For decades, a remarkable number of publications have been devoted to the so-called Epistulae ad Caesarem. Most have focused on the question of whether they are authentic or forgeries, and only a few have analysed them as a source for valuable historical evidence. This paper intends to demonstrate that the letters could certainly have been written in the middle of the first century BCE and that Sallust could indeed be the author. The letters, particularly Ep. 2, show that there were (...) alternative political agendas and provide a better understanding of Sallust as a politician and historian, as well as of the political debate surrounding the outbreak of the civil war and Caesar’s rule. (shrink)

Magni uir ingenii fuerat si illud egisset uia rectiore, si non uitasset intellegi, si non etiam in oratione difflueret. uidebis itaque eloquentiam ebrii hominis inuolutam et errantem et licentiae plenam. Maecenas De Cvltvsvo.* quid turpius ‘amne siluisque ripa comantibus?’ uide ut§ ‘alueum lyntribus arent uersoque uado Ĵ remittant hortos.’ quid? si quis ‘feminae cincinnos** crispat et labris columbatur incipitque suspirans, ut ceruice lassa fanantur nemoris tyranni.’ ‘inremediabilis factio rimantur epulis lagonaque temptant domos et spe mortem exigunt’ Sen. Epp. cxiv (...) 4–5. (shrink)

A Significant distinction can be noticed in Cicero&s contemporary references to the anti-revolutionary parties in the first two Civil Wars. For both he claims superior dignitas: Rosc. Am. 136 quis enim erat qui non videret humilitatem cum dignitate de amplitudine contendere? , Lig. 19 principum dignitas erat paene par, non par fortasse eorum qui sequebantur. But in the Pro Roscio dignitas and nobilitas go together. Sulla's cause is causa nobilitatis , his party is the nobility , his triumph victoria (...) nobilium . Such expressions, frequent and casual, evidently belonged to current usage and may be assumed to have fitted the facts. Marian nobiles are indeed not lacking; but the records are meagre, and presumably they were a small minority in their class. An ironical hit at Verres tells the same tale ten years later: ut possit aliquis suspicari C. Verrem, quod ferre novos homines non potuerit, ad nobilitatem, hoc est adsuos transisse —for a nobilis, as such, Sulla was the only leader. Verres' true motive for changing sides, discreditable of course, is explained later on ; eo Sullanus repente foetus est, non ut honos et dignitas nobilitati restitueretur. (shrink)

A Significant distinction can be noticed in Cicero&s contemporary references to the anti-revolutionary parties in the first two Civil Wars. For both he claims superior dignitas: Rosc. Am. 136 quis enim erat qui non videret humilitatem cum dignitate de amplitudine contendere?, Lig. 19 principum dignitas erat paene par, non par fortasse eorum qui sequebantur. But in the Pro Roscio dignitas and nobilitas go together. Sulla's cause is causa nobilitatis, his party is the nobility, his triumph victoria nobilium. Such expressions, (...) frequent and casual, evidently belonged to current usage and may be assumed to have fitted the facts. Marian nobiles are indeed not lacking; but the records are meagre, and presumably they were a small minority in their class. An ironical hit at Verres tells the same tale ten years later: ut possit aliquis suspicari C. Verrem, quod ferre novos homines non potuerit, ad nobilitatem, hoc est adsuos transisse —for a nobilis, as such, Sulla was the only leader. Verres' true motive for changing sides, discreditable of course, is explained later on ; eo Sullanus repente foetus est, non ut honos et dignitas nobilitati restitueretur. (shrink)