From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (28 page)

After news of Antony’s actions had reached Rome in the spring of 33 much of the year was spent in a campaign of mutual slander by Octavian and Antony, during which Octavian drew the damaging picture of a demoralized Antony in the thrall of an eastern Fury (Horace’s ‘fatale monstrum’) that has tended to persist thereafter: Octavian needed to win over public opinion for the struggle for which he was preparing. Antony’s offer to lay aside his triumviral powers, if Octavian would do the same, met with no response. But at the end of 33 the Second Triumvirate came to its legal end. No official action was taken: Antony kept the title and acted as if still in office, but Octavian dropped the title, and presumably the powers; since he was already sacrosanct and would be consul in 31, he was prepared to take the risk and rely on his prestige, his
auctoritas
.
²²

The consuls of 32, C. Sosius and Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, were Antony’s supporters but when they entered office they refrained in his interest from reading to the Senate his despatch in which he asked for ratification of his eastern
acta.
Sosius, however, tried to move a vote of censure on Octavian in the Senate, but was vetoed by a tribune. When Octavian defended himself at another meeting, and attacked Antony, the two consuls and over three hundred senators left Rome to join Antony. Thereafter Antony sent Octavia formal letters of divorce. Octavian reacted sharply: he seized Antony’s will, which was deposited with the Vestal Virgins, and read it to the Senate. It acknowledged Caesarion, provided for Antony’s own children by Cleopatra, and ordered that he should be buried at Cleopatra’s side. This was grist to Octavian’s mill: the report could now be spread that Antony hoped to transfer the capital to Alexandria. Amid increasing tension the communities of Italy,
and then many through the western provinces, passed a vote of confidence in Octavian: largely spontaneously, though doubtless encouraged by his agents here and there, they took an oath of allegiance (
coniuratio
) to him personally, thereby becoming the
clientela
of an individual party-leader; personal allegiance to a
dux
was replacing loyalty to the constitutional forms of a departed Republic. Octavian later described his personal mandate to proceed against Antony: ‘Iuravit in mea verba tota Italia sponte sua et me belli quo vici ad Actium ducem depoposcit.’
²³
Antony, who had crossed with Cleopatra and his forces to Greece, was deprived of his powers and prospective consulship for 31, and Octavian formally proclaimed a
iustum bellum
on Cleopatra. In 31 Octavian, who was holding his third consulship, also advanced to Greece.

Antony had a strong following, and the adhesion of the two consuls and so many senators suggested that he was more than a mere adventurer: many of his supporters were men of principle, former followers of Caesar, Republicans and Pompeians. But they lacked a cause to unite them: personal loyalty to Antony was not always sufficient, and the presence of Cleopatra alienated some: desertions began, but Cleopatra must stay since she was providing so much of the finance. In military strength the opponents were not illmatched: Antony had some thirty legions, but he also had some 500 ships to Octavian’s 400. With these forces he took up a defensive position in Greece: he dared not advance on Italy because the presence of Cleopatra would have ruined his cause. By abandoning the Via Egnatia and moving to the south-west, with headquarters at Patrae and his fleet and army centred on the promontory of Actium on the Gulf of Ambracia, Antony was able to entice Octavian to come to meet him, perhaps hoping in the first instance for a land rather than a naval engagement.

When Octavian crossed to Greece he left Maecenas in Rome and took with him most of the senators still in Italy. His army managed to occupy a position just north of Actium, while his fleet, commanded by Agrippa, captured Leucas, Patrae and Corinth and thus cut Antony off from the Peloponnese and began to interfere with his supplies by sea. When Antony failed to dislodge Octavian’s army, he abandoned land operations, and his situation quickly deteriorated: he was short of supplies, desertions increased, and his men became restless. Rejecting a suggestion that he should retire to Macedonia and fight by land, he followed Cleopatra’s advice to use the fleet. His real purpose is not clear: probably he hoped to fight a full-scale action, with the secondary plan of trying to break through to Egypt if this failed. Others believe that he was merely trying to escape from the blockade.
²⁴
However that may be, on 2 September Antony drew up his fleet off Actium in three squadrons, facing to sea westwards, with Cleopatra’s squadron behind nearer the shore. On his right wing Antony tried to turn Agrippa’s squadron opposite him, but at this point for some reason his centre and left wing began to retire.
Antony was thus forced to signal to Cleopatra, who had the war-chest aboard, to escape. He broke off the engagement and managed to join her with forty ships. As they sailed off to Egypt, the rest of his fleet was captured or surrendered. A week later his land forces also capitulated. Octavian was undisputed master of the Roman world after an engagement which, as far as the actual fighting went, was something of an anticlimax in view of the vast forces assembled on each side. However it was the decisive battle and it was soon portrayed by Virgil and others as the victory of West over East.

Octavian at once began to disband part of his vast forces, and promptly sent some veterans back to Italy. Agrippa also had to be sent back to deal with a plot by the son of Lepidus. More serious was the restlessness of the veterans who wanted pay and settlement, so that Octavian himself had to go to Italy before following Antony. In the summer of 30 he reached Egypt and occupied Alexandria, which Antony could not defend: his remaining troops had deserted. Hearing a rumour that Cleopatra was dead, Antony stabbed himself but survived long enough to die in her arms. Cleopatra was taken prisoner and when she found she could not retain her kingdom for her children, she too died, at the bite of the asp which the Egyptians believed deified its victim.
²⁵
Octavian had secured what he most needed: the treasure of the Ptolemies. He was relieved at her death, at which he may have connived, since he did not wish to take her to Rome to grace his triumph. Towards Antony’s Roman followers Octavian was lenient. Towards the children of Antony and Cleopatra he was merciful and they were later brought up by Octavia (Selene ultimately married Juba II of Mauretania); but he killed Antony’s elder son by Fulvia, Antyllus, and Caesarion: he could not allow a potential rival to survive. Egypt was annexed, but not as an ordinary Roman province: it became the private possession of the Roman emperor, administered by his agent, the first Prefect being the knight C. Cornelius Gallus. The Donations of Alexandria were naturally cancelled, and Octavian spent some time re-establishing the old provinces and client-kingdoms in the East, but he made few serious changes in Antony’s arrangements in Asia Minor and he was content not to interfere beyond the Euphrates. On 11 January 29 the Temple of Janus in Rome was closed, a symbol of restored peace. In the summer Octavian returned to Italy and celebrated in Rome a triple triumph for his victories in Illyricum, at Actium and over Egypt. The century of civil wars that had started with the murder of Tiberius Gracchus was ended. The Republic and liberty had gone; men turned gratefully to their new saviour.

During the sixty years between the Social War and the battle of Actium Italy had been the scene of proscriptions and confiscations, of devastation and casualties, in one civil war after another, so that its whole economic and social life might well have been undermined. But despite all the suffering and loss she did not succumb and in fact remained surprisingly prosperous, thanks partly of course to the wealth that she drew from the provinces. The problem that had faced the Gracchi had been to arrest the spread of
latifundia
and to restore to prosperity the small farmer. In this they had achieved considerable success, and much land had been returned to the peasant farmer. When this process came to a standstill, other causes began to operate which led to its continuation in another form: the needs of the soldiers. Sulla, Caesar and Octavian all had to find land in Italy or abroad for allotments or colonies, and it has been estimated that during these fifty years half a million men received new holdings in Italy. This huge transference in the tenure of land and the resultant moving around of people in Italy naturally had far-reaching social consequences and helped to spread Roman culture and ways of life, including the use of the Latin language; the political unification of Italy, achieved by the Italian War, was thus followed by the slower process of its romanization. But these changes also meant that the small farmer survived and that the process of breaking up the large estates continued.

Thus some large estates were sacrificed to the needs of land-hungry
veterans, but very many more survived intact: civil war might on occasion lead to a change in ownership, but the nobility and the rich business-men still controlled affairs and retained their possessions. Some of the new soldierfarmers would soon tire of country life and be willing to sell out to their richer neighbours; others might leave tenants on their land and go off to the cities, thus turning peasant-holdings into the country estates of city residents. On the larger estates slave-labour still predominated, though under Caesar’s law it was limited to two-thirds, while the great landowners were tending to let out their land in leasehold to free peasants,
coloni
; Caesar’s opponent, Domitius Ahenobarbus, for instance, had thousands of such tenant-farmers on his vast estates. On the whole slaves tended to receive better treatment, as can be seen from contrasting the evidence given by Varro in his book on farming with that of the elder Cato. But the landowners, living in the cities, often displayed little personal interest in agriculture as such: some regarded their estates as mere profit-making machines, others as country residences for their personal delectation; details of farming and administration could be left to mere bailiffs.

Thus the civil wars did not destroy the prosperity of Italy, which Varro could even describe enthusiastically as ‘one large orchard’. Advances were made in horticulture and market-gardening in the more fertile parts, where oil, wine, vegetables, fruit, poultry and stock would be produced. Around the towns also, especially inland where there was less competition from cheaper transport by sea, corn was still grown and traditional methods continued. Rome itself was increasingly becoming a cosmopolitan centre which supported its vast growing population by means of corn imported from abroad and raised the standard of luxurious living for its upper classes by means of the wealth that it drew from the provinces and foreign wars. Thus Italy as a whole was able to support its population which with the inclusion of Cisalpine Gaul may at the end of the Republic have numbered nearly 14 million (including slaves), but more probably nearer half that number.
²

But without the provinces Italy might not have withstood the strain. Apart from the fact that Roman capitalists were acquiring large amounts of land in Sicily, Spain and Africa and that the business-men of Italy were swarming around the Mediterranean, the provinces offered a means of official relief when the limits were reached in Italy. Thus Gaius Gracchus’ Junonia had been followed by the foundation of Narbo and the settlement of Marius’ veterans in Africa and elsewhere. During his first consulship in 59 Caesar might seek land for his veterans and for poor families in Italy (including the hitherto sacrosanct
ager Campanus
), but later the problem grew so big that, rather than risk a repetition of the disturbances that had followed Sulla’s seizure of land in Italy, he turned to the provinces where he found new homes for 80,000 Roman citizens.
³

The growth of industrial and commercial life in Italy was naturally affected by the civil wars, but it continued to develop on traditional lines. Agriculture remained the chief way of life for a large part of the population, but the equipment and tools of everyday life had to be provided and industry produced these for the home markets. Rome had been slow to turn to industry; the larger manufacturing centres in Italy were in Campania and Etruria, and much of the production was in the hands of people of non-Roman stock. The Campanian industry in bronze and silver ware and furniture doubtless continued to flourish, and a few ‘factories’, establishments specializing in spinning and weaving, began to appear. Arretium in Etruria started to produce the famous red ‘Samian Ware’, which later was to spread all over the western provinces. But during this period we hear of no major developments in manufacturing industry. There was, however, much activity in building, both public and private, at Rome (see p. 153 f.) and elsewhere: the city, the suburbs and fashionable villa sites were all developed. The prosperity of the Italian towns is best illustrated by the growth of Pompeii, which entered upon a new phase of development from Gracchan times; this extended to the farm villas outside it. To the years between 120 and 90 B.C. belong some of its finest public buildings (e.g. the Basilica) and some of the best private houses (e.g. those of Pansa and of the ‘Faun’) of which some were built over the foundations of groups of earlier houses. The city suffered a sharp setback when it was captured by Sulla in 90 and was later colonized, but it soon recovered and prospered, as the fine new temple of Capitoline Juppiter in the Forum testifies.
^3a

Before the time of Ti. Gracchus the Romans had not been much interested in commerce, although many of their Italian allies, especially the Greek cities of S. Italy, indulged in widespread trading activities. As the Romans began to exploit the provinces, the
publicani
and their agents naturally stimulated and even took part in private business ventures. There is considerable evidence for the activities of Italian business-men (who after 90 B.C. of course became Romans) at Delos, which became one of the chief markets for commerce in the Eastern Mediterranean especially after the destruction of Carthage and Corinth in 146. Here, as elsewhere, these resident merchants, Italici, formed clubs (
collegia
) for social and business purposes.
⁴
Italians were attracted by trade to Greece, Asia Minor, Sicily, Africa, Narbonese Gaul and Spain in increasing numbers: it is said that no less than 80,000 were massacred by Mithridates in Asia in 88, and there were sufficient in Cirta during the Jugurthine war to organize the defence of the city. Their activities, however, were hampered by the increasing scourge of piracy until the Romans allowed Pompey to make a final successful effort to sweep the seas clear. Thus Delos, which had been sacked by Mithridates in 88, suffered again from the pirates in 69, and never really recovered. The later civil wars also naturally interfered with commerce.

While Italy exported a certain amount of pottery, hardware, wine and oil, and Rome received much corn and raw materials for her military needs from her provincial tribute, the demand for luxuries increased: statues and other works of art, jewellery (e.g. pearls), rare table-woods, tapestries, purple-dyed wools, rare marbles for building, animals from Africa for the arena, linen, glass and papyrus from Egypt, all found a ready market in Rome. Examples of the cargo of some ships that were lost on their way to Rome can be seen in that recovered in 1907 from a vessel wrecked off the African coast at Mahdia (
c.
85 B.C.) and those found in recent years off the Ligurian and French Riviera.
⁵

During the years from 133 to 31 standards of public and social life changed considerably, but it would be wrong to project too far back into the century the picture of a lax society that may seem, in part at any rate, to represent the end of the period. It has been seen (p. 10 f.) that wealth and luxury began to undermine earlier standards of public and private conduct, but the process did not gain its full impetus until the civil wars which followed the Social War. And even then it is easy to exaggerate the extent of the evil. Many Roman nobles retained a high standard of public duty and of personal culture and lived in comparative simplicity. Where personal integrity was lacking, custom might still win outward respect for an Optimate senator, who was marked out from his fellow men by the very dress that he wore. But corruption and provincial maladministration increased as a more luxurious and ostentatious standard was set by fashion. Generals and governors needed more and more to line their pockets and secure their futures. In the scramble for position and prestige many of the lesser nobles fell into debt and ruin. Others turned to business activities: these were forbidden to senators by law, but they could do much behind a screen of agents. Apart from ordinary commercial enterprises, moneylending could be very profitable, as M. Brutus, ‘the noblest Roman of them all’, appreciated when he made a loan to some unfortunate Cypriots at 48 per cent in place of the more normal 12 per cent and sought military help to enable his agent to collect the debt. In times of civil wars and commotions fortunes could be quickly made as well as lost. The triumvir M. Crassus, the richest man of his day, had inherited a fortune of 300 talents from his father, but by 55 B.C. his property was worth over 7000: among other methods he had skilfully cashed in on the miseries of civil war by buying property cheap during Sulla’s proscriptions and selling it later when prices had risen after Sulla’s settlement. He would have found no difficulty in maintaining from his income that legion which he said every wealthy man should be able to support: nor would Pompey, whose final
fortune was not much less. Even men with more scruples could amass considerable wealth: Cicero started life with a modest patrimony, but his career at the bar won him many legacies and presents from grateful clients, and his governorship of Cilicia, where he tried to check maladministration, was by no means without profit to him. But men of wealth formed a tiny fraction of the community and the consequent mal-distribution of property involved political danger as well as social injustice.

Luxury, display and extravagance were seen particularly in the houses of many nobles. Besides a town house in a fashionable quarter (e.g. on the Palatine), they had numerous villas on country estates, by the seaside or in the hills (even Cicero had more than eight): Baiae and the Bay of Naples were an especially favoured area for holiday resorts. But occasional relaxation out of town did not necessarily imply a love of the country; rather, many nobles were thoroughly urbanized, and even Cicero could write to young Caelius, ‘The city, the city is what you must make the object of your devotion.’ There society had its heart: politics, often violent, in Forum or Senate House, and social pleasures and duties from morning to night, from the early morning
salutatio
when clients waited upon their noble patron to pay their respects or seek his advice or aid, to the dinner-parties at night.

In this hectic atmosphere family life declined. Wives did not necessarily come under the authority (
manus
) of their husbands as in older days, and consequently gained greater independence since they were able to control their own properties which they had acquired by dowry or legacy. The Roman matron had always held a respected place in society and indeed often exercised considerable indirect influence on public affairs. Many continued to do this: Brutus, for instance, paid much heed to the advice of his mother Servilia and his wife Porcia. Other women gained their ends by their charms, for instance Clodia, the sister of P. Clodius, wife of Q. Metellus, and lover of the poet Catullus until he was ousted by Caelius and others, was the notorious leader of a fast set. Further, political friendships had often been strengthened by marriage alliances, as when Pompey married Julia, and these would not always lead to enduring marriages. Divorce and re-marriage were common: Sulla and Pompey had five wives and Caesar four. Thus there was a steady decline of morality in part of the governing class. But this must not be exaggerated: despite much immorality and extravagance, the aristocracy was not entirely decadent. Many men lived honourable and moderate lives and turned to cultured living rather than to vulgar luxury. Wider intellectual interests and appreciation of literature and art, combined often with greater humaneness and finer taste, led to a new
humanitas
in society. Cicero, despite his many failings, is not a bad example of this cultured and urbane society.
⁶

Since the possession of at least 400,000 sesterces was the minimum qualification for membership of the Equestrian Order, the Knights should be included in the upper classes: they were the moneyed as opposed to the landed aristocracy (though most probably were landowners and many wealthier than some of the poorer senators), nor was the social distinction between the two orders always very great (see above, p. 8). Rather it was a political gulf that separated them: the Knights preferred to remain outside politics, but especially after Gaius Gracchus gave them control of the Courts they could exercise an increasing pressure on policy, as has been seen in their attitude to the founding of Narbo or the Jugurthine War. Thereafter their relations with the Senate varied in degree: often hostile, they were at times prepared to co-operate, especially in the face of serious dangers that might threaten their financial interests. These interests were ever extending, not least through the action of Gaius in giving to the Knights the right to farm the taxes of Asia (p. 29). These men helped the government to collect taxes and harbourdues, to work the provincial mines and to undertake public buildings; organized in companies, in private partnerships or as individuals they engaged in industry, trade, banking and money-lending throughout the Roman world. With the decline in standards of morality the
publicani
, their agents and the moneylenders began callously to exploit the unhappy provincials. They received a set-back when Sulla proscribed 1600 knights and confiscated their property, but they soon recovered and flourished until Julius Caesar deprived them of the tithecollecting of Asia (p. 122); thereafter their operations were more carefully watched.

But as not every provincial governor was a Verres, so the unscrupulous transactions of many of these men should not blind us to the useful functions performed by others. Cicero himself belonged to this class by birth and though he was the first member of it to reach the consulship for a generation he retained a strong regard for it and sought by a
concordia ordinum
to bring it into harmony with the Senate. His great friend and correspondent, T. Pomponius Atticus, who as an Epicurean avoided political life, provides a good example of a cultured, popular, and successful business man. His wealth was based on his estates in Epirus and he pursued varied business activities from banking to publishing: discreet, urbane and sympathetic, he won the friendship of many, of Optimates and Caesarians alike.
⁸