. 205 In Non., 537; Menippeae, 212. 206 Plin., HN., 35, 35, 59. 207 Probably when Augustus walled up the room: Cadario 2011, 28. 208 Plut., Brut., 14, 2. 209 Plutarch (Caes., 66, 12–13) reports that Caesar died at the feet of Pompey’s statue when he was murdered in the curia Pompeia. 210 Cadario 2011, 46–47. 211 Ascon., Mil., 52c; Dio, 40, 50, 2. 212 Plut., Brut., 14. 213 Plut., Pomp., 49, 6; Dio, 39, 9, 3. 214 Seager 2002, 108; cf. Cic., Q. fr., 2, 3, 3; Fam., 1, 9, 7. 215 See for example Cic., Fam., 1, 5b, 1; Q. fr., 2, 3, 3. 216 Cic., Q. fr., 2, 3, 4. 217 Liv., Per., 105; Plut., Cato min., 43, 1; Caes., 28, 3; Crass., 15, 7; Pomp., 52, 4; Suet., Iul., 24; App., BC, 2, 18; Dio, 39, 33; Vell. Pat., 2, 46, 2; cf. Cic., Att., 4, 9, 1. On the law, see Rotondi 1912, 408. 218 Cadario 2011, 50. 219 See Coarelli 1971–72, 118 for a brief description of its discovery. 220 Coarelli 1971–72, 118–121. 221 Coarelli 1971–72, 121; see also Sauron 1987, 460; 1994, 256; Palma Venetucci 2008–09, 185. 222 For bibliography see Cadario 2011, 51, n. 145. 223 Cadario 2011, 50. 224 As it had been suggested by Giuliani 1986, 269, n. 29. 225 La Rocca 1988, 278–282. 226 Identified as those of Pompey’s portico: Cadario 2011, 27. 227 Mart., 3, 19.

90 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs Palma Venetucci 2008–09, 180–181. Plut., Pomp., 28, 2, 4. Plut., Pomp. 52, 5; Dio, 39, 38, 1–5. Prop., 2, 32, 13–16. A common subject in fountains; see Cadario 2011, 25. Cadario 2011, 25–26. Maro had accompanied Dionysos both to India and against the pirates: Nonnus, Dion., 15, 141–142; 19, 176–177; 19, 293–294; Fil. Mai. Imag., 1, 19; see Cadario 2011, 27, n. 53. See Cadario 2011, 27 n. 52 for further bibliography. Plin., HN., 8, 2, 4. Cadario 2011, 27. Davies 2017, 230 with bibliography. Ibidem. Davies 2017, 231. Dio, 50, 8, 3. Suet., Iul., 81, 6; Mart., 9, 61. Therefore in two groves, where the trees were probably organised in rows; see Mart., 2, 14, 10; Cadario 2011, 24, n. 43. Gleason 1994, 19. And the presence of a grove might recall the lucus, frequently present in the Italic sanctuaries; see Cadario 2011, 24–25. Cadario 2011, 25. Vitr., De Arch., 5, 11, 4. Cadario 2011, 25, n. 46. See, for example, the theatre of the city of Pompeii; Coarelli 1997a, 576. Sauron 1987, 459. Coarelli 1997a, 576. Coarelli 1997a, 574–575. Sauron 1987, 459. Sauron 1987, 460. Sauron follows Coarelli both in the interpretation of the statues of women presented in Coarelli 1971–72 and in the identification of Pompey’s statue with the Pompeo Spada. Sauron 1987, 461. Sauron 1987, 462. Sauron 1987, 463. Sauron 1987, 463–464. Sauron 1987, 465–467. Cadario 2011, 53–55. Cadario 2011, 55. Cadario 2011, 56–59. Cadario 2011, 57–58. Cadario 2011, 57–59, n. 161. Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 175. See also Sauron 1987, 459. See Cicero’s letter to Atticus where the orator asks his friend to procure statuary from Greece, suitable for a gymnasium, to be collocated in his villa in Tusculum; Cic., Att., 1, 6, 2; 1, 10, 3; Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 171, 175. Cic., De or., 2, 21; see Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 172. Davies 2017, 236. Sauron 1987, 472. Cadario 2011, 15. Davies 2017, 234. Coarelli 1983, 141–145, 152–159. For a different opinion on the position of the curia, see Amici 2004–2005, 372–379. See analysis in Chapter 4.

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs  91 2 73 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 2 82 283 284 285 2 86 287 288 289 290 291 2 92 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317

Coarelli 1983, 148–152. See, for example, Amici 2004–2005, 359. Coarelli 1983, 126. Cic., Sest., 106. Latin text from Gardner 1958. Cic., Rep., 3, 48. Frézouls 1983, 200. Which was an inaugurated space, a templum; see Varro, in Gell., NA, 14, 7, 7. Coarelli 1997a, 579; see App., B civ., 2, 115. An analogy between Pompey’s theatre and a comitium has already been suggested by Sauron 1987, 472; a recreation of the connection between curia and comitium has been pointed out by Delfino 2014, 242. Frézouls 1983, 194. Frézouls 1983, 200; see, for example, what happened to Pompey in 59 BC: Cic., Att., 2, 19, 3. Probable place where the dedications to magistrates and emperors from the foreign provinces were located; Orlandi 1999, 125. Varro, Ling., 5, 155; the Graecostasis existed at least until 57 BC: see Cic., Ad. Q. fr., 2, 1, 3. Plut., Sull., 11, 1–2. Sall., Hist., 3, 10. Coarelli 1997a, 563–565. Plut., Rom., 24, 5. As is the topographical relationship with the Capitolium; Delfino 2014, 242. See Delfino 2014, 242. Davies (2017, 234) underlines the small dimension of the curia in the complex in relation to the rest, and argues for this as a symbol of Pompey’s new order. Coarelli 2010, 127. Coarelli 1971–72, 104, n. 20. Tatian., Graec., 34. Plin., HN., 34, 19, 60. Sande 2014, 54. Heinze 2003, 867. Waldner 2004, 1145. Graf 2002, 1056. Waldner 2006, 617. Fell 2009, 412. Zweig Vivante 2010, 711. Robbins 2003, 790. Walter 2007, 198. Klodt 2009, 418. Braund 2006, 263–264. Braund 2006, 264, 266–267. Braund 2006, 266. Napoli 1960, 464. Cicero uses two quotes from Euripides’ Phoenissae while referring to Julius Caesar in Att. 2, 25, 1 and 7, 11, 1; see also McNelis 2007, 4. Braund 2006, 260. Cic., Fam., 5, 7, 1; see Gruen 1970, 237. Fell 2009, 412. Frézouls 1983, 204–214. Ascon., Pis., 7; it refers most probably not to the religious ones, but to the professional ones and those of the vici: Frézouls 1983, 208. Frézouls 1983, 213–214. The latter had been emphasised during his triumph in 61; Temelini 2006, 1.

92 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334

Pompey’s Monuments and His Three Triumphs Sear 2006, 57. Manuwald 2011, 98. Manuwald 2011, 98, n. 197. Klar 2006, 177. Wild beasts: Plin., HN, 8, 24, 64; 8, 40, 96; miracula: Plin., HN, 9, 4, 11; theatre: Plin., HN, 34, 17, 36; 36, 2, 5; 36, 8, 50; 36, 24, 113–115; 36, 64, 189; gems: Plin., HN, 37, 5, 11. See also the reflections of Davies 2017, 232–234. Whose setting as a garden could in any case be justified by the fact that Venus was the protector of them; Schilling 1954, 24. Dosi 2006, 48–50. Harris 2002, 25–28. Cic., Marcell., 9. See Harris 2009, 209. Harris 2009, 156. On tyrants and rulers see Harris 2009, 195, 234 but also passim. Harris 2009, 235; see also Liv., 9, 18. Pol., 5, 10, 6; Diod. Sic. 17, 8, 2 and 6; Plut., Alex., 13, 2. There are many examples of this in Plutarch, in particular Pomp., 1, 4; 53, 2. Marians and Sullans, as Coarelli 1997a, 570 underlines; this has been realised in a more accomplished way by Caesar’s Venus Genetrix.

3

Pacata Gallia? Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome

When Pompey celebrated his greatest military success with the dedication of his stone theatre – his last dedication of a large monumental complex – in 55 BC, Caesar was leading his military campaign as a proconsul in Gaul, and had been there since more than three years. This long absence from Rome – however very likely mitigated by a network of informers and collaborators1  – had taken its toll, and many factors threatened the proconsul’s position. Firstly, the cracks in the triumvirate, the pact that had been established in 60 BC among him, Pompey, and Crassus. Crassus had renewed his hostility against Pompey; on his part, Pompey had greatly increased his popular support by obtaining the cura annonae in 57 BC, as a consequence of the tribune Clodius’2 attacks to him as responsible for the scarcity of grain in the city. During the summer of the same year, Clodius had also turned against Caesar, trying to have his laws, approved during the consulship of 59 BC, invalidated. Furthermore, at the beginning of 56 BC L. Domitius Ahenobarbus,3 one of Caesar’s worst enemies, had candidated himself for the consulate of 55 BC, and was very determined to strip the proconsul of his province; in April 56 Cicero, after his return from the exile, put Caesar’s agrarian law into discussion again. Thus, in that same month, Caesar organised a meeting in Luca, to renew the triumviral pact with his two allies – Pompey in particular, as he kept being courted by the optimate faction. Pompey and Crassus became the consuls of 55 BC as a result of the negotiations carried out at that meeting, thus preventing the candidacy of Ahenobarbus; Clodius was dissuaded from attacking Caesar and Cicero was convinced to drop his case against the agrarian law. It is true that, at the same time, supplicationes were decreed by the Senate to celebrate the proconsul’s victories in Gaul; Caesar probably sent frequent and long dispatches to Rome,4 skillfully aimed at increasing his popularity and the awe towards his deeds, even when difficulties were present. As many other generals before him, he likely aimed at dedicating a monument to celebrate his victories – and the latest example of that set the standard remarkably high. We do not know when Caesar started planning his projects; perhaps after Pompey and Crassus, as consuls, extended his proconsulship by five years.5

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080503-4

94  Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome What we do know is that the first mention of them, included in a letter of Cicero to his friend Atticus,6 dates to 1 July 54 BC.7 At that time, Caesar was still busy with the military campaign in Britain, from which, at least according to Cicero, he was not expected to gain much.8 However, the fact that the orator was involved in the projects makes it clear that the proconsul was trying to gain the support of the ‘moderate’ groups in the Senate. This is also confirmed by Cicero’s reference to the words of appreciation that Caesar would have addressed him both in a letter and through the words of his brother Quintus.9 All this was particularly important in the light of the fact that at the beginning of that year Pompey was given the permission to remain in Rome even if he had become proconsul, and to administer his provinces through legates.10 The justification for this was that he needed to stay there to tend to his duties as curator annonae; still, he had Caesar’s same powers, like him he had an army, but he could remain close to the centre of politics. Furthermore, the difficult political situation of that year in Rome, that saw one of the largest corruption scandals of the time,11 made it that rumours supporting a dictatorship for Pompey started circulating.12 The relationship between the two commanders had probably yet to become strained, but Caesar was in any case trying to gain as wide a base of support as possible. Another, slightly later event threatened the balances of power: Caesar’s daughter Julia, who had married Pompey in 59 BC, thus sealing the political alliance between the two men, died.13 The proconsul thus prepared a plan that did, as it will be argued, perfectly fit into his popularis politics, but, at the same time, gave a nod to the Roman tradition with which Caesar always showed to comply. Let us see the passage of Cicero’s letter: Paulus in medio foro basilicam iam paene texerat isdem antiquis columnis. Illam autem quam locavit facit magnificentissimam. Quid quaeris? Nihil gratius illo monumento, nihil gloriosius. Itaque Caesaris amici, me dico et Oppium, dirumparis licet, monumentum illud quod tu tollere laudibus solebas, ut forum laxaremus et usque ad atrium Libertatis explicaremus, contempsimus sescenties sestertium; cum privatis non poterat transigi minore pecunia. Efficiemus rem gloriosissimam. Iam in campo Martio saepta tributis comitiis marmorea sumus et tecta facturi eaque cingemus excelsa porticu ut mille passuum conficiatur. Simul adiungetur huic operi villa etiam publica. Dices 'quid mihi hoc monumentum proderit?' At quid id laboramus? res Romanas. Non enim te puto de lustro, quod iam desperatum est, aut de iudiciis quae lege Clodia fiunt quaerere.14 Paulus has already almost completed the roofing of the basilica located at the centre of the forum, using the same old columns. The one he subcontracted, he is building with great magnificence. What can one say? There is nothing more admired and more glorious. So Caesar’s friends, I mean Oppius and I – and you can as well be green with envy – we have just spent sixty million sesterces for that monument that you used to

Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome  95 praise so much, so as to enlarge the forum up to the Atrium Libertatis; we could not reach an agreement with the private owners for a smaller sum. We shall realise something really magnificent. As for the Campus Martius, we are going to build roofed marble enclosures for the tribal assemblies, and we will surround them with a high portico, a mile long. To these works the Villa Publica will also be added. You might say: ‘How could this structure benefit me?’ But why should we be concerned about that? You have now the latest news from Rome. In fact, I don’t think you are interested in the census, for which we have now lost any hope, or in the trials that take place in compliance with the lex Clodia. As it can be seen, Cicero makes reference to two different projects: the first one is an ‘extension of the Roman Forum up to the Atrium Libertatis,’ which is usually identified with the Forum of Caesar; the second one consisted in ‘roofed marble enclosures for the comitia tributa,’ surrounded by a portico, in the Campus Martius: the Saepta Iulia. Caesar, therefore, decided to intervene in an area, not yet monumentalised, just north-east of the theatrical complex that his son-in-law had just dedicated, as well as in the actual and ideological ‘beating heart’ of the city, the Roman Forum; an area never involved in Pompey’s building activity, but that will see Caesarian interventions up to the dictator’s death. It will be seen that even the other building activities mentioned in Cicero’s letter, Aemilius Paullus’15 construction of a new basilica in the Forum, and the refurbishment of another one, probably saw Caesar’s involvement, at least from a certain date.

3.1 The ‘Enlargement of the Roman Forum’ (Forum of Caesar) What was thus one of the most important city-planning innovations undertaken by Caesar consisted in the creation of a new square, initially likely meant, at least according to Cicero’s words, to be an extension of the Forum Romanum, whose spaces were no longer adequate for the activities that took place there. Cicero and one of Caesar’s trustworthy collaborators, Oppius, were thus entrusted by the proconsul himself with the purchase of the land needed for this extension ‘up to the Atrium Libertatis.’ This area, whose acquisition, according to the orator, cost 60 million sesterces,16 lay between the saddle that connected the Quirinal to the Capitoline hill and the path of the Argiletum (the road leading from the Forum Romanum to the Subura) and was part of the city district that most probably had the same name.17 During the late Republic, this was a residential space, that hosted both domus and streets,18 implying that the impact of Caesar’s work on the landscape was enormous; it required the removal of a part of the south-eastern slope of the Capitoline hill in order to obtain an even surface.19 The choice of the area was certainly not casual: not only was it inside the pomerium, but it also featured a heavily urbanised space, the reason why so much work was needed in order

96  Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome to accommodate the new complex. The resultant proximity to the Senate house and to the Atrium Libertatis (that hosted the activity of the censors and whose exact location is a matter of debate; see below) must have been similarly deliberate.20 3.1.1 A ‘new’ Caesarian phase The latest excavations in the Forum of Caesar, carried out between 2005 and 2008 within the ‘Imperial Fora’ Project, not only provided further evidence for the pre-Caesarian phases, but also allowed the identification of two different phases of construction of the complex21: the first one between 54 and 46 BC, and the second one between 42 and 29 BC22 (Figure 3.1). These discoveries have helped to give more weight to the view that the Forum of Caesar was not conceived in its final form from the outset,23 primarily because Caesar in 54 BC could obviously not foresee the subsequent developments of his relationship with Pompey and the Senate, nor could he predict, for example, the fire that destroyed the curia Hostilia and the

Figure 3.1 Reconstruction plan of the Forum of Caesar in its first phase (54–46 BC) (black) and second phase (42–29 BC) (grey). Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Delfino 2014, 149, fig. III.109.

Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome  97 basilica Porcia in 52 BC. It might, therefore, be possible that Cicero was expressing Caesar’s real ideas when he said that the land he had purchased was needed for an extension of the Roman Forum, which, perhaps, was meant to host a triumphal monument (spolia?) to commemorate the general’s victorious campaigns in Gaul. Amici24 notes that the presence of natural soil, left in place during the levelling works inside the core of the podium of the temple of Venus Genetrix, demonstrates that there was a plan to erect something there; however, this does not mean that this monument had to be a temple.25 Currently it is not possible to speculate further; what is known from the sources is that in 48 BC, the night before the battle of Pharsalus, Caesar vowed a temple to Venus Victrix, and subsequently, in 46 BC, he dedicated the temple in his forum to Venus Genetrix.26 This dedication underlines the connection of his gens with the goddess, who was also presented, by extension, as the progenitor of the entire Roman people. A turning point in Caesar’s projects might have also occurred in 52 BC: Suetonius27 testifies that the building works for the complex began in that year, after Caesar had been granted the opportunity to stand as a candidate in absentia for the elections for the consulate in 49 BC. This must have been a political victory for the general in the year in which he had to face a major revolt of Gallic tribes and when Pompey had been elected consul sine collega. The dedication of the temple (which was not yet completed) and of the rest of the complex28 was performed only in 46 BC, in a completely different political context (see Chapter 5). For this reason, the decoration of the complex and its final political meaning will be analysed at a later stage. Here it is enough to anticipate that at that stage the new forum was composed of an almost square central area, surrounded on three sides by porticus duplices divided into two naves. The north-western side of the square was dominated by the structure of the temple and closed by a retaining wall presenting two apses at each side of the temple29 (see Figure 3.1). It is anyway notable that one of the most important results of the discovery of two different archaeological phases of the forum of Caesar was that, in contrast to its second phase, in which the Forum presented an open portico on its south-eastern side towards the Argiletum, in its first phase it was likely conceived as a closed complex, divided from the street by a wall that most probably presented two non-monumental entrances at both its ends.30 This means that the square, at least in that phase, was conceived as a closed space, as the following imperial fora would be; as a result, it could be described even more as a temenos.31 In addition, it is important to highlight that the shorter dimension of the square in this phase implies that, even after the fire of the curia Cornelia, a new curia, the curia Iulia, had not yet been conceived as a part of the complex.32

3.2 The Atrium Libertatis As mentioned, Caesar’s ‘enlargement of the Forum’ would have been ‘up to the Atrium Libertatis’, a topographical indication that must have been

98  Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome very precise for Cicero and Atticus, but that is much less obvious for us. The location of this building, which was the official office of the censors and where their archive was kept,33 is still a matter of debate. Castagnoli34 first located it behind the temple of Venus Genetrix of the Forum of Caesar, on the saddle between the Capitoline hill and the Quirinal hill (see Figure A.1 in Appendix A); this view is shared by Tortorici and Coarelli, and also accepted by Meneghini.35 A radically different interpretation of Cicero’s letter is that of Purcell,36 who suggests that the area bought by the orator should be identified not with the space subsequently occupied by the Forum of Caesar, but with that on the western side of the Roman Forum, at the foot of the so-called ‘Tabularium.’ In consequence of this, he maintains that the Atrium Libertatis could be identified with the Tabularium itself.37 Finally, Amici suggests that the Atrium Libertatis should be placed on the hill where the church of SS. Luca and Martina now stands; the remains of a tufa wall in that area are also attributed to that building.38 As it is very doubtful that it will ever be possible to solve the problem of the location of the Atrium Libertatis, it is sufficient to say that Tortorici’s and Coarelli’s arguments seem the most compelling. What is more interesting in this context is that the refurbishment of that building, carried out after 39 BC by Asinius Pollio,39 might have originally been a project of Caesar, in the frame of his interventions in the area of his forum.40 Tortorici and Coarelli suggest this hypothesis, pointing to the fact that Pollio realised the first public library of Rome,41 a project also attributed to the dictator by Suetonius,42 in the same area. Tortorici also inserts this building in the ideological frame of the Forum of Caesar, that would thus have constituted an ideal connection between the new type of government offered by Caesar and old Republican traditions, represented by the curia and the office of the censors.43 Additionally, the forum of Caesar connected the Atrium Libertatis, where the censors archived those laws which more closely concerned the citizens’ morality, with the temple of Felicitas44: that space was therefore in between two buildings which represented two of the main points of Caesar’s ideology, morality, and prosperity.45 A further important ideological aspect of the refurbishment of the Atrium Libertatis has been suggested by Coarelli.46 He highlighted the connection between Caesar’s projects in the area of the Forum and those in the Campus Martius, namely the Saepta and the Villa Publica. Since in these two buildings the operations of vote and census took place, a refurbishment of the main office of the censors would not have been out of place. It has also to be added that all of this should be considered in the light of the hopes that there had been for a new census in 55–54 BC,47 particularly expected by the people of the Transpadana (and so perhaps hopes for a resumption of a regular censorial activity). Civic values connected to voting, represented by the census, were surely relevant to Caesar’s political propaganda.

Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome  99

3.3 A New Building for the Comitia: The Saepta As seen, Caesar’s second project would take place in the same area of Pompey’s theatrical complex. Cicero talks of a monumentalisation of the Saepta,48 the place where the voting of the comitia centuriata took place, in connection49 with either the refurbishment or at least the inclusion in the complex of the Villa Publica50 (Figure 3.2). Caesar never managed to see the end of the works, which were finished by M. Aemilius Lepidus in 27 BC51; it is thus difficult to judge how far the resulting monument respected Caesar’s original project. However, it has to be taken into account that Agrippa gave the name of Saepta Iulia in honour of Augustus and placed marble tablets and paintings in it52 and that the porticoes all around the space for the voting procedures were adorned with works of art and various species of plants,53 similarly to the portico of the nearby Pompey’s theatre. Nothing has remained of the Caesarian phase of this building, but from Cicero’s letter it is possible to gather that its two main innovations comprised the material with which they were built (marble, possibly from Luni54) and some kind of roofing (perhaps canopies or awnings that covered the voting

Figure 3.2 Reconstruction plan of the Saepta Iulia in the Campus Martius, 7 BC phase. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Carandini 2012, pl. 227.

100  Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome lanes55). The dimensions of the Caesarian monument corresponded to those of its Augustan phase, and the former was most likely not very different in its proportions to the Republican building.56 Caesar therefore aimed to have the Saepta stand out in the landscape of the Campus Martius and give them an aspect more in line with the times and with the importance that the populares attributed to popular assemblies, while maintaining the same location, orientation, and dimensions as a sign of respect towards traditions. It has already been underlined57 that this action, together with the initial project of the Forum of Caesar, was meant to propagandistically highlight Caesar’s attachment to the traditional places of power of the Republic, and it should be put in connection with a later monumental intervention of Caesar: the rebuilding of the Rostra in the Roman Forum.58 As regards the Villa Publica, Agache59 pointed out that it evoked two Republican values of the Roman citizens, that is the access to voting – as a consequence of one’s registration in the list of citizens during the census – and the duty to war – since the dilectus was carried out there,60 values which Caesar aimed to promote. Furthermore, considering that the Villa Publica was the location where the censors proceeded with the census of the Roman citizens, she also puts Caesar’s decision in connection with the fact that the last lists of citizens had been compiled in 70–69 BC, and that a new census was expected in 55–54 BC.61 This situation of stalemate was one of the reasons for discontent among the people of Transpadana, who wanted to be included in the list and whose cause Caesar had backed since 69 or 68 BC.62 The decision to renew that building might therefore be framed inside the ideology of concordia that Caesar started promoting, particularly after the dissolution of the triumviral pact with Pompey.63 More importantly, the contrast between Caesar’s new Saepta and Villa Publica and Pompey’s theatre complex has been frequently underlined. Not only the location of the buildings and the date of the beginning of their works (shortly after the inauguration of Pompey’s theatre) express a desire for confrontation, but also do their functions, which are ideologically rooted in anti-senatorial politics,64 celebrating the sites of the popular libertas in sharp contrast with Pompey’s monuments. Two other observations can be added: first, Taylor65 affirmed that the innovation of the awnings covering the lanes of the Saepta might have been introduced by Caesar in order to prevent the citizens from being tempted to go and sit in the shade of the velaria in the theatre of Pompey for their meetings and assemblies, instead of standing under the sun in order to vote. She calculated a maximum of 70,000 voters that could be hosted in the Saepta, but she also pointed out that (1) it is unlikely that the entire space of the building was used for queuing, since other activities might have required some space (such as provisions for the writing of the vote on the ballots), and (2) the number of voters was not equal throughout the tribes.66 Nevertheless, it can be observed that even if the capacity of the Saepta were one and a half times greater than that of the theatre of Pompey, the comparison between Caesar’s and Pompey’s buildings has to be intended more as ideological, rather than based on actual numbers.

Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome  101 Secondly, Agache pointed out that there might have been another part of Caesar’s monument meant to constitute a point of contrast with Pompey’s buildings in the Campus Martius.67 She took into consideration Plutarch’s information about the construction of Pompey’s new private house (villa, in Latin) annexed to his theatre,68 and highlighted that in Cicero’s letter to Atticus mentioned above there might be an ironic parallel between the two monuments, by using the expression villa etiam publica. The conjunction etiam isolates the adjective publica, and, according to Agache, puts it in contrast with Pompey’s villa, which was private. She therefore affirmed that Caesar aimed to contrast his public Saepta and Villa with Pompey’s private theatre and residence (since they had both been built on private land). In the light of this, if the Pompeian complex was meant to be seen as a reproduction, on a bigger scale, of the curia-comitium complex of the Roman Forum, the Saepta acquire an even stronger meaning: not only did Caesar want to obstruct the use of the stone theatre as a place for popular assemblies by giving the people a place that was equally comfortable and monumental, but the reconstruction of the Saepta and Villa Publica symbolises the general’s propagandistic intention of reaffirming both the need of that location to be public and to be where the tradition fixed it – perhaps meaning to please all those who saw the Pompeian complex as too innovative and luxurious. Taking into account that the Campus Martius, before the progressive privatisation of part of its land during the late Republic, had been a land for public use because it had been removed from the kings after the monarchic period,69 it is easy to see the ideological impact that Caesar’s actions might have had.70

3.4 Basilica Aemilia, Basilica Iulia Finally, let us consider the last monumental intervention mentioned in Cicero’s letter: Aemilius Paullus’ roofing ‘of the basilica located at the centre of the forum’ (usually identified with the basilica Aemilia)71 and the building of another basilica (usually identified with the later basilica Iulia, built over the old basilica Sempronia72) (see numbers 1 and 11 in Figure A2 in Appendix A). With these two projects, Paullus was taking care of the two long sides of the Roman Forum. According to Plutarch,73 in 51 BC Caesar gave Aemilius Paullus 1,500 talents for the completion of the basilica Aemilia; on another occasion the historian explicitly states that Caesar corrupted Paullus.74 It is thus probable that, at least from that year, Paullus was working under his direction, also considering that the second basilica eventually carried the name of Caesar’s gens. As far as his political stance is concerned, Paullus was a representative of the optimates.75 He did not seem to have had a good relationship with Caesar, if it is true that the latter was behind the ‘Vettius affair’, by which Paullus was accused of being one of the leaders of a conspiracy against Pompey in 59 BC.76 Nevertheless, during his Gallic campaigns Caesar had to work

102  Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome hard to secure the support of some of the most important exponents of the senatorial faction, as he did with Cicero77; Paullus might have been among these people. Wiseman78 proposes that the Aemilii family was still powerful and that Paullus was refurbishing the basilica Aemilia and building another one in order to celebrate his ancient family. Indeed, it has to be kept in mind that Paullus probably started the works in 56 BC, when he was aedile, and was then praetor in 53 and consul in 50 BC79; his was thus an investment meant to benefit his political career. His architectural initiative was completely consistent with the tradition of Republican euergetism, in competition with other magistrates. It has indeed to be taken into account that competition within the aristocracy, carried out through euergetic activity, was still present at least until the 50s BC.80 From this viewpoint, it might be possible that the orator, speaking about Paullus’ works first and then about what he is doing with Oppius on behalf of Caesar, intended to contrast these two things. In support of this argument is Cicero’s use of the conjunction itaque, that commonly has a conclusive connotation, indicating the consequence of what is written before.81 The same intention might be behind the use of the expression Caesaris amici, me dico et Oppium, which seems to highlight a difference (with a certain amount of irony that Cicero’s self-inclusion among Caesar’s friends might have had), to establish a distinction between what Paullus was doing and what they – Caesar’s friends – were about to start. Caesar was going to build an alternative space to one, the Roman Forum, dominated by the presence of the Sullan temples on the top of the so-called Tabularium, and that was going to be flanked on both of its long sides by buildings promoted by an opposer. Whatever the situation between Paullus and Caesar in 54 BC, it is evident that in 51 the proconsul was eager to link his name to the basilicas.82 But apart from their undoubtedly appealing location at the centre of the Roman Forum – which meant prestigious site and maximum visibility – why were they of interest for Caesar? As far as the basilica Aemilia83 is concerned, it was strictly connected with the gens of the Aemilii, but had two characteristics that made it propagandistically important in the dictator’s eyes: a shield with the image of a Gaul had been hung over the tabernae novae by his uncle Marius,84 and, in the mid-first century BC, according to the most widely accepted interpretation,85 the basilica already hosted the marble frieze (or panels) depicting images of the origin of Rome.86 It appears that the connection with Marius and his victories against the Gauls (a comparison that had been already established by Cicero, in favour of Caesar, after the Lucca conference87) had a pivotal role at a moment when Caesar had to secure as many supporters as he could in Rome, particularly after the death of Crassus in June 53 BC and the designation of Pompey as consul sine collega in February 52; furthermore, the frieze of the basilica Aemilia might have had a role in the context of Caesar’s attempt to insist on the connection of his family with Romulus as the founder of Rome.88

Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome  103 Another appealing characteristic for the pontifex maximus in office might have been the probable ideological connection of this monument with king Numa. Gaggiotti,89 as well as Duckworth,90 suggested the presence, under the basilica Aemilia, of an earlier basilica built after 210 BC (substituted by the basilica Fulvia-Aemilia in 179 BC) on the basis of a rigorous philological analysis of a passage of Plautus’ Curculio,91 a hypothesis apparently confirmed by archaeology.92 Gaggiotti93 highlighted that this earlier basilica that Plautus mentioned (necessarily preceding 184 BC, year of Plautus’ death and of foundation of Rome’s other ancient basilica, the Porcia) is put in topographical connection with the Forum Piscarium, north of the later basilica Aemilia. At the same time, the close proximity between the Forum Piscarium and a building called Atrium Regium can be inferred from a passage of Livy,94 presenting the events of 209 BC. In addition to this similarity of location, Gaggiotti stresses the analogous chronology of the fact narrated by Livy and Plautus’ comedies, as well as the very close semantic correspondence between the adjective regium and the word basilica, that entered the Latin language through the cultural influence of the Greek literature (which happened particularly thanks to Hellenistic comedy). The Latin Atrium Regium was therefore the translation of the Greek aulé basiliké (also considering that the term aulé, according to the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae,95 denotes, in the Hellenistic period, the palace of the dynast), implying an ideological reference to the sphere of juridical administration and to the functions exercised by Hellenistic dynasts. Gaggiotti added that there could be an ideological connection with the more ancient Athenian political structures too, and that the Atrium Regium might have indicated the part of residence used by the king to deal with his subjects.96 Therefore, Gaggiotti connects the Atrium Regium with a piece of information provided by Cassius Dio,97 according to which Numa had his archeîa (offices) on the via Sacra: one of these archeîa arguably was the Atrium Regium, that, if it was located where the basilica Aemilia is, would have been indeed along that road.98 Gaggiotti explained that this probable connection with king Numa makes it clearer why the gens Aemilia had a particular association with the building: the Aemilii were one of the aristocratic families that traced their origin back to the origins of Rome, and considered themselves the descendants of king Numa, who had a son, Mamercus, whose nickname was Aimýlos.99 This tradition, fostered by the Aemilii Mamerci, was then taken over by the branch of the Aemilii Lepidi, which affirmed itself as the most genuine one, since the word Aimýlos, derived from aimylía, the grace of speech, finds its perfect translation into Latin in Lepidus.100 The exclusive patronage of the Aemilii on the basilica is well attested by the sources,101 and Gaggiotti102 suggests that the main promoter of the ideological value of the basilica Aemilia was M. Aemilius Lepidus, censor in 179 BC.103 Thus, if the building recalled the figure of Numa, the first pontifex maximus, who instituted the main priesthoods and regulated the cults, its

104  Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome propagandistic importance for Caesar in 51–50 BC can be understood in the light of the political attacks against him approaching the end of his proconsulship. M. Claudius Marcellus, the consul of 51 BC, tried several times to raise the question of Caesar’s succession in Gaul104; C. Claudius Marcellus, the consul of 50 BC, remained his staunch opposer, and was kept in check by his consular colleague Paullus.105 The optimates had wanted to have him respond for what he did during his consulship already since 58 BC.106 Some of the attacks against Caesar had probably concerned religion: Suetonius says that he feared having to defend himself for having ignored the auspices during his consulship107; in 58, he had given tacit support to Clodius’ law against the use of obnuntiatio during comitial days; during the military campaigns in Gaul, he was accused of plundering Gallic temples.108 Financing the refurbishment of a place that had been connected to Numa was probably a way to strengthen his authority as pontifex maximus. Overall, it is perhaps because of the clear importance that the basilica Aemilia had for Caesar that the portico in front of its tabernae was called porticus Iulia, before its name was temporarily changed in porticus Gai et Luci after the Augustan reconstruction.109 As far as the basilica Iulia is concerned, no archaeological remains of the Caesarian phase survived.110 It has already been observed that it lies over the basilica Sempronia,111 which had been built by the father of the Gracchi brothers (who, as explained, were another model of Caesar).112 It is very interesting that the basilica Sempronia had been built on the remains of the domus of Scipio Africanus113: the basilica Iulia was in this way linked to a previous building that had a strong popularis connotation (an aspect that is not surprising, given the intention of its promoter to present himself as the new leader of that faction), but also to the house of a model of virtue for the senatorial order such as Scipio. It might have thus represented, as will become clearer through further analysis of Caesarian building activity, the policy of concordia ordinum that marks Caesar’s politics in the latter part of his life.

3.5 Preliminary Conclusions The first projects of Caesar comply with popularis politics and tradition, as well as the general ideological line that the triumvirate followed through some of their laws (although less through political practice), namely the contrast of corruption (in trials, elections and in the provinces).114 The proconsul’s works symbolised the renovation of politics and would offer new and comfortable spaces for elections and – if the juridical function of the later forum of Caesar was planned from the beginning – for trials. Taking the riots or disturbances that had often taken place in those years during contiones, elections or trials into account, as well as the occasions in which the members of the triumvirate had to force their opposers away in order to have laws approved or elections held,115 it could also be argued that delimited and

Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome

105

monumentalised spaces such as the new Saepta and the later forum of Caesar might have provided areas whose access could more easily be controlled. As shown, Caesar’s plans also present an element of competition with Pompey: the monumentalisation of the Saepta and the enlargement of the Roman Forum stress the importance of the traditional spaces of politics, and for the popular assemblies in particular, in contrast to the new and revolutionary spaces offered by Pompey’s theatrical complex, where everything remembered the immense benefits brought to Rome by the general’s victories and was dominated by his tutelary deity. Surely the later Forum of Caesar was meant from the outset to celebrate the Gallic victories of his promoter, and its location made it that Caesar’s conquest of Gaul could be put in relation with Marius’ victories – celebrated by the aforementioned shield hung by the general over the tabernae novae of the basilica Aemilia. It might be suggested here that, from this point of view, even the vicinity to the Capitoline hill could have been significant: it was there that the Romans retreated to resist the Gauls when they entered the city in 390 BC.116 Now a monument celebrated their definitive submission. In any case, the other functions of the building would have been much more traditional and tied to the historical use of the nearby area; the most revolutionary element of Caesar’s forum – its connection to a new Senate’s house, subordinated to the complex and thus to the future dictator’s will – has been shown by archaeology to belong to a later period, in which the political situation, whose developments could not be foreseen in 54 BC, had radically changed. Caesar’s interest for the Forum area is also clear from the financing of the completion of the works for the two basilicae, the Aemilia and the Iulia.117 The attachment of his name to these two buildings had many advantages: as mentioned, it was in harmony with the acts following the popularis tradition performed during his consulship (such as the approval of the agrarian law and other measures of redistribution of land and colonisation) thanks to the ideal connection to the basilica Sempronia; it helped him promote an idea of (moral) renovation of the city through the frieze representing the origins of Rome in the basilica Aemilia; it connected him with a general refurbishment and improvement of the ancient political heart of the city; finally, it also helpfully reduced the competitive propagandistic impact of a family as ancient and important as the Aemilii. This mixture of popularis themes and strong attachment to tradition corresponded to Caesar’s public image and political behaviour, and could help him gain as wide a consensus as possible in a moment when he most needed it.

Notes 1 See Suet., Iul., 23. 2 For a long time, Clodius has been seen as Caesar’s puppet, aimed at controlling politics in Rome, but this idea has been put into discussion (see, for example, Canfora 1999, 93–98). 3 Cos. 54 BC. See RE entry L. Domitius (27).

106 Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome 4 See Canfora’s observations on a passage of Cassius Dio (39, 25); Canfora 1999, 112, n. 4. 5 The law was probably approved on 12 August 55, and it might not have indicated a specific deadline; however, it established that the succession to Caesar’s command could have been an object of discussion in the Senate only after 1st March 50BC: Cic., Fam., 8, 9, 5 and 8, 8, 9; Caes., Gall., 8, 53, 1; Fezzi 2019, 300 n. 25. See also Gagliardi 2011, 34–36. 6 Cic., Att., 4, 16, 8; for the start of the works, see also Suet., Iul., 26, 2; Plin., HN, 36, 25, 103. 7 The chronology followed here is the one of Di Spigno 2005. 8 Cic., Att., 4, 16, 7. 9 Ibidem. 10 Dio, 39, 39, 4; Vell., 2, 48, 1; Vir. Ill., 77, 8. 11 Two consular candidates for the consulship of 53 BC, Cn. Domitius Calvinus and C. Memmius, struck a deal with the consuls of 54 BC, L. Domitius Ahenobarbus and Ap. Claudius Pulcher. If elected, Calvinus and Memmius had to provide three augurs, willing to swear to have taken part to the approval of a lex curiata, and two senators of consular rank, that had to say that they had taken part to the writing of a Senate’s decree concerning the financing of the consular provinces. Had they not complied, Calvinus and Memmius had to pay Ahenobarbus and Pulcher 4 million sesterces. At Pompey’s suggestion, Memmius revealed the plot in the Senate in September 54 (Cic., Att., 4, 17). On the corruption concerning the consular elections of that year, see also Cic., Att., 4, 15; 4, 18; Q.fr., 2, 15; 2, 16; 3, 2. 12 The first mention of these rumors dates to the beginning of June 54 BC: Cic., Q.fr., 2, 14, 5. 13 Plut., Caes., 23, 5–6. 14 Latin text from Shackleton Bailey 1999. 15 On Aemilius Paullus (cos. 50), see RE entry L. Aemilius (81). The start of his building activity is likely to be connected with his aedileship, probably in 56 BC: MRR 2.216. 16 100 according to Suetonius; Suet., Iul., 26, 2; see also Plin., HN, 36, 103. 17 Palombi 2005, 84. 18 Delfino 2014, 124–136. 19 Delfino 2014, 138. 20 Ulrich 1993, 56. 21 These already hypothesized by other scholars: see Delfino 2014, 146 n. 659 for full references. 22 Delfino 2014, 136. 23 See, for example, Hastrup 1962; Ulrich 1993. Contra Davies 2017, 258. 24 Amici 1991, 31–32, 35. 25 Delfino 2014, 183. Davies (2017, 250) thinks that a temple had always been planned in that position, but that the honorand was perhaps different at the beginning. 26 App., B Civ., 2, 102, 424; Dio, 43, 22, 2, 3. 27 Suet., Iul., 26, 2. 28 Excluding the tabernae; App., B Civ., 2, 102, 424; Dio, 43, 22, 2, 3. 29 References in Chapter 5. 30 Delfino 2014, 150–151. 31 App., B Civ., 2, 102. 32 Delfino 2014, 5, 146. 33 Liv., 43, 16, 13. 34 Castagnoli 1946. 35 Tortorici 1991, 75; Coarelli 1993a; Meneghini 2009, 19.

Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

107

Purcell 1993, 130–135. Purcell 1993, 135. Amici 1999, 302–309. Suet., Aug., 29; Isid., Orig., 6, 5, 2. Tortorici 1991, 76–77, 106–107; Coarelli 1993a, 133; Amici 1999, 319; Meneghini 2009, 19. Plin., HN., 36, 33. Suet., Iul., 44. Tortorici 1991, 77. Built in a later phase: see Chapter 4. Tortorici 1991, 77. Coarelli 1993a, 133. See Cic., Att., 4, 9, 1. The ancient Republican building was still probably a wooden fenced space, called Ovile for its resemblance to a sheep pen (Serv., Ecl., 1, 33). On this building and the Caesarian one, see mainly Gatti 1937, 1999; Coarelli 1997a, 155–164, 580–582. Perhaps: Agache 1987, 227 n. 77. Described as an example of architectural simplicity, the Villa Publica was the place in which the census was carried out (Varro, Rust., 3, 2, 3–4) and where, in periods of war, the ambassadors of the foreign nations were hosted (Liv., 30, 21, 12 and 33, 24, 5). Dio, 53, 23, 1. On Lepidus, cos. 46, see RE entry: M. Aemilius (73). Dio, 53, 23, 1. Gatti 1937, 91. Coarelli 1997a, 581. Coarelli 1997a, 581. Taylor 1966, 52; Agache 1987, 227; Coarelli 1997a, 159; Davies 2017, 261. Agache 1987, 228–229. See Chapter 5. Agache 1987, 230. Varro, Rust., 3, 2, 4. See Cic., Att., 4, 9, 1; Agache 1987, 225. Suet., Iul., 8. See Agache’s discussion on the coin with the representation of the Villa Publica and the inscription CONCORDIA of the triumvir monetalis P. Fonteius; Agache 1987, 215–222, 228–229, 233. Coarelli 1997a, 582. Taylor 1966, 48. Taylor 1966, 53–54. Agache 1987, 230 n. 89. Plut., Pomp., 40, 9. Liv., 2, 5, 2. On the privatisation of the Campus Martius: Oros., 5, 18, 27; see also Coarelli 1997a, 545; Albers 2008, 20. On this, see also App., B Civ. 2, 26; Plut., Caes. 29, 3. At the end of the eighties the commonly accepted topographical position of the basilica Aemilia and its correspondence to the basilica Fulvia had been questioned by Steinby (1987; 1988; 1993). She argued, on the basis of a passage of Varro (ling., 6, 2; see also Plin., HN, 7, 60, 215), that no other building was ever referred to by two names, and thus the basilica Aemilia must have been something different from the basilica Fulvia. She proposed to identify it in three foundation walls located south-east of the temple of the Castores (Steinby 1987, 174–175). This hypothesis was disproved by Carnabuci (1991, 280–287) and Harris (1995, 373–374) and later revisited by Steinby herself (Steinby 2012, 55, 61).

108 Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome 72 Davies 2017, 261 attributes the works for the Basilica Iulia directly to Caesar, pointing out (n. 126) the ‘abrupt change of subject’ had Paullus started it. 73 Plut., Caes., 29. 74 Plut., Pomp., 58, 2. 75 Weigel 1979, 637. 76 Weigel 1979, 639. 77 Who, coincidentally, was a close friend of Paullus; Weigel 1979, 639. 78 Wiseman 1993, 182. 79 MRR 2.216, 2.228, 2.247. 80 For example, the refurbishment of the Fornix Fabianus by Q. Fabius Maximus (cos. suff. 45) in 57 BC (Cic., Vat., 28; see Chioffi 1995, 264); the building of a temporary theatre by M. Aemilius Scaurus (pr. 56) in 58 (Plin., HN, 36, 24, 113–115); the building of temporary, revolving theatres by C. Scribonius Curio (trib. pl. suff. 50) in 53 BC (Plin., HN, 36, 117–118). 81 Leumann et al. 1965, 513. 82 Coarelli actually says that Caesar was just trying to hide his true intentions using Paullus as a puppet: 1988b, 70; Lipps states that it is not possible to know if Caesar was the inspirer of the basilica Aemilia: 2011, 18. 83 The basilica Aemilia has been the object of several studies, which mainly focus on the phases following the fire of 14 BC, and on the Augustan phase in particular (see, for example, Bauer 1988; Freyberger 2010; Lipps 2011). Fewer scholars have focused their attention on the mid- and late Republican phases, among which it is important to mention Bauer (1993a; 1993b), Duckworth (1955), and Gaggiotti (1985). 84 Cic., de or. 2, 266; Quint., Inst. 6, 3, 38; Plin., HN, 35, 8, 24–25. 85 See Cappelli 1993: 58, n. 7. The dating of the frieze is controversial; most scholars place it to 55–54 BC, but others think it was connected to the Sullan refurbishment (Bianchi Bandinelli and Torelli 1976, n. 49; Coarelli 1985, 206–207), to the Augustan one (Strong 1976, 78–79; Kampen 1991, 452 ff.; Freyberger 2010, 41–45), to the imperial period (Simon 1966, 842). 86 See, for example, Coarelli 1985, 207; Cappelli 1993; Zappalà 2008. For Freyberger 2010, 39, the plates that we possess were not part of a frieze, but they were set in the internal walls of the hall as decorative reliefs. 87 Cic., prov. cons., 32. 88 See Zecchini 2001, 129 and Chapter 1. 89 Gaggiotti 1985. 90 Duckworth 1955. 91 Plaut., Curc., 4, 1, 472. 92 Bauer 1993a, 174–175. 93 Gaggiotti 1985, 56–60. 94 Liv., 27, 11, 16. 95 TLG 2, 2460. 96 A similar function, in the relationship between patronus and clientes, was carried out in the atrium of the Roman domus, which in some cases acquired the aspect of a basilica; Gaggiotti 1985, 58. 97 Dio, 1, 6, 2. 98 Gaggiotti 1985, 59. 99 Plut., Numa, 8, 18–19. 100 Gaggiotti 1985, 60–62. 101 Construction by the censors M. Fulvius Nobilior and M. Aemilius Lepidus, with the name of basilica Fulvia, in 179 BC (Liv., 40, 51); M. Aemilius Lepidus displayed some shields depicting images of his ancestors in 78 BC (Plin., HN., 35, 13); a coin of M. Aemilius Lepidus witnesses a refurbishment in 61 BC (AIMILIA REF) (RRC 419/3 a–b).

Caesar Keeps an Eye on Rome

109

102 Gaggiotti 1985, 62. 103 Lepidus could have had the necessary prestige to consolidate that connection, since not only he had been consul twice (187 and 175 BC) and censor, but he had also been princeps senatus six times and pontifex maximus for more than 20 years: Elvers 2002, 210. 104 Cic., Fam., 4, 1, 1; 4, 2, 3; 4, 3, 1; 4, 9, 2; 8, 1, 2; 8, 2, 2; 8, 5, 3; Att., 8, 3, 3; Suet., Iul., 28–29; App., B civ., 2, 25–26; Plut., Caes., 29; Dio, 40, 59, 1; Eutrop., 6, 19, 2. 105 Cic., Att., 6, 3, 4; Caes., B gall., 8, 53, 55; Suet., Iul., 29; Plut., Pomp., 58, 1–59, 1; Caes., 29, 3–4; Ant., 5, 2; App., B civ., 2.25–3 1; Dio, 40, 59, 4; 40, 63, 2; 40, 64–66. 106 The praetors C. Memmius (pr. 58) and L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 54) immediately attacked the acta Caesaris: Suet., Iul., 23; Nero, 2, 2; Schol. Bob., 130, 146, 151 Stangl; cf. Cic., Sest., 40; Vat., 15. 107 Suet., Iul., 30. 108 Suet., Iul., 54. 109 Coarelli 1985, 175; Freyberger 2012, 54–55; the identification of the porticus Iulia, as labelled in Schol., Pers., 4, 49, or stoà Ioulia, as listed in Dio 56, 27, 5, with the porticus Gai et Luci has been established by many scholars, for example Van Deman 1913, 26–28; Coarelli 1985, 171–175; Steinby 1987, 149; Carnabuci 1991, 307–314; Palombi 1999, 124–125. 110 De Felice 2012, 209. On the building, see also Giuliani and Verduchi 1993. 111 Giuliani and Verduchi 1993, 177; De Felice 2012. 112 See Chapter 1. This connection is also highlighted by Davies 2017, 261. 113 Liv., 44, 16, 10. 114 Lex Iulia de pecuniis repetundis (59 BC); lex Pompeia iudiciaria (55 BC); lex Licinia de sodaliciis (55 BC); on these laws, see Rotondi 1912, 389, 405, 407. Other magistrates also tried to curb corruption through legislation during those years: one example is the lex Tullia de ambitu carried by Cicero during his consulate in 63 BC (Rotondi 1912, 379). Pompey will also carry three laws, the lex Pompeia de ambitu, the lex Pompeia de iure magistratum, and the lex Pompeia de provinciis during his consulate in 52 BC (see Rotondi 1912, 410–412). 115 Some examples can be found in Cic., Q.fr. 2, 3, 2; Plut., Pomp., 48, 1–2; 48, 7; 52, 2; 53, 3; Caes., 14, 9; Suet., Iul., 20; Dio, 38, 6, 3; 39, 32, 2; 39, 35, 4–5. 116 Liv., 5, 39, 9–10. 117 Caesar’s primary interest was probably to secure, with that money, the support of Paullus against his consular colleague Marcellus, determined to cause his political demise; however, the advantages in terms of public image brought by the two monuments must have also constituted a valid reason.

4

After the War, a New Rome

Since Caesar’s first architectural plans had been unveiled, much had changed. Crassus’ death in 53 BC had dissolved the triumvirate, and while, in the following year, Caesar was very busy trying to repress the Gallic revolt led by Vercingetorix, the designation of Pompey as sole consul undermined his control on the politics in Rome and threatened his position.1 The law approved in favour of Caesar – which established that he could have candidated himself in absentia to the elections for the consulate at the end of his proconsulship, 2 in order that he did not become a private citizen and thus liable to prosecution – was soon made invalid by another one.3 Caesar thus risked being called to answer for his actions during the consulship and the proconsulship, and considering the strong political character of trials in the late Republic this would have put an end to his political career. His attempts to find a compromise 4 notwithstanding, the situation went out of control, and civil war started in January 49 BC, when Caesar crossed the Rubicon. A very interesting document to interpret Caesar’s propaganda in this period is constituted by the letter,5 analysed in Chapter 1, that was written by him to his collaborators Oppius and Balbus, then sent in copy to Cicero by them, where the proconsul sets out his strategy of behaviour in order to find a political way out of the civil war.6 It will be seen that some of the messages displayed in Caesar’s monuments around this period (and sometimes even later) comply, at least on some levels, with the ideology of clementia and concordia set out in that document. After the victory at Pharsalus in 48 BC and the subsequent escape and death of Pompey, Caesar was very often away from Rome: first in Alexandria, then in Asia, then in Africa and finally in Spain, with only two short stays in Rome, one before going to Africa (end of 47 BC) and the other one before going to Spain (mid-46 BC, during which he celebrated his four triumphs on Gaul, Egypt, Pontus, and Africa7 and dedicated his forum8). Therefore his building activity slowed down, and probably only two monuments can be referred to this period.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080503-5

After the War, a New Rome  111

4.1 The Temple of Felicitas If L. Aemilius Paullus, as it was seen in the previous chapter, was an exponent of the optimates, his younger brother M. Aemilius Lepidus could be described as a Caesarian from early on9: in 47 BC he was commissioned by Caesar to build a temple of Felicitas in the place of the curia Hostilia/Cornelia,10 which in turn had constituted the rebuilding by Faustus Sulla of the curia Cornelia promoted by his father, the dictator, and destroyed by a fire in 52 BC together with the basilica Porcia on the occasion of Clodius’ funeral.11 The position of the curia from its origins to its destruction, and thus also of the temple of Felicitas, is deeply controversial. The most widely accepted theory is the one expounded by Coarelli in the first volume of his book about the Roman Forum,12 where he places the old curia Hostilia (and its refurbishment as curia Cornelia) on the hill where the church of the SS. Luca e Martina is located (Figure 4.1, n. 3); this reconstruction is mainly based on literary sources, since the archaeological remains are very few and controversial.13 Coarelli’s theory has been criticised by Amici,14 who states that

Figure 4.1 Schematic plan of the Roman Forum in 54 BC. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Palombi 2010, 80, fig. 10; Davies 2017, 248, fig. 7.1.

112  After the War, a New Rome the old curia was located in the same place where the curia Iulia now stands (Figure 4.1, hashed line). Nevertheless, this argument is rather problematic in relation to the written sources that relate the curia to the use of the comitium as a solar clock.15 Amici’s hypothesis needs to be discussed, as the difference in the position of the curia Hostilia implies a strong difference in the ideological impact that the monument had in relation to the nearby structures. In Coarelli’s case, the curia Hostilia/Cornelia would have towered above the comitium area, being on higher ground, and the change of position and orientation through the construction of the curia Iulia would signify a subordination of the Senate’s meeting place to Caesar’s forum (second phase). Following Amici, the curia Hostilia/Cornelia would have been on a much lower level, and replacing it with the curia Iulia would have been less revolutionary. Amici bases her hypothesis for the position of the building on the archaeological evidence for the republican comitium area (which she re-examined), on the orientation of the different structures present in the sector and on the relative altitudes of its archaeological layers. The main evidence is the presence of five steps of tufa blocks, dated to the 6th century BC, located just north of the comitium area and with the same orientation later acquired by the curia Iulia; they apparently led to a building located almost 1.50 m higher than the floor related to the comitium (Figure 4.2).16 This orientation (NE-SW), shared by other small archaeological structures located in the area behind the curia Iulia, coexisted with another orientation (NW-SE) from the 2nd century BC, which was shared by the Sullan refurbishment of the area.17

Figure 4.2 Schematic plan and reconstruction of the third phase of the comitium, which shows the position of the steps (in the plan, located just above the curia Iulia) with the same orientation acquired by the curia Iulia (in dashed line in the plan). Source: Amici 2004–05, 357, fig. 7 (modified).

After the War, a New Rome  113 This latter orientation, in fact, is witnessed by a section of a large sewer of the Sullan period, located underneath the curia Iulia, which seems to follow the foundation walls of a pre-existing structure (Figure 4.3). This building might perhaps be identified, according to Amici,18 with the basilica Porcia, built in 184 BC by Cato the Elder.19 Although Amici20 is right in criticising Coarelli’s reconstruction first of a square and then of a round comitium (mainly because of issues of space), more problematic is the location of the basilica Porcia and of the curia Hostilia/Cornelia that she suggests. In both cases, the main issue seems to lie on the fact that there is not enough archaeological evidence to back any of the two hypotheses. In relation to Amici’s suggestion, it might be observed that it would be difficult to explain why, for example, if Sulla attributed such importance to the institution of the Senate that he decided to double the number of its members and build a larger curia to accommodate all of them, the orientation of the Sullan structures, and perhaps of the limited surviving portion of floor paving between the curia and the comitium does not follow that of the curia Iulia. In addition to this, it has to be pointed out that the same orientation of the steps highlighted by Amici seems to be shared by sections of various private buildings, dated from the 6th to the beginning of the 1st century BC, uncovered during the excavations carried out in the area of the Forum of Caesar by Delfino.21 It might be therefore possible that the orientation of the steps was not due to the presence of an individual, albeit important, monument, but to the orientation of a whole residential area in the Argiletum. Geomorphological evidence seems to back Coarelli’s reconstruction. A geomorphological section of the area around the Forum of Caesar, based

Figure 4.3 Plan of the area later occupied by the curia Iulia during the 4th century BC (left), 2nd century BC (centre) and the Sullan period (right). (A) Location of the curia Hostilia according to Amici 2004–05; (B) location of the basilica Porcia according to Amici 2004–05; (C) sewer of the Sullan period; and (D) location of the curia Cornelia according to Amici 2004–05. Source: Amici 2004–05, 373, fig. 25 (modified).

114  After the War, a New Rome on previous and new surveys of the virgin soil,22 was created during the 1998–2000 and 2004–2008 excavations in the imperial fora. It shows the geomorphological profile from the area behind the first taberna of the Forum of Caesar to the comitium, crossing the location of the church of the SS. Luca and Martina, and a sharp drop of 8 m in altitude is evident just under the church towards the comitium area.23 This is interpreted by Delfino24 as an artificial cut, most likely carried out in ancient times, located under the modern church of the SS. Luca and Martina; it allowed the creation of a flat surface at 14 m asl, whose existence had already been highlighted by Ammermann and Filippi.25 This would be also backed by the presence of a wall of tuff blocks and of a black and white mosaic floor connected to it underneath the south-eastern corner of the church, at 14 m asl and with a NW-SE orientation26 (Figure 4.4), which imply the existence of a building in the area. This evidence has been interpreted in different ways: as the remains of the curia Cornelia,27 the temple of Felicitas,28 dedicated by Lepidus in the place of the old curia,29 or the Atrium Libertatis.30

Figure 4.4 Plan of the area around the church of the SS. Luca and Martina. In grey, excavation area on the south-eastern corner of the church, where the wall of tuff blocks and the black and white mosaic floor have been located in 1933. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic, on the basis of Amici 1991, 24, fig. 19; Delfino 2014, 149, fig. III.109.

After the War, a New Rome  115 Bearing in mind the lack of archaeological evidence, it is nevertheless significant that, as noted by Delfino,31 these data would imply the presence of enough space for a large building, as the curia Hostilia (and, subsequently, the curia Cornelia) would have been. This would also imply the vicinity of the curia to the comitium area, in a position and with an orientation that would fit with the indications offered by the ancient sources.32 Furthermore, if Amici’s33 identification of the remains of a republican building under the curia Iulia with the basilica Porcia is correct, this would comply with the topographical indication of the basilica Porcia by Plutarch,34 who places it ‘at the foot of the curia.’ Assuming that Coarelli is right about the location of the curia Senatus, and subsequently the temple of Felicitas, what kind of ideology did this building express? As stated, the fact that Caesar gave the commission for the temple of Felicitas to Lepidus has an important political value: with that monument, the meeting place of the Senate was to be destroyed and replaced – a subversive action, whose seriousness might have been tempered if carried out by the exponent of one of the oldest and most important families of the senatorial aristocracy.35 At the same time, the initiative had the clear aim to erase the name of Sulla and any memory of him from the Senate House.36 It also stated that the Sullan reforms had to be finally set aside.37 Clark38 focuses on the particular aspect of the dedication of the temple to Felicitas, and compares the temple to the same goddess on the cavea of Pompey’s theatre to Caesar’s temple as a part of a more extended complex comprising the Forum Romanum and Caesar’s Forum. She makes a parallel with the dedication of a temple to Libertas on the site of Cicero’s house by Clodius39; Clodius had in fact destroyed the orator’s house to build that temple, which became part of his properties on the Palatine, so highlighting his success in defying the ‘tyrant’ Cicero with the help of Libertas.40 According to Clark,41 Caesar in the same way destroyed the Senate House that bore Sulla’s name, replacing it with a temple dedicated to a ‘divine quality’ that was connected both with the old dictator and with Pompey, giving it a new significance in the context of his new architectural complex.42 Clearly Caesar’s intent was to stress the new course of history that his victory had brought about. However, a further observation is required. As mentioned previously, Felicitas was a quality that had been strongly connected with Sulla, who had the agnomen of Felix; as Clark underlines, it is possible that the reference to a certain divine quality was sufficient to recall to the minds of the listeners a person who had been connected to it. Clark refers to a passage of Cicero,43 where Marius is said to have had to fight against Fortuna: she sees a reference to the rivalry between Marius and Lutatius Catulus, who had built a temple to the Fortuna Huiusce Diei.44 Potentially a mental connection could be established between Felicitas and a man whose agnomen referenced this quality; in this context, it is important to remember that Sulla’s Felicitas was one of the central ideas of his Memories.45 In the light of this, Caesar’s choice of that divine quality may thus have had, as well, the

116  After the War, a New Rome purpose of preserving a reference to the old dictator in the place where he had restored the old Senate House; also because the monument would not have been very far from the hypothesised Sulla’s temple of Fausta Felicitas on the Capitoline hill.46 This duplicity in the reading of the meaning of the temple fits well in the panorama of ideological ambiguity that characterises Caesar’s politics after Pharsalus, which will be analysed in further depth in the last chapter. A final consideration on the reasons for Caesar’s political connection with members of the gens Aemilia might be seen in terms of ‘public image’ and, ultimately, of attempts to legitimise power. Taking into account the importance of that family, consistent with its antiquity and patrician status, the (at least nominal) involvement of its members in the dictator’s projects might also have been meaningful, especially before the Civil War, because of their commitment towards grain provision,47 essential for Caesar in order to gain supporters for his own measures of popularis tradition in that direction. It is notable that, some years later, Augustus dedicated the same attention of Caesar to the basilica Aemilia, whose reconstruction he committed to Paullus Aemilius Lepidus, the son of the noted L. Aemilius Paullus.48 Significantly, both branches of the gens Aemilia subsequently had a strong connection with the imperial family.49

4.2 The Temple of Quirinus on the Quirinal Hill Cassius Dio records that in 45 a statue of Caesar was dedicated by the Senate inside the temple of Quirinus, bearing the inscription ‘Θεῷ ἀνικήτῳ’, ‘to the invincible god’.50 The building had been destroyed by a fire in 49 BC51; there is no evidence to affirm that Caesar promoted an intervention on the temple, but it has been affirmed that the dedication of Caesar’s statue followed a refurbishment, probably carried out by him.52 This decision would certainly fit with the ideology connected to the figure of Romulus which was being promoted by the patrician particularly during that period. Furthermore, it has to be considered that the temple was located in the same place as a previous sacellum Quirini,53 whose construction had been ordered by Romulus himself to Julius Proculus54 or by Numa55: that building was therefore reminiscent either of Romulus’ preference for an ancestor of the gens Iulia,56 or of king Numa, who, as seen above, might have been one of Caesar’s models. The precise location of the temple on the Quirinal hill has been a matter of debate even in recent times57; nevertheless, Coarelli’s analysis of the substruction structures known as ‘Circo di Flora’, visible under Palazzo Barberini, and of the other archaeological evidence from the same area provides valid reasons to support the location of the temple there (Figure A1 in Appendix A). In fact, Coarelli58 rightly disproves Carandini’s hypothesis: as stated in Capanna’s59 report on the geophysical survey carried out in the area of the Giardini del Quirinale, where Carandini locates the temple, the anomalies

After the War, a New Rome  117 emerged from it are very fragmentary and not parallel or perpendicular to each other; so, Coarelli affirms, cannot be used to prove the presence of a portico surrounding a temple. On the contrary, the presence of walls, that the anomalies seems to imply, can be attributed to the existence, in that area, of a large hortus, in connection with a domus. This hypothesis can be sustained by the evidence from surveys, carried out at the beginning of the 20th century on the occasion of the opening of the Umberto I gallery, that runs underneath the Giardini del Quirinale. During these surveys, remains of a large imperial domus emerged; the presence of fistulae in situ with the name of the praefectus praetorio C. Flavius Plautianus led to the identification of its owner.60 The above-mentioned substruction structures recognised by Coarelli run on the southern side of via Barberini, and are now only partially preserved, although a 1616 print of Alò Giovannoli represents seven blind arches with facing in opus reticulatum. The extant arches measure around 10 m in height, and the construction technique, with a facing made of a reticulate of tufa blocks, suggests a Caesarian-Augustan chronology. These structures seem to have been used to widen the surface of the Quirinal hill.61 Furthermore, during the 17th century, in the area east of via delle Quattro Fontane (Figure  4.5), similar substruction structures were discovered, and on the surface at the top of these was a large section of a mosaic, made of minute black and white tesserae. This evidence was presented by Pietro Sante Bartoli, and the mosaic style that seems to be described, as Coarelli notes,

Figure 4.5 Reconstruction of the temple of Quirinus in the area of Palazzo Barberini by Coarelli. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Coarelli 2014, 98, fig. 21.

118  After the War, a New Rome might be related to the Augustan period, perhaps to the refurbishment of 16 BC,62 and might belong to the portico surrounding the temple, described by Martial.63 Coarelli therefore suggests that the platform created by the substruction structures hosted a great building, that could have been the temple of Quirinus if one considers the following:

For these reasons, Coarelli’s suggestion for the location of the temple of Quirinus is here considered the most probable. As seen, the monument might have had much propagandistic appeal for Caesar, although his promotion of a refurbishment is only a hypothesis. As far as the dedication of Caesar’s statue is concerned, it is equally difficult to establish whether that was the result of a decision of the dictator or not. Cadario71 considers it together with two other statues of Caesar, decreed by the Senate, mentioned by Cassius Dio72: one that had to parade together with those of the gods during the pompa triumphalis,73 the other to be located in front of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus among the statues of the kings. Cadario argues that these three honours have to be considered part of a single ‘Romulean programme’,74 and that they show the intent of placing Caesar among the personalities of the Roman myth. Taking into consideration the comments of Cassius Dio and of Plutarch on the honours decreed to Caesar – that the Senate’s flattery was excessive75 and that the accumulation of privileges was partly designed by his enemies to make him odious76 – it is even harder to judge whether those statues should be included in Caesar’s propagandistic programme or if they were just an expedient to

After the War, a New Rome  119 attack him. In fact, although the value of Cassius Dio as a historical source for the Caesarian period had been re-evaluated, and his work is now considered fairly reliable, and although both Plutarch and Cassius Dio report the same judgement, it is also true that, as Ferrary77 highlights, the theme of the Senate accumulating honours to make the ruler become unpopular is a recurring element in imperial historiography, and has its origin in the political polemic that arose after the ides of March.78 However, there might be clues that imply the presence of the dictator’s shadow behind the Senate’s decision. First, the choice to dedicate the statue in that specific temple, thus strengthening the bond with Romulus-Quirinus and recalling the story of Julius Proculus. As mentioned, Cadario sees this as a way to emphasise the long relationship of Caesar’s gens with the king who became god: this long-time, close proximity with Rome’s founder would have justified a close comparison with Caesar, and consequently the dictator’s deification.79 Nevertheless, Romulus’ choice primarily demonstrates his preference for Caesar’s gens, and this has an important implication. As Cadario notes, Caesar had become an augur in 57 BC, and was trying to foster the superiority of the Roman auspicatio over the Etruscan haruspices (who were mainly favourable to the Senate). Being a dictator his auspicia were greater than those of the other magistrates, and it has also to be added that he was the pontifex maximus too. All these characteristics put Caesar in a position of being the one who was best equipped to communicate with the gods and, thus, to preserve the pax deorum, on which the same survival of Rome depended. His particular status also implied a delegitimisation of the auspices taken by the other senators, the politically unfair use of which he had tried to fight since his first consulate.80 Finally, it is interesting to turn the attention to the epithet used on the inscription on the statue (ἀνίκητος). This dedication ‘to the invincible god’ is still a matter of lively (and probably unsolvable) debate: it is in fact not clear whether it referred to Caesar or to Quirinus.81 Zecchini82 points out that the fact that the inscription was in dative might suggest that it was referred to the god; nevertheless, Quirinus never had the epithet of invictus, even if the characteristic of invincibility might have passed to him from Romulus.83 Consequently, Cadario underlines that in the light of the close connection established between Caesar and Quirinus, the invincibility of the latter could have been reflected on the former. This observation allows further reflection on the presence of this attribute (which, as said, most probably corresponded to the Latin invictus 84) on Caesar’s statue. One element in particular has to be taken into account: invictus was the epithet of Hercules of whom Pompey had been particularly fond, as well as that of Alexander the Great, with whom Pompey had often been compared. Caesar’s statue had been dedicated just after the battle of Munda, where the dictator had finally defeated the forces of the Pompeians; the choice of the epithet to be attributed to Quirinus might therefore not have been casual, and could be understood in the frame of the ‘appropriation

120  After the War, a New Rome of gods’ that seems to have taken place already with the dedication of the temple in Caesar’s forum to Venus Victrix/Genetrix. From this perspective, the real ‘invincible god’ was the one who had a particular relationship with the Iulii, the one who had protected Caesar; the deification of the king who, as he did, descended from the mother of the Romans, Venus. This appropriation of the epithet by Caesar for the god of the Quirites might therefore have been a reference to his personal victory over Pompey (a theme which, as it will be seen, could also be present in the Forum of Caesar from 46 BC), which was also a victory of the Romans.85

4.3 Preliminary Conclusions As mentioned, in the period considered here few interventions took place, partly because of the sparse presence of Caesar in Rome, and probably because his plans for the city had still to be completely defined after the turn caused by the start of the civil war. The Forum of Caesar was still in progress and soon to be completed, but it is very likely that the political messages that it had to convey were modified along with the unfolding of the civil war events. What can be said up to this point is that Caesar was probably quick to exploit Pompey’s defeat and tragic end to parade the stronger support given to him by the gods and his superior personal qualities as a commander. The appropriation of Felicitas is a clear sign of supremacy and perhaps even of some irony towards that part of the Senate that had always looked at Pompey as the man to be called upon when the Republic was in danger and that had unfaltering trust in his ability as a commander.86 Furthermore, its location on the place of Sulla’s curia promised change: Marius’ nephew had won, and was sealing the end of the predominance of the optimates, that had been restated through its refurbishment after the Senatus Consultum Ultimum (or a slightly later decree) on the occasion of the events following Clodius’ funeral.87 AntiSullan measures were also taken in other fields: he authorised the recall and the complete reinstatement to public offices of the sons of those who had been proscribed by Sulla.88 As Canfora89 pointed out, these acts were a direct consequence of the fact that it was fundamental for Caesar to distance himself from Sulla in a moment in which he was taking up the dictatorship. However, as Caesar explicitly said,90 his idea for the exploitation of his victory did not contemplate further bloodshed, but revolved around the concept of clementia. By placing the temple of Felicitas in that location he did not completely erase the memory of Sulla. Suetonius reports that he showed both moderation and clemency not only during the civil war, but even after his victory, so much as to allow, later on, the return of people he had not yet pardoned, and to re-erect statues of Sulla and Pompey that the people had brought down.91 In this way, Caesar could also challenge the figure of the right man for government and bringer of peace that Pompey had built for himself, and present himself as such, building on his promotion of his moderation and respect for the mos maiorum.

After the War, a New Rome  121 If the refurbishment of the temple of Quirinus was undertaken by him, it would have fit with the tradition of his family, as well as the consequent presentation of himself as the new Romulus who could re-found the Urbs. As it will be seen, plans for a new Rome were on their way.

Notes 1 Canfora 1999, 141. 2 Suet., Iul., 26; Dio, 40, 50–51. 3 Suet., Iul., 28. 4 Suet., Iul., 29. 5 Cic., Att., 9, 7C, 1. 6 Canfora 1999, 169. 7 Liv., Per., 115; Plut., Caes., 55, 2; Suet., Iul., 37; App., BCiv, 2, 101; Dio, 43, 19–22. 8 App., BCiv., 2, 102; Dio, 43, 22, 2. 9 Weigel 1992, 20. 10 Dio 44, 5, 2. On the temple, see Tortorici 1995; Davies 2017, 256. 11 Ascon., Mil., 33. 12 Coarelli 1983, 153–156. 13 Delfino 2014, 245. 14 Amici 2004–05, 372–377. 15 Plin., HN, 7, 60; Varro, Ling., 6, 9, 89 and 6, 2, 5; Cens., DN, 24, 3. 16 Amici 2004–05, 352–354. 17 Amici 2004–05, 369. 18 Amici 2004–05, 369. 19 Plut., Cato min., 5.1; Vir. Ill., 47; Liv., 39, 44, 7. 20 Amici 2004–05, 359. 21 Delfino 2014, 64–136. 22 Delfino 2014, 45. 23 Delfino 2014, 46, figs II.30 and II.31. 24 Delfino 2014, 47, 246. 25 Ammermann and Filippi 2000, 33–37, but p. 36 in particular. 26 Delfino 2014, 245–246; for the original publication of the archaeological evidence: Colini 1933, 262; Bartoli 1963, 261. 27 Coarelli 1983, 156. 28 Tortorici 1993b, 332; 1995, 245–246; Delfino 2014, 247. 29 Dio, 44, 5, 1. 30 Amici 1999, 309. 31 Delfino 2014, 246–247. 32 Plin., HN., 7, 212. 33 Amici 2004–05, 369. 34 Plut., Cat. mai., 19, 3. 35 Delfino 2014, 247. 36 As highlighted by Cassius Dio, 44, 5, 2; see Coarelli 1983, 135, 154; 1985, 236; Tortorici 1995, 245–246; Carafa 1998, 158; Clark 2007, 229–230; Liverani 2009, 23–24; Delfino 2014, 244. 37 Note that, for example, he re-admitted the sons of the proscribed to the magistracies (Suet., Iul., 41). 38 Clark 2007, 230–232. 39 Clark 2007, 242. 40 Clark 2007, 210. 41 Clark 2007, 242. 42 Clark 2007, 242.

122 After the War, a New Rome 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

Cic., red. pop., 19. Clark 2007, 214. Gabba 1975, 14. See Chapter 1, n. 154. This ‘family tradition’ is assessed in Allely 2000. Hayne 1973, 499. See Hayne 1973; though Augustus successfully downplayed the importance of the triumvir Lepidus’ branch: Weigel 1985, 181–182. Dio, 43, 45, 3; the presence of the statue is also testified by Cicero in Att., 12, 45, 2; 12, 48, 2 and 13, 28, 3. Dio, 41, 14, 2–3. Coarelli 1999a, 185; 2014, 96–97; Davies 2017, 252. Coarelli 1999c. Cic., rep., 2, 10; leg., 1, 3; Ov., fast., 2, 511; Vir. Ill., 2, 13. Dion. Hal., 2, 63, 3. Which might have been a way of justifying a deification: Cadario 2006, 47. Manca di Mores 1982–83; Carafa 1993; Coarelli 1999a; 2014, 83–112; Carandini 2007; 2012, 452–453. Coarelli 2014, 87–91. Capanna 2007. Coarelli 2014, 91–92. Coarelli 2014, 94. Dio, 54, 19, 4. Mart., 11, 1, 9–12; Coarelli 2014, 96. Paul-Fest., 255 L. Coarelli 2014, 86. Cic., leg., 1, 1, 3; Att., 4, 1, 4. Coarelli 2014, 87. Mart., 10, 58, 10 and 11, 1, 1; Coarelli 2014, 87; for the analysis of the position of Martial’s house, see Coarelli 2014, 281–286. Coarelli 2014, 93; Ziolkowski 1992, 141. Coarelli 2014, 107–112. Cadario 2006, 37–38. Dio, 43, 45, 2–3. Perhaps it was the same statue: Cadario 2006, 46. Cadario 2006, 38. Dio, 43, 44, 3. Plut., Caes., 57, 2–3. Ferrary 2010, 10. See Mark Anthony’s letter to Hirtius quoted by Cicero in Phil., 13, 40. Cadario 2006, 47. See his strong contrasts with his colleague Bibulus and the support given to the lex Clodia in the following year: Zecchini 2001, 41. On the lex Clodia de iure et tempore legum rogandarum, see Rotondi 1912, 397. Cadario 2006, 48; see Zecchini 2001, 46, n. 60 for bibliography. Zecchini 2001, 46. Cadario 2006, 48. See its use in Weinstock 1957. See Caesar’s insistence to underline that he undertook the civil war to protect not only his own dignitas but to free the Roman people from the power of a small faction; Caes., B Civ., 1, 22. Caesar remarks on many occasions that the Pompeians were convinced of their victory over Caesar, and at Pharsalus in particular: see for example Caes., B Civ., 3, 82; 83; 86; 87; 96.

After the War, a New Rome 123 87 As Davies 2017, 265 rightly noted. On the Senate’s actions after the burning of the curia: Cic., Mil., 13; 61; 67; 70; Ascon., 34C; 51–52C; Liv., Per., 107; Dio, 40, 49, 5. 88 Plut., Caes., 37, 2; Dio 41, 18, 2 dates this measure to the beginning of the conflict, but it is more probable that it was undertaken when Caesar had his powers formalised: Canfora 1999, 323, n. 26. 89 Canfora 1999, 324. 90 Cic., Att., 9, 7c, 1. 91 Suet., Iul., 75.

5

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar

It seems that in the latest part of his life, Caesar’s propaganda changed. It is possible that after the African campaign, which took place in 46 BC, he realised that there were no hopes of finding a compromise with the Senate, and his government took a more autocratic turn.1 It was in that year that he was appointed dictator for the third time and for ten years,2 and at the beginning of 44 BC, he received the perpetual dictatorship; in addition, after the battle of Munda (march 45 BC), he celebrated his fifth triumph over Roman citizens, an act that caused dismay in the Roman people.3 This does not mean that, in the monuments of the last period of his life, the previous propagandistic themes were abandoned; however, it will be seen that among the usual messages it is possible to glimpse a more aggressive claim of victory, mainly directed to the senatorial class.

5.1 The Forum of Caesar The forum of Caesar (Figure 5.1, phase 1) constituted the scenery for the conclusion of Caesar’s quadruple triumph in 46 BC. By this date, the complex was almost completely finished,4 and measured 136.7 x 75.9 m.5 The square was paved with travertine slabs; on its north-western side, it was dominated by the temple of Venus Genetrix, an octastyle, pycnostyle temple,6 peripteros sine postico; its podium was 5 m high, and access to the cella was given by two lateral staircases going from the rear to the front of the podium, leading to a landing, and by another central staircase. East of it, towards the centre of the square, there was most probably an equestrian statue of Caesar. The porticoes were duplices7 and they surrounded the square on its north-eastern, south-eastern, and south-western sides. Their floor was raised 1 m higher than that of the square, to which it was connected through three Luni marble steps, and paved in white Luni marble slabs. They were divided into two naves, 13 m wide, by marble columns; on the first order, the columns towards the square had an intercolumnation of 2 m and were 6.5 m high, whereas those in the central row of the portico had an intercolumnation of 4 m and were 6.5 m high. On the second order, the columns were most probably 4.73 m high and perhaps made of peperino stone. They sustained

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080503-6

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  125

Figure 5.1 Reconstruction plan of the Forum of Caesar in its first phase (54–46 BC) (black) and second phase (42–29 BC) (grey). Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Delfino 2014, 149, fig. III.109.

a single-pitched roof. The back wall of the porticoes was in opus quadratum of travertine, and delimited the space of the forum on its north-eastern and south-eastern sides, whereas, on the south-western side, it divided it from the tabernae. The back wall of the south-eastern side of the forum also presented a recess on its centre, perhaps for a statue, and two non-monumental entrances at its far ends; on its external side towards the Argiletum there might have been a structure leaning against it, perhaps a fountain. On the north-western side, the long porticoes ended with an apse, screened by four pillars.8 5.1.1 Decoration: Griffins The decoration of the Caesarian phase (54–46 BC) of the Forum has been partly preserved, especially in the porticoes, that were probably not affected by the Trajanic restorations.9 The columns towards the square were fluted, reeded on their inferior third, and had Corinthian capitals and Attic bases; the median columns were fluted and had ionic capitals.10

126  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar What is of interest here is that the first order of the porticoes was decorated with an ionic frieze which seems to have featured the presence of pairs of facing griffins, crouching on their hind legs and divided by vases, and of vegetal elements, perhaps tufts of acanthus11 (Figure 5.2). As far as the temple is concerned, it was much affected by the interventions for the construction of the Forum of Trajan, but recent studies have hypothesised that a small part of the Caesarian decoration has survived: fragments of a cornice characterised by a simple meander and of a frieze with standing griffins watered by cupids in acanthus and divided by kantharoi, previously ascribed to the porticoes,12 have been lately attributed to the external peristasis of the temple13 (Figures 5.3 and 5.4). The presence of griffins in the frieze decoration both in the porticoes and in the temple and that of cupids in the frieze of the latter are worthy of attention. Griffins were considered the guardians of moderation, in contrast with any type of excess and fighting against hýbris, and were also the zoomorphic symbol of Nemesis.14 As far as the first aspect is concerned, its connection with the public attitude of Caesar is clear from the fact that he (and his entourage) always tried to promote temperantia as one of the main features of his character,15 since this constituted one of the fundamental virtues of a good

Figure 5.2 Reconstruction of the ionic frieze which decorated the first order of the porticoes of the Forum of Caesar. Source: Delfino 2014, 171, fig. III.132.

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  127

Figure 5.3 Fragments of a cornice with simple meander (and reconstructive scheme) attributed to the Caesarian phase of the temple of Venus Genetrix. Source: Maisto and Pinna Carboni 2010, 440, fig. 17.

Figure 5.4 Fragments and reconstruction of frieze with standing griffins watered by cupids in acanthus and divided by kantharoi, attributed to the Caesarian phase of the temple of Venus Genetrix. Source: Maisto and Pinna Carboni 2010, 442, fig. 19.

128  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar man of government (it was possessed by Scipio Aemilianus, considered as such by his supporters16). On the other hand, Nemesis was seen as the goddess of rightful vengeance and retribution, and in order to accomplish her task as guarantor of justice she was often helped by griffins.17 The presence of a symbol of this deity in the Forum of Caesar is particularly important in the frame of the function of the complex, aimed at the administration of justice.18 Furthermore, Nemesis, being able to enter the Underworld, was also conceived as the protector of graves.19 This is particularly interesting if related to the discovery of Iron Age graves during the levelling works for the Forum,20 and could constitute a reference to this funerary presence in the area (see also below for a connection between Venus and tombs). Taking into account the friezes on the temple of Venus, with their representation of griffins watered by cupids in acanthus, it is important to point out that the latter figure, in relation to the Forum of Trajan, has been interpreted as referring to the Hellenistic origins of Eros, linked to Nemesis and Victoria, and it therefore celebrates the military victories of the emperor.21 Since the pattern of griffins watered by cupids has already been seen as a metaphor for the pacification of the East (the cupids tame the griffins22), in the context of Caesar’s Forum this representation might refer either to his planned campaigns against the Parthians, or, more likely, to his recent victories in Asia. This metaphor is perhaps to be considered even more meaningful than in Trajan’s Forum since Cupid was the son of Venus,23 progenitor of the gens Iulia: it might have therefore represented a more precise reference to Caesar conquering and pacifying the East, a theme that would have addressed the political attacks regarding an alleged will of the dictator to move to Alexandria or Ilium, bringing with him ‘all the resources of the empire’,24 but also a way to strip Pompey of his characterisation as pacifier of the East, and to challenge his propaganda revolving around the favour granted to him by Athena Ilias. 5.1.2 Decoration: The Meander The presence of the simple meander in the decoration of the temple also merits careful consideration. Polito25 analysed the significance of this pattern in Greek and Roman art, offering a very interesting interpretation of the meander as represented on the external walls of the Ara Pacis. His analysis starts from the observation that the motif of the single meander in the context of Augustan art has not received much attention, in spite of its frequent presence in key points of the structure of many Augustan monuments, sometimes with monumental proportions. He argued that it is difficult to think that a motif that possesses such prominent dimensions and visual relevance can only be decorative.26 He then listed some Augustan monuments where the meander has those characteristics – the Ara Pacis, the temple of Augustus in Ankara, that of Mars Ultor in Rome, one of the Augustan arches of the Roman Forum, the Maison Carré in Nîmes and probably the

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  129 base of the niches with the statues of the summi viri and of the member if the gens Iulia in the Forum of Augustus. Furthermore, even in the cases where the meander did not have a prominent position, he did not consider it to be a subordinate decorative motif; this is supported by the evidence in the image of a temple on a series of reliefs (the Kitharödenreliefs), where the building is represented as having two friezes, one of which is over-dimensioned and presents a meander.27 It is thus worth reporting Polito’s argument, as his conclusions are very relevant for the interpretation of the meaning of the meander on the temple of Venus Genetrix. The scholars observed that the use of the meander declined after the Augustan period, but it was very common before, from prehistory, to Greek, Etruscan, and Italic architecture, pottery and art, as well as in vases and other supports. During the late classical period the use of the meander increased again, and the motif is present in architecture, painting, mosaics, reliefs, and pottery. In the Italian area, it is common between the 4th and 3rd century BC in terracotta decoration and painting, and, later, under Hellenistic influence, in second style painting and in the mosaics.28 From this vast evidence, Polito identified some common but very specific characteristics, which can be interpreted only taking into account that, particularly in the Hellenistic-Roman period, every single meaning expressed by a particular shape might have been individually ‘activated’ on a specific work of art (or monument) in relation to its context and to necessities.29 The meander is often present in relation to figurative texts in the Etruscan and eastern-Mediterranean area.30 Concerning the meander in mosaics, Polito31 points to its recurrent presence around emblemata, as threshold or floor frame in the public areas of Hellenistic-Roman houses; some scholars32 interpreted it as a way of increasing the prestige of those rooms by its reference to antiquity. But how did the meander acquire such value? Polito explained that the denomination ‘meander’ is ancient, but it is not the original one33: at the beginning, it was probably understood as the ‘labyrinth.’ The door of the labyrinth in Crete in pottery representations of Theseus’ myth often has a meander frame, and on the coins of Cnossos the labyrinth is represented as a square meander.34 Polito reports other examples of this connection, among which one is particularly important for our argument: in the House of the Labyrinth in Pompeii, dated to 70–60 BC, there is an emblem with Theseus and the Minotaur surrounded by a meander frame.35 He also notices that the labyrinth has been interpreted as the palace of the king (thus its value of prestige), and subsequently metaphor for the entire city36; probably for this reason, in Hellenistic floor mosaics the labyrinth is often associated with city walls.37 Although it is not the original one, the denomination ‘meander’ is nevertheless ancient, and it was associated with the river Maíandros/Maeander in Frisia. This is clear from many series of coins minted from the end of the 4th century BC by the cities along the river that presented the meander motif, such as Apameia on the Meander38 or Magnesia.39 It also has to be

130  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar noted that in the latter city the temple of Artemis Leukophryene presents a meander motif around the walls of the cella, which has been interpreted as a reference to the river.40 Subsequently, Polito analyses the types of figurative texts associated with the meander, and he isolates (1) myths connected to the Asiatic or Trojan context and (2) scenes that have their origin in the myth and in the Homeric epos, such as chariot races. It seems therefore that the motif was used, in the Hellenistic period, to emphasise the value of images and places and to suggest a relation with the epic tradition.41 From this perspective, the meander sculpted on the Ara Pacis and under the niches of the Forum of Augustus might acquire the value of expressing, in parallel with the aulic nature of the monumental context, the connection with Asia Minor and, in particular, with the Trojan myth and the origins of the gens Iulia. Furthermore, in the Ara Pacis the motif could also be a reference to the labyrinth as image of the city, and thus to Rome (or to its boundaries), or, more simply, a reference to the river, and so be a symbol of fertility.42 In the temple of Mars Ultor the meander could represent sacral delimitation, as it seems to denote the sacral character of places like the temple of Prinias, the Didymaion of Miletus and the tholos of Epidaurus43; finally, the meander in the Kitharödenreliefs, in association with a temple that seems to be dedicated to Victoria, might refer to chariot races and the notion of agonistic victory, metaphor of the military victory, pertaining to the success at Atium.44 For these reasons, Polito concluded that the motif of the meander was re-used and perfected in Augustan art. He also added that those instances where the motif does not seem to have any meaning do not jeopardise his interpretation: it is possible that in some later examples the meander became an element conceived as part of an established decorative tradition which originated in Asia Minor.45 To summarise, the scholar identified a number of messages that could be conveyed by the meander:

Polito also highlights that the motif had been denominated ‘meander’ since the 4th century BC, and that it was particularly common during the late Republic.50

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  131 At this point one question needs to be asked: how many people could understand the meanings listed above? As mentioned, the meander was a motif commonly represented even on everyday objects and, as Polito pointed out, there were instances in which it began to be used just as a decorative motif, without a precise semantic meaning. It might be sensible to suppose that, at least, the association of the meander/labyrinth with the myth of Theseus and the Minotaur was widely understood, if one considers the inscription Labyrinthus. Hic habitat Minotaurus,51 associated with the sketch of a labyrinth, found in the peristyle of the house of the Lucretii52 in Pompeii. The association between the labyrinth and the palace of the king or the city might have been more difficult for a wide audience, and it could only have been made only by more educated people. Nevertheless, the idea that the presence of the meander motif underlined the prestige or antiquity of a location or of the themes represented could have been more common, if, as De Vos53 emphasises, the motif was commonly present in frescoes and mosaics in the atria of Roman domus and on public buildings. Finally, the association with the water of the river Meander might perhaps have been less obvious to people who had never see the coins from Asia Minor or had never heard of it. In the context of the Forum of Caesar, the association of the meander on the cornice of the external peristasis of the temple of Venus with the myths of Troy and the figure of Aeneas – and thus with Caesarian propaganda about the Trojan origins of the Iulii – has already been recognised.54 It might be argued that if that was the position of this decoration, the peristasis of the temple of Mars Ultor in the later Forum of Augustus might have recalled it: the meander here is interpreted by Polito as a sacred delimitation.55 If his hypothesis is correct, it can be inferred that, if the meander is a metaphor of the city walls of Rome, then its presence on the temple of Venus in her connotation as Genetrix could be particularly significant: the goddess, mother of the Roman people, was surrounded by the transposition of the sacred boundaries of the Roma quadrata, the very first city limit following Romulus’ foundation rites. As mentioned above, in relation to the Ara Pacis the connotation of the meander as a river has been interpreted by Polito56 as a reference to fertility brought by water, and therefore to the golden age brought by the reign of Augustus. This connection with water would be compatible with the ideological programme displayed in the Forum of Caesar: Delfino57 has highlighted some strong references to water that seem to characterise certain aspects of the complex. The first one is the presence of shells, discovered at the bottom of the Caesarian fill of a cistern, of a late-archaic pit and of some Iron Age tombs cut by the Caesarian levelling works in the Forum area58: the offering of shells to Venus and to the Nymphs is widely attested in the Greek-Roman world, also in connection to tombs, because of their link to the feminine sphere and to its connotation of regeneration.59 The deposition of these shells has been described as intentional, particularly as

132  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar a ritual offering to keep the pax deorum after the disturbances caused by the works in an area that previously hosted tombs and flowing water.60 All these characteristics acquire a clearer meaning if put in relation with the presence of places connected to water in the area surrounding the Forum of Caesar: the source of the Tullianum and the nearby Porta Fontinalis, close to the aedes fontis, and the cult of Venus Cloacina next to the comitium, near which lay the spring of Lautolae.61 Furthermore, it is notable that a derivation of the Aqua Marcia most probably passed behind the temple of Venus Genetrix62 (Figure 5.5). It seems clear then that the Forum of Caesar was properly inserted in a context strongly characterised by the presence of water and of cults and rites associated with it; it is also interesting to note that Caesar himself, in his capacity of pontifex maximus, had a connection with the management of waters and of the cults related to them and their Underworld deities.63 In this context, the possible presence of fountains (whose chronology has not yet been established) dedicated to the Appiades nymphs in front of the temple of Venus Genetrix, of other fountains inside the square

Figure 5.5 Reconstruction plan of the Forum of Caesar (first phase), which shows the hydraulic system of the complex, with inflow and outflow systems. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Delfino 2014, 159, fig. III.117.

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  133 and, probably, of further ones against the external wall of its south-eastern side64 acquires a clear meaning and could find its justification in the historical sacral aquatic connotation of the area.65 Hence, there is scope to hypothesise that if the meander cornice was indeed part of the decoration of the temple, this could also have constituted a symbol of its religious and environmental context. Polito has also noted the possible association of the meander with military victory. In the temple of Venus Genetrix, this aspect might be less evident, but we must consider what Appian says about Caesar’s vow and dedication of it: the historian narrates how, on the night before the battle of Pharsalus, Caesar invoked Mars and Venus, and vowed a temple to the latter with the epithet of Victrix (the Bringer of Victory) if everything went well66; however, shortly afterwards, describing the quadruple triumph of 46 BC, Appian refers to the goddess as Genetrix.67 It has already been observed that Caesar’s vow resembles a rite of evocatio68: one can think of the rite performed by Scipio Aemilianus, one of the models of Caesar, in front of the city walls of Carthage, where the general invoked the gods protecting the city and vowed to build temples and institute games for them in Rome.69 While we do not possess any elements that suggest that Caesar did perform an evocatio, it is interesting to note that, when he dedicated the temple, he also established games in honour of Venus Genetrix70; even more curious is the fact that these games, as Schilling71 highlighted, were either called ludi Veneris Genitricis (or Aphrodites Geneteiras),72 or ludi Victoriae Caesaris (games of Caesar’s Victory).73 The scholar therefore affirms that the traits of Victoria (Victory), and also of Felicitas (characteristic of the victorious general), had been spontaneously absorbed by Venus Genetrix,74 and it is notable that Caesar decided to perform both the dedication of the temple of Venus (and of the rest of the forum) and the institution of the games during the last part of his triumph in 46 BC. In order to understand the importance of this point it is helpful to consider Scheid’s75 analysis of Roman religion. Examining its development during the late Republic, he points out that one of the main religious problems in that period of civil wars was the manipulation of state religion by the different parties that were struggling for power76; he subsequently explains that even if the fundamental principles of Roman religion and the function of its cults remained the same, every faction possessed its own ‘religion’ and especially its own cult, that distinguished it from the others and around which that group was organised.77 The origin of this mechanism lay in the need of the individual leaders to legitimise their position.78 Caesar was the first one to try and recreate the unity of the public cult,79 and from the analysis that has been carried out so far it seems that he intended to do this by incorporating and absorbing the cults of his political antagonists in his personal cult of Venus, further legitimised by the fact that his gens had been generated by that goddess. This also means that, because of this divine descent and of the consequent benevolence of Venus, Caesar ‘stole’, or, better, ‘reclaimed’

134  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar

Figure 5.6 Silver denarius minted by Caesar in 46–45 BC (RRC 468/1). Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10435515z.

the protection of the goddess, worshipped by Pompey, and earlier by Sulla, as Victrix; she rewarded the future dictator by granting him the victory at Pharsalus. Going back to the meander on the temple’s decoration, it is plausible to identify within it a reference to military victory, both in connection to Caesar’s triumphs over Gaul, Africa, and Asia but particularly to his victory against Pompey, over whom he could not explicitly celebrate a triumphal ceremony. Westall80 is very critical of this ambiguous and undifferentiated use of the epithets Genetrix and Victrix for Caesar’s Venus; yet it is not very clear why he dismisses Appian’s account of the vow of the temple to Venus Victrix as a mistake81 and subsequently affirms that the denomination of the games established by Caesar as ludi Veneris Genitricis – referred to by more than one source – is simply due to a common source (identified as Livy) or to a reference to the place and to the moment in which the games were established.82 I would argue that these variances in the epithet of the goddess further testify to the fact that, at some point, most probably after Pharsalus, Caesar’s Venus became Genetrix and absorbed the characteristics of Pompey’s (and Sulla’s) Venus Victrix; indeed, one should observe how on two coins struck in 46–45 BC Caesar represents Venus on one side and a trophy on the other83 (Figure 5.6), and that similarly Cassius Dio84 refers to Caesar’s signet ring representing Venus adorned with weapons. These attributes seem more typical of a Venus Victrix; the fact that, some years later, a Venus clearly identified as Genetrix on an aureus of Hadrian85 (Figure 5.7) is represented bearing weapons might further point to an incorporation of Venus Victrix’ attributes by Venus Genetrix.

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  135

Figure 5.7 Recto of aureus minted by Hadrian in 128–132 AD (RE3, 307, n. 529). Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b104275266. r=aureus%20aureus?rk=729617;2.

5.1.3 Aedes Veneris Genetricis The fact that the temple, as the focal point of the entire forum, might not have been initially conceived in the same form that it eventually had and that it might have been dedicated to a Venus who was not yet Genetrix has been suggested more than once.86 The turning point in Caesar’s decision is placed at the battle of Pharsalus – the moment in which the general’s politics towards the Senate and the Republic changed. As explained above, Delfino87 has underlined the strong connection between the area of the forum of Caesar and the presence of water (and of the cults related to it), which might have eventually provided the best justification for Caesar’s decision to build a monument dedicated to Venus in the area.88 This characteristic, together with the presence of fountains in the square and of the slope of the saddle between Capitoline and Quirinal hill, which was probably articulated in terraces with niches where the temple to Venus could have been inserted, has led Delfino to hypothesise that the aspect of this side of the forum could have had a visual effect similar to the theatre and temple in summa cavea of Pompey’s complex.89 Furthermore, it could have been reminiscent of the architectural typology of the nymphaea90; this is a characteristic that was maintained in the final (or post-Pharsalus) project of the forum, since, as Amici has demonstrated,91 the western side of the forum presented two apses at the end of the northern and southern porticoes and two smaller apses in the spaces between the porticoes and the temple; furthermore, the temple was included inside the saddle behind it for half its length.92 Nevertheless, it can be argued that this five-apse (including the one inside the temple) system did not have a strong visual impact on the people who entered

136  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar the forum, since the porticoes’ apses were hidden by the columns and the temple apse could not be seen from the outside.93 It is possible that the aspect of the western side of the forum of Caesar might have been conceived, at least at the beginning, as a structure similar to a nymphaeum; if so, this project was subsequently abandoned, and the apses just absolved their function of containment of the soil of the saddle. It is also doubtful that the whole construction looked like it had been ‘inserted’ inside the slopes of the Capitoline and Quirinal hill and of the saddle between them. In fact, according to a reconstruction of the complex suggested by scholars, the temple reached a height of 26 m94 and the porticoes were almost 20 m high95: this means that, assuming that the height of the point from which the slope cut for the forum proceeded was between 18 and 20 m above sea level,96 the buildings might have obscured the view from the square to the saddle behind the temple and, at least partly, to the slope of the Capitoline hill behind the tabernae, particularly because, according to recent surveys97 the floor level of the Forum lies at 14 m above sea level. Nevertheless, the temple surely looked partly embedded inside the northwestern side of the forum. 5.1.4 Works of Art in the Temple: Statues and Gems The sources report that the temple of Venus was used by Caesar for meetings with the Senate,98 which were most probably held in the pronaos, or in the cella (when Caesar received the Senate there in 44 BC, he was probably sitting in the axial intercolumnation of the pronaos99). It has in fact been pointed out during the last excavations that the podium of the temple of Venus Genetrix was 1.40 m shorter than that of the structure we see nowadays, implying that the landing at the bottom of the frontal staircase was only 1.10 m wide,100 thus insufficient to accommodate a Senate meeting. Inside the cella Caesar had placed various works of art: first of all, the cult statue of Venus Genetrix, sculpted by Archesilaos and not yet finished at the moment of the inauguration of the complex.101 It has been hypothesised that this statue was initially made of terracotta, a feature that might be connected to the revival of Roman tradition typical of Caesarian propaganda.102 Unfortunately, the iconography of the statue is not known, although some hypotheses have been put forward, particularly thanks to the numismatic iconography of Venus Genetrix: for example, a coin minted by M. Mettius in 44 BC, representing Venus holding a Victory with her right hand and a shield with her left hand, with a spear resting on her left shoulder103 (Figure 5.8). It has also been suggested that a coin minted by the tresvir monetalis Mn. Cordius Rufus in 46 BC carries the initial iconography of Venus, holding in her right hand a scale instead of a Victory104 (Figure 5.9) – an iconography that would fit with the juridical function foreseen for the complex. On other occasions the iconography of the statue has been put in connection with that of a statue of Venus exhibited at the Louvre museum.105

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  137

Figure 5.8 Silver denarius minted by M. Mettius in 44 BC (RRC 480/3). Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10437668f.

Figure 5.9 Recto of silver denarius minted by Mn. Cordius Rufus in 46 BC (RRC 463/1a). Source: Bibliothèque nationale de France, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b104547491.

Caesar decorated the temple with other works of art too, whose ideological significance is in some cases not easy to read. Pliny reports that Caesar dedicated a cuirass made of pearls in the temple, and took care to explain its Britannic origin by means of an inscription106: it was clearly a celebration of his victorious (at least according to his Commentarii) campaigns to Britain, and a response to Pompey, who had paraded of a bust of himself, made of pearls, during his triumph in 61.107 Furthermore, considering that, during his triumph in 46 BC, Caesar paraded a statue of captivus Oceanus (the

138  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar captured Ocean),108 and that pearls were seen as a product of the Ocean,109 Flory110 argued that the cuirass also represented the weapon ‘stripped’ from the enemy and then offered as part of the spolia in the temple of the goddess that had granted victory (moreover, the pearls were a particularly appropriate offer to Venus111). She also highlighted that, celebrating a triumph over Ocean, Caesar claimed to have surpassed the achievements of both Pompey and Alexander the Great.112 A second response to Pompey must have been the six dactylothecae, the collections of engraved gems, which the temple hosted; their purpose might have been the celebration of Caesar’s victory at Alexandria, but they also served as a reminder of the dedication of one of them, originally owned by king Mithridates VI, in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus by Pompey.113 Contrasting information exists about a gold or golden statue of Cleopatra that was in the temple: Appian114 affirms that the dictator put it there, whereas Dio115 says that it was Augustus who dedicated it during his triumph in 29 BC. Following Westall’s opinion,116 Dio’s statement is here considered more reliable. The meaning of Caesar’s dedication of the cuirass and dactylothecae in the temple of his own patron goddess, inside a complex that he inaugurated on the last day of his quadruple triumph117 is very clear: he was celebrating his military victories. The obvious parallel cast with Pompey’s pearl portrait and dactylotheca seems to confer to the dedication of these two objects a much more politically charged character: his feats were as great, if not greater, than those of Pompey, who had first reached the Ocean with his conquests in Africa and had made it the boundary of the Roman conquests in Spain.118 5.1.5 Works of Art in the Temple: The Pinakes of Ajax and Medea Pliny also informs us that Caesar dedicated two tabulae, painted by Timomachos of Byzanthium and representing Ajax and Medea, for which he paid 80 talents.119 The interpretation of these paintings is difficult, since we know little about the iconography of the painting with Ajax and nothing about the one with Medea; it is also not clear whether there were other paintings in the temple, a factor that would affect any attempt of interpretation. Very little is known about Timomachos – Pliny120 cites some of his works, praising their quality, and says that he was a contemporary of Caesar, even though the vast majority of the scholars place him in the Hellenistic period.121 It is possible that the dictator put the paintings in the temple because of the fame of their painter, or because they were fine works of art; Schilling122 maintained that these two paintings only had a decorative purpose. Caesar was also known for his passion for collecting works of art.123 It has to be noted, however, that Pliny124 explicitly says that the dictator was the first one to give great public importance to pictures by dedicating those two pinakes in the temple of Venus. Furthermore, the location of the dedication – the temple of the patron goddess of the gens Iulia –, the strong triumphal character of

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  139 the complex and the historical moment in which its inauguration took place (after the defeat of Pompey and Caesar’s appointment to his first dictatorship) could arguably point to a more elaborate interpretation. The association of the subject of Ajax with that of Medea might also not be a coincidence: we know in fact that those two characters were also associated in a couple of paintings in Cyzicus.125 These cannot be the paintings that Caesar bought,126 because Pliny127 reports that it was Agrippa who bought a picture of Ajax (which we might presume is the same as the one mentioned by Cicero) from the city of Cyzicus, together with one of Venus, but it is interesting that the two characters of Ajax and Medea seem to be associated in some way (although it is difficult to say what meaning this might have had). Finally, the factor of allegorical reading has to be taken into account. Allegorical representations were common in the Roman world, for example in the images carried during triumphal processions and in the personifications of Roman provinces; this type of reading also implies the question of broader cultural and historical connections that might be made by more educated individuals.128 Therefore, the artistic value of the paintings and the fame of their creator certainly played a role in Caesar’s choice, demonstrating his taste for Greek art and his desire of making it public (already a political statement by itself).129 Nevertheless, other reasons, connected to the choice of those particular subjects and the conceivable associations that they might suggest, might have been also extant. Westall, Sauron, and Harris130 have convincingly argued that if Caesar had decided to locate these two works of art inside the temple of his protector goddess, they must have expressed some sort of message.131 We know from the sources that the pinax depicting Ajax represented him seated, worn out, and mad, contemplating his suicide132; Sauron points out that the fact that the hero was described as being afflicted and meditative might suggest that he was represented in the pose of melancholy and meditation (that is, with his head on his right hand).133 As far as the painting with Medea is concerned, we do not possess any precise description (Pliny just says that it was unfinished134), but the written sources describe her as being torn by the contrasting feelings of her rage and jealousy against Jason and of her love and pity for her children.135 This description had led many scholars to identify an influence of Timomachus’ painting in the representations of Medea which can be found in Herculaneum or in the house of the Dioscures in Pompeii,136 whereas Sauron137 compares them with the iconography in the fresco of the house of Jason in Pompeii, where Medea is represented as seated, holding a sword with her left arm and holding her head with her right hand (gesture of melancholy). The scholar maintains that this means that the two protagonists of the paintings were represented in the same pose138; Ovid,139 who most probably refers to these two paintings, mentions their unity of style, particularly in the representation of the wrath of the protagonists. Various interpretations have been offered of the iconography of these pictures and their meaning in the frame of the temple of Venus Genetrix and of

140  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar Caesarian ideology. On one level, Sauron agrees with Arcellaschi that Medea and Ajax recall the confrontation between the Eastern and the Western world (a theme that, as it has been seen above, might be also present on the temple’s frieze), and that Medea in particular could represent the possibility of alliance between them.140 He then deepens the analysis and recognises that the feature associating the two characters is that they were both victims of a terrible iniquitas, the ingratitude of other people (the Achaeans for Ajax and Jason for Medea), something that can also be said of Caesar.141 In the commentaries of the civil war, in fact, the proconsul repeatedly states that he was driven to start a civil war because of the iniquitas, iniuria, and invidia of his adversaries,142 therefore non sua voluntate. The paintings would thus recall the tragedy of the civil war; however, they also underline that Caesar did not respond to his enemies’ offence with an uncontrollable madness, but by putting his faith in Venus, who allowed him to win the battle of Pharsalus.143 Westall’s interpretation of the presence of Medea is very similar: he highlights the theme of Medea’s betrayal and not only hypothesises a parallel between Pompey and Jason, but also one between Medea’s part in the destruction of her brother Apsyrtos and Pompey’s defeat by Caesar.144 As far as Ajax is concerned, the scholar focuses his attention on a very interesting point: the reaction of Pompey after his defeat at Pharsalus was often compared by the sources with the behaviour of Ajax contemplating suicide,145 and therefore the painting depicting the hero could bear a reference to Pompey’s defeat. Ajax’ story was known by the Romans through the tragedies represented in the theatre, for example the Aiax Mastigophorus (the ‘Ajax punisher of himself’) of Livius Andronicus, which was probably derived from the Ajax of Sophocles.146 If the comparison between Ajax’ and Pompey’s reactions was already made during the late Republic, this could have been an interesting reference to recent events: it was not uncommon for the Romans, in fact, to make immediate associations between myth and current affairs.147 The theme of uncontrolled reaction is also recognised by Harris, who sees Ajax and Medea as symbols of wrath,148 and relates this to the debate, particularly lively during the late Republic, on the control of passions by men of government.149 Caesar had always tried to present himself as a controlled person,150 and this attitude was the basis on which the image of Caesar as promoter of clementia was built, a characteristic that found its philosophical origin in the aforementioned debate.151 The scholar, however, finds it not very clear why the connection between Caesar and these symbols of wrath constituted a guarantee of the use of clementia by the dictator.152 Rutledge153 recently suggested another possible reading of the figure of Ajax: the hero’s suicide could recall that of Cato in 46 BC; that event had in fact struck the Roman opinion, so much that people showed their grief when, during his triumph, Caesar showed a painting depicting Cato’s death.154 Another possible metaphorical interpretation of the paintings can be suggested: Ajax and Medea might also be a metaphor of the two choices that

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  141 were presented to Caesar just before crossing the Rubicon: a civil war (Medea killing her children) or a political ‘suicide’ (Ajax; note that Suetonius reports Asinius Pollio’s attestation of Caesar’s words after Pharsalus: ‘This is what they wanted! After having accomplished all these glorious deeds, I, Gaius Caesar, would have been condemned, if I had not resorted to the help of my troops!’155). Alternatively, one might stress the importance of Caesar’s decision to place the paintings inside the temple of the mother of all Romans: if Ajax reminded of Cato’s ultimate sacrifice, and Medea could be reminiscent of those who decided to trigger a civil war (in spite of Caesar’s repeated attempts to find a compromise156), the fact that they were housed in Caesar’s temple might have symbolised the possibility for everyone who repented to be pardoned, no matter how strong their dedication to the Pompeians’ cause had been. 5.1.6 Works of Art in the Forum: Statues At least two other statues were placed in the square by the will of Caesar. The first one was publicly157 dedicated to him158 and has been identified with the statua loricata divi Iuli where the senatusconsultum of 52 AD had been hung.159 This statue was most probably visually connected to the temple of Venus, establishing a parallel with the Pompeian complex in the Campus Martius160: in fact, it was most probably located in the niche formed by the two foreparts of the south-eastern short side of the Forum,161 if dedicated in 46 BC, or was anyway meant to be on that side of the Forum even after its enlargement, if dedicated later in 45 BC.162 It is interesting that Pliny refers to it as the first cuirassed statue in Rome, a statement to be interpreted as referring to the fact that it was the first one to be dedicated inside the pomerium163; this characteristic was most probably due to Caesar’s status of imperator as promoter of the Forum.164 Cadario also points out that even if the iconography of a cuirassed statue might refer to that of Hellenistic kings, it nevertheless found a close element of comparison in Rome in the representation of Romulus, for whom the cuirass was a customary feature.165 Unfortunately, the real aspect of the statue is unknown; the only existing ancient cuirassed statue of Caesar, similar to one found in the Forum of Trajan, is dated to the Trajanic period, and it is said to have been found in the Forum of Caesar.166 It is nevertheless interesting that the cuirass shows at its centre two facing griffins, which, as already discussed above, were an iconographic theme not only of the Forum of Trajan but also of the Forum of Caesar. Inside the square of his Forum Caesar also dedicated a bronze equestrian statue, that represented himself mounting his horse; this statue was located in front of the temple of Venus Genetrix167 and is described by Statius in relation to the equestrian statue of Domitian in the Roman Forum.168 It was originally a statue of Lysippus representing Alexander the Great mounting his horse Bucephalus, but the head of Alexander was substituted with that of Caesar.169 Doubts have been raised about the identity of the statue described by Statius and the one described by Suetonius and Pliny, who only talk about

142  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar a horse; some scholars, therefore, state that Lysippus’ statue of Alexander only represented Bucephalus, and that Caesar added his own statue.170 In both cases, the exact iconography of the statue is unknown. A hypothesis about its type has been put forward by Delfino,171 who identified a part of the base of the equestrian statue of Caesar in five marble fragments pertaining to a long-shaped pedestal crowning. These fragments are characterised by the presence of recesses for iron clamps, whose mutual position would be compatible with the presence of an equestrian bronze statue, with a horse 4.90 m long from head to tail, 3.35 m high at the withers and standing on three legs; the whole monument would have been 7.50 m high172 (Figure 5.10). The statue therefore represented a knight mounting a walking horse, facing the temple, and corresponding to the iconographical tradition of late Republican equestrian statues173 (Figure 5.11). The identification of the pedestal fragments with those pertaining to Caesar’s statue is strongly suggested by the presence of a large spoliation pit on the middle axis of the square, 27 m from the temple of Venus Genetrix, which might have hosted the pedestal.174 The use of a Hellenistic statue by Caesar as imperator is compatible with late Republican Roman tradition, as does the practice of replacing the faces of statues175; these characteristics, together with the probable iconography of the statue, are appropriate in the frame of Caesar’s propaganda of revival and respect of traditions.176 It has also been underlined that, contrary to what was previously thought,177 this statue is not to be considered an example of imitatio Alexandri but would place Caesar on par with the Hellenistic king, if not in a position of superiority. In fact, this statue was most probably dedicated in 46 BC, on the occasion of Caesar’s triumph,178 and it was perhaps part of the spoils brought to Rome179 after the defeat of Alexandria in 47 BC.180 The replacement of the face of Alexander, founder of the conquered city, with that of its conqueror (or the placement of Caesar’s statue on Bucephalus) might have therefore symbolised his superiority over the great Hellenistic king.181 Cadario suggests that the statue celebrated Caesar’s triumph in Alexandria, but it might have also recalled a similar cuirassed equestrian statue of Alexander as the founder of that city, casting a parallel with Caesar as new founder of Rome.182 Finally, Suetonius says that at its birth Caesar’s horse was seen by the augurs as a sign of his owner’s supremacy over the world183; this horse was similar to Alexander’s Bucephalus184 that, according to the tradition, was born in Pharsalus.185 Since the horse represented in the statue could be alternatively seen either as Caesar’s own horse, or as Bucephalus, it might therefore be tempting to see in the statue a further reference to Caesar’s victories, particularly to that in the civil war: the victory ‘born’ at Pharsalus sanctioned the dictator’s supremacy. Considering that references were often made to Pompey’s resemblance to Alexander the Great, the ideology of overcoming the great commander might also imply an allusion to Pompey’s defeat.186

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  143

Figure 5.10 Fragments of a pedestral crowning pertaining to the base of the equestrian statue of the Forum of Caesar. Source: Delfino 2014, 163, fig. III.123.

144  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar

Figure 5.11 Schematic reconstructive section of the equestrian statue of the Forum of Caesar. Source: Delfino 2014, 166, fig. III, 125.

5.1.7 Changing Propaganda Summing up, what was the ideology behind the structures of the Forum of Caesar? From the start of the works to Caesar’s death the character of the complex seems to have changed at least three times, mirroring the frantic historical and political events that characterised the central years of the 1st century BC.187 As seen, the archaeology tells us that Caesar initially wanted to build a monumentum that did not include a Senate house, and perhaps not even a temple to Venus Genetrix, although it was arguably meant to celebrate Caesar’s victories in Gaul. After Pharsalus the complex came to possess a stronger connotation of victory, and finally, in January 44 BC, the permission to build a new curia was granted by the Senate,188 strengthening the authoritarian character of the complex. Delfino189 analysed the architectural models that constituted the cultural basis of the structure of the forum, underlining the importance of the example of the Pompeian complex in the Campus Martius, with which Caesar’s monument was competing190;

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  145 a reference to Hellenistic scenographical architecture, similar to that of the sanctuaries in Latium191 is here considered less likely, but it is possible to share the view of a strong similarity with the two porticus of the southern Campus Martius (porticus Metelli and Octavia).192 As often noted, the Forum of Caesar had strong propagandistic and self-celebratory features193; the question is what was the evolution, from the start of the works to the dedication of the complex, of the propaganda that was meant to be expressed there. It is important to remember that only after the dedication of the temple of Venus Genetrix did the Forum acquire the aspect of a temenos for the cult of the goddess.194 After the considerations presented above, it can be possible to recognise some themes that closely follow Caesarian propaganda, and hypothesise how these themes were modified or became more or less important in relation to one another. Furthermore, it seems clear that the complex expressed a series of different messages that could be understood on different levels: some of them were evident, and could most probably be grasped by the majority of people who passed through the square, whereas others were likely meant to be read and understood by a smaller and specific group, who also possessed the education and knowledge of politics that was necessary to decrypt them. The crux is to understand the reasons for the presence of these messages and therefore, in modern terms, their ‘target audience.’ In Chapter 3 it was said that, if we are to believe Cicero, in 54 BC Caesar presented his project as an extension of the Roman Forum, a factor that would certainly justify the juridical function that this new space acquired and frame it within Caesar’s projects for the promotion of new public political spaces (together with the Saepta in the Campus Martius). From the point of view of propaganda, this characteristic appears to be connected to the desire of Caesar to present himself as the guarantor of justice, also in relation to his role as pontifex maximus, and in the light of the legislation carried out by the triumvirate. In a broader frame, this allowed Caesar to present himself as the right person (or as the leader of the right faction) for government. As mentioned, this message was then expressed through the decoration of the porticoes and of the temple, in which the griffins have to be read as a symbol and as the aides of Nemesis, the goddess who assured justice. The many references to water which can already be connected to this initial phase of the complex can also indicate that, most probably, a place for the cult of Venus had already been planned, as suggested by Delfino195: this characteristic, in connection with the established presence of places and cults connected to water in the surrounding area, might express Caesar’s pursuit of the necessary legitimation for the presence of this large complex in such a central area of the city. In this way, while justifying the presence of Venus, he clearly fulfilled the propagandistic aim of celebrating the gens Iulia: in fact, the first mention of its divine origin had been made, according to the sources, by Caesar already in 69 BC, when he delivered a speech on the occasion of the funeral of his aunt Julia.196 Aside from this,

146  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar it is interesting to note that on that occasion Caesar also highlighted the descent of his aunt (and therefore of his father) from the Marcii Reges, and consequently from the king Ancus Marcius: it is an interesting coincidence that a part of the Aqua Marcia passed just behind the north-western side of the Caesarian complex. In 52 BC, when the curia Hostilia and the basilica Porcia burnt down, according to Suetonius the works in the Forum began. Delfino197 identified the possibility that, after having had the opportunity to connect the curia with his square in 44 BC, the dictator aimed to recreate the relationship that had existed between the curia Hostilia and the basilica Porcia (that similarly had a juridical function198) before the fire of 52 BC. It could be that this intention had already been present immediately after that event: even if Faustus Sulla rebuilt the curia in the same place as the old curia Hostilia, the relation between the two buildings must have been evident. In the following years (or perhaps already from 52, when Caesar’s candidacy in absentia for the consulate of 49 BC had just been overwhelmingly approved199), the Forum of Caesar seems to show the characteristics of a triumphal monument in a more defined way. It is important to consider that the complex was most probably conceived as a gift ex manubiis by the victorious general to the Senate and the Roman people.200 As highlighted before, this feature of the Forum had been most likely anticipated at the very beginning of the project, when the outcome of the campaigns in Gaul and Britain seemed to be already settled; the war was still far from being brought to conclusion though, and arguably some works had to be postponed, so further references to victories were added in the following years. When the complex was inaugurated, at the end of Caesar’s triumphal celebration in 46 BC, it was still incomplete. This means that it is possible that part of its decorative display acquired its complete meaning only at a later moment, or was modified ‘in progress.’ For example, if we consider the decoration of the frieze of the porticoes, it might be legitimate to suppose that their connection to the juridical function of the forum had been conceived from the beginning; the same can be said for the choice of the griffins, which express that message, but which are also the guardians of moderation. Subsequently, their reference to Nemesis as the goddess of the right vengeance might have been ‘activated’ after the addition of Timomachus’ paintings in the temple of Venus. In consequence of this conception, the elements which were inserted throughout the construction period of the Forum up to the death of Caesar (when the complex was still not completed; Octavian will take up the works and bring them to an end201) conformed to those messages planned from the beginning but also combined other ideologies related to the developments of the political scene and of Caesar’s propaganda. From this perspective, as discussed above, it is possible to see that, after the triumph of 46 BC, many characteristics of the complex are related to the concept of military triumph or directly to Caesar’s victorious campaigns. This has been seen in the decoration of the temple (frieze with griffins

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  147 watered by cupids and peristasis with meander pattern), in the cuirassed statue on the south-eastern side of the complex, in some objects offered in the temple (cuirass made of pearls from Britannia, the collection of engraved gems), and in the equestrian statue in the centre of the square; even the temple of Venus had been vowed to the goddess upon victory at the battle of Pharsalus. This must have been a message that, in its broad sense, could be understood by the majority of the population. On the other hand, as a consequence of the victory at Pharsalus, something more specific and probably addressed to a much smaller and very educated group of people seems to be displayed. The denomination of the goddess to which the temple was dedicated and of the games celebrated in her honour, the meaning of Timomachus’ paintings and of the equestrian statue that have been analysed above show a precise reference to the victory over Pompey. This message could most likely be interpreted in two complementary ways: either as an affirmation of supremacy by Caesar, or as the confirmation that he was the right man for government. It is interesting to underline that most of this ideology could be deduced from the objects inside the temple or from the relation of other objects with them (it is probably not a coincidence that the knight on the equestrian statue faces the temple), and that the assemblies of the Senate were seemingly held inside the pronaos of the temple, or in the cella; the senators, or the aristocrats in general, were most likely the only ones who could understand the highly sophisticated references embedded in that iconography and who had physical access to the temple. In conclusion, by the death of Caesar the Forum displays a series of messages which were partly planned from the beginning, partly added following the development of political events. Every message had a different function and its comprehensibility was pitched according to the group of people that it was meant to address, and, as already seen in the Roman Forum, its meaning could be ambivalent. The Forum of Caesar conveyed therefore a clear idea of the supremacy of its promoter and of his gens, but also an image of Caesar as the leader who provides new spaces for public use, guaranteeing justice after a long period of civil war, and demonstrating the necessary pietas towards a goddess who certainly was the ancestor of the Iulii, but primarily the mother of the Romans.

5.2 Caesar’s Temporary Stadium and Naumachia After the celebrations for his triumphs in 46, as Suetonius202 mentions, Caesar offered various kind of spectacles, including naumachiae, for which he excavated an artificial lake (Plutarch203 also says that Caesar offered naumachiae and gladiatorial shows to honour his deceased daughter); he also built a temporary stadium in the Campus Martius. The location of both buildings has been a matter of discussion. Coarelli204 points out that only the western and the central part of the Campus Martius

148  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar would have offered enough free space for the construction of a stadium, and he also hypothesises that the temporary stadium erected by Augustus after his triumph in 28205 occupied the same place. Following Castagnoli’s206 suggestion that the two inscriptions,207 found north of the stadium of Domitian and commemorating the ludi votivi of 13 and 7 BC, have to be put in connection with the place where Caesar’s and Augustus’ stadia were, Coarelli208 postulates that the stadium of Domitian has to be considered the permanent version of the preceding stadia.209 As far as the lake for the naumachia is concerned, Suetonius says that it was located in the area called Codeta minor; Cassius Dio provides further information, pointing out that the lake had been excavated in the Campus Martius.210 Where was it exactly? Two problems concerning its location have to be faced: (1) the location of the Codeta minor is not known; (2) Suetonius’ text is corrupted, at that point, in the manuscripts: the naumachia is described, depending on the edition of the manuscript, either as in minore Codeta (in the Codeta minor) or in morem cochleae (in the shape of a shell).211 Nevertheless, the first emendation is the most widely accepted,212 and, in addition, Coleman’s213 arguments against the latter are convincing. Coarelli214 therefore elaborated a hypothesis of Ashby215 – that the Codeta minor should be placed on the opposite side of the river Tiber in relation to the Codeta maior – and located the naumachia Caesaris in an area called ‘Vallicella’, west of the modern Piazza Navona (Figure A1, n. 19). The naumachia and the stadium were therefore standing in close proximity.216 Suetonius217 also reveals that, in Caesar’s intentions, the naumachia should have been filled in in order to make space for a temple of Mars; the latter project was never implemented, because of Caesar’s death, but the place was indeed filled, although for a different reason. In fact, the Senate buried the naumachia, justifying this action with hygienic reasons in consequence of a pestilence218; however, as Coarelli 219 notes, this action has to be read as a political will to oppose Caesar’s memory. The decision, Dio says, was taken by the Senate in 43 BC together with that of not implementing Caesar’s request for the construction of a new curia (a project approved by the same assembly at the beginning of 44 BC220); they instead agreed to rebuild the old curia Hostilia. Since the two decisions were taken by the Senate at the same time and after Caesar’s death, this has been seen as a sign of a temporary pre-eminence of the anti-Caesarian faction in the Senate.221 Caesar’s project for a temple of Mars looks even more interesting if connected to Coarelli’s222 suggestion that Caesar’s naumachia had been purposely built in an area inside, or just outside, of Pompey’s properties in the Campus Martius.223 In this way, not only would both the stadium and the naumachia have been in the proximity of the via Triumphalis, but the close connection with Pompey’s horti might have to be referred (even if not explicitly) to Caesar’s triumph over the Pompeians.224

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  149

5.3 The Circus Maximus The celebration of his triumph in 46 BC also provided Caesar with the occasion to intervene on a building that constituted one of the most ancient features of Rome: according to tradition, the Circus Maximus had been in fact built by either Tarquinius Priscus225 or Tarquinius Superbus,226 or by both227 on the occasion of the institution of the Ludi Romani228 (Figure A1, n. 8). The area had already housed the games of Consualia, held for the first time by Romulus.229 At the beginning, its structure had been very likely temporary and made of wood, but it was subsequently more systematically fitted out during the second half of the 4th century BC, and the first stone structures appeared during the 2nd century BC.230 Caesar’s interventions defined its subsequent shape and organisation,231 as it can be inferred (at least for its side towards the Palatine) by the structures in opus reticulatum and travertine blocks of this phase, on which the Domitianic-Trajanic structures lie.232 Nevertheless, the works were completed by Augustus, who also, through Agrippa, restored the sectors that had been destroyed by a fire in 31 BC.233 The Circus Maximus had a very important characteristic that very likely attracted Caesar’s interest: not only could it host, on the occasion of a show, a far greater number of people than a theatre, but it also constituted one of the main points of passage of the triumphal ceremony (see Chapter 6). This had been the reason why the proconsul Stertinus had erected a triumphal arch in circo Maximo in 196 BC, as a substitution for not having been conceded a triumph,234 and why Pompey decided to refurbish the temple of Hercules Invictus, located next to the main entrance of the carceres of the Circus Maximus. Nevertheless, leaving aside Caesar’s obvious selfcelebratory needs, there might be further motives for him to choose to intervene in such a substantial way on that monument. Firstly, one of the main new features of the circus was the creation of an euripus, a canal, all around the space of the arena,235 which was meant to work as a protection for the spectators from the wild beasts used during the games; most probably it also served the purpose of draining the excess of water of the vallis Murcia.236 The valley where the circus was located, centrally between the Aventine and the Palatine hills, was in fact originally a swampy area, where the waters coming down from the two hills collected and flowed towards the river Tiber.237 In relation to the Forum of Caesar it has already been mentioned that Caesar, in his role of pontifex maximus, had a connection with the management of waters and of the cults related to them; the complete re-arrangement of the area might therefore have been justified by this. It is also to be taken into account that in the arena of the circus there was the fanum of (Venus) Murcia, a deity strictly connected to the Aventine hill but also to the river that crossed the valley,238 and subsequently identified with the cult of Venus Verticordia,239 but in connection, from the monarchic age, with that of

150  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar Fortuna Virilis.240 The presence of a cult of Venus, and particularly of a Venus (Murcia) connected with the rape of the Sabine women,241 and therefore with the subsequent foundation of the Roman community, might have constituted another appealing characteristic for the dictator.242 Another cult of the circus, that of Consus, was also related to that same mythical event: this cult had been discovered by Romulus, and it was during the festival in his honour that the Sabine women were kidnapped.243 Furthermore, Consus had a strong connection with the first king of Rome, because it most probably constituted his funerary connotation.244 Romulus was also assimilated to Sol, whose cult was similarly present in the circus from a very ancient period.245 The strong connection with the founder of Rome, with a pivotal event in the creation of the community and with the goddess mother of the Romans is therefore very clear, and, as seen, these are themes that fit with Caesarian propaganda. It is also to be noted that Sol expressed the function of the king as a guarantor of time, and therefore of the control on every public activity (and of its performance at the correct moment).246 It is very interesting that in that same 46 BC Caesar, as pontifex maximus, carried out the calendar reform, adjusting the year on the sun’s course, thus putting an end to the arbitrary adjustments of the pontiffs.247

5.4 A Plan for the City: The Lex Iulia de Urbe augenda, ornanda et instruenda In the year of the battle that put an end to the civil war (Munda, 45 BC) Caesar thought that he could finally carry out precise and extensive plans for the urban development of Rome. We know that Cicero, who after the death of his daughter wanted to build a sacellum in her memory,248 had to back down from the purchase of Scapula’s horti trans Tiberim because of Caesar’s projects.249 Both in this letter and in another one250 Cicero refers to those projects as de Urbe augenda, ‘on the extension of the City’, whereas Suetonius251 uses the phrase de ornanda instruendaque Urbe, ‘about the improvement and the re-organisation of the City’. It is therefore likely that the complete name of the law that Caesar wanted to be approved was lex Iulia de Urbe augenda, ornanda et instruenda.252 From another letter of Cicero to Atticus253 it is possible to gather that the project had been entrusted to an Athenian architect,254 who had arrived in Rome two years earlier; it is therefore likely that the planning of those activities had already begun in 47 BC, when Caesar’s power was already strong enough.255 Caesar’s urban planning projects included an extensive building activity in the Campus Martius and, in order to accomplish it, some important infrastructural interventions, such as the deviation of a stretch of the river Tiber256 to extend the area for construction and to help prevent floods.257 This deviation had to be implemented from the Milvian bridge to the Vatican hill, so as to move the functions of the Campus Martius to the Campus

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  151 258

Vaticanus (Figure 5.12). Religious reasons might have also been a motive for the project, as Le Gall259 suggested; in fact, since the religious boundary of Rome extended up to the river Tiber, and could not be extended beyond it, Caesar probably wanted to deviate a stretch of it in order to expand the pomerium and to gain new building space in the Campus Martius. Further projects for the city of Rome included, as reported by Suetonius,260 the construction of a theatre on the slope of the Capitoline hill (a project that was probably modified: see below), and other ideas that were eventually not realised: the dedication of a temple to Mars in the place of the naumachia in the Campus Martius and the creation of a public library, which had to be hosted in the Atrium Libertatis and whose creation he had entrusted to Varro.261 It is clear therefore that Caesar, as Pompey before him, had understood that the Campus Martius could be the main development area of Rome.262 The main idea behind these projects has been recognised as being the desire to elevate Rome to the same level as the other Hellenistic cities, and to Alexandria in particular.263

Figure 5.12 Reconstruction of Caesar’s project of deviation of the river Tiber after Liverani (dashed and dotted line) and after Tortorici (dashed line). Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic, on the basis of Liverani 2008, 50, fig. 9 and Tortorici 2012, 30, fig. 17.

152  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar

5.5 Jupiter or Apollo? The Theatre of Caesar The theatrical complex was the largest and most splendid architectural legacy that Pompey had left in Rome; Caesar thus decided to include the creation of another stone theatre in his urbanistic projects of the lex Iulia de Urbe augenda. The construction of this new building began in 45 BC,264 presumably after the celebration of the unsettling triumph against the Pompeians, which had taken place at the beginning of October. The original location of the project raised some debate in scholarship, mainly as a consequence of the contrasting information provided by the sources. In fact, if Suetonius locates the theatre on the slope of the Capitoline hill (theatrum summae magnitudinis Tarpeio monti accubans), Dio265 identifies it with Augustus’ theatre of Marcellus, and reports that Caesar had only had the time to lay its foundations. Some scholars tend to interpret both sources as referring to the same location266 or to consider the latter source more reliable, or to attribute Suetonius’ testimony as reporting an initial project of Caesar, which was never carried out.267 Dio268 informs us that when the works for the foundations began, Caesar was heavily criticised for the destruction of some buildings (among which there were temples) in order to free the space for the theatre, and Pliny269 specifies that the temple of Pietas was among them.270 Archaeology offered some help: during recent excavations, foundations of a temple have been recognised under the Aula Regia of the Augustan theatre, and they have been interpreted as those of the temple of Pietas.271 Furthermore, petrographic analyses on the building materials of the theatre of Marcellus have found that the mortar at the base of the concrete used for its substructure is slightly different from that used in the Augustan structures, pointing to an earlier chronology (around 44 BC).272 As a consequence, the piling in timber used to stabilise the soil (laid down before pouring 6.35 m of concrete for the substructure273) would have to be logically attributed to the Caesarian phase. These data seem to confirm the location of the Caesarian theatre provided by Dio and Pliny (Figure A1, n. 12). The fact that Augustus’ Res Gestae274 report the acquisition of the majority of the land needed for the theatre275 is not considered binding here, since the Latin text (‘Theatrum ad aedem Apollinis in solo magna ex parte a privatis empto feci’, ‘I built a theatre next to the temple of Apollo, on a land purchased for its most part from private citizens’) does not seem to necessarily imply that the land had been purchased by Augustus rather than by Caesar. The project mentioned by Suetonius might therefore be considered a previous one, subsequently changed. In this respect, the context of Suetonius’ passage is interesting: in Iul., 44 it seems that the historian only listed projects that Caesar was not able to carry out. In fact, together with the theatre on the slope of the Capitoline hill, he mentioned the temple to Mars in the Campus Martius, the production of books ‘summarising the best and the essential of vast aggregate of the existing laws’, the building of a Greek and

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  153 a Latin library, and various other projects, concerning water management and war, for the rest of the Roman possessions. None of them saw the light. The location itself initially chosen by Caesar for his theatre has been widely discussed. While Purcell, Wiseman and Palombi276 think of the slope of the Arx towards the Roman Forum, Coarelli277 convincingly argued that the monument should more likely have been placed on the slope of the Capitoline Hill west of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus (Figure A1, n. 11). In fact, mons Tarpeius does not have to be intended as saxum Tarpeium but as referring to the whole Capitolium.278 In that way, as Coarelli279 noted, the theatre would have been in connection both with the temple of Jupiter (which would have been in a position similar to that of the temple of Venus Victrix in relation to the theatre of Pompey, at the top of the cavea, although not oriented towards it for sacral reasons) and with the temples of Apollo and Bellona. This was also the usual place for the provisional theatrum et proscaenium ad Apollinis,280 as well as a space historically connected to the gens Iulia, since the temple of Apollo had been built by the consul of 431 BC, C. Iulius.281 The most important cult of the city would have been in this way connected to the personal cult of the dictator.282 As observed in Chapter 1, Caesar aimed to establish a strong connection between himself and Jupiter. Being the pontifex maximus, this was of primary importance, and it also helped legitimate his position: he was not only protected by Venus, the mother of the Romans, but he was also very pius towards the most powerful of the Roman gods (so as to preserve his favour and also the pax deorum, fundamental for the prosperity of the Roman State). It has to be remembered that in 46 BC, on the first day of his four triumphs ex Gallia, ex Aegypto, ex Ponto, ex Africa,283 he climbed the stairs of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on his knees,284 to demonstrate his devotion towards and dependence on the god. In the same year, he managed to persuade the Senate that his name be written on the inscription of that temple285; the joint presence of a temple and of a theatre for the celebration of the ceremonies dedicated to Jupiter with Caesar’s name on them (it has to be remembered that names on monuments could not be erased286) would have preserved the memory of his devotion to and particular relationship with the god. This desire to fix his relationship with Jupiter on Rome’s landscape was a way for Caesar to underline (and legitimate) his position of pre-eminence as a dictator (it has to be noted that the imperium – and the dictator’s one in particular – was directly conferred by Jupiter Optimus Maximus287), but also to establish a parallel (favourable for himself) with Pompey’s theatre. In fact, the temple of Venus Victrix seemed to compete with the Capitoline hill, being, most probably, as tall as the Arx; it might also have been compared to it for its use for some ceremonies and for its cults.288 Another relevant feature of Caesar’s project is that, standing on the western side of the Capitoline hill, the theatre would have been located not only

154  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar along the triumphal route,289 but both at the beginning and at the end of the triumphal path inside the pomerium.290 In this way, if Pompey’s theatre reminded every triumphing general of his own victories by being likely visible from the beginning of the Via Triumphalis, Caesar’s theatre would have had the same purpose, and it would also have been located next to some of the most important buildings with connection to the triumph: the temples of Apollo and Bellona, where the Senate met to decide if a general could be honoured with the celebration of a triumph291; the Porta Triumphalis, through which the pompa had to pass292; the temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, where the triumphal ceremony ended.293 In his article on the theatre of Marcellus, Monterroso Checa294 accepts and expands the hypothesis already elaborated by La Rocca,295 that the triumphal parades passed through theatres; he therefore affirms that, if Caesar’s theatre had been located on the western side of the Capitoline hill, the triumphal procession would have been forced to pass through it,296 as it did subsequently in the theatre of Marcellus.297 If this reconstruction of the triumphal path is correct, this would have surely constituted a strong reason for locating both projects in that area. Caesar’s initial plan might also have had another motivation: in 69 BC Q. Lutatius Catulus298 had built a temporary theatre on the Capitolium in order to celebrate the dedication of the temple of Jupiter, which he had refurbished.299 Since, as mentioned above, Caesar had succeeded in persuading the Senate to approve the substitution of Catulus’ name on the temple with his, he might have wanted to cancel even the memory of his enemy’s theatre from that place. He then likely had to modify his plans, perhaps for reasons of natura loci, or for some other obstacles to the approval of the project. In any case, the location of the theatre of Marcellus, as noted above, would have been perhaps more in line with Caesar’s propaganda of respect of traditions that characterised the last period of his life, and with his desire to celebrate the antiquity and importance of his gens.

5.6 The Temple of Vesta and a New Platform for the Tribunes Recent surveys and revision of data from previous excavations testify a substantial refurbishment in the area of the temple of Vesta (Figure A2, n. 13) and the house of the Vestals around the middle of the 1st century BC. A new annex was built at the south-west corner of the Regia,300 the temple of Vesta was given a new podium made of concrete, and the house of the Vestals saw the construction of new floors (some of them in black and white mosaic), new rooms, and other new structures; furthermore, a re-pavement and a change in orientation (aligned with the dominant axes of the Forum) were carried out in the street between the precinct of Vesta and the Regia.301 No sources mention a refurbishment of this monument on the part of Caesar. However, the ideological relevance of the sacred area (which contained the sacred eternal hearth of the city and was thus strictly tied with

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar  155 its origins), together with Caesar’s role as pontifex maximus and the mention by Dio of a fire that interested that area in 47 BC302 might lead to think that Caesar might have been involved in this.303 Caesar’s last attested intervention in the Forum Romanum was the creation of a new platform for the tribunes. At the end of 45 the Rostra of the comitium were moved to the western side of the Forum, in the place where, according to Livy,304 the porticus from the temple of Saturn to the Senaculum stood305; the remaining structures of the old comitium were eliminated and the area was refurbished.306 The new building was probably dedicated in January 44 BC307 (Figure A2, n. 7). As highlighted by various scholars,308 Caesar’s intervention had the clear aim of dismantling the symbols related to the old Republican system. The transfer of the Rostra from the comitium, where they were in front of the curia but at a lower level (thus ideologically subordinated to the Senate), to the western side of the Forum, on its central axis, stresses the importance given by the dictator to popular assemblies, the contiones.309 Furthermore, the structure was connected, on its northern side, to the Mundus, the topographical and ideological centre of the city, an element that further underlined its centrality. It is therefore clear that with this building Caesar aimed to (at least nominally) give centrality to the decisional power of the people (as he did with the rebuilding of the Saepta), reaffirming his own role as the leader of the popularis faction. The relocation and the reconstruction of the monument corresponded to the revolutionary intentions of his State reforms. Nevertheless, as for other monuments, the meaning of this one is far from being unambiguous. It is important to consider the broader topographical context in which the Caesarian Rostra were located: they stood in front of the temple of Concordia, and of the so-called Tabularium (and, if we are to believe Coarelli’s310 reconstruction, of the three Sullan temples on top of it; Figure A2, n. 6 and 10). The significance of these buildings was great: the Tabularium and the temples were a clear symbol of the victory of the Sullan faction. The temple of concordia had become a symbol for the power of the optimates, disguised as concordia ordinum, even earlier, as a consequence of its reconstruction and of the construction of the adjacent basilica Opimia by L. Opimius after the slaughter of the Gracchans in 121 BC.311 Nevertheless, according to tradition the original temple had been built by Furius Camillus,312 one of Caesar’s models, in celebration of his military success against the Gauls and in pursuit of the ideal of concordia ordinum (for example, despite his patrician origins, he gave support to the approval of the Liciniae-Sextiae laws). So the Rostra, a monument with strong popularis connotations, stood in front of a group of buildings, one of which was thought to have been promoted by Camillus (who was himself a symbol of concordia), but probably reminded the slaughter of the Gracchans, and the others either planned by the perpetrator of the proscriptions (and Caesar’s most bitter enemy), or, at least, by

156  The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar a man, Catulus, who had closely collaborated with Sulla and had been seen as one of the leading figures of the optimates (but had been unexpectedly outdone by Caesar at the elections for the pontificatus maximus in 63 BC313). As these constructions functioned as a backdrop for the new platform of the tribunes, they likely conferred on activities taking place there an idea of collaboration with the other components of society: the message implied that the popularis leader had triumphed, but the popular assemblies always had to work together with the Senate and respect its authority. This synthesis of the concepts of concordia and clementia was also expressed by the fact that Caesar decided to restore the statues of Sulla and Pompey on the platform314; however, the balance of power clearly leant towards the populares, since statues of Caesar himself were placed next to them, and since the tribunes (or other magistrates), when climbing onto the Rostra, were obliged to turn their back to the symbols of the aristocracy in the backdrop. The importance of this movement can be inferred by the scandal following the action of C. Gracchus when, speaking from the Rostra in the comitium, he turned his back to the Senate in order to address the people in the square, as Plutarch reports.315

5.7 Preliminary Conclusions It has been said that Caesar’s legislation after the beginning of the civil war does not offer much grip to understand his intentions for the future.316 What can be said about the interventions taking place in this period is that the following elements seem to emerge. First, a desire to affirm the victory over Pompey is not explicitly made public, but can be glimpsed from different elements that challenge or lead to a comparison, favourable to Caesar, with Pompey’s feats or personal traits; this is particularly evident in the monuments built or dedicated in 46 BC. Overall, these monumental interventions present a predominant triumphal character, in line with the celebration of the quadruple triumph (which was in itself a challenge to the three triumphs celebrated by Pompey). Even the beginning of the work for a new theatre in the following year seems to be along this line; it was perhaps meant to be ready by the end of the military campaign against the Parthians on which Caesar was going to embark, had his assassination not stopped him.317 Secondly, after the defeat of Pompey’s sons at the battle of Munda, Caesar’s urbanistic projects reveal his research and desire for a more coherent and long-sighted development plan for the city. The fact that he entrusted these projects to an Athenian (or Egyptian) architect makes it clear that his intentions aimed at making Rome able to challenge other great cities in the Hellenistic world – a larger version of Pompey’s plans carried out through his theatre complex. The resemblance of these designs to those of Hellenistic monarchs emerges in particular in relation to the creation of buildings for entertainment and libraries, although a substantial difference seemed to characterise Caesar’s cultural policy318: as mentioned, the responsibility

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar

157

for the creation of the libraries was given to an exponent of the Pompeian faction, Varro (and this seems something very far from the detailed control, for example, on which of Caesar’s works were to be made public carried out by Augustus319). We do have a glimpse of Caesar’s political programme at the beginning of the civil war in the letter mentioned in Chapter 1,320 where he proposed to use clementia towards his adversaries, and said: “Let us try in this way to see if we can win back the general consent (omnium voluntates) and avail ourselves of a long-term victory”. Canfora highlighted the use of the term omnium voluntates, and noted that, together with the refusal of Sulla’s methods, Caesar also distances himself from the methods that had been used by Marius and Cinna; he thus did not want to present himself as the leader of just one faction.321 In this respect, the dedication of the temple to Venus Genetrix probably responded to this propagandistic need: her characteristic of ‘mother of all Romans’ was underlined, and the reference to victory over the Pompeian and Sullan faction might have been less strong than in the case of a dedication to Venus Victrix. Furthermore, in the previous chapter it was said that Canfora justified the anti-Sullan measures taken by Caesar after Pharsalus as a way to make his stance clear while he was becoming a dictator. Caesar indeed carried out or planned many actions of popularis tradition or with popularis flair after that date (the creation of the aediles cereales,322 the planning of a colonisation of Corinth and Carhage323 are only some of them), but was also very careful to avoid backing the more revolutionary initiatives that often characterise periods of civil war.324 References to tradition in his monumental interventions of the last period of his life, such as the demonstration of piety towards Jupiter inherent in his (probably) first project for a theatre, and the possible refurbishment of the temple of Vesta and the house of the Vestals might belong to his desire to reassure part of the Senate; even the reconstruction of the Rostra, although it betrayed a clear popularis purpose to give more centrality to popular assemblies, might have been aimed at stressing the dictator’s intention to preserve Republican institutions.325

Notes 1 Raauflaub 2010a, 152. 2 Dio, 43, 14, 4. He had been appointed dictator for the first time between August and September 49: Caes., B Civ., 2, 21, 5. 3 Plut., Caes., 56, 7–9. 4 Only the tabernae were not completed; this is the reason why there were two walls delimiting the southern side of the Forum: one made of peperino, which constituted the façade of the tabernae, and one, probably made of travertine, facing the square, which was needed on the occasion of the inauguration of the square to make it look complete (Amici 1991, 39–41). 5 These measurements and the description of the square presented in the following paragraph are taken from Delfino 2014, 136–183. 6 Vitr., De arch., 3, 3, 2.

158 The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Contra: Amici 1991, 37–39. Amici 1991, 42. Milella 2010a, 14. Delfino 2014, 174–175. Delfino 2014, 170. Maisto and Pinna Carboni 2010, 440–441. Delfino 2014, 170, n. 815. Delplace 1980, 412. See Zecchini 1995, 600–601, 603. On this topic, see also the analysis of Timomachus’ paintings in the temple of Venus Genetrix below. Cic., Rep., 6, 12; Polyb., 31, 25, 8. Fortea-Lopez 1994, 40–42. App., B Civ., 2, 102. Delplace 1980, 413. Delfino 2014, 138. Packer 1997, 278. Ungaro and Milella 1995, 196. Grafton et al. 2010, 244. See Suet., Iul., 79. Polito 2002. Polito 2002, 91. Polito 2002, 95. Polito 2002, 96–99, with extensive bibliography in the footnotes. Polito 2002, 100; on the ‘activation’ of the individual meanings, see bibliography in n. 32. Polito 2002, 100. Polito 2002, 100–101, with bibliography. Strocka 1991, 106; De Vos, 1985, 84–85. Himmelmann 1968, 269. Kraay 1966, 346 and pl. 165; Polito 2002, 101. Polito 2002, 102. Cordano 1980, 7–15. Polito 2002, 102–103 with bibliography. In this case it is particularly interesting that some coins struck in 88–40 BC present the river as a meander; Hoover 2012, 234, 238–240. Kraay 1966, 357, coin 610 and plate 181–610. Polito 2002, 105–106 with bibliography. Polito 2002, 106–108. Polito 2002, 108–109. Polito 2002, 102, 110. Polito 2002, 110. Polito 2002, 110–111. Polito 2002, 103. Polito 2002, 101–103. Polito 2002, 110. Polito 2002, 105. Polito 2002, 105, 110. CIL IV, 2331. IX, 3, 5–24. De Vos 1985, 84. Maisto and Pinna Carboni 2010, 441. Polito 2002, 110. Polito 2002, 109–110.

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

159

Delfino 2010c. Delfino 2010c, 169–172. See Delfino 2010c, 173 and footnotes 15 and 16 for references. Delfino 2010c, 174. Delfino 2010c, 174–176. Delfino 2010c, 174–176; also Cattalini 1993, 68–69; Delfino 2014, 250. Delfino 2010c, 177–178; Piccialuga 2010. Delfino 2014, 160–161. Delfino 2010c, 179. App., B Civ., 2, 68. App., B Civ., 2, 102. Orlin 2007, 69. Macr., Sat., 3, 9, 8. App., B Civ., 3, 28; Dio, 45, 6, 4. Schilling 1954, 315. App., B Civ., 3, 28; Plin., HN, 2, 23, 93; Obseq., 68; see also Dio, 45, 6, 4. Suet., Aug., 10, 2; Inscr. Ital. XIII, 2 (1963) 47, 78, 92, 178–179, 188–189, 486. Schilling 1954, 314. Scheid 1983. Scheid 1983, 130–131. Scheid 1983, 132. Scheid 1983, 133. Scheid 1983, 134. Westall 1996, 99–109. Westall 1996, 106. Westall 1996, 108. RRC 468/1–2. Dio 43, 43, 3. RE3, 307, n.529; see also Westall 1996, 110. Delfino 2014, 249 and 183 n. 909 for further references; Davies 2017, 250. Delfino 2010c. Delfino 2014, 250. Delfino 2014, 251. Delfino 2014, 251; see also Gros 1976, 142. Amici 1991, 42–46. Ulrich 1993, 62. Amici 1991, 45. Amici 1991, 97. Delfino 2014, 158. Delfino 2014, 44. Delfino 2014, 136. Liv., Per., 116; Suet., Iul., 78, 1; Dio, 44, 8, 1–2. Gros 1996, 307. Delfino 2014, 150 n. 684. Plin., HN, 35, 45, 155–156. La Rocca 1995, 50. Westall 1996, 110; see RRC 480, 3–4. Westall 1996, 110; RRC 463, 1a. Tortorici 1991, 112, n. 283 and 113, fig. 61; accepted by Meneghini 2009, 45 n. 23. Plin., HN, 9, 57, 116. Westall 1996, 90–91; see Plin., HN, 37, 14–16. Flor., 2, 13, 88. See Tac., Agr., 12.

160 The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158

Flory 1988, 499. Flory 1988, 500 n. 12. Flory 1988, 500. Westall 1996, 91; see Plin., HN, 37, 5, 11. App., B civ., 2, 102. Dio, 51, 22, 3. Westall 1996, 92; see also Delfino 2014, 4. Dio, 22, 3. Plut., Pomp., 38, 3. Plin., HN, 7, 38, 126; 35, 8, 26 and 136. Plin., HN, 35, 40, 136. Brunn 1859, 280–282; Sauron 2001, 188–189 with bibliography. Schilling 1954, 313, n. 1. Suet., Iul., 47. Plin., HN, 35, 8, 26. Cic., Verr., 2, 4, 135. Sauron 2001, 189; contra Westall 1996, 93. Plin., HN, 35, 8, 26. Rutledge 2012, 88–90. It has to be remembered that Caesar, during his aedileship, set up temporary porticoes where he displayed a part of his art collections (Suet., Iul., 10). Westall 1996, 93–98; Sauron 2001; Harris 2002. Westall 1996, 93; Sauron 2001, 188, Harris 2002, 21. Philostr., VA, 2, 22; Ov., Tr., 2, 525. Sauron 2001, 189. Plin., HN, 35, 40, 145. Anth. Plan., IV, 135; 136; 138; 139. See, for example, Harris 2002, 22. Sauron 2001, 189. Sauron 2001, 189. Ov., Tr., 2, 525–527. Arcellaschi 1990, 218; Sauron 2001, 192. Sauron 2001, 192–193. Caes., B Civ., 1, 6 and 8; see Sauron 2001, 193. Sauron 2001, 198. Westall 1996, 97. Plut., Pomp., 72, 1–3; App., B Civ., 2, 81, 339; see Westall 1996, 95. Manuwald 2011, 192. Rutledge 2012, 232, n. 34; see Cicero’s attack on Clodia using a comparison with Medea in Cael., 18. Harris 2002, 25. Harris 2002, 25–28. See, for example, Suet., Iul, 53 (restraint in drinking and eating); 73 (ready to abandon hatred when the occasion arose); 74 (mildness in revenge); 75 (moderation and clemency during the civil war and after the victory); Dio, 38, 3. Harris 2002, 25–28. Harris 2002, 29. Rutledge 2012, 231; same opinion in Davies 2017, 250. App., B Civ., 2, 101. Suet., Iul., 30; see also Plut., Caes., 46, 1–2. A theme that recurs in the Bellum Civile; see for example Caes., B Civ., 1, 5; 1, 9; 3, 90. Plut., Brut., 14, 2. Plin., HN, 34, 10, 18.

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209

161

Cadario 2006, 33 with references; see Plin., Ep., 8, 6, 13. Westall 1996, 92; Cadario 2006, 33; Delfino 2014, 182. Delfino 2014, 182. See Cadario 2006, 34 about the chronology of the statue. Cadario 2006, 34. Cadario 2006, 33; this is the reason for considering this statue in the present research, even if it was not personally dedicated by Caesar. Cadario 2006, 35, with references. The information cannot unfortunately be verified; Cadario 2006, 35. Suet., Iul., 61, 1; Plin., HN, 8, 64, 155. Stat., Silv., 1, 1, 84–90. Cadario 2006, 35. Moreno 1981, 202; Morselli 1995, 300 with references; Meneghini 2009, 46. Delfino et al. 2010. Delfino et al. 2010, 352–353. Delfino et al. 2010, 353, 361. Delfino 2014, 182. Delfino et al. 2010, 353. Delfino 2014, 252. See Delfino 2014, 253. For example, La Rocca 1995, 38. Cadario 2006, 36. Cadario 2006, 27, 36. Bell. Alex., 32; Plut., Caes., 49, 9; Dio, 42, 43. Cadario 2006, 37; see also Gruen 1998, 188. Cadario 2006, 36–37. Suet., Iul., 61. La Rocca 1995, 38. Plin., HN, 8, 154. Same opinion in Davies 2017, 219. Delfino 2014, 183; see Appendix B: Chronology Table. Dio, 44, 5, 1. Delfino 2014, 177–183. Delfino 2014, 182. Delfino 2014, 182. Delfino 2014, 179, 182. See, for example, Zanker 1984, 9; La Rocca 2001, 185–186; 2006, 124; Delfino 2014, 178. Gros 1996, 212; La Rocca 2001, 186, Delfino 2014, 178. Delfino 2014, 251. Plut., Caes., 5, 2; Suet., Iul., 6. Delfino 2014, 249. D’Alessio 2010, 58. See Raauflaub 2010a, 147. Zanker 2008, 74; see Suet., Iul., 26, 2. R. Gest. Div. Aug., 1, 20. Suet., Iul., 39. Plut., Caes., 55, 4. Coarelli 1997a, 585. Dio 53, 1, 5; Suet., Aug., 43, 1. Castagnoli 1947, 146–147. CIL IV 385=30751; 386. Coarelli 1997a, 585. This hypothesis has been now widely accepted; see, for example, Liverani 2008, 49; Tortorici 2012, 27.

162 The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253

Dio, 43, 23, 4. Coleman 1993, 50. Coleman 1993, 50. Coleman 1993, 50, n. 5. Coarelli 1997a, 19–20. Platner and Ashby 1965, 128. Coarelli 1997a, 19, 585; see also Tosi 2003c, 816 with bibliography in n.3; contra Cordischi 1999, 57, 60 who places the Codeta minor on the other side of the Tiber and states the identity between the naumachia Caesaris and Augusti. Suet., Iul., 44. Dio, 45, 17, 8. Coarelli 1997a, 20. Dio, 44, 5, 1. see Liverani 2008, 46. Coarelli 1997a, 584–585. For a detailed discussion on the location of Pompey’s horti, see Coarelli 1997a, 546–559. Coarelli 1997a, 585. Liv., 1, 35, 7–9; Dion. Hal. 3, 68, 1. Liv., 1, 56, 2; Vir. Ill. 8.3. Dion. Hal., 4, 44, 1. Liv., 1, 35, 8–9. Plut., Rom., 14, 3; Tert., Spect., 5, 5; Varro, Ling., 6, 20. Ciancio Rossetto 1993, 273. Plin., HN., 36, 24, 102; Suet., Iul., 39, 2; see Ciancio Rossetto 1993, 273; Marcattili 2009, 158. Ciancio Rossetto 1993, 273–274. Dio 50, 10, 3; see Marcattili 2009, 158. Liv., 33, 27, 4. Suet., Iul., 39, 2. Humphrey 1986, 74. Marcattili 2009, 13–15. Marcattili 2009, 108–109. Coarelli 1988a, 296, n. 78 affirms that Murcia has to be considered only a popular denomination of Venus Verticordia. Marcattili 2009, 109. Coarelli 1988a, 299. It would be interesting to verify if the inclusion inside the circus of the fanum of Murcia – Coarelli 1988a, 299; Marcattili 2009, 122 – was carried out in this phase. Plut., Rom., 14, 3–5; Varro, Ling., 6, 20; Serv., Aen., 8, 636. Sabbatucci 1988, 275; see also Marcattili 2009, 46; for a detailed explanation of this connection see Marcattili 2009, 45–53. Marcattili 2009, 37; Tertullian, Spect., 8, 3 says that circus Soli principaliter consecratur, the circus was mainly consecrated to the Sun. Marcattili 2009, 41. Suet., Iul., 40. Cic., Att., 12, 18, 1. Cic., Att., 13, 33a, 1. Cic., Att., 13, 20, 1. Suet., Iul., 44. Tortorici 2012, 29. Cic., Att., 13, 35–36, 1.

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar

163

254 Tortorici 2012, 29; see also Liverani 2008, 49; for other scholars it was an Egyptian one: Coarelli 1977, 837; 1997a, 586; Castagnoli 1981. 255 Tortorici 2012, 30. 256 Cic., Att., 13, 33a, 1. 257 Tortorici 2012, 33. 258 Cic., Att., 13, 33a, 1; other reconstructions in Tortorici 2012, 30, fig. 17 and Rodriguez Almeida 1984, 68–69, fig. 24. 259 Le Gall 1952, 115–116. 260 Suet., Iul., 44. 261 On this project see Canfora 2017, 47–48. 262 Tortorici 2012, 33. 263 Gros 2010, 282, who also draws a direct parallel between the structure of Alexandria and the organisation of the Campus Martius. 264 Dio 43, 49, 2; Suet., Iul., 44, 1. 265 Dio 43, 49, 2; 53, 30, 5. 266 Coarelli 1997a, 587–588, identifies it with the slope of the Capitoline hill; Ciancio Rossetto 1999, 31 with the current location of the theatre of Marcellus, as Gros 2011, 282. 267 See, for example, Palombi 1996a, 851; Tosi 2003a, 24; Sear 2006, 61–62. Davies (2017, 267) argues for the planning of two theatres, one near the circus Flaminius and one near the east slope of the Arx. 268 Dio 43, 49, 3. 269 Plin., HN., 7, 36, 121. 270 Coarelli 1997a, 448, 586. 271 Ciancio Rossetto 1994–95, 199–200. 272 Jackson et al. 2011, 733. 273 Ciancio Rossetto and Buonfiglio 2010, 56. 274 Aug., Res Gest., 21, 1. 275 Which Tosi 2003b, 673 sees in contrast to what Cassius Dio affirms about the demolitions and the beginning of the works carried out by Caesar. 276 Purcell 1993, 126 n. 9; Wiseman 1989, 152; Palombi 1996a, 851. 277 Coarelli 1997a, 587. 278 Coarelli 1997a, 587. 279 Coarelli 1997a, 588. 280 Liv., 40, 51, 3. 281 Liv., 4, 29, 7. 282 Coarelli 1997a, 588. 283 Liv., Per., 115; Dio, 43, 19; App., B civ. 2, 101; Suet., Iul., 37; Plut., Caes., 55 284 Dio, 43, 21, 2. 285 Dio, 43, 14, 6; this measure was never carried out: see Tac., Hist., 3, 72. 286 Steinby 2012, 82. 287 Sabbatucci 1988, 312. 288 Gros 1999b, 38. 289 As noticed by Monterroso Checa 2009b, 36; the author, though, refers Cassius Dio’s, Pliny’s and Suetonius’ information to one single project. 290 That is, just before the Porta Triumphalis and next to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus; see Chapter 6 for an overview on the triumphal route. 291 La Rocca 2008, 37. 292 Cic., Pis., 23, 55; Apul., Mag., 17. 293 La Rocca 2008, 51. 294 Monterroso Checa 2009b, 18. 295 La Rocca 1993, 25; see also La Rocca 1995b, 110; 2008, 39–40. 296 Monterroso Checa 2009b, 36.

164 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325

The Building Affairs of Mr. Julius Caesar Monterroso Checa 2009b, 18–19. Consul 78 BC and censor 65 BC. See RE entry Q. Lutatius (8). Plin., HN. 19, 6, 23; Papi 1999, 31. Brown 1935. Scott 2009, 35–52; Arvanitis 2017, 216; 2017a, 243. Dio, 42, 31, 3; another fire took place in 14 BC: Dio, 54, 24, 2. Arvanitis 2010, 58; Arvanitis 2017a, 243; for an attribution to Caesar, see Davies 2017, 525–253. Liv., 41, 27, 7. Dio, 43, 49, 1; Coarelli 1985, 238. Carafa 1998, 158–159. Coarelli 1985, 238. See, for example, Coarelli 1985, 237. See, for example, Torelli 2010, 156. Coarelli 2010. App., BCiv., 1, 26. Ov., Fast., I, 641–644; Plut., Cam. 42, 4–6. Suet., Iul., 13. Dio, 43, 49, 1; see also Suet., Iul., 75. Plut., C. Gracc. 5, 3. Gardner 2009, 61. Suet., Iul., 44; Plut., Caes., 58, 5. On Caesar’s cultural policy, see Canfora 1999, 418–420. Suet., Iul., 56. Cic., Att., 9, 7c, 1. Canfora 1999, 324–325. Dio, 43, 51, 3. Plut., Caes., 57, 8. Canfora 1999, 320–321; 205–208. Gardner 2009, 65–66 states that Caesar did not seem to have yet formulated definite plans for changes of government in Rome or for his own position in the future state. She also problematises Caesar’s intentions of making his exceptional position a permanent feature of the Roman state.

6

Conclusions Let the City Speak

The analysis of the individual buildings promoted by Pompey and Caesar has already resulted in the identification of many of the propagandistic themes which were discussed in Chapter 1. The political personalities and ideas of the two generals emerge strongly from the monuments, but it is only in the context of the city of Rome as a whole that it is possible to gain a fuller picture of the significance and reasons for their euergetic activity in the Urbs. By looking at their interventions diachronically and inserting the monuments in their historical context, there is potential for recognising their ideological development, for identifying the political contrasts, and for discovering how each leader exploited or modified space and also how their activities were shaped by it. Furthermore, two specific cases, that of the Forum Romanum and of the triumphal path will illustrate the wider impact on the city and on its citizens of Pompey’s and Caesar’s interventions.

6.1 ‘[…] urbis o putissimei, / socer generque […]’ (Catull., 29, 23–24) 6.1.1 Pompey, Successful General, and Primus Inter Pares The building activity of Pompey probably begins with the dedication of the temple of Hercules Pompeianus in the Forum Boarium, in front of the entrance of the triumphal path in the Circus Maximus. If the dedication took place in the context of the general’s first triumph, either in 81 or in 79 BC, this building is the first in a series of three monuments connected to triumphs (including the temple of Minerva and the theatrical complex in the Campus Martius), and its ideology might well correspond with the perceived importance of self-promotion that characterised the career of Pompey. The sources explicitly explain that Sulla did not want to allow him to triumph after his victorious campaign in Africa, because he did not possess praetorian or consular rank. In response to this prohibition, Pompey answered that more people admired the rising sun than the setting one, surprising Sulla, who then gave his approval to the triumphal ceremony.1 Even if this exchange of words had been invented by Plutarch, the episode meant

DOI: 10.4324/9781003080503-7

166 Conclusions to imply that, although Pompey admired the old dictator and was always loyal to him, there could be contrasts between the two men; this can be seen, for example, in the way that, when Sulla ordered Pompey to disband his army at the end of the campaign in Africa, Pompey’s troops protested,2 probably encouraged to do so by Pompey himself.3 If built on that occasion, the temple of Hercules Pompeianus might therefore be a product of this moment of conflict4: Pompey desired to be singled out for his military capabilities and endeavours, and therefore decided to refurbish a temple dedicated to Hercules Invictus, the ‘invincible’ Hercules. He chose a mythological figure strongly connected to the triumph, thus entering into competition with Sulla, who was particularly devoted to the hero and had himself refurbished a temple dedicated to him.5 This also allowed the young eques to cast a comparison between his deeds and those of Alexander the Great, who viewed himself a descendant of Hercules.6 Furthermore, by choosing a temple which lay on one of the most important points of passage of the triumphal ceremony (see below), every other triumphing general would have remembered Pompey, and he would have placed himself at the same level of the other triumphatores before him, including Sulla: the temple that the dictator had refurbished in fact stood next to the Circus Flaminius, another important venue on the triumphal parade.7 The dedications of the other two public buildings by Pompey, as seen, are likewise connected to the ideology of triumph. The temple of Minerva was dedicated de manubiis in 61 BC,8 probably in the context of Pompey’s triumph de orbe universo, and was likely located in a context connected to the triumph.9 Similarly, the theatre complex, although dedicated in 55 BC, was located next to the via Triumphalis and presented, as explained, many propagandistic themes connected to the military victories celebrated by its dedicant in 61 BC. If all these buildings clearly reflected the recognised significance of the celebration of military victories, it is here argued that there was another message at play in the Pompeian propaganda that emerges from his monuments. It was stressed that Hercules was seen as the model of the conqueror of the world, exploited by Pompey through the figure of Alexander the Great, who was equally admired by the Romans for the greatness of his deeds.10 Evidently, therefore, Pompey was looking at the Hellenistic world, likely from the beginning of his political career, when looking for a way by which to celebrate his military activity; this ideology was then better defined and adapted to the new image of Pompey as peacemaker and civiliser during and after the Eastern campaign. Nevertheless, Santangelo11 has pointed out that the presence of Venus in Pompey’s ideology during the 50s BC stressed that the general was acting on behalf of Rome. One can suggest that this connection to Roman tradition was already present in the dedication of the temple of Minerva and also in that of the temple of Hercules Pompeianus: in fact, as said, Pompey’s Minerva was probably the Athena of Troy; and the Hercules Invictus of the Ara Maxima, to which the Pompeian temple was

Conclusions  167 12

connected, was also related to the myths concerning the origin of Rome.13 Furthermore, Pompey most probably decided to maintain the archaic aspect of the temple, since Vitruvius14 described it as Tuscan, a characteristic that might imply a deliberate reference to Roman tradition. This double meaning of the Pompeian propaganda appears throughout the general’s whole euergetic activity, although in his last dedication, namely the theatrical complex, the two messages seem to find a more refined balance and an ideological justification: Venus, the mother of the Romans, with the epithet of Victrix, mirroring the dominion of Rome, towered over a complex that was meant to be perceived as a Greek (or at least exotic) space – the theatre and the portico. This might have conveyed the idea of universalism, of Roman rule over the known world (‘over land and sea’), which, as Clarke15 notes, was a core theme of Pompey’s self-representation after the Eastern campaign. As noted, the prominent position over the complex of the temple of Venus Victrix, the goddess who not only protected the Roman people, but also favoured Pompey in his victories, implied that the general was the rightful person to rule the State. The temple of Venus was in direct dialogue with the curia of the Senate, on the opposite side of the porticus post scaenam: Pompey wanted to rule with the Senate, to be a primus, but inter pares. In this context, the message of universalism can fit in a structure that was perhaps reminiscent, on a larger scale, of the curia-comitium complex in the Roman Forum. Furthermore, the message which conveyed the idea of Pompey as a guarantor of peace, examined above, had in this way a much broader scope, not only referring to social peace in Rome, but also to Pompey’s pacifying activity in the provinces.16 6.1.2 Caesar, Moderate Popularis, and Civil War Victor If we exclude the temporary structures set up in the Forum and Capitolium during his aedileship,17 Caesar began his building programme in 54 BC, with his projects for the ‘extension of the Forum’ (which became the Forum Iulium) and for the Campus Martius (Saepta and Villa Publica18). In that year, because of the death of his daughter Julia, who was married to Pompey, the alliance between the two men became more difficult; this is commonly seen as one of the reasons for the beginning of Caesar’s building activity as an answer to the dedication of Pompey’ theatre in 55 BC.19 The prominent competition between the two men in that particular year was seen by Canfora20 in relation to Caesar’s campaigns to Britain, but had already been identified in the later triumph of Caesar in 46 BC by Flory and Westall.21 In fact, Canfora points to one of Catullus’ poems22 which at one point refers to those campaign, stating (vv. 10–12): […] Caesaris visens monimenta magni, Gallicum Rhenum, horribilesque ultimosque Britannos, […]23

168 Conclusions […] seeing the places of victory of Caesar the Great, the Gallic Rhine, and the monstrous and distant Britons; […] It is evident that Catullus here calls Caesar Magnus in clear antithesis to Pompeius Magnus.24 The reference is to the aforementioned Pompeian propaganda theme of Pompey as the conqueror of the boundaries of the world, and to Caesar’s response to it. It seems legitimate to think that the comparison cast in Catullus’ poem was one intentionally spread through Caesarian propaganda, and one recognised by the citizens of Rome, and perhaps even negatively exploited by the counterpropaganda of his political enemies. The political meaning of the dedication of the cuirass made of pearls in the temple of Venus Genetrix, points to a will, on Caesar’s part, to challenge that image of Pompey. More than an imitatio Pompeii – as hypothesised by Vervaet25 – Caesar’s intention was clearly to outdo the exploits of his political enemy, particularly after Pharsalus, in order to first present himself as the right man for government and, after 46 BC, in order to stress and legitimate his predominance. The development of both this theme, but also of Caesar’s other political ideas and attitudes, emerge strongly in his euergetic activity from 54 BC up to his death. From the first two projects it is possible to see the effect of Caesar’s decision to present himself as the new leader of the popularis faction on the one hand, but to underline his moderate position and his respect of traditions on the other. The general chose two areas connected with the ancient political tradition of the Republic: the Roman Forum and the place for the assemblies of the comitia centuriata; furthermore, both his plans were made, at least nominally, in the ‘public interest’, since the area next to the Forum would have provided a much-needed space for juridical activity, whereas the reconstruction of the Saepta would have created a more comfortable setting for voting operations. As discussed, this is not the only political aim of these works. It has in fact been seen how one of the aims of Pompey’s theatre complex was to shift the focus from the city’s old Republican political centre to a new pole, in an under-urbanised area that, meanwhile, had become part of Pompey’s private property. That monument also provided a new space for popular gathering, in the shadow of Pompey’s patron goddess and of the general’s close relationship with the Senate. Caesar’s works in the Forum aimed, ostensibly, to give new strength to the old political centre, while, at the same time, the new Saepta re-stated the importance of the popular assemblies in their public traditional location.26 Also, if the refurbishment of the Villa Publica aimed at underlining the importance of census for the political activity of the citizens, this has to be put in connection with the probable parallel reconstruction of the Atrium Libertatis.27 The theme of concordia seems then to emerge not only from these latter activities but from the whole Caesarian activity of that year.

Conclusions  169 At the start of July 54 BC everything pointed to a successful Gallic campaign28; furthermore, the supplicatio for Caesar decreed by the Senate in 5529 implied a successive award of a triumph (as usually happened30). The new ‘extension of the Forum’ and the Saepta could therefore have been designed to celebrate the triumph of their promoter, as seen in the analysis of the decoration of the Forum of Caesar and as it might be inferred by the works of art placed in the Saepta by Agrippa.31 The works in the Campus Martius long stalled (Caesar never saw their completion), while it is possible that the demolition of the previously existing residential area and the levelling works for the Forum of Caesar proceeded slowly. The proper building activity began only in 52 BC,32 but the complex was inaugurated only in 46, still uncompleted: the cult statue of Venus was unfinished,33 as most likely were the tabernae.34 Following the death of Crassus and the consequent dissolution of the Triumvirate, and especially after the appointment of Pompey as consul sine collega, Caesar tried to establish his presence in Rome and find as broad a base of consensus as possible by beginning work for his Forum in 52 BC and by corrupting Aemilius Paullus in 51, connecting in this way, as argued, the basilicae Aemilia and Iulia to his person. Again, choosing an exponent of the optimates, he confirmed his pursuit of concordia, as he had already done by entrusting Cicero with the purchase of the land for his new Forum; furthermore this message is expressed by the choice of the basilica Iulia, which stood over the old basilica Sempronia and the house of Scipio Africanus. The political meaning of the basilica Aemilia, as expressed by Marius’ shields, the frieze and the connection with the ancient Atrium Regium, has to be read in the context of Caesar’s intent to re-state his position as head of the populares, his role as pontifex maximus and his respect for Roman tradition and his consequent suitability as a man of government. His decision to intervene again in the traditional political centre of the city might be seen as in line with his previous euergetic activity in the area. The historical events of the following year, the strong tensions with the Senate and with Pompey and the consequent outbreak of the civil war led to a predictable break in Caesar’s building activity. As mentioned, no evidence is available to confirm a refurbishment of the temple of Quirinus by Caesar after the fire of 49 BC.35 If this was the case, it would be reasonable to place this activity to 47 BC, when the works for the temple of Felicitas began, and when, after the victory of Zela, Caesar was again in Rome.36 In the analysis of the political significance of the Forum of Caesar it has already been argued that the year 48 BC constitutes a turning point in Caesar’s propaganda.37 Already from the beginning of the civil war, but especially after the defeat of Pompey and his subsequent death in Egypt, the Caesarian messages focus on the theme of clemency, added to that of moderation and concordia, which had been present at least since the time of his election as pontifex maximus. The theme of Caesar as moderate leader of the populares, seeking collaboration with the Senate, was present from the outset of his

170 Conclusions euergetic activity; nevertheless, from the analysis of the monuments themselves it appears that from 47 BC the monuments begin to show ambiguity in the messages which they conveyed. While Caesar’s position needed legitimation, his propaganda also becomes, in certain aspects, more aggressive. As explained, the temple of Felicitas, which obliterated the old traditional meeting place of the Senate, the curia Cornelia – and so the material memory of Sulla – was also dedicated to the divine quality that had defined the cognomen of the old dictator, and that was also reminiscent of the sacellum to Felicitas on the theatre of Pompey. Ambiguity can also be seen in the many levels of meaning of the decoration and architecture of the Forum of Caesar which, while celebrating the military exploits of its dedicant in the East and in Gaul, as well as Caesar’s qualities and abilities that made him the right man to rule Rome and its territories, also aimed to communicate to the factio of the optimates that he had been the triumphant part in the civil war. Based on the examination of a section of the decoration of the Pompeian complex, perhaps referring to the city of Thebes and meant to celebrate Pompey as the peacemaker, it is argued that the interpretation given by Westall, Sauron, and Harris38 of the paintings of Ajax and Medea dedicated in the temple of Venus Genetrix by Caesar has to be read as a direct response to that. In spite of Pompey celebrating his own temperantia and control of his passions, as well as his desire to avoid civil war, Caesar, in order to avoid a conflict that Pompey and the Senate rendered inevitable,39 aims at demonstrating the contrary. From Cicero’s letters we gather that, during the civil war, Pompey barely controlled his anger40: this might be a further argument in support of the painting of Ajax referring to Pompey and of both paintings as symbols of wrath, or lack of control of passions. This might have also been a criticism aimed at the Senate: Caesar comments with ironic distance, for example, on the fact that before Pharsalus some senators were scuffling over which one of them would become pontifex maximus after Caesar’s defeat (and anticipated death).41 If the paintings in the temple of Venus Genetrix were a blunt answer to the noted message of Pompey in his complex, they would strengthen further challenges to the Pompeian propaganda (the cuirass of pearls, the dactylotecae, and the equestrian statue) present in the Forum of Caesar. Another attack on Pompey’s lack of control comes in the presence of the griffins as symbols of Nemesis in the porticoes’ frieze of that monument. As previously discussed, the goddess represented the right measure, which fights against ὕβρις,42 and Sablayrolles43 points out that it was a widely held opinion in Rome that Pompey, during his Eastern campaign, fell prey to his ὕβρις to reach the boundaries of the world. In this respect, it is interesting to note that Plutarch44 affirmed that, by ceasing to chase Mithridates and by pursuing his exploration of the last boundaries of the world, Pompey exposed himself to the attacks of Nemesis.45 Indeed, in a broader perspective on Pompey’s life, Gabba46 points out that the sudden and tragic defeat of Pompey, in contrast with his previous successes, had a remarkable impact on

Conclusions  171 his contemporaries; the concept of Nemesis as a cause of Pompey’s ruin is in fact mentioned by Cicero.47 In addition, in a letter to Cicero written in April 49 BC, Caesar affirmed that Fortune had already joined him and abandoned Pompey,48 and it is intriguing that Appian49 refers of the dedication by Caesar to Nemesis of a plot of ground near Alexandria where he had Pompey’s head buried. As mentioned, it is likely that this strong statement of victory over Pompey expressed in the Forum of Caesar was understood only by the aristocracy, or by those who had the necessary education to decrypt the highly sophisticated references that were being made. A less cryptic but short-term way of conveying the same concept might be found, as Coarelli50 suggests, in the location of Caesar’s temporary stadium and naumachia in an area that was inside, or in close proximity to, the horti of Pompey in the Campus Martius. In both cases, the context of the dedication were Caesar’s triumphs in 46 BC, which were not explicitly celebrated over Roman citizens (and Caesar carefully avoided any reference to Pompey), but paraded different references to the civil war.51 Another monument to be dedicated in the context of the triumphs of 46 BC was the Circus Maximus. It was seen how this area was strongly connected with the figure of Romulus and with Venus, and it is therefore clear how the reconstruction of the monument fitted with the needs of power legitimation of the Caesarian propaganda in that moment. However, since the cults of Venus Murcia and of Consus, present in the Circus, were related to the mythical episode of the rape of the Sabine women and, therefore, to the foundation of the Roman community, it would be tempting to see in it a reference to a re-foundation of a new city community after the civil war. Just before 45 BC another important turning point in Caesar’s thinking probably came, since he seems to have progressively abandoned his intentions (or hopes) of collaboration with the Senate.52 That year saw the last two monuments promoted by the dictator before his death. The first was a theatre (the later theatre of Marcellus), that was strictly connected to the triumphal route. This can be viewed as another answer to Pompey’s complex in the Campus Martius, taking into account that, in that year, Caesar celebrated the triumph over Pompey’s sons in Spain53; it could also have been planned with a view to the campaign against the Parthians which Caesar was organising. In case of victory, this new theatre would have hosted performances in celebration of a military campaign that could have made Pompey’s Eastern campaign look much less impressive – and that would have revenged Crassus’ death.54 The second building was the tribune of the Rostra, moved from their previous location in the comitium to the western side of the Roman Forum. As for the temple of Felicitas, they displayed an ambiguous message that on the one hand conveyed an intention to collaborate with the Senate and show clemency towards the enemies, while at the same time stating the victory of the popularis leader over the factio of the optimates; however, the latter message seems stronger and somehow more aggressive.

172 Conclusions This ambiguity, as explained, was probably due to Caesar’s need, on one side, to distance himself from Sulla’s legacy while holding a magistracy that strongly reminded of him, and at the same time underline the change that the populares were waiting for; on the other hand, it allowed the dictator to comply with his policy of clementia and reassure potential allies that no revolutionary upheaval was going to take place.

6.2 The Power of Architecture 6.2.1 A ‘Caesarian’ Forum The construction of the Rostra constituted the last act of Caesar’s euergetic activity. With that building the dictator was going back to the Roman Forum, re-stating the importance of the popular assemblies, but in a radically different political environment. It can be argued that the extent to which the political situation in Rome had changed was reflected architecturally by the shift of the Rostra to the western side of the Roman Forum, almost completing and giving sense to a picture that had been built throughout the years, and that, in 45 BC, could be exploited. Ideologically, as Sumi55 has convincingly argued, the south-eastern part of the Forum had historically been the populares part, whereas the north-western part, with the temple of Saturn, the so-called ‘Tabularium’, the temple of Concordia and the curia had always been the bulwark of the aristocracy.56 Considering the topographical position of the Caesarian Rostra, and taking into account that they probably replaced the porticus which, according to Livy, ran from the temple of Saturn to the Senaculum and up to the curia,57 some important observations can be made regarding the significance of these architectural changes. Though a porticus is a place of passage, it nevertheless constitutes a delimitation and a visual barrier. Such might have been the impression of the people entering the Forum through the Via Sacra: the porticus created a sort of boundary and, at the same time, a monumentalisation of the ‘aristocratic part’ of the Forum, which, incidentally, because of the slope of the Capitoline hill, stood on higher ground. Removing the porticus, its delimitation was replaced by a monument which was most probably shorter and lower, which represented a desire of collaboration with the Senate but had at the same time a strong popularis connotation, in spite of the messages of concordia and clementia. The Rostra now delimited the Forum on its western side, thus cutting off the ‘aristocratic’ part and, interestingly, determining an area characterised almost solely by major buildings either connected to the popularis tradition and, thereby, to Caesar, or directly related to him: the Regia, that delimited the eastern side of the Forum, was in fact the domicile of the pontifex maximus, a religious office performed by Caesar from 63 BC to his death. This ‘popularis/Caesarian’ area therefore became the space where all the main political, social, and religious activities took place.

Conclusions  173 All of this must have caused a change in the visual impact of the Roman Forum on visitors. If entering it from the Sacra Via, the first elements on which attention must have been focused before Caesar’s interventions were the components of the ‘aristocratic’ part of it, on the western side of the square. The idea conveyed must have been one of power and control of the optimates over the political and religious life of the city. Coarelli’s reconstruction of the impact of the Sullan temples on the Tabularium, if correct, might offer an idea of this visual impact (see Figure 6.1). When the Caesarian Rostra were added next to the Mundus, they helped focus attention on the popularis space. Looking at the topography of the Roman Forum (Figure A2), we can identify other elements: in particular the lines of access and movement (with the exception of the Lautumiae) now came to lead to the ‘Caesarian zone.’ In fact, the vicus Tuscus, the Sacra via, the Argiletum and the vicus Vestae directly entered that area; people who came from the vicus Iugarius, which terminated between the basilica Iulia and the temple of Saturnus, had their gaze directed towards that area too, since the bulk of the elevated podium of the temple most probably blocked the view of the western side of the Forum.

Figure 6.1 Reconstruction of the ‘Tabularium’ and of the temples of Venus Victrix (centre), Fausta Felicitas (right) and Genius Populi Romani (left). Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic from Coarelli 2010, 126, fig. 15.

174 Conclusions As far as the road of the Lautumiae is concerned, it can be noted that, even though the road did not directly enter the ‘Caesarian area’, it flanked the Forum of Caesar. The central area of the Roman Forum, at the heart of Rome’s political, juridical, and religious life, by 44 BC had become a space surrounded by monuments that either recalled or directly referred to the figure of Caesar. According to the dictator’s propaganda of concordia, the buildings connected to the aristocracy were not excluded; they were nevertheless used as a backdrop and framed inside the Caesarian ideology of clementia and concordia. Furthermore, as Gros58 has underlined, considering the historical and ideological connection of most of the monuments in the Forum with the great personalities of Roman history (Camillus, the Gracchi brothers, the gens Aemilia, etc.), Caesar’s works visually represented the idea of respect and revival of traditions that would underpin Augustan politics in later years. 6.2.2 A ‘Triumph’ for Propaganda The re-contextualisation of the Roman Forum by Caesar can be inserted in a broader context: namely the path of the triumphal pompa. It was seen how important for the glorification of individuals and of their personal and military virtues the ceremony of triumph was. However, the exact path followed by the parade is still much debated (Figure A1; different hypotheses of paths for the triumphal ceremony are in different colours). Some scholars consider it as fixed through time,59 whereas others allow different degrees of flexibility. For example, Morpurgo maintained that the Porta Triumphalis was not fixed.60 Nevertheless, some stages of the pompa seem to have remained constant: the passage through the Porta Triumphalis; the route through the Circus Maximus61; the arrival to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus62 through the Via Sacra,63 the Roman Forum64 and the clivus Capitolinus. The section of the procession path that was meant to encircle the Palatine Hill had not been questioned until recently, when doubts have been expressed and, at least for the Republican and early imperial period, the Palatine Hill was excluded from the pompa.65 It is not the place here to engage in new discussion about the triumphal route, nevertheless it is possible to concur with Östenberg’s66 stance – namely that the context of the ceremony demanded a high level of continuity and repetition, but that some variations were possible, especially in relation to modifications in the cityscape. Attention should be drawn to how much the existence of these fixed landmarks, tightly related to the triumphal parade, influenced both Caesar and Pompey in their choice for the location of some of their monuments. The space of the triumphal pompa thus defined, or shaped, at least part of the euergetic activity of the generals (as had been the case with other triumphatores), who also exploited it to maximise the effect of their propaganda. All of Pompey’s monuments seem to lie along the triumphal path: the temple of Hercules Pompeianus in front of the western entrances of the Circus Maximus; the theatre complex next to the Via Triumphalis; and the temple

Conclusions  175 of Minerva likely either between the Forum and the Velabrum (so along the probable path of the triumph) or outside Porta Capena, where other triumphal monuments were located.67 This clearly reflects Pompey’s propaganda, which always aimed at celebrating his personal military valour and his victories. Even when the general began to promote himself as a good man of government, the focus always tended to remain on his military abilities. For Caesar the situation is slightly different. He too celebrated his own military achievements, but his public image, as described above, also comprised the respect of traditions, his role as leader of the populares and as pontifex maximus in office. The monuments he promoted along the triumphal path were all dedicated, used, or built in relation to a triumph. The wooden stadium and the navalia for the triumph of 46, in the vicinity of the Via Triumphalis and in contrast to Pompey’s theatre (and probably inside or near his horti); on the same occasion, Caesar offered shows in his newly rebuilt Circus Maximus.68 The latter monument might even have been a response to the presence of the temple of Hercules Pompeianus just outside its entrances; Pompey’s building might have seemed almost modest in comparison to the magnificence and remarkable dimensions of the new Circus. The last day of Caesar’s triumph, in 46 BC, saw the dedication of the (unfinished) Forum of Caesar, which was therefore incorporated in the ceremony,69 and accordingly hosted objects and decorative motifs related to victory. Furthermore, as shown, the project for a theatre leaning on the southern slope of the Capitoline hill placed it both at the beginning and at the end of the triumphal route inside the pomerium, and was started in 45 BC, the year of the triumph over Pompey’s sons. It might be possible that it was meant to host performances connected to a potential triumph over Parthians. The other theatre built in its place, the future theatre of Marcellus, was probably subsequently incorporated in the triumphal route, and in clear competition with Pompey’s theatre.

6.3 Final Remarks This overview and comparison of Pompey’s and Caesar’s architecture over time highlight two notable aspects that are worthy of further brief consideration. First, the monuments can be viewed as a perfect mirror, on the one hand, of Pompey’s self-celebration and construction of his image as statesman, challenging other contemporary prominent politicians; on the other, of the fierce competition between Caesar and Pompey, with the former referring to specific aspects of Pompeian monuments and providing targeted answers – as with the public and traditional character of the Saepta in response to the private and innovative character of Pompey’s theatrical complex. Furthermore, the many references to Caesar’s victory over Pompey that are present in the Forum of Caesar are consistent with the picture that emerges from the latest research on triumphs in times of civil war: in the age of Marius, Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar, triumphs over Roman citizens were celebrated, but mostly

176 Conclusions integrated with or disguised as victories over foreign enemies; nevertheless, in his last triumph Caesar went slightly further, since even though it was most probably a triumph ex Hispania, it was celebrated only over civil opponents.70 In his Forum, which was partly a triumphal monument, Caesar did not explicitly represent his victories over Pompey or the Pompeians, but he did insert references to those victories as well as to those over foreign enemies. Secondly, the buildings conveyed different types of messages, and ones that could contain multiple meanings, to which people had diverse access in relation to their education and social background. Certain messages were specifically targeted only to a particular category of people, as most evident in the Forum of Caesar. This does not mean that there was a hierarchy of importance, but rather that there was a careful planning of the types of messages being addressed to particular sections of the public. Monuments could, therefore, be propaganda – blatant and sizeable. We may lack the inscriptions that would have adorned them and no doubt declared their significance, but the structures and sites themselves and the scattered contemporary literary sources give good voice to the politics at play.

6.4 Conclusions: Rome as a Forum for Propaganda This investigation of Pompey’s and Caesar’s monuments offers a more defined and more composite picture of how public architecture was exploited for propaganda purposes during that period. It has been seen that messages expressed by architecture and by decoration could refer to the general purpose of the building, to the status and intentions of its promoter, as well as to the broader significance of both in that historical and political context. They also were a material representation of the political projects of their promoters, or of their power, and might have helped their acceptance. For this reason, this book provides further support to the idea of how the study of the deeper political meaning of buildings and of the space they occupied and shaped can be a useful tool for the study of late Republican history. The analysis of the monuments and the overall interpretation show that messages to be displayed there were carefully chosen, even in relation to the public for which they were meant; this implies that behind those messages there was a precise intention of the promoter. As a consequence, this invites to reflect on the problem of the relationship between the promoter and the people involved in the building industry: as DeLaine71 pointed out, the written sources provide little evidence for the latter, and mainly architects are represented in them. It has been seen that there is evidence of Pompey and Caesar entrusting some aspects of the construction process to other people; further information about them is lacking, but this invites reflections on whether promoters only gave instructions about the typology of the monument and the messages that they wanted it to convey, or if they already had a precise project, on which they might have been given advice, but that all the other people involved in the construction process had to follow.72

Conclusions 177 It has also been shown how monuments were fluid entities: the themes of propaganda can be modified alongside the construction process, because of changes in the political situation and in the promoter’s propagandistic needs. In this case, the Forum of Caesar offers a valuable example, since it was built during a period of considerable transformation in politics, and eight years passed between the beginning of the works and its dedication. Referring back to the definition presented in Chapter 1, it is then possible to demonstrate that Pompey’s and Caesar’s propaganda in public architecture was deliberate and systematic, and had the purpose to shape perceptions (Pompey offering a Greek/exotic space in his theatrical complex; Caesar extending or refurbishing areas connected to tradition), manipulate cognitions (Pompey’s outstanding position as primus inter pares guaranteed peace and the dominion of Rome; Caesar was forced to embark on a civil war to defend his dignitas and the people’s freedom, and his victory promised the end of the dominance of the optimates but clementia for whoever joined him) and direct behaviour (in order to gain legitimation and consent). Monuments have been therefore confirmed as being a fundamental part of the political game, and consequently a mirror of the political struggle that marked the end of the Roman Republic.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Plut., Pomp., 14, 1–5. Plut., Pomp., 13. Seager 1979, 11. Rawson 1970, 31–32. Rawson 1970, 31; Ziolkowski 1992, 46. Rawson 1970, 32; Stafford 2012, 142–145. La Rocca 1995b, 109. Plin., HN, 7, 26, 97. Palombi 1996b, 253–254. Martin 1998, 25. Santangelo 2007, 232. Coarelli 1996a, 20–21. See Liv., 1, 7, 10–12. Vitr., De arch., 3, 3, 5. Clarke 1999, 311. On which see Villani 2013, 345–347, and Cic., Prov. cons., 31; Sest., 31, 68. Suet., Iul., 10. See Cic., Att., 4, 16, 8. See, most recently, Liverani 2008, 49; Tortorici 2012, 18; Delfino 2014, 2. Canfora 1999, 122. Flory 1988, 499–500; Westall 1996, 90–91. Catull., 11. Latin text from Cornish 19882. Canfora 1999, 122. Vervaet 2014, 146, n. 79. Agache 1987, 228–229 and analysis above. Coarelli 1993a, 133; see analysis above.

178 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

Conclusions

Canfora 1999, 121. Caes., B Gall., 4, 38, 5; Suet., Iul., 24; Dio, 39, 53, 2. Lange 2013, 69. Gatti 1937, 91. Suet., Iul., 26. Plin., HN, 35, 45, 155–156. See Amici 1991, 40–41. Dio, 41, 14, 2–3. Plut., Caes., 51, 1. See also Raauflaub 2010a, 152. Westall 1996; Sauron 2001; Harris 2002. Sauron 2001, 193; see also Gelzer 1967, 443; Collins 1973, 957; Henderson 1998, 37–69. See, for example, Cic., Att., 8, 16, 2 and 9, 10, 2. Caes., B Civ., 3, 83. Delplace 1980, 412. Sablayrolles 2006, 350–351. Plut., Pomp., 38, 4. See Sablayrolles 2006, 350–351. Gabba 1956, 126–127. Cic., Tusc., 1, 86. Cic., Att., 10, 8b, 1. App., B Civ., 2, 90. Coarelli 1997a, 584–585. See App., B Civ., 2, 101. Raauflaub 2010a, 152. For the innovative character of this triumph, see Lange 2013, 77. Augustus will list the restitution of Crassus’ signa and spolia by the Parthians among his feats in the Res Gestae: Aug., RG., 29, 2. Sumi 2011, 209. See Appian, B Civ., 1, 26, who states that Opimius’ temple of Concord sealed the victory of the aristocracy. Coarelli 1985, 242. Gros 2010, 272. See Coarelli 1968. Morpurgo 1908; this argument is also sustained by Wiseman 2007; 2008, 390– 392, but disputed by Makin 1921; Beard 2007, 92–106. See Plut., Aem., 32, 1. Varro, Ling., 6, 68; Cic., Verr., 2, 5, 77; Verg., Aen., 6, 836; Ov., Tr., 4, 2, 55–56; Pont., 2, 1, 57; Met., 1, 560; Liv., 45, 39, 11; Luc., 8, 553–554 and 9, 79–81; Suet., Tib., 2, 4; Plin., HN, 7, 145; Jos., BI., 7, 153; App., Pun., 66. Hor., Epod., 7, 7–8; Prop., 2, 1, 34 and 3, 4, 22. Ov., Pont., 2, 1, 42; Suet., Iul., 78, 2; Dio Cass., 44, 49, 3. See, for example, Östenberg 2010. Östenberg 2010, 304. Palombi 1996b, 253–254. Suet., Iul., 39. Dio, 43, 22, 2–3. Lange 2013, 69–78; on this debate, see also Havener 2014; 2016; Östenberg 2014. DeLaine 2000, 120. On the topic of patronage, see most recently Von Hesberg 2015, Wescoat 2015.

Appendix A

Maps

Figure A1 Schematic map of Rome in 44 BC, showing some hypotheses about the triumphal route in the Republican period (thicker grey line and grey dashed line). Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic on the basis of Carandini 2012, out of text tables 7-27; Davies 2017, 248, fig. 7.1.

180  Appendix A

Figure A2 Schematic plan of the Roman Forum in 44 BC. Redrawn and adapted by Damjan Krsmanovic on the basis of Palombi 2010, 80, fig. 10; Davies 2017, 248, fig. 7.1.

Year (BC) 106 100 (or 101) 88 87 86 83

Pompey

Birth (29 September)

Marriage with Antistia Divorce from Cossutia; P. fights on Sulla’s side; acclaimed marriage with Cornelia, imperator daughter of Cinna Pompey fights for 82 Divorce from Refusal to Military Sulla in North Antistia and divorce from service in Africa and marriage Cornelia the Eastern Sicily with Aemilia, (ordered by provinces Sulla’s Sulla) (to escape stepdaughter, from Sulla) who died later in the year; 81

Flamen Dialis (appointment to?)

Birth (12 or 13 July)

Caesar

Monuments

Battle of Porta Collina; beginning of the Sullan proscriptions;

(Continued)

Sulla dictator

Sulla arrives at Brindisi

Consulate of Sulla

Main events in Rome

Note: The information displayed in the Chronology Table has been taken from Gelzer 1968; Leach 1978; Canfora 1999; Christ 2004; Fezzi 2019.

Chronology Table

Appendix B

Appointed in the college of pontifices Military tribune (perhaps in 71?)

Accusations against Gn. Cornelius Dolabella and C. Antonius Hybrida, Sulla’s men, for official misconduct

Defeat of the last rebels of Spartacus; Triumph (2) (29 December)

Entrusted the war against Lepidus by the Senate Imperium proconsulare against Sertorius in Spain

71

72

73

76 74

77

78

79

Triumph (1) (12 March) (?) (perhaps in 81?)

Return to Rome

80

Marriage with Mucia

Ambassador at the court of Nicomedes IV of Bithinia

Year (BC)

Pompey

Caesar

Dedication of the temple of Hercules Pompeianus (?) (Pompey)

Monuments

War against Spartacus

Thi rd Mithridatic war

Sulla’s death; conspiracy of M. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 78)

Main events in Rome

65 64

66

68 67

69

70

60

Conquest of the temple of 63 Jerusalem; death of Mithridates VI Return from the Eastern provinces, 62 arrival in Brindisi; divorce from Mucia Triumph (3) (28–29 September) 61

First Triumvirate with Crassus

Pontifex maximus; he speaks out against the death penalty for the Catilinarians Praetor; divorce from Pompeia because of the Bona Dea scandal Propraetor in Spain

Quaestor in Hispania Ulterior under the command of C. Antistius Veteres; eulogies for the deaths of his aunt Julia and wife Cornelia Marriage to Pompeia Supporter of the lex Gabinia Imperium against the pirates and their defeat Supporter of the lex Manilia Lex Manilia: command against Mitridates VI Curule edile

Consulate (1) with Crassus

Dedication of the temple of Minerva (Pompey); beginning of the works for the Pompeian complex (?) (Pompey)

Dedication of the temple of Hercules Pompeianus (?) (Pompey)

First Triumvirate (Continued)

The Senate opposes Pompey’s administrative organisation of the Near Eastern provinces

Senatusconsultum ultimum on the suppression of the collegia Cicero is consul; conspiracy of Catiline

First expedition to Britannia

Obtaining of a five years’ extension of the imperium in Gaul

Consulate (2) with Crassus; he obtains of a five years’ imperium in Spain

Lucca conference (April)

Curator annonae (December)

55

56

57

Dedication of the Pompeian complex in the Campus Martius (Pompey) (29 September)

Clodius is tribune Cicero’s exile; of the plebs; he recalled in re-establishes August 57 the collegia 15 days’ supplicatio for Caesar’s deeds in Gaul decreed by the Senate (end of September) The Senate abolishes the collegia again (February) Crassus obtains a five years’ imperium in Syria; 20 days’ supplicatio for Caesar’s deeds in Gaul decreed by the Senate (Autumn)

Main events in Rome

Attacked by Clodius, he withdraws 58 to private life

Monuments

Caesar’s colleague, M. Calpurnius Bibulus, unsuccessfully attempts to thwart his colleague’s legislation

Marriage with Julia (Caesar’s daughter)

Consulate (1); obtaining of the proconsulare imperium in Gaul and Illyricum for five years; marriage with Calpurnia Gallic wars (from March 58)

Year (BC) 59

Pompey

Caesar

Revolt of the Gallic tribes (February); defeat in Gergovia (May/June); victory of Alesia (August/ September)

Caesar is allowed to stand in absentia for the consulate of 49

54

He marries Cornelia, daughter of 53 Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio 52 The Senate entrusts him, the interrex and the tribunes the defence of the Republic following the riots due to Clodius’ death (February) Consul sine collega (Intercalary month between February and March); Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio becomes his colleague (August?)

Second expedition to Britannia; Death of Julia (September) revolt of the Eburones, Senones and Treviri; he cannot return to Gallia Cisalpina during winter 54–53

(Continued)

Death of Crassus at Carrhae (12 June) Murder of Clodius and Beginning of the destruction of the curia works in the Forum Cornelia (18 January); Iulium (Caesar); 20 days supplicatio for Caesar’s dedication of deeds in Gaul decreed by the a sacellum to Senate (end of the year) Victoria in the Pompeian complex (?) (Pompey)

Purchase of the land for ‘an extension of the Forum’ (Caesar) (from October); beginning of the works for the Saepta and for the Villa Publica (Caesar) (from October); beginning of the works for the refurbishment of the basilica Aemilia and for the construction of the basilica Iulia (Paullus)

Pompey

Negotiations Crossing of the Rubicon (10 January); entry into Rome (31 March); campaign against the Pompeians in Spain (from April); appointment to dictatorship (1) (midOctober); return to Rome (2–12 December)

Caesar

Illness Entrusted by the Senate of the defence of the Republic (7 January) Escape from Rome (17 January) Besieged by Caesar in Brindisi (9–17 March) He and his supporters leave Italy for th Balkans (17 March) Beginning of the refurbishment of the temple of Quirinus (?) (Caesar)

Corruption of Aemilius Paullus; 1.500 talents for the completion of the basilicae Aemilia and Iulia (Caesar)

51

50 49

Monuments

Year (BC)

Senatusconsultum Civil war ultimum against Caesar (7 January); escape of the consuls and of the senators (18 January); Lex Roscia on the citizenship of the Transpadani (11 March)

Main events in Rome

in Alexandria Defeat of (2 October Caesar at 48–28 June Dyrrachium 47) (17 July); defeat of Pompey at Pharsalus (9 August)

Victory of Zela (2 August); in Rome (4 October– beginning of December) Consulate (3); victory of Tapsus (6 April); return to Rome (25 July); triumph ex Gallia, Aegypto, Ponto, Africa de rege Iuba (August); in Spain (from November?); dictatorship (3) (for tenyears)

Consulate (2); dictatorship (2)

Beginning of the works for the temple of Felicitas (Caesar) Wooden stadium and Cn. Pompeius (son) in Spain naumachia in the (beginning of Campus Martius April); suicide (Caesar); the of Cato (night Circus Maximus between 12 and is refurbished 13 April) (Caesar); dedication of the temple of Felicitas (Caesar); dedication of the Forum Iulium and of the temple of Venus Genetrix (Caesar) (25–26 September)

46

Pompey’s sons escape to North Africa

47

Escape to Egypt; 48 murdered by Ptolemy’s men in Pelusium (28 September or 1 October)

(Continued)

Monuments Lex Iulia de Urbe augenda, ornanda et instruenda (Caesar); a statue of Caesar is dedicated in the temple of Quirinus; beginning of the works for the theatre of Caesar (Caesar); the Rostra are moved to the western side of the Roman Forum (Caesar) (end of the year)

45

44

Consulate (4); dictatorship (4); victory at Munda against the Pompeians (17 March); writing of the testament – adoption of Octavian (13 September); return to Rome and triumph over Pompey’s sons (October)

Consulate (5); appointment to imperator (14 January); appointment to dictator perpetuus (14 February); murdered in the curia Pompeia (15 March)

Pompey

Year (BC)

Caesar

Main events in Rome

Bibliography

Primary Sources Canali L. 2004 (ed.), Q. Tullius Cicero, Manualetto del candidato, San Cesario di Lecce, Manni Cornish F. W. 19882 (ed.), “The poems of Gaius Valerius Catullus”, in Catullus, Tibullus, Pervigilium Veneris, translated by F. W. Cornish, J. P. Postgate, J. W. Mackail, revised by G. P. Goold, Loeb Classical Library 6, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press Di Spigno C. 2005 (ed.), M. Tullio Cicerone, Epistole ad Attico, 2 vols, Turin, UTET Gardner R. 1958 (ed.), Cicero. Pro Sestio. In Vatinium, Loeb Classical Library 309, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press Lanciotti S., Dessì F. 2009 (ed.), Svetonio, Vite dei Cesari, vol. 1, Milan, BUR-Rizzoli Ramous M. 1999, G. Valerio Catullo, Le Poesie, Milan, Garzanti Shackleton Baiey D. R. 1999 (ed.), Cicero, Letters to Atticus, Volume III, Loeb Classical Library 97, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press Shackleton Bailey D. R. 1999a (ed.), Cicero, Letters to Friends, Volume I: Letters 1–113. Loeb Classical Library 205, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press Shackleton Bailey D. R. 2002 (ed.), Cicero, “Letters to Quintus and Brutus”, in Letters to Quintus and Brutus. Letter Fragments. Letter to Octavian. Invectives. Handbook of Electioneering, Loeb Classical Library 462, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press Shipley F. W. 1924 (ed.), “Res Gestae Divi Augusti”, in Velleius Paterculus. Compendium of Roman History. Res Gestae Divi Augusti, Loeb Classical Library 152, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press

Secondary Sources Agache S. 1987, “L’actualité de la Villa Publica en 55-54 av. J.C.”, in Urbs, pp. 211–234 Agache S. 1999, s.v. “Villa publica”, in in LTUR 5, Rome, Quasar, pp. 202–205 Albers J. 2008, “Das Marsfeld. Die Entwicklung der urbanen Struktur aus topographischer, traditioneller und rechtlicher Perspektive”, in Albers J., Grasshoff G., Heinzelmann M., Waefler M. (eds.), Das Marsfeld in Rom: Beiträge, Bern, BoDBooks on Demand, pp. 13–26 Albertson F. C. 1990, “The basilica Aemilia frieze: religion and politics in Late Republican Rome”, in Latomus, 49, 4, pp. 801–815

190 Bibliography Allely A. 2000, “La basilica Aemilia aux IIe et Ier siècles avant Jésus-Christ: une histoire de famille”, in Deniaux E. (ed.), Rome antique. Pouvoir des images, images du pouvoir, Caen, Presses universitaires de Caen Amici C. M. 1991, Il foro di Cesare, Florence, Leo S. Olschki Amici C. M. 1999, “Atrium Libertatis”, in RPAA, LXVIII, 1995–1996 (published in 1999), pp. 294–321 Amici C. M. 2004–2005, “Evoluzione architettonica del Comizio a Roma”, in RPAA, LXXVII, pp. 351–379 Ammermann A. J., Filippi D. 1998, “Il nuovo tempio del Velabro”, in BCAR 99, pp. 272–276 Ammermann A. J., Filippi D. 2000, “Nuove osservazioni sull’area a nord del Comizio”, in BCAR, 101, pp. 27–38 Arcellaschi A. 1990, Médée dans le théâtre latin d’Ennius à Sénèque, Rome, École française de Rome Arvanitis N. 2010, “Il tempio di Vesta. Nuovi dati”, in Arvanitis N. (ed.), Il santuario di Vesta, la Casa delle Vestali e il Tempio di Vesta VIII sec. A.C. – 64 D.C., Quaderni di Workshop di Archeologia classica, 3, Roma-Pisa, Fabrizio Serra Editore Arvanitis N. 2017, “Sequenza stratigrafica (aedes Vestae e casa/domus delle Vestali 750 a.C.-64 d.C.)”, in Carandini A., Carafa P., D’Alessio M. T., Filippi D. (eds), Santuario di Vesta, Pendice del Palatino e Via Sacra. Scavi 1985–2016. 1. Testi, Roma, Quasar, pp. 201–218 Arvanitis N. 2017a, “Ricostruzione (aedes Vestae e casa/domus delle Vestali 750 a.C.-64 d.C.)”, in Carandini A., Carafa P., D’Alessio M. T., Filippi D. (eds), Santuario di Vesta, Pendice del Palatino e Via Sacra. Scavi 1985–2016. 1. Testi, Roma, Quasar, pp. 238–243 Assenmaker P. 2007, “Pignus salutis atque imperii. L’enjeu du Palladium dans les luttes politiques de la fin de la République”, in LEC 75, pp. 381–412 Badian E. 1955, “The date of Pompey’s first triumph”, in Hermes, 83, pp. 107–118. Badian E. 1961, “Servilius and Pompey’s first triumph”, in Hermes, 89, pp. 254–256. Badian E. 2004, s.v. “Glykera”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 5, p. 880 Ballesteros-Pastor L. 2009, “Troy, between Mithridates and Rome”, in J. M. Høyte (ed.), Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom, Gylling, Aarhus University Press, pp. 217–231 Balsdon J. P. V. D. 1963, “The Commentariolum petitionis”, in CQ, 13, 2, pp. 242–250 Barden Dowling M. 2000, “The clemency of Sulla”, in Historia, 49, 3, pp. 303–340 Bartoli A. 1963, Curia Senatus, Rome, Istituto Studi Romani Bauer H. 1988, “Basilica Aemilia”, in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik, Mainz. Verlag Philipp von Zabern Bauer H. 1993a, s.v. “Basilica Fulvia” in LTUR 1, Rome, Quasar, pp. 173–175 Bauer H. 1993b, s.v. “Basilica Paulli”, in LTUR 1, Rome, Quasar, pp. 183–187 Beacham R. C. 1999, Spectacle Entertainments of Early Imperial Rome, New HavenLondon, Yale University Press Beard M. 2007, The Roman triumph, Cambridge, MA-London, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Beard M., North J., Price S. 1998, Religions of Rome, Cambridge-New York, Cambridge University Press Bearzot C. 1982a, “La maledizione di Atena nel frammento di Antistene”, in: Sordi 1982, pp. 12–17

Bibliography 191 Bearzot C. 1982b, “Atena Itonia, Atena Tritonia e Atena Iliaca”, in: Sordi 1982, pp. 43–60 Berti N. 1988, La guerra di Cesare contro Pompeo, Milan, Editoriale Jaca Book Bianchi Bandinelli R., Torelli M. 1976, L’arte dell’antichità classica – Etruria, Roma, Turin, UTET Bounia A. 2004, The Nature of Classical Collecting. Collectors and Collections, 100 BCE-100CE), Aldershot, Ashgate Braund S. 2006, “A tale of two cities: Statius, Thebes, and Rome”, in Phoenix, 60, 3/4, pp. 259–273 Brendel O. 1930, “Immolatio boum”, in MDAI(R), 45, pp. 196–226 Brizzi G. 2004, Silla, Rome, Rai-Eri Brown F. E. 1935, “The Regia”, in MAAR, 12, pp. 67–88 Brunn H. 1859, Geschichte der Griechischen Künstler, 2, Stuttgart, Ebner&Seubert Büchner K., Hofmann J. B. 1951, Lateinische Literatur und Sprache in der Forschung seit 1937, A. Frankle, Bern Burton P. 2014, “The revolt of Lepidus (cos. 78 BC) revisited”, in Historia, 63–4, pp. 404–421 Cacciotti B. 2008–2009, “Novità sul teatro di Pompeo nei manoscritti di Pirro Ligorio. II. Le maschere teatrali”, in RPAA, 81, pp. 191–221 Cadario M. 2006, “Le statue di Cesare a Roma tra il 46 e il 44 a.C.”, in Acme, LIX, 3, pp. 25–70 Cadario M. 2011, “Teatro e propaganda, trionfo e mirabilia: considerazioni sul programma decorativo del teatro e della porticus di Pompeo”, in Stratagemmi, 19, pp. 11–68 Canali L. 2004a, “Commento”, in Canali 2004, pp. 65–75 Canali L., Perilli L. 2015, Il Rivoluzionario Conseguente, Rome, Castelvecchi Canfora L. 1999, Giulio Cesare, il Dittatore Democratico, Rome-Bari, Laterza Canfora L. 2017, Per una storia delle biblioteche, Bologna, Il Mulino Capanna M. C. 2007, “Appendice IV. Dal georadar all’archeologia”, in Carandini A., Cercando Quirino. Traversata sulle Onde Elettromagnetiche nel Suolo del Quirinale, Turin, Einaudi, pp. 93–96 Cappelli R. 1993, “La leggenda di Enea nel racconto figurato degli Aemilii”, in Ostraka, 2, pp. 57–71 Carafa P. 1993, “Il tempio di Quirino. Considerazioni sulla topografia arcaica del Quirinale”, in ArchClass, 45, pp. 119–143 Carafa P. 1998, Il comizio di Roma dalle origini all’età di Augusto, Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider Carandini A. 2007, Cercando Quirino, Rome, Einaudi Carandini A. 2012 (ed.), Atlante di Roma antica, Milan, Electa Carnabuci E. 1991, “L’angolo sud-orientale del Foro Romano nel manoscritto inedito di Giacomo Boni”, in RAL, IX, 1, 4, pp. 249–363 Castagnoli F. 1946, “Atrium Libertatis”, in RAL, 1, 7–9, pp. 276–291 Castagnoli F. 1981, “Influenze alessandrine nell’urbanistica della Roma augustea”, in Rivista di Filologia Classica, CIX, pp. 414–423 Cattalini D. 1993, s.v. “Aqua Marcia”, in LTUR 1, Rome, Quasar, pp. 67–69 Cecamore C. 2002, Palatium: Topografia Storica del Palatino tra III Sec. a. C. e I Sec. d. C., Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider Chioffi L. 1995, s.v. “Fornix Fabianus”, in LTUR 2, Rome, Quasar, pp. 264–266 Christ K. 2004, Pompeius, der Feldherr Roms, Munich, Verlag C. H. Beck

192

Bibliography

Ciancio Rossetto P. 1993, s.v. “Circus Maximus”, in LTUR 1, Rome, Quasar, pp. 272–277 Ciancio Rossetto P. 1994–95, “Ritrovamenti nel Campo Marzio meridionale”, in BCAR 96, pp. 197–200 Ciancio Rossetto P. 1999, s.v. “Pietas, aedes in foro Holitorio / in Circo Flaminio”, in LTUR 4, Rome, Quasar, p. 86 Ciancio Rossetto P., Buonfiglio M. 2010, “Teatro di Marcello: analisi e riflessione sugli aspetti progettuali e costruttivi”, in Camporeale S., Dessales H., Pizzo A. (eds.), Arqueología de la Construcción II - Los procesos constructivos en el mundo romano: Italia y provincias orientales, Instituto Arqueología Mérida, MadridMérida, pp. 51–70 Clark A. 2007, Divine Qualities: Cult and Community in Republican Rome, Oxford, Oxford University Press Clarke K. 1999, Between Geography and History. Hellenistic Constructions of the Roman World, Oxford, Oxford University Press Coarelli F. 1968, “La porta trionfale e la via dei trionfi”, in Dialoghi d'Archeologia, 2, pp. 55–103 Coarelli F. 1971–72, “Il complesso pompeiano del Campo Marzio e la sua decorazione scultorea”, in RPAA, 44, pp. 99–122 Coarelli F. 1977, “Il Campo Marzio occidentale. Storia e topografia”, in MEFRA, 89, pp. 807, 846 Coarelli F. 1983, Il foro romano I – periodo arcaico, Rome, Quasar Coarelli F. 1985, Il foro romano II – periodo repubblicano e augusteo, Rome, Quasar Coarelli F. 1988a, Il foro Boario dalle origini alla Repubblica, Rome, Quasar Coarelli F. 1988b, “Rom. Die Stadtplanung von Caesar bis Augustus”, in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz, pp. 68–80 Coarelli F. 1993, s.v. “Atrium Libertatis”, in LTUR 1, Rome, Quasar, pp. 133–135 Coarelli F. 1996a, s.v. “Hercules Pompeianus, aedes”, in LTUR 3, Rome, Quasar, pp. 20–21 Coarelli F. 1996b, s.v. “Hecatostylum”, in LTUR 3, Rome, Quasar, pp. 9–10 Coarelli F. 1997a, Il Campo Marzio, Rome, Quasar Coarelli F. 1997b, “Le Théatre de Pompée”, in Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne, XXIII, pp. 105, 124 Coarelli F. 1999a, s.v. “Quirinus, aedes”, in LTUR 4, Rome, Quasar, pp. 185–187 Coarelli F. 1999b, s.v. “Rostra (età repubblicana)”, in LTUR 4, Rome, Quasar, p. 212–214 Coarelli F. 1999c, s.v. “Quirinus, sacellum”, in LTUR 4, Rome, Quasar, p. 187 Coarelli F. 2010, “Substructio et tabularium”, in PBSR, 78, pp. 107–132 Coarelli F. 2012, Palatium. Il Palatino dalle Origini all’Impero, Rome, Quasar Coarelli F. 2014, Collis. Il Quirinale e il Viminale nell’antichità, Rome, Quasar Coleman K. M. 1993, “Launching into history: aquatic displays in the early empire”, in JRS, 83, pp. 48–74 Colini A. M. 1933, “Notiziario”, in BCAR, 40, pp. 260–265 Collins J. H. 1973, “Caesar as political propagandist”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt I, 1, Berlin-New York, pp. 922–966 Cordano F. 1980, “Il labirinto come simbolo grafico della città”, in MEFRA, 92, pp. 7–15 Cordischi L. 1999, “Note in margine di topografia romana: Codeta, minor Codeta e Naumachia Caesaris”, in BCAR, 100, pp. 53–62

Bibliography 193 Corso A. 2004, The Art of Praxiteles. The Development of Praxiteles’ Workshop and Its Cultural Tradition until the Sculptor’s Acme (364-1 BC), Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider Crawford M. H. 1974, Roman Republican Coinage, London, Cambridge University Press D’Alessio A. 2010, “Fascino greco e ‘attualità’ romana: la conquista di una nuova architettura”, in La Rocca E., Parisi Presicce C. (eds), I giorni di Roma – l’età della conquista, Milan, Skira, pp. 49–64 David J.-M., Demougin S., Deniaux E., Ferey D., Flambard J.-M., Nicolet C., 1973, “Le Commentariolum petitionis de Quintus Cicéron. État de la question et étude prosopographique”, in ANRW, I, 3, pp. 239–277 Davies P. J. E. 2017, Architecture and Politics in Republican Rome, New York, Cambridge University Press De Felice M. 2012, “La Basilica Giulia nel Foro Romano”, in De Minicis E. (ed.), Archeologia delle strade, Rome, Kappa, pp. 195–218 Degani E. 2002, s.v. “Anyte”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 1, pp. 812–813 DeLaine J. 2000, “Building the eternal city: the construction industry of Imperial Rome”, in Coulston J., Dodge H. (eds), Ancient Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal City, Oxford, Oxford University School of Archaeology, pp. 183–214 Delfino A. 2008, “Il foro di Cesare nella fase cesariana e augustea”, in Gentili G. (ed.), catalogue of the exhibition Giulio Cesare – L’uomo, le imprese, il mito, Milan, Silvana editoriale, pp. 52–56 Delfino A. 2010a, “Il primo foro di Cesare”, in Scienze dell’antichità, 16, pp. 335–347 Delfino A. 2010b, “Le fasi arcaiche e alto-repubblicane nell’area del Foro di Cesare”, in Scienze dell’antichità, 16, pp. 268–302 Delfino A. 2010c, “I riti del costruire nel foro di Cesare”, in Di Giuseppe M., Serlorenzi M. (eds.), I riti del costruire nelle acque violate. Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Roma, Palazzo Massimo 12–14 giugno 2008, Rome, Scienze e Lettere, pp. 167–181 Delfino A., Di Cola V., Rosati F., Rossi M. 2010, “La statua equestre di Giulio Cesare: un’ipotesi ricostruttiva”, in Scienze dell’antichità, 16, pp. 349–361 Delfino A. 2014, Forum Iulium. L’area del foro di Cesare alla luce delle campagne di scavo 2005–2008, BAR International Series 2607, Oxford, Archaeopress Delplace C. 1980, Le Griffon de l’Archaïsme à l’Époque Impériale, Bruxelles-Rome, Institut historique belge de Rome De Vos M. 1985, “Tecnologia e tipologia dei rivestimenti pavimentali e parietali”, in Carandini A., Filippi M. R. (eds.), Settefinestre. Una Villa Schiavistica nell’Etruria Romana, 1, Modena, Panini, pp. 74–90 Distelrath G. 2010, s.v. “Veiovis”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 15, pp. 257–258 Doob L. W. 1949, Public Opinion and Propaganda, London, The Cresset Press Dosi A. 2006, Otium. Il Tempo Libero dei Romani, Rome, Quasar Drumann W. 1964, Geschichte Roms, in seinem Übergange von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, Hildesheim, Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung Duckworth G. E. 1955, “Plautus and the Basilica Aemilia”, in De Jonge P. et al. (eds.), Ut pictura poesis, Studia latina Petro Iohanni Enk septuagenario oblata, Leiden, Brill, pp. 58–65

194

Bibliography

Ellul J. 1971, Propaganda. The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, New York, Alfred A. Knopf ed. Ellul J. 1976, Histoire de la propagande, Vendôme, Presses Universitaires de France Ellul J. 1983, Storia della Propaganda, Napoli, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane Elvers K. L. 2002, s.v. “Aemilius Lepidus, M. [I 10]”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 1, p. 210 Enenkel K. A. E., Pfeijffer I. L. 2005 (ed.), The Manipulative Mode. Political Propaganda in Antiquity. A Collection of Case Studies, Leiden-Boston, Brill Enenkel K. A. E., Pfeijffer I. L. 2005a, “Introduction”, in Enenkel K. A. E., Pfeijffer I. L. 2005, pp. 1–12 Erskine A. 2001, Troy, between Greece and Rome. Local Tradition and Imperial Power, Oxford, Oxford University Press Evans, J. D. 1992, The Art of Persuasion – Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press Evans, J. D. 2009, “Prostitutes in the Portico of Pompey? A Reconsideration”, in TAPhA, 139, 1, pp. 123–145 Fell M. 2009, s.v. “Thebes [2], 1, II”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 14, pp. 408–414 Ferrary J. L. 2000, “Les inscriptions du sanctuaire de Claros en l’honneur des Romains”, in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, 124, 1, pp. 331–376 Ferrary J. L. 2010, “À propos des pouvoirs et des honneurs décernés à César entre 48 et 44”, in Urso 2010, pp. 9–30 Fezzi L. 2007, “Il Commentariolum petitionis: sguardi dalle democrazie contemporanee”, in Historia, 56, 1, pp. 14–26 Fezzi L. 2019, Pompeo. Conquistatore del Mondo, Difensore della Res Publica, Eroe Tragico, Rome, Salerno editore Fezzi L. 2020, Cesare. La Giovinezza del Grande Condottiero, Milan, Mondadori Filippi F. 2015a (ed.), Campo Marzio. Nuove ricerche, Rome, Quasar Filippi F. 2015b, “Il teatro di Pompeo, nuovi dati e studi”, in Filippi 2015a, pp. 323–333. Filippi F., Von Hesberg H. 2013, “Frammenti architettonici decorati dal Campo Marzio occidentale: la scaenae frons del teatro di Pompeo?”, in Bruni S., Cianferoni G. C. (eds), Δόσις δ’ολίγη τε φίλη τε: Studi per Antonella Romualdi, Firenze, Polistampa, pp. 323–340. Filippi F., Von Hesberg H. 2015a, “Frammenti architettonici decorati dal Campo Marzio occidentale: la scaenae frons del teatro di Pompeo?”, in Filippi 2015a, pp. 340–347. Filippi F., Porcari B., Von Hesberg H., Monastero G., Braccalenti L., Iannone V. 2015b, “Il teatro di Pompeo. Rilievi e nuove acquisizioni nella cavea”, in Filippi 2015a, pp. 348–368 Flory M. B. 1988, “Pearls for Venus”, in Historia, 37, 4, pp. 498–504 Fortea Lopez, F. 1994, Némesis en el occidente romano: ensayo de interpretaciòn istòrica y corpus de materiales, Zaragoza, Dipartimento de Ciencias de la Antigüedad, Universidad de Zaragoza French D. R. 1998, “Maintaining boundaries: the status of actresses in Early Christian society”, in VChr, 52, 3, pp. 293–318 Freyberger K. S. 2010, “The Basilica Aemilia. A luxurious building in the Centre of the Urbs”, in Tomei M. A. (ed.), catalogue of the exhibition Memorie di Roma. Gli Aemilii e la basilica nel Foro, Milan, Electa

Bibliography 195 Freyberger K. S. 2012, “Sakrale Kommunikationsräume auf dem Forum Romanum”, in Mundt F. (ed.), Kommunikationsräume im kaiserzeitlichen Rom, Berlin, De Gruyter, pp. 49–76 Frézouls E. 1983, “La construction du theatrum lapideum et son contexte politique”, in Théâtre et spectacles dans l’antiquité, Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (1981), Leiden, Brill Archive, pp. 193–214 Gabba E. 1956, Appiano e la Storia delle Guerre Civili, Florence, La Nuova Italia Gabba E. 1975, “P. Cornelio Scipione Africano e la leggenda”, in Athenaeum, 53, 1–2, pp. 3–17 Gaggiotti M. 1985, “Plauto, Livio, la più antica basilica del Foro Romano e la politica edilizia degli Aemilii”, in Bietti Sestieri A. M., Agostinelli M., Roma: archeologia nel centro. 1.L’area archeologica centrale, Rome, De Luca, pp. 56–66 Gagliardo M. C., Packer J. E. 2006, “A new look at Pompey’s theater: history, documentation, and recent excavation”, in AJA, 110, pp. 93–122 Gagliardi L. 2011, Cesare, Pompeo e la lotta per le magistrature. Anni 52-50 a. C., Milan, Giuffrè Galinsky K. 1996, Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction, Princeton, Princeton University Press Gardner J. F. 2009, “The dictator”, in Griffin 2009, pp. 57–71 Gärtner J. F. 2008, “Livy’s Camillus and the political discourse of the Late Republic”, in JRS, 98, pp. 27–52 Gatti G. 1934, “«Saepta Iulia» e «Porticus Aemilia» nella «Forma» severiana”, in BCAR 62, pp. 123–149 Gatti G. 1937, “I Saepta Iulia nel Campo Marzio”, in L’Urbe, 2, 9, pp. 8–23 Gatti E. 1999, s.v. “Saepta Iulia”, in LTUR 4, Rome, Quasar pp. 228–29 Gelzer M. 1967, “Caesar als Historiker”, in Rasmussen D. (ed.), Caesar, Wissenschafliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, pp. 438–473 Gelzer M. 2005 (19481), Pompeius. Lebensbild eines Römers, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag Gentili G. (ed.) 2008, catalogue of the exhibition Giulio Cesare – L’uomo, le imprese, il mito, Milan, Silvana editoriale Giardina A. 2010, “Cesare vs Silla”, in Urso 2010, pp. 31–46 Girardet K. M. 2001, “Imperia und provinciae des Pompeius 82 bis 48 v. Chr.”, in Chiron, 3, pp. 153–209 Giuliani C. F., Verduchi P. 1993, s.v. Basilica Iulia, in LTUR 1, Rome, Quasar, pp. 177–179 Giuliani L. 1986, Bildnis und Botschaft. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Bildniskunst der römischen Republik, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp Gleason L. 1994, “Porticus Pompeiana: a new perspective on the first public park of ancient Rome”, in Journal of Garden History, 14, pp. 13–27 Gow A. S. F., Page D. L. 1968 (eds), The Greek Anthology II. The Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams, 2 vols., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Graf F. 2002, s.v. “Argea”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 1, pp. 1056–1057 Grafton A., Most G. W., Settis S. 2010 (eds), The Classical Tradition, Cambridge, MA–London, Harvard University Press Green P. 1989, “Caesar and Alexander: aemulatio, imitatio, comparatio”, in Green P., Classical Bearings, London, Thames and Hudson, pp. 193–209

196 Bibliography Greenhalgh P. 1980, Pompey, The Roman Alexander, Columbia, Weidenfeld and Nicolson Griffin M. 2009 (ed.), A companion to Julius Caesar, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell Gros P. 1976, Aurea templa, recherches sur l’architecture religieuse de Rome à l’époque d’Auguste, Rome, École française de Rome Gros P. 1996, L’architecture romaine. Du début du III siècle av. J-C. à la fin du Haut-Empire, I. Les monuments publiques, Paris, A&J Picard Gros P. 1999a, s.v. “Porticus Pompei”, in LTUR 4, Rome, Quasar, pp. 148–149 Gros P. 1999b, s.v. “Theatrum Pompei”, in LTUR 5, Rome, Quasar, pp. 35–38 Gros P. 2010, “La nouvelle Rome de César: réalité et utopie”, in Urso 2010, pp. 265–284 Gros P. 2011, L’architecture romaine 1: Les monuments publics, Paris, Editions A. et J. Picard Gruen E. S. 1970, “Veteres hostes, novi amici”, in Phoenix, 24, 3, pp. 237–243 Gruen E. S. 1974, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, Berkeley-Los AngelesLondon, University of California Press Gruen E. S. 1998, “Rome and the myth of Alexander”, in Hillard T. W., Kearsley R. A., Nixon C. E. V., Nobbs A. M. (eds.), Ancient History in a Modern University, 1, pp. 178–191 Gruen E. S. 2009, “Caesar as a politician”, in Griffin M. (ed.), A companion to Julius Caesar, Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 23–36 Haley S. P. 1985, “The five wives of Pompey the Great”, in G&R, 32, 1, pp. 49–59 Harris W. V. 1995, “The heir to ‘Platner-Ashby’”, in JRA, 8, pp. 365–375 Harris W. V. 2002, “Un indicio de ira en el templo de Venus Genetrix de Julio César”, in Semanas de Estudios Romanos, 11, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, pp. 21–30 Harris W. V. 2009, Restraining Rage: The Ideology of Anger Control, in ClAnt, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press Harstrup Th. 1962, “Forum Iulium as a manifestation of power”, in ARID, II, pp. 45–61 Havener W. 2014, “A ritual against the rule? The representation of civil war victory in the Late Republican triumph”, in Lange C. H., Vervaet F. J. (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph Beyond the Spectacle, Rome, Quasar, pp. 165–179 Havener W. 2016, “Triumphus ex bello civili? Die Präsentation des Bürgerkriegssieges im spätrepublikanischen Triumphritual”, in Börm H., Mattheis M., Wienand J. (eds), Civil War in Ancient Greece and Rome, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag Hayne L. 1972, “M. Lepidus (cos. 78): a re-appraisal”, in Historia, 21, 4, pp. 661–668 Hayne L. 1973, “The last of the Aemilii Lepidi”, in AC, 42, 2, pp. 497–507 Heinze T. 2003, s.v. “Cadmus [1]”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 2, pp. 867–868 Henderson M. I. 1950, “De commentariolo petitionis”, in JRS, 40, 1–2, pp. 8–21 Henderson J. 1998, Fighting for Rome. Poets and Caesars, History and Civil War, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Himmelmann N. 1968, Über einige gegenständliche Bedeutungsmöglichkeiten des frühgriechischen Ornaments, Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag

Bibliography 197 Hölscher T. 1982, “Die Bedeutung der Münzen für das Verständnis der politischen Repräsentationskunst der späten römischen Republik”, in Hackens T., Weiller R. (eds), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Numismatics 1, Luxemburg, Association internationale des numismates professionnels, pp. 269–282. Hoover O. D. 2012, Handbook of Coins of Northern and Central Anatolia: Pontos, Paphlagonia, Bithynia, Phrygia, Galatia, Lykaonia, and Kappadokia (with Kolchis and the Kimmerian Bosporos): Fifth to First Centuries BC, Lancaster-London, Classical Numismatic Group Humphrey J. H. 1986, Roman Circuses, London, B. T. Batsford Ltd Itgenshorst T. 2005, “Tota illa pompa”. Der Triumph in der römischen Republik, Göttingen, Vanderhoeck&Ruprecht Jackson M. D., Ciancio Rossetto P., Kosso C. K., Buonfiglio M., Marra F. 2011, “Building materials of the theatre of Marcellus, Rome”, in Archaeometry 53, 4, pp. 728–742 Jowett G. S., O’Donnell V. 2006 (19861), Propaganda and Persuasion, London, Sage Publications Kampen N. 1991, “Reliefs of the Basilica Aemilia: a redating”, in Klio 73, pp. 448–458 Keaveney A. 1982, “Young Pompey, 106–79 BC”, in AC, 51, pp. 111–139. Keesling C. 2006, “Heavenly bodies. Monuments to prostitutes in Greek sanctuaries”, in Faraone C. A., McClure L. (eds.), Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, Madison-London, The University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 59–76 Klar L. S. 2006, “The origins of the Roman scaenae frons and the architecture of triumphal games in the second century BC”, in Dillon S., Welch K. (eds.), Representations of War in Ancient Rome, New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 162–183 Klodt C. 2009, s.v. “Thebes [2], 1, III”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 14, pp. 414–419 Kraay C. M. 1966, Greek Coins, London, Thames and Hudson Kuttner A. L. 1999, “Culture and history at Pompey’s Museum”, in TAPhA, 129, pp. 343–373 Laffi U. 1967, “Il mito di Silla II”, in Athenaeum, 45, pp. 255–277 Lange C. H. 2013, “Triumph and civil war in the late Republic”, in PBSR, 81, pp. 67–90 La Rocca E. 1988, “Pompeo Magno «novus Neptunus»”, in BCAR, 92, pp. 265–292 La Rocca E. 1990, “Linguaggio artistico e ideologia politica a Roma in età repubblicana”, in Pugliese Carratelli G. (ed.), Roma e l’Italia, Radices imperii, Milan, Libri Scheiwiller, pp. 289–495 La Rocca E. 1993, “Due monumenti a pianta circolare in circo Flaminio: il perirrhanterion e la columna Bellica”, in Scott R. T., Reynolds Scott A. (eds), Eius Virtutis Studiosi: Classical and Postclassical Studies in Memory of Frank Edward Brown (1908–1988), Hanover-London, University Press of New England, pp. 17–29 La Rocca E. 1995, I fori imperiali, Rome, Progetti museali editore La Rocca E. 1995a, “Sul Circo Flaminio”, in Archeologia Laziale, XII, 1, pp. 103–120 La Rocca E. 2001, “La nuova immagine dei fori imperiali”, in MDAI(R), 108, pp. 171–213

198

Bibliography

La Rocca E. 2006, “Passeggiando intorno ai Fori Imperiali”, in Haselberger L., Humphrey J. (eds.), Imaging Ancient Rome, Suppl. JRA 61, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, pp. 121–143 La Rocca E. 2008, “La processione trionfale come spettacolo per il popolo romano. Trionfi antichi, spettacoli moderni”, in La Rocca E., Tortorella S. (eds.), Trionfi Romani, Rome, Electa, pp. 34–55 Lassandro D. 1991, “La Pro Marcello Ciceroniana e la Clementia Caesaris”, in Sordi M. (ed.), L’immagine dell’uomo politico: vita pubblica e morale nell’antichità, Milan, Vita e Pensiero, pp. 195–200 Lasswell H. D. 2001, “Propaganda”, in Jackall R. (ed.), Propaganda, Eastbourne, Anthony Rowe Ltd., pp. 13–25 Latte L. 1960, Römische Religionsgeschichte, Munich. Leach J. 1978, Pompey the Great, London, Routledge Le Gall J. 1952, Le Tibre, fleuve de Rome dans l’antiquité, Paris, Presses universitaires de France Leumann M., Hofmann J. B., Szantyr A. 1965, Lateinische Grammatik, 2, Munich, C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung Ley A. 2006, s.v. “Minerva”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 8, pp. 939–944 Lincoln B. 1993, “La politica di mito e rito nel funerale di Giulia: Cesare debutta nella sua carriera”, in Poli D. (ed.), La cultura in Cesare, Rome, Il Calamo, pp. 387–396 Lipps J. 2011, “Die Basilica Aemilia am Forum Romanum”, in Palilia, 24, Wiesbaden, Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag Wiesbaden Liverani P. 1995, “Nationes et civitates nella propaganda imperiale”, in MDAI(R), 102, pp. 220–249 Liverani P. 2008, “Cesare urbanista”, in Gentili 2008, pp. 42–51 Liverani P. 2009, “Cesare e Roma”, in Forma Urbis, XIV, 1, pp. 14–27 Lucrezi F. 2011, “La corruzione elettorale nel Commentariolum petitionis”, in Fundamina, 17, 2, pp. 83–100 Mader G. 2006, “Triumphal elephants and political circus at Plutarch, “Pomp.” 14.6”, in The Classical World, 99, 4, pp. 397–403 Maisto P., Pinna Carboni B. 2010, “I portici del Foro di Cesare”, in Scienze dell’antichità, 16, pp. 419–453 Maisto P., Vitti M. 2009, “Tempio di Venere Genitrice: nuovi dati sulle fasi costruttive e decorative”, in BCAR, CX, pp. 31–80 Makin E. 1921, “The triumphal route, with particular reference to the Flavian triumph”, in JRS, 11, pp. 25–36 Manca di Mores A. 1982–83, “Terrecotte architettoniche, problemi topografici. Contributi all’identificazione del tempio di Quirino del colle Quirinale, in Annali della facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Università degli Studi di Perugia, 20, pp. 323–360 Manuwald G. 2011, Roman Republican Theatre, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Marcattili F. 2009, Circo Massimo: architetture, culti, funzioni, ideologia, Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider Marshall B. A. 1974, “Pompeius’ temple of Hercules”, in Antichton 8, pp. 80–84 Martin D. J. 1998, “Did Pompey engage in imitatio Alexandri?” in Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and History IX, Bruxelles, Latomus, pp. 23–51

Bibliography 199 Mastrocinque A. 1999, Studi sulle Guerre Mitridatiche, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag Mastrocinque A. 2005, s.v. “Hercules”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 6, pp. 190–193 McGing B. C. 1986, The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator King of Pontos, Leiden, Brill McNelis C. 2007, Statius’ Thebaid and the Poetics of Civil War, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Meier C. 2004, Giulio Cesare, Milan, Garzanti (first German edition: 1982) Meneghini R. 2009, “Il foro di Cesare”, in Meneghini R. (ed.), I fori imperiali e i mercati di Traiano, Rome, Libreria dello Stato, pp. 11–57 Meyer E. 1918, Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompejus, Stuttgart, Cotta Michel D. 1967, Alexander als Vorbild für Pompeius, Caesar und Marcus Antonius, Brussel, Latomus Milella M. 2007, “Il foro di Cesare”, in the exhibition catalogue Il museo dei Fori imperiali nei mercati di Traiano, Rome, Mondadori Electa Milella M. 2010a, “Il tempio di Venere Genitrice e le novità archeologiche sul foro di Cesare”, in Gonzalez Villaescusa R. (ed.), Simulacra Romae 2. Rome, les capitales des provinces (capita provinciarum) et la création d'un espace commun européen. Une approche archéologique. Actes du colloque tenu à Reims les 19, 20 et 21 novembre 2008, Reims, Société Archéologique Champenoise, pp. 13–20 Milella M. 2010b, “La decorazione del tempio di Venere Genitrice”, in Scienze dell’antichità, 16, pp. 455–469 Miltner F. 1952, s.v. “Cn. Pompeius Magnus”, in Wissowa G., Kroll W., Mittelhaus K. (eds), Paulys Realencyclopädie, 42, Stuttgart, Metzler, pp. 2062–2211 Momigliano A. 1942a, “Camillus and Concord”, in The Classical Quarterly, 36, 3–4, pp. 111–120 Momigliano A. 1942b, “Terra marique”, in JRS, 32, pp. 53–64 Mommsen T. 19012a, The History of Rome, Vol. 4, London, MacMillan and Co. Mommsen T. 19012b, The History of Rome, Vol. 5, London, MacMillan and Co. Monastero G., Braccalenti L., Iannone V. 2015, “Il teatro di Pompeo. Rilievi e nuove acquisizioni nella cavea”, in Filippi 2015a, pp. 348–364. Monterroso Checa A. 2007, “Forma Urbis y Theatrum Pompei. El fragmento 39F de la Planta Marmórea Severiana”, in BCAR, CVII, Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider, pp. 125–144 Monterroso Checa A. 2008, “Tres controversias sobre las catorce nationes de Coponio, quae sunt circa Pompeium”, in La Rocca E., Leon P., Parisi Presicce C. (eds.), Le due patrie acquisite. Studi di archeologia dedicati a Walter Trillmich, Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider, pp. 277–285 Monterroso Checa A. 2009a, “Porticus ad Nationes en el Foro de Augusto. Una hipothesis topografica”, in MEFRA, 121, 1, pp. 181–207 Monterroso Checa A. 2009b, “Via Triumphalis per Theatrum Marcelli”, in RA 47-1, pp. 3–51 Monterroso Checa A. 2010, Theatrum Pompei. Forma y arquitectura de la génesis del modelo teatral de Roma, Madrid, CSIC- Dep.to de Publicaciones Moreno P. 1981, “Modelli lisippei nell’arte decorativa di età repubblicana ed augustea”, in L’art décoratif à Rome à la fin de la République et au début du principat. Table ronde de Rome (10–11 mai 1979), Rome, École française de Rome, pp. 173–227

200

Bibliography

Morrell K. 2017, Pompey, Cato and the Governance of the Roman Empire, Oxford, Oxford University Press Morpurgo L. 1908, “La porta trionfale e la via dei trionfi”, in BCAR, 36, pp. 109–150 Morselli C. 1995, s.v. “Forum Iulium” in LTUR 2, Rome, Quasar, pp. 299–306 Morstein-Marx R. 1998, “Publicity, popularity and patronage in the Commentariolum petitionis”, in ClAnt, 17, 2, pp. 259–288 Napoli M. 1960, s.v. “Eteocle”, in Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica, III, Rome, Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, pp. 463–464 Nardo D. 1970, Il Commentariolum Petitionis: la Propaganda Elettorale nella Ars di Quinto Cicerone, Padua, Liviana editrice Nicolet C., Dumont J.-C., Ferrary J.-L., Moreau P., Demougin S., Raskolnikoff M. 1980, Insula Sacra. La Loi Gabinia-Calpurnia de Délos, Rome, École Française de Rome Nisbet R. G. M. 1961, “The Commentariolum petitionis: some arguments against authenticity”, in JRS, 51, 1–2, pp. 84–87 Orlandi S. 1999, s.v. “Porticus Lentulorum”, in LTUR 4, Rome, Quasar, pp. 125–126 Orlin E. M. 2007, “Urban religion in the middle and late Republic”, in Ruepke J. (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion, Oxford, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 58–70 Östenberg I. 2010, “Circum metas fertur: an alternative reading of the triumphal route”, in Historia, 59, 3, pp. 303–320 Östenberg I. 2014, “Triumph and spectacle. Victory celebrations in the Late Republican civil wars”, in Lange C. H., Vervaet F. J. (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph beyond the Spectacle, Rome, Quasar, pp. 181–193 Packer J. E. 1997, The Forum of Trajan in Rome, 1, Berkeley-Los Angeles-Oxford, University of California Press Packer J. E. 2007, “Drawing Pompey: three centuries of documenting Pompey’s theater (1833–2006)”, in Leone A., Palombi D., Walker S. (eds), Res bene gestae: ricerche di storia urbana su Roma antica in onore di Eva Margareta Steinby, Rome, Quasar, pp. 257–278 Packer J. E. 2014, “The theatre of Pompey in Rome: the archaeological evidence, the architecture and the destruction”, in AAAH, 27, pp. 9–40 Packer J. E., Burge J., Gagliardo M. C. 2007, “Looking again at Pompey’s theater: the 2005 excavation season”, in AJA, 111:3, pp. 505–522 Packer J. E., Gagliardo M. C., Hopkins J. N. 2010, “The theatre of Pompey in 2009: a new excavation”, in BCAR, 111, pp. 71–96 Packer J. E., Gagliardo M. C. 2020, “The theater of Pompey in Rome. The excavation of 2011”, in BCAR 121, pp. 83–103 Pais E. 1920, Fasti Triumphales, Rome, Nardecchia Palma Venetucci B. 2008–2009, “Novità sul teatro di Pompeo nei manoscritti di Pirro Ligorio”, in RPAA, LXXXI, pp. 169–189 Palmer R. E. A. 1990, Studies of the Northern Campus Martius in Ancient Rome, Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society Palombi D. 1996a, s. v. “Roma, Campidoglio”, in Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale, Rome, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, pp. 845–855 Palombi D. 1996b, s. v. “Minerva, delubrum”, in LTUR 3, Rome, Quasar, pp. 253–254 Palombi D. 1999, s.v. “Porticus Iulia”, in LTUR 4, Rome, Quasar, pp. 124–125

Bibliography 201 Palombi D. 2005, “Morfologia, toponomastica e viabilità prima dei Fori Imperiali”, in Lafon X., Sauron G. (eds.), Théorie et pratique de l’architecture romaine, études offertes à Pierre Gros, Aix-en-Provence, Publications de l’université de Provence, pp. 81–92 Palombi D. 2010, “Roma tardo-repubblicana: verso la città ellenistica”, in La Rocca E., Parisi Presicce C., Lo Monaco A. (eds.), I giorni di Roma: l’età della conquista, Milan, Skira Papi E. 1999, s. v. “Theatrum: Q. Lutatius Catulus”, in LTUR 5, Rome, Quasar, p. 31 Piccialuga G. 2010, “Cesare e il controllo sacrale delle acque”, in Di Giuseppe M., Serlorenzi M. (eds.), I riti del costruire nelle acque violate. Atti del Congresso Internazionale, Roma, Palazzo Massimo 12–14 giugno 2008, Rome, Scienze e Lettere, pp. 161–166 Platner S. B., Ashby T. 19653 (19291), A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider Polito E. 2002, “Il meandro dall’arte greca ai monumenti augustei”, in Rivista dell’istituto nazionale d’archeologia e storia dell’arte, III, 25, pp. 91–112 Purcell N. 1993, “Atrium Libertatis”, in PBSR, 61, pp. 125–155 Raaflaub K. A. 2010a, “Between tradition and innovation: shifts in Caesar’s political propaganda and self-presentation”, in Urso 2010, pp. 141–157 Raauflaub K. A. 2010b, “Creating a grand coalition of true roman citizens: on Caesar’s political strategy in the civil war”, in Breed B., Damon C., Rossi A. (eds.), Citizens of Discord: Rome and Its Civil Wars, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 160–168 Rawson B. 1970, “Pompey and Hercules”, in Antichton 4, pp. 30–37 Richardson J. S. 1971, “The Commentariolum petitionis”, in Historia, 20, 4, pp. 436–442 Robbins E. 2003, s.v. “Corinna”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 3, pp. 789–790 Robbins E. 2007, s.v. “Praxilla”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 11, p. 784 Robbins E. 2009, s.v. “Telesilla”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 14, p. 231 Robert L. 1966, Monnaies Antiques en Troade, Geneva-Paris, Droz-Minard Rodriguez Almeida E. 1984, Monte Testaccio. Ambiente, Storia, Materiali, Rome, Quasar Rose C. B. 2014, The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Troy, Cambridge-New York, Cambridge University Press Rosenblitt J. A. 2019, Rome after Sulla, London-Oxford, Bloomsbury Rotondi G. 1912, Leges Publicae Populi Romani, Milan, Società Editrice Libraria Ruebel J. S. 1991, “Politics and folktale in the classical world”, in Asian Folklore Studies, 50, 1, pp. 5–33 Rutledge S. H. 2012, Ancient Rome as a Museum, Oxford, Oxford University Press Sabbatucci D. 1988, La religione di Roma antica, dal calendario festivo all’ordine cosmico, Milan, Il Saggiatore Sablayrolles R. 2006, “Caesar pontem fecit… Voyageurs du bout du monde et conquérants de l’inutile”, in Pallas, 72, pp. 339–367 Sande S. 2014, “The female portrait gallery in Pompey’s theatre complex in Rome: Appearance and impact”, in AAAH, 27, pp. 41–70 Santangelo F. 2007, “Pompey and religion”, in Hermes, 135, 2, pp. 228–233

202

Bibliography

Santangelo F. 2014, “Sempre poco allineati: il decennio dopo Silla”, in Cristofoli R., Galimberti A., Rohr Vio F. (eds.), Lo Spazio del Non-allineamento a Roma fra la Tarda Repubblica e Primo Principato, Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider, pp. 1–23 Sauron G. 1987, “Le complexe pompéien du Champ de Mars: nouveauté urbanistique à finalité idéologique”, in Urbs, Rome, École française de Rome, pp. 456–473 Sauron G. 1994, Quis deum? L’Expression Plastique des Idéologies politiques et religieuses à Rome, Rome, École Française de Rome Sauron G. 2001, “Vénus entre deux fous au forum de César”, in Evers C., Tsingarida A. (eds.), Rome et ses provinces. Genèse et diffusion d’une image du pouvoir. Hommages à Jean Charles Balty”, Bruxelles, Le Livre Timperman, pp. 187–199 Sauron G. 2011, “La propagande de Pompeé: conception, diffusion et réception”, in Urso G. (ed.), Dicere laudes. Elogio, comunicazione, creazione del consenso, Pisa, Edizioni ETS, pp. 143–159 Scheid J. 1983, La Religione a Roma, Roma-Bari, Laterza Schilling R. 1954, La religion romaine de Vénus, Paris, De Boccard Schröter M.-G. 2008, “Der Theater Komplex des Cn. Pompeius Magnus im Kontext seiner Politik”, in Albers J., Grasshoff G., Heinzelmann M., Waefler M. (eds.), Das Marsfeld in Rom: Beiträge, BoD- Bern, Books on Demand, pp. 29–44 Schwertheim E. 1989, “Forschungen in der Troas im Jahre 1988”, in: Araştırma Sunoçları Toplantısı 7, pp. 229–232 Scott R. T. 2009 (ed.), Excavations in the area sacra of Vesta (1987–1996), Suppl. to the Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, vol. 8, Rome, American Academy in Rome Seaford R. 2006, Dionysos, Abingdon-New York, Routledge Seager R. 1979 (20022, revised edition), Pompey, a political biography, Oxford, John Wiley & Sons-Blackwell Sear F. B. 1993, “The Scaenae frons of the theater of Pompey”, in AJA, 97, pp. 687–701 Sear F. 2006, Roman Theatres. An Architectural Study, Oxford, Oxford University Press Simon E. 1966, in W. Helbig, Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom, vol. II, Tübingen, E. Wasmuth, pp. 834–84 Smith C. 2006, The Roman Clan, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Smith C. 2010, “Caesar and the history of early Rome”, in Urso 2010, pp. 250–264 Sordi M. 1972 (ed.), Contributi dell'Istituto di Storia Antica, I, Milan, Vita e Pensiero Sordi M. 1974 (ed.), Contributi dell'Istituto di Storia Antica, II: Propaganda e persuasione occulta nell'antichità, Milan, Vita e Pensiero Sordi M. 1975 (ed.), Contributi dell'Istituto di Storia Antica, III: Storiografia e propaganda, Milan, Vita e Pensiero Sordi M. 1976 (ed.), Contributi dell'Istituto di Storia Antica, IV: I canali della propaganda nel mondo antico, Milan, Vita e Pensiero Sordi M. 1978 (ed.), Contributi dell'Istituto di Storia Antica, V: Aspetti dell'opinione pubblica nel mondo antico, Milan, Vita e Pensiero Sordi M. 1982 (ed.), Politica e Religione nel Primo Scontro tra Roma e l’Oriente, Milan, Vita e Pensiero Sordi M. 1982a, “Il confine del Tauro e dell’Halys e il sacrificio in Ilio”, in: Sordi 1982, pp. 136–149 Sordi M. 2000, “I poteri dell’ultimo Cesare”, in Urso 2000, Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider, pp. 305–314

Bibliography 203 Sordi M. 2006, “L’ira di Atena: terrorismo e oracolistica fra il 196 e il 191 a.C.”, in: Urso G. (ed.), Terror et Pavor. Violenza, Intimidazione, Clandestinità nel Mondo Antico, Pisa, Edizioni ETS, pp. 137–143 Sordi M. 2009, "La dialettica costituzionale in età cesariana tra esaltazione del nuovo e accuse di sovversione", in Urso G. (ed.), Ordine e Sovversione nel Mondo Greco e Romano, Pisa, Edizioni ETS, pp. 117–123 Spencer D. 2002, The Roman Alexander: Reading a Cultural Myth, Exeter, University of Exeter Press Stafford E. 2012, Herakles, London-New York, Routledge Steel C. 2013, “Pompeius, Helvius Mancia, and the politics of public debate”, in Steel C., Van der Blom H. (eds), Community and Communication. Oratory and Politics in Republican Rome, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 151–159 Steinby E. M. 1987, “Il lato orientale del Foro Romano. Proposte di lettura”, in Arctos, 21, pp. 139–184 Steinby E. M. 1988, “Il lato orientale del Foro”, in Archeologia Laziale, IX, pp. 32–36 Steinby E. M. 1993, s.v. “Basilica Aemilia”, in LTUR 1, Rome, Quasar, pp.167–168 Steinby E. M. 2012, Edilizia pubblica e potere politico nella Roma repubblicana, Milan, Jaca Book Stepper R. 2003, Augustus et sacerdos - Untersuchungen zum römischen Kaiser als Priester, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag Strocka V. M. 1991, Casa del Labirinto (VI 11, 8–10) – Häuser in Pompeji, Munich, Hirmer Strong D. E. 1976, Roman Art, Harmondsworth, Penguin books Strothmann M. 2005, s.v. “Lais”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 7, pp. 174–175 Sumi G. S. 2011, “Topography and ideology: Caesar’s monument and the Aedes Divi Iulii in Augustan Rome”, in The Classical Quarterly, 61, 1, pp. 205–229 Syme R. 1939, The Roman Revolution, Oxford, Clarendon Press Syme R. 1984, “No son for Caesar?”, in Birley A. R. (ed.), Roman Papers III, Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. 1236–1250 Taylor L. R. 1966, Roman Voting Assemblies from the Hannibalic War to the Dictatorship of Caesar, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press Taylor P. M. 2003, Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Era, Manchester-New York, Manchester University Press Temelini M. A. 2006, “Pompey’s politics and the representation of his theatretemple complex, 61-52 BCE”, in Studia Humaniora Tartuensia, 7.A.4, pp. 1–14 Thomson O. 1977, Mass Persuasion in History. An Historical Analysis of the Development of Propaganda Techniques, Edimburgh, Paul Harris Publishing Thorsen T. S. 2012, “Sappho, Corinna and colleagues in ancient Rome. Tatian’s catalogue of statues (Oratio ad Graecos 33–4) reconsidered”, in Mnemosyne, 654/5, pp. 695–715 Till R., 1962, “Ciceros Bewerbung ums Consulat (ein Beitrag zum Commentariolum petitionis)”, in Historia, 11, 3, pp. 315–338 Torelli M. 2006, “Ara Maxima Herculis: storia di un monumento”, in MEFRA, 118, 2, pp. 573–620 Torelli M. 2010, “L’urbanistica di Roma regia e repubblicana”, in Gros P., Torelli M. (eds.), Storia dell’urbanistica, il mondo romano, Roma-Bari, Laterza, pp. 81–157 Tortorici E. 1991, Argiletum, Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider

204 Bibliography Tortorici E. 1993a, “La ‘Terrazza Domizianea’, l’Aqua Marcia ed il taglio della sella tra Campidoglio e Quirinale”, in BCAR, 95, 2, pp. 7–24 Tortorici E. 1993b, s.v. “Curia Iulia”, in LTUR 1, Rome, Quasar, pp. 332–334 Tortorici E. 1995, s.v. “Felicitas, naos”, in LTUR 2, Rome, Quasar, pp. 245–246 Tortorici E. 2012, “Roma nell'età di Cesare. La politica urbanistica”, in Tradizione, tecnologia e territorio 1, Roma, pp. 11–43 Tosi G. 2003a, Gli edifici per spettacoli nell’Italia romana, vol. 1, Rome, Quasar Tosi G. 2003b, "Profilo storico e tipologico delle strutture ludiche in Roma", in Tosi 2003a, pp. 653–686 Tosi G. 2003c, “Il significato storico delle naumachie”, in Tosi 2003a, pp. 815–834 Tucci P. L. 2005, “Where high Moneta leads her steps sublime. The Tabularium and the Temple of Iuno Moneta”, JRA, 18, pp. 6–33 Twyman B. L. 1979, “The date of Pompeius Magnus’ first triumph”, in Deroux C. (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History I, Bruxelles, Latomus, pp. 175–208 Ulrich R. B. 1993, “Julius Caesar and the creation of the Forum Iulium”, in AJA 97, pp. 49–80 Ungaro L., Milella M. 1995 (eds), I Luoghi del Consenso Imperiale. Il Foro di Augusto, il Foro di Traiano – Catalogo, Rome, Progetti Museali Editore Urso G. 2000 (ed.), L’ultimo Cesare, scritti riforme progetti poteri congiure, Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider Urso G. 2010 (ed.), Cesare: precursore o visionario? (Atti del convegno internazionale, Cividale del Friuli, 17–19 settembre 2009), Pisa, Edizioni ETS Van Deman E. B. 1913, “The Porticus of Gaius and Lucius”, in AJA, 17, pp. 14–28 Vanderbroeck P. J. J. 1987, Popular Leadership and Collective Behaviour in the Late Roman Republic, Amsterdam, J.C. Gieben Van Ooteghem J. 1954, Pompée le Grand. Bâtisseur d’Empire, Brussels, Palais des Académie Vervaet F. J. 2010, “Arrogating despotic power through deceit: the Pompeian Model for Augustan Dissimulatio”, in Turner A. J., Chong-Gossard K. O., Vervaet F. J. (eds.), Private and Public Lies: The Discourse of Despotism and Deceit in the Graeco-Roman World, Boston, Brill Academy Publishers, pp. 133–166 Vervaet F. J. 2014, “Si neque leges neque mores cogunt’. Beyond the Spectacle of Pompeius Magnus’ Public Triumphs”, in Lange C. H., Vervaet F. J. (eds), The Roman Republican Triumph Beyond the Spectacle, Rome, Quasar, pp. 131–148 Villani D. 2013, “Entre imitatio Alexandri et imitatio Herculis: Pompée et l’universalisme romain”, in Pallas, 90, pp. 335–350 Von Hesberg H. 2015, “Greek and Roman architects”, in Marconi C. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture, New York, Oxford University Press, pp. 136–148 Waldner K. 2004, s.v. “Harmonia”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 5, p. 1145 Waldner K. 2006, s.v. “Melanippe”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 8, p. 617 Wallace-Hadrill A. 2008, Rome’s Cultural Revolution, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Walsh J., Baynham E. 2021 (ed.), Alexander the Great and Propaganda, London-New York: Routledge

Bibliography 205 Walter U. 2007, s.v. “Phrine”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 11, p. 198 Wardle D. 2009, “Caesar and religion”, in Griffin 2009, pp. 100–111 Weber G., Zimmermann M. 2003, “Propaganda, Selbstdarstellung und Repräsentation. Die Leitbegriffe des Kolloquiums in der Forschung zur frühen Kaiserzeit”, in Weber G., Zimmermann M. (ed.), Propaganda – Selbstdarstellung – Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreich des 1. Jhs. n. Chr., Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag, pp. 11–40 Weigel R. D. 1979, “The career of L. Paullus, Cos. 50”, in Latomus, 38, 3, pp. 637–646 Weigel R. D. 1985, “Augustus” relations with the Aemilii Lepidi – Persecution and patronage”, in RhM, 128, pp. 180–191 Weigel R. D. 1992, Lepidus: The Tarnished Triumvir, London, Routledge Weinstock S. 1957, “Victor and Invictus”, in The Harvard Theological Review, 50, 3, pp. 211–247 Weinstock S. 1971, Divus Iulius, Oxford, Clarendon Press Welch K. 2008, “Nimium Felix: Caesar’s Felicitas and Cicero’s Philippics”, in Stevenson T., Wilson M. (eds), Cicero’s Philippics, History, Rhetoric, Ideology, Auckland, Polygraphia Ltd, p. 181–213. Wescoat B. D. 2015, “The patronage of Greek and Roman architecture”, in Marconi C. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture, New York, Oxford University Press, pp.176–197 Westall R. 1996, “The Forum Iulium as representation of imperator Caesar”, in MDAI(R), 103, pp. 83–118 Winter E. 1996, “Stadt und Herrschaft in spätrepublikanischer Zeit. Eine neue Pompeius-Inschrift aus Ilion”, in: Schwertheim E., Wiegartz H. (eds), Die Troas. Neue Forschungen zu Neandria und Alexandria Troas II, Asia Minor Studien, Band 22, Bonn, pp. 175–194 Wiseman T. P. 1980, “Looking for Camerius: the topography of Catullus 55”, in PBSR, 48, pp. 6–16 Wiseman T. P. 1989, “Afterword: the theatre of civic life”, in Barton I. M. (ed.), Roman Public Buildings, Exeter, Short Run Press Ltd, pp. 151–155 Wiseman T. P. 1993, “Rome and the resplendent Aemilii”, in Jocelyn H. D., Hurt H. (eds.), Tria Lustra, Liverpool, Liverpool Classical Monthly, pp. 181–192 Wiseman T. P. 2007, “Three notes on the triumphal route”, in Leone A., Palombi D., Walker S. (eds), Res Bene Gestae. Ricerche di Storia Urbana su Roma Antica in Onore di Eva Margareta Steinby, Rome, Quasar, pp. 445–449 Wiseman T. P. 2008, “Rethinking the Roman triumph”, in JRA, 21, pp. Yakobson A. 1999, Elections and Electioneering in Rome, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag Zaccagnino C. 2019, “The Aedes Aemiliana Herculis in the Forum Boarium: new considerations”, in Mouseion, LX, 16.2, pp. 197–225 Zampieri E. 2020, “Pompey, Minerva, and Rome’s presence in the Near East”, in Hermes, 148, 3, pp. 324–344 Zanker P. 1984, Il Foro di Augusto, Roma, Fratelli Palombi editori Zanker P. 2006 (19871), Augusto e il potere delle immagini, Turin, Bollati Boringhieri Zanker P. 2008, “Le irritanti statue di Cesare e i suoi ritratti contradditori”, in the catalogue Giulio Cesare – L’uomo, le imprese, il mito, Milan, Silvana editoriale, pp. 72–79

206 Bibliography Zappalà S. 2008, “Il fregio figurato della Basilica Aemilia”, in Forma Urbis, 13, 7–8, pp. 37–43 Zecchini G. 1995, “Sallustio, Lucullo e i tre schiavi di Giulio Cesare (due nuovi frammenti delle Historiae?)”, in Latomus, 54, 3, pp. 592–607 Zecchini G. 2001, Cesare e il mos maiorum, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag Zecchini G. 2018, “Per una nuova immagine di Silla”, in Zecchini and Schettino 2018, pp. 255–260 Zecchini G., Schettino M. T. 2018 (eds), L’età di Silla. Atti del convegno presso l’Istituto Italiano di storia antica, Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider Ziolkowski A. 1992, The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and Their Historical and Topographical Context, Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider Zweig Vivante B. 2010, s.v. “Women authors, I”, in Cancik H. et al. (eds.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, 15, pp. 710–713

Index

Note: Italic page numbers refer to figures and page numbers followed by “n” refer to end notes. Aemilius Lepidus, M. (cos. 46, 42) 41, 99, 107n51, 108n101, 111, 114, 115 Aemilius Lepidus, M. (cos. 78) 29, 31, 36, 108n101, 182 Aemilius Lepidus, M. (cos. 187, 175) 103, 108n101, 109n103 Aemilius Paullus, L. (cos. 50) 36, 95, 101, 102, 104, 106n15, 108n72, 108n77, 108n82, 109n117, 111, 116, 169, 185, 186 Aeneas 33, 37, 38, 56, 57, 131 Ajax 139, 140, 141; in association with Medea 139, 140; painting of 138, 170; as representation of Cato the younger 140, 141; as representation of Pompey 140; as symbol of wrath 140 Alexander the Great 3, 15–16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 42, 47n145, 48n184, 54, 55, 69, 79, 80, 83, 84n9, 119, 138, 141, 142, 166 Ancus Marcius 35–36, 146 Antiochus III 22 Ara Maxima Herculis 53, 54, 55, 84n4, 166 Argiletum 95, 97, 113, 125, 173 Ascanius see Iullus/Iulus Asinius Pollio, C. 98, 141 Athena 21, 22; Iliaca 21, 22, 55, 56, 57, 83, 128, 166; Itonia 22 Atrium Libertatis 94–98, 114, 151, 168 Atrium Regium 103, 169 audience 2, 11, 13, 43n18, 44n29, 74, 79, 81, 131, 145, 176 basilica: Aemilia 36, 101–105, 107n71, 108n82, 108n83, 116, 169, 185; Iulia 101, 104, 108n72, 169, 173, 185; Porcia

97, 111, 113, 115, 146; Sempronia 101, 104–105, 169 Bucephalus: statue of 141–142; resemblance of Caesar’s horse to 142 Circus Maximus 53–54, 69, 71, 149, 165, 171, 174–175, 187 clementia 40–41, 110, 120, 140, 156–157, 172, 174, 177 comitium 75–78, 91n281, 112–115, 132, 155–156, 171; Graecostasis 75, 77, 91n285; Rostra 75–78, 155–157 Commentariolum petitionis 10–12, 43n18 concordia 32, 37, 40–41, 83, 100, 107n63, 110, 156, 168–169, 172, 174 concordia ordinum 23–24, 41, 81, 83, 104, 155 Consus 150, 171 Cornelius Balbus, L. 31, 39–40, 44n20, 110 Cornelius Cinna, L. 14, 28, 157, 181 Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, P. 24–27, 31, 42, 49n238, 54–55, 128, 133 Cornelius Scipio Africanus, P. 27, 32, 84n27; house of 104, 169 Cornelius Sulla, Faustus 16, 17, 19–20, 23, 71, 111, 146 Cornelius Sulla, L. 13–18, 20–21, 23–24, 26–29, 31, 35, 38–42, 44n38, 45n56, 45n59, 46n96, 47n154, 48n206, 49n214, 53–54, 56–57, 76, 78, 80, 84n10, 84n27, 113, 115–116, 120, 134, 156–157, 165–166, 170, 172, 175, 181–182 curia: Cornelia 41, 76, 97, 111–115, 146, 170; Hostilia 70, 75–78, 90n272, 91n281, 96, 98, 111–115, 120, 123n87, 146, 148, 155, 172, 185;

208 Index Iulia (see Forum of Caesar); Pompeia (see theatre of Pompey) curia-comitium complex 75, 76–78, 83, 101, 167

Iulius Proculus 39, 116, 119 Iullus/Iulus 37–39, 57 Iuppiter (Jupiter) 32–34, 38–39, 118, 153, 157

Dionysus 16, 23, 66, 79, 88n182

Lepidus: as translation of aimylía 103 Licinius Crassus, M. (cos. 70, 55) 18, 25–26, 46n99, 54, 57, 70, 93, 102, 110, 169, 171, 178n54, 183–185 Licinius Lucullus, L. (cos. 74) 56–57 Lutatius Catulus, Q. (cos. 78) 38, 47n154, 154, 156

Felicitas 23–24, 41, 47n152, 54, 73, 83, 115, 120 Forum Boarium 18, 53, 84n1, 165 Forum Iulium see Forum of Caesar Forum of Caesar 36–37, 95–98, 100, 104–105, 110, 112–115, 120, 124, 125, 126, 128, 131–133, 135–136, 141, 143, 144–147, 149, 157n4, 167, 169, 170–171, 174–177, 185, 187; curia Iulia 77, 97, 112–113, 115, 144, 148; as extension of the Roman Forum 95, 97, 145, 167, 169, 185; porticus duplices 97, 124–126, 135–136, 145–146, 170; presence of water and cults connected to it 131–132, 135, 145; tabernae 106n28, 125, 136, 157n4, 169; temple of Venus Genetrix 36, 97–98, 124, 127, 128–129, 131–133, 135–136, 138–139, 141–142, 144–147, 157, 158n15, 168, 170, 187 Forum Romanum 6, 41, 47n154, 55, 74, 75, 76–78, 83, 94–95, 97–98, 100–102, 105, 111, 115, 128, 141, 145, 147, 153–155, 165, 167–168, 171–175, 180, 188 gens Aemilia 116, 174; its connection with the basilica Aemilia 102–103 Gracchi brothers 30, 41, 174; their connection with the basilica Sempronia 104 griffins 126, 127, 128, 141, 145, 146, 170 Hercules 16–22, 24, 42, 46n96, 53–55, 71, 73, 79, 83, 84n9, 166; Invictus 17, 20, 46n99, 53–54, 119, 166; Sullanus 54 Ilium/Ilion 21–22, 37, 55–57, 83, 128, 131, 166 imitatio Alexandri 15, 16, 142 imitatio Pompeii 168 iracundia 31–32, 82–83, 139–140, 170 Iulius Caesar, L.: (cos. 90) 37, 56, 85n47; (cos. 64) 37–38, 56–57, 85n47 Iulius Caesar Octavianus Augustus, C. 1–3, 5, 16, 19, 63, 69, 89n207, 99, 116, 122n49, 131, 138, 148–149, 152, 157, 178n54 Iulius Caesar, Sex. (flamen Quirinalis) 35, 39

Marius, C. 14, 24, 27–29, 36, 42, 44n40, 48n194, 49n211, 49n238, 56, 102, 105, 115, 120, 157, 169, 175 meander 126, 127, 128–131, 133–134, 147, 158n38 Medea 140, 160n147; in association with Ajax 139, 140; in Herculaneum and Pompeii 139; painting of 138, 139, 170; as symbol of civil war 141; as symbol of wrath 140 Minerva 20–22, 24, 55, 73, 166; Minerva of Troy (see Athena Iliaca) Mithridates VI Eupator 15–16, 18, 20, 22, 45n69, 53, 56, 77, 138, 170, 183 naumachia Caesaris 148, 151, 162n216, 171, 187 Nemesis 126, 128, 145–146, 170–171 Numa Pompilius 35–37, 104, 116; his connection with the Atrium Regium 103; his connection with the Aemilii 103 oikoumene 18–19, 23, 42, 53, 65, 73 Oppius, C. 31–32, 40, 44n20, 94–95, 102, 110 optimates 14, 25, 28–29, 35, 76, 101, 104, 111, 120, 155–156, 169–171, 173, 177 Palladium 22, 56–57 Polygnotus 69–70 pomerium 57, 70, 95, 141, 151, 154, 175 populares 28–31, 35, 41–42, 100, 156, 169, 172, 175 Porta Triumphalis 23, 154, 163n290, 174 porticus Iulia 104, 109n109 primus inter pares 26, 42, 78, 83, 167, 177 princeps 3 propaganda 4–5, 8–14, 16, 18–22, 26–27, 32–34, 37–38, 41–42, 43n7, 43n10, 43n11, 44n29, 57, 71–72, 83, 98, 110, 124, 128, 131, 136, 142, 145–146, 150, 154, 166–171, 174–177;

Index  209 counterpropaganda 6, 13, 168; definition 10; effectiveness 12–13 public see audience public library (Caesar) 98, 151, 153, 157 Quirinus 13, 35, 39, 118–119 rage see iracundia Roman Forum see Forum Romanum Romulus 13, 33, 35, 39, 78, 102, 116, 119, 121, 131, 141, 149–150, 171 Rostra Caesaris 155–157, 171–173, 188 Saepta: Ovile 107n48; Saepta Iulia 94–95, 98–101, 105, 145, 155, 167–169, 175, 185 Servius Tullius 35 Seven against Thebes 69, 79–80 stadium of Caesar 147–148, 171, 175, 187 Tabularium 23, 47n154, 78, 98, 102, 155, 172–173 temple: (temples) of Apollo and Bellona 25, 152–154; of Concordia 32, 50n252, 155, 172; of Fausta Felicitas 23, 47n154, 116, 173; of Felicitas 41, 98, 111, 114–115, 120, 133, 169–171, 187; of Genius Populi Romani 23, 47n154, 173; of Hercules Aemilianus 54; of Hercules Invictus/Pompeianus 18, 53–54, 149, 165–166, 174–175, 182–183; of Hercules Magnus Custos 18–19, 54; of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus 21, 32, 38, 118, 138, 153–154, 163n290, 174; of Mars (planned by Caesar) 148, 151–152; of Minerva (Pompey) 16, 20, 55, 57, 165–166, 175, 183; of Quirinus 32, 35, 39, 116, 117, 118, 121, 169, 186, 188; of Venus Genetrix (see Forum of Caesar); of Venus Victrix (Sulla) 23, 47n154, 78, 173; of Venus Victrix (Pompey) (see theatre of Pompey); of Vesta 154, 157 theatre ad aedem Apollinis 152, 153 theatre of C. Cassius Longinus and M. Valerius Messalla 7n5, 81 theatre of Caesar 152–154, 156–157, 171, 175, 188 theatre of Marcellus 152, 154, 163n266, 171, 175 theatre of Pompey 1–2, 6, 14, 16, 24, 26, 44n37, 47n159, 53–54, 57–65, 67–83, 86n85, 86n92, 88n181, 89n188, 91n281, 91n291, 93, 95, 99–101, 105, 115, 135, 141, 144, 152–154,

156, 165–168, 170–171, 174–175, 177, 183–185; curia Pompeia 57–58, 63, 69–70, 72–73, 76–78, 89n209, 91n291, 167, 188; Hecatostylum 58, 64; porticus Lentulorum 58, 64, 77; porticus ad Nationes 58, 64; porticus post scaenam 23, 57–58, 63–65, 69–74, 76, 78–83, 87n132, 89n186, 89n226, 99, 167; regia 63; sacellum of Felicitas 14, 24, 57, 82, 170; sacellum of Honos 24, 57, 73, 82; sacellum of Victoria 57, 82, 185; sacellum of Virtus 24, 57, 82; scaenae frons 62–64, 71–73, 86n92; temple of Venus Victrix 14, 20, 24, 57–58, 62, 63, 71, 72, 78, 82–83, 85n31, 85n59, 153, 167 theatres, temporary: of M. Aemilius Scaurus 63, 70, 81, 86n97, 108n80 theatrical complex of Pompey see theatre of Pompey Thebes 78–80, 83, 170 Tiber, deviation of 150, 151 triumph 3, 14–16, 18–19, 23, 26–27, 33–34, 38, 44n45, 46n89, 48n173, 53–55, 57, 69, 71–72, 81–83, 84n27, 91n317, 110, 124, 133–134, 137–138, 140, 142, 146–149, 152–154, 156, 165–167, 169, 171, 174–176, 178n53, 182–183, 187–188; triumphal path/ pompa 6, 54, 83, 118, 139, 154, 163n290, 165, 171, 174–175, 179 Troy see Ilium/Ilion Tullius Cicero, M. 10, 12, 14, 24–26, 29–32, 34, 39–41, 43n18, 45n61, 47n158, 51n320, 51n325, 56, 64, 66, 74–76, 80–82, 87n123, 90n266, 91n310, 93–95, 97–99, 101–102, 109n114, 110, 115, 118, 122n50, 122n78, 139, 145, 150, 160n147, 169–171, 183–184 Veiovis 38 Venus 13, 16–17, 20–22, 27, 35–38, 42, 47n145, 56, 65, 67–68, 72–73, 92n324, 120, 128, 131, 133–136, 138–140, 145, 150, 153, 166–167, 169, 171; Venus Genetrix 37, 92n334, 97, 133–134, 136; Venus Victrix 16–17, 24, 37, 54, 73, 78, 81, 83, 97, 120, 133–134, 157, 167 Via Triumphalis 57, 82, 148, 154, 166, 174–175 Victoria 14, 72, 77–78, 128, 133, 136 Villa Publica 95, 98–101, 107n50, 107n63, 167–168, 185 wrath see iracundia