having hirtius to dinner - optimates and populares in the late republic - chambers

8/14/2019 Having Hirtius to dinner - optimates and populares in the late republic - Chambers

1/15


2/15

approval of the best citizens.[6] The nature of the distinction between the two became

clearer as Cicero described the characteristics and interests of optimates. First and

foremost, they sought otium cum dignitate which was founded upon:

'...religious observances, the auspices, the powers of the magistrates, the

authority of the Senate, the laws, ancestral customs, criminal and civil

jurisdiction, credit, our provinces, our allies, the prestige of our

government, the army, the treasury: religiones, auspicia, potestates

magistratuum, senatus auctoritas, leges, mos maiorum, iudicia, iuris

dictio, fides, provinciae, socii, imperii laus, res militaris, aerarium'.[7]

His definition suggests that, although at the end of his career Cicero identifiedhimself as an optimas, there was no clear or circumscribed group ofoptimates. Instead,

the optimates include 'all good men'.[8] This indicates that, whilst it might have been

possible at particular times for Cicero to identify individuals or groups within the senate

as optimates, what was more important was the presence of an optimates tradition and

an optimates ideology.[9] So we are not dealing with a specific party or group in the

modern political sense, but with a set of shared values and interests and a collective

vision for the res publica.

Cicero then suggested that popularis politicians, by contrast, were driven to seek

the support of the people because they were criminals or naturally seditious. Thus, he

implied that it was both an illegitimate and an immoral stance to adopt and one which

ultimately represented an attack upon the res publica:

'For, in so large a body of citizens, there are great numbers of men who,

either from fear of punishment, being conscious of their crimes, seek tocause revolution and changes of government; or who owing to a sort of

inborn revolutionary madness, batten on civil discord and sedition; or who,

on account of embarrassment in their finances, prefer a general

conflagration to their own ruin: Etenim in tanto civium numero magna

multitudo est eorum, qui aut propter metum poenae peccatorum suorum

conscii novos motus conversionesque rei publicae quaerant, aut qui

propter insitum quendam animi furorem discordiis civium ac seditione
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A6http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A7http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A8http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A9http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A6http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A7http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A8http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A9


3/15

pascantur, aut qui propter implicationem rei familiaris communi incendio

malint quam suo deflagrare'.[10]

Cicero's definition is clearly polemical. It was meant to present a dichotomy, in

which all men, whether involved in politics or not, were either one or the other.[11] The

boni, whom Cicero associated with optimates ideology, represented a legitimate and

constitutional approach to politics and a wise and morally upright vision for the state.

Populares, he claimed, were willing to manipulate the people in order to gain their own

ends. It was certainly not in Cicero's interests, in this speech, to represent a popularis

political ideology in any other way.

Nevertheless, there exists evidence for an alternate, but equally legitimate andconstitutional, vision for the state related to popularis ideology.[12]Popularis ideology

was associated with problems of immediate concern to the urban populace - such as

housing, debt relief, famine, rents and grain shortages - as well as with broader political

issues. These broader issues have been identified by Wirszubski as issues to do with the

auctoritas of the Senate; the leges agrariae; the desire for popular sovereignty; the

leges tabellariae; the powers of the Tribunes; the position and opportunities for novi

homines; Senatus Consultum Ultimum and the grant of extraordinary powers to

individuals.[13] Furthermore, popularis politicians also claimed to be working for the

best interests of the res publica. [14]This was not, as Cicero would have his audience

believe, because individual politicians sought thereby to achieve personal power, but

because there was (and had always been) a different vision for the way that the res

publica should be governed.

Cicero's cynical view of the popularis politician has had a lasting effect upon

modern interpretations. It has lead many scholars to argue that popularis politicians

were merely using the people for a personal and non-ideological end. There are,

however, several problems with this view as both Mackie and Wiseman have

established.[15] Firstly, it is inconceivable that the popularis platform could have been

entirely devoid of genuine ideological content since, if it were, it would not have gained

support. That is, even if the ideologies could be used opportunistically by some

politicians it is still evidence for the fact that they existed and that there was the

potential for them to be sincerely upheld. Even if some politicians claimed to be

popularis simply to manipulate popular opinion, they were still tapping into a consistent
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A10http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A11http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A12http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A13http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A14http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A15http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A10http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A11http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A12http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A13http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A14http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A15


4/15

and widely understood series of ideas and values. Secondly, as Mackie has argued, the

voting populace was not politically naive.[16] It is clear from the sources that the people

judged between 'genuine' and 'false' popularis politicians and this again suggests that

there was some conception that it was possible to be genuinely popularis.[17] Thus, she

notes that Cicero (in an early and overtly popularis speech) contrasts his own actions

with those of the 'false' popularis tribune Rullus who, Cicero claims, was not really

interested in the people at all, and was willing to disparage them in the senate:

'And beyond doubt this is what was said by this tribune of the people

[Rullus] in the senate, that the common people [ plebs urbana] had too

much power in the state [res publica]; that they ought to be drained off.

For this is the word that he used as if he was speaking of sewage instead of

a class of estimable Roman citizens. But do you Romans, if you will be

guided by me, keep possession of the influence you enjoy, of your liberty,

of your votes, of your dignity, of your city, of your forum, of your games,

of your festivals, and all your other enjoyments; unless perhaps you prefer

to abandon these privileges and this brilliant Republic and to settle in the

dry sands of Sipontum...with Rullus for your leader [dux]'.[18]

The very fact that so many of the people's champions met violent deaths at the

hands of their political enemies in the senate highlights the intensity of the division

between the views and the seriousness of the political commitments that they

entailed.[19] These were not ideologies to be taken up lightly and abandoned easily.

The biggest obstacle for accepting that apopulares ideology might be genuine and

not simply a means of manipulating popular support is this - 'populares were members

of the senate and so they must have been self-interested because they worked against the

interests of the senate...'.[20] As Mackie has pointed out, this does not in fact address

the question of motivation at all. It does not ask, what motivated popularis politicians

but assumes that they were motivated by self-interest because they opposed the

optimates. That is, it suggests that one ideology was the 'norm' and was genuinely

concerned with the preservation of the res publica whilst the other was simply deceptive

and self-aggrandizing. But if we assume that both optimates andpopulares put forward

genuine visions for the state and that they were both sincerely working for the interests

of the state then, we are left with a situation in which both can be equally valid (as
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A16http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A17http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A18http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A19http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A20http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A16http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A17http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A18http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A19http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A20


5/15

socio/political/moral ideologies) rather than with a situation in which one has a

monopoly over 'genuineness'. This would seem to be what Cicero himself came to

believe at the end of his career when he acknowledged that the res publica was torn

apart not by the actions of individual populares but as a consequence of ideological

division between optimates andpopulares:

'For the administration of the government, like the office of a trustee, must

be conducted for the benefit of those entrusted to one's care, not of those to

whom it is entrusted. Now those who care for the interests of a part of the

citizens and neglect another part, introduce into the civil service a

dangerous element - dissension and party strife. The result is that some are

found to be loyal supporters of the democratic [populares], others of the

'aristocratic' [optimates] party, and few of the nation as a whole: Ut enim

tutela, sic procuratio rei publicae ad eorum utilitatem, qui commissi sunt,

non ad eorum, quibus commissa est, gerenda est. Qui autem parti civium

consulunt partem neglegunt, rem perniciosissimam in civitatem inducunt

seditionem atque discordiam; ex quo evenit, ut alii populares, alii studiosi

optimi cuiusque videantur, pauci universorum'.[21]

In his article, Wiseman has traced the history of the movement away from an

ideological reading of the sources. He has shown that it was a devotion to the theories

established in the work of Gelzer, Munzer and Meir which has provided the background

for the shift in emphasis. It was their insistence that ideology was not the driving force

in Roman political life which laid the foundation for what he termed the 'ideological

vacuum' in the study of Roman politics. Thus, Wiseman argues that 'even after three

generations, the sheer inertia of the Gelzer model seems to prevent the ideological

content of republican politics, amply attested in contemporary sources, from being

accepted as given'.[22]

In light of this, a re-examination of contemporary evidence can now be attempted.

The letters with which this paper is chiefly concerned were written in May 44BCE. In

the two previous months, events in Rome had been moving very swiftly and to the

disadvantage of Brutus and Cassius. Between the meeting of the Senate on the 17

March and Caesar's public funeral on 20 March, much of the original impetus had gone

out of the Liberators' action. They had been caught, as Cicero later realized, without a
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A21http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A22http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A21http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A22


6/15

plan for the future. The confirmation of Caesar's acta had been a compromise prompted

by vested interests. It became clear that compromise and negotiation, moderation and

prudence were favoured by a majority of senators and, more particularly, by the consul

M. Antony.[23] At the same time, however, talk of vengeance and retribution was never

far away. The urban populace, the army and the veterans were clearly restless and

dissatisfied with the way events were proceeding and both Balbus and M.Lepidus

advocated vengeance on the grounds that it would be profane and unsafe for Caesar's

friends to do otherwise. [24]

Cicero vacillated between hope for the future and fear that too little had been

done. The approval of Caesar's acta and the subsequent additions and interpretations of

them by Antony led him to exclaim that the tyranny lived on despite the fact that the

tyrant was dead.[25] By mid-April, Cicero's views on what should have been done on

the Ides had turned from praise to regret. If only, as Cicero had urged, the Praetors had

acted promptly and summoned the senate then things would have been different and 'all

good men' would have been able to rejoice:

'Great Heavens what might not have been accomplished then amid the

rejoicing of all honest men, even the moderately honest, and the

discomfiture of the bandits: di immortales, quae tum opera effici potuerunt

laetantibus omnibus bonis, etiam sat bonis, fractis latronibus'.[26]

Caesar's cremation and the public outpourings of affection which accompanied it,

spurred on by Antony's dramatic funeral oration, confirmed Cicero's belief that the deed

had been left 'half done'.[27] At the end of April he acknowledged that it would be

impossible for him to be seen as neutral in the coming conflict. He had been too

outspoken in his condemnation of the murdered Dictator. He believed that those who

rejoiced in Caesar's death would be the target of attacks from Antony's 'party':

'Neutrality, which was possible in Caesar's war, will not be possible now.

Anyone who in the opinion of this party of desperados was glad at Caesar's

death (and we all showed our delight without the faintest concealment)

will be considered by them as an enemy. This points to a large scale

massacre: neque enim iam licebit, quod Caesaris bello licuit, neque huc

neque illuc. Quemcumque enim haec pars perditorum laetatum Caesaris
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A23http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A24http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A25http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A26http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A27http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A23http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A24http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A25http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A26http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A27


7/15

morte putabit (laetitiam autem apertissime tulimus omnes), hunc in

hostium numero habebit; quae res ad caedem maximam spectat'.[28]

Cicero's hopes revived at the beginning of May, when he received news that the

popular riots and protests in Rome - the spontaneous and genuine outpouring of popular

sympathy which Cicero termed an 'affectation of regret' for Caesar - had been forcefully

quashed by Dolabella.[29] He had previously been dubious about Dolabella's

allegiances, but this action confirmed him as a defender of the res publica.[30] Indeed,

Cicero reported that several people had associated Dolabella's actions and policy with

his own.[31] More than this, Dolabella seemed to have been able to unite the support of

the populace and the boni:

'In your case, and I dare say in yours only, the extreme of penal rigour has

brought not merely no odium but actual popularity, delighting the lower

orders as well as all honest folk: contigit enim tibi, quod haud scio an

nemini, ut summa severitas animadversionis non modo non invidiosa sed

etiam popularis esset et cum bonis omnibus tum infimo cuique

gratissim'.[32]

In all of this, Hirtius had been restrained and judicious. He advised Antony to

negotiate with the Liberators and had left Rome.[33] This led Syme to judge him (and

his colleague Pansa) as 'a worthy and innocuous pair'.[34] This seems, however, to

underrate the capabilities of the man, for to be able to hold in check a war, which Cicero

had immediately assumed was inevitable, was no small feat. Moreover, the idea that

Hirtius was 'innocuous' sits awkwardly with Velleius' assessment that it was Hirtius and

Pansa who counseled Caesar to hold by arms the position he had taken with arms.[35]

Such an assessment reflects, instead, Cicero's later view of the Consuls in a letter

written after the ascendancy of Caesar (Octavian) and the possibility for the

condemnation of Antony was beginning to be entertained.[36] In the heat of the

moment, when the Senate hesitated and Antony's position was gaining strength, Cicero's

judgment was quite different.

Cicero's assessment of Hirtius and the importance of Hirtius' support are revealed

in the letters he wrote to Atticus in May 44BCE. Throughout May, Cicero concerned

himself with the affairs of the Liberators. One of their chief concerns was that the
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A28http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A29http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A30http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A31http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A32http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A33http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A34http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A35http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A36http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A28http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A29http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A30http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A31http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A32http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A33http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A34http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A35http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A36


8/15

consuls designate be willing to support them when the Senate resumed meetings. Hirtius

and Pansa were with Cicero at Puteoli. Cicero did not care greatly for them and was

annoyed that they were demanding lessons in oratory from him. [37] Nonetheless it

placed him in a good position both to sound out their views and to impress upon them

the views of his political allies/friends, Brutus and Cassius.

There are five letters in the sequence, written throughout the month of May.

Atticus had explained that Brutus and Cassius wanted Cicero to act as an intermediary

and assure them of Hirtius' support. Cicero replied, 'you say that they [Brutus and

Cassius] want me to make a better republican out of Hirtius. Well, I am doing my best

and he speaks very fair: quod Hirtium per me meliorem fieri volunt, do equidem operam

et ille optime loquitur'.[38] Later that same day (11 May), Cicero had the opportunity to

write to his friend again: 'tomorrow I plan [to dine] at the house of Hirtius...That is how

I am planning to bring him over to the optimates: postridie apud Hirtium

cogitabam...sic hominem traducere ad optimates paro'.[39]

On 14 May, Hirtius dined at Cicero's house. Cicero discussed the meeting saying,

'as for my pupil who is dining with me this evening, he is greatly attached to that person

in whom our friend Brutus put his knife...'.[40] Consequently, Cicero believed, Hirtius

would be hostile to peace and would continue to proclaim what had by then become the

catch-cry of Caesar's supporters - a great man had been killed and the whole state was

plunged into chaos by his death.[41] Moreover, Cicero was afraid that Hirtius was

altogether too friendly with Balbus, and was likely to sympathize with his views. [42]

Hirtius was again the subject of an exchange of letters at the end of May, this time

between Cicero and Cassius. Cicero reported the content of this exchange to Atticus on

27-28 May: 'Cassius for his part begs and requests me to make Hirtius as good as I can.

Is he in his right mind, do you think? Cassius vero vehementer orat ac petit ut Hirtium

quam optimum faciam. Sanum putas?'[43] In a final, fragmentary, letter written on the

following day Cicero continued to express his doubts:

'Our friend Brutus has written (Cassius has as well) to ask me to make

Hirtius who has been sound so far' still sounder - I don't know that he has

been sound so far and have no confidence that he will be made any

sounder by my influence; he may be somewhat out of temper with Antony

but he's a firm friend of the cause... Cum ad me Brutus noster scripsisset et
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A37http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A38http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A39http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A40http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A41http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A42http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A43http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A37http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A38http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A39http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A40http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A41http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A42http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A43


9/15

Cassius ut Hirtium, qui adhuc bonus fuisset sciebam, neque eum confidebam fore mea

auctoritate meliorem (Antonio est enim fortasse iratior, causae vero

amicissimus)...'[44]

From this we can gather the following: firstly, that Cicero and his correspondents

considered the support of Hirtius important if they were to gain the loyalty of the

wavering Senate; and secondly, that Hirtius would be a very hard man to persuade. He

was loyal not only to Caesar, but also to 'the cause' which Caesar had espoused, even to

the extent of supporting it when he did not support Antony, who claimed to be Caesar's

successor. The 'cause' is nowhere defined in the letter, but it is certainly arguable that it

is the political platform closely associated with Caesar, the 'cause' of a popularis

politician. The juxtaposition with boni throughout this letter and the preceding ones

confirms this.[45]

So there is, in these letters, clear and continuous evidence for a debate which is

present in Roman politics and which is manifest, not in the form of modern political

parties, but in the form of rival and competing ideologies, which were associated with

the terms optimates and populares. Cicero claims to be trying to make Hirtius an

optimas. Brutus and Cassius want Cicero to make him a bonus. Hirtius, however,

remained unconvinced and Cicero eventually despaired, claiming that the task was

impossible.[46]

The presence of such a debate has continued to be overlooked or rejected by many

modern scholars on the grounds that Roman politics was essentially non-ideological,

being largely concerned with 'the strife for power, wealth and glory' in which

personalities and family alliances counted for more than political platforms, ideals and

causes.[47] This evidence suggests, on the contrary, that ideological factors played an

important role in shaping, understanding and explaining contemporary events and

political interactions. More than this, however, the letters suggest that loyalty to

particular 'causes' could be deeply ingrained and could characterize one's participation

in political affairs in a way that went beyond personal alliances and allegiances.

Cicero is vague about how he might persuade Hirtius to become an optimas. The

suggestion is that simply giving him a good meal will be sufficient, but this is not


10/15

necessarily to be taken seriously. If Hirtius was 'deeply devoted' to Caesar, then what

arguments might Cicero have used to convince him to support Brutus and Cassius?

Some insight into the possible arguments that Cicero might have used for such a

purpose can be found by examining the letter that Cicero wrote to Dolabella. [48] The

Consul had once been an avid popularis and later became a supporter of Cicero's own

policies. He was also a pupil of Cicero's. In his circumstances and former loyalties, he is

not uncomparable to Hirtius.

In his letter to Dolabella, Cicero emphasized the glory that Dolabella had gained

and would continue to elicit if he were to continue in his present course. He praised

Dolabella's actions and the oratory which preceded them. He flattered himself that

Dolabella was credited with having followed his (Cicero's) advice and adhered to

Cicero's precepts. The language of the letter is the language of the current ideological

debate. Thus Cicero refers to Dolabella'sgloria, his dignitas, hissapientia, all of which

must, in Cicero's view, lead Dolabella to support Brutus and Cassius. Thus, Cicero

exhorted Dolabella to continue to work for the future and good of Rome and of the res

publica, holding Brutus up as an example for him to emulate:

'So you have rescued Rome from danger and her inhabitants from fear. You

have done a vast deal of good, not only for the present occasion but as a

precedent for the future. Having done that you should understand that the

Republic rests upon your shoulders, and that those men from whose

initiative freedom has sprung are deserving not only of your protection but

of your favour: Liberasti igitur et urbem periculo et civitatem metu neque

solum ad tempus maximam utilitatem attulisti sed etiam ad exemplum. Quo

facto intellegere debes in te positam esse rem publicam tibique non modo

tuendos sed etiam ornandos esse illos viros a quibus initium libertatis

profectum est'.[49]

One final problem remains. In May, Cicero's summing up was that Hirtius was

unconvinced. Not only this - he was unconvinceable. Not all Cicero's eloquence, nor all

his persuasion could 'bleach the charcoal', as he confided to Atticus. How then can we

explain Cicero's final estimation of Hirtius as a vir bonus?[50] The key seems to be a

letter written to Atticus towards the end of June 44BCE.[51] In this letter, Cicero writes:


11/15

'I don't doubt that Pansa speaks fair. I know that he has always been thick with

Hirtius, I think he [Pansa] is very amicably disposed towards Brutus and Cassius - if it

suits his book (but when is he going to see them?): Pansam bene loqui credo. Semper

enim coniunctum esse cum Hirtio scio; amicissimum Bruto et Cassio puto, si expediet

(sed quando illos videbit?)...'[52]

Ten days earlier, Cicero had praised Caesar (Octavian) for not trusting Hirtius and

Pansa, so how can this apparent change in his estimation of them be accounted for? [53]

The first thing to note is, of course, that the letter reveals Cicero's thoughts about what

Pansa will think and do, rather than Hirtius. Pansa, like Hirtius earlier, is beginning to

'speak fair'. Moreover, this need not imply a change in Pansa's fundamental ideological

position - as we have already noted, Hirtius could 'speak fair' and yet still be a 'firm

friend of the [popularis] cause'. More troubling, however, is Cicero's belief that Pansa

will simply do what is expedient. Does this necessarily mean that Pansa (and perhaps

even Hirtius) only subscribed to particular causes 'purely temporar[ily] in so far as they

promoted his own aggrandizement'.[54] I would submit that this is not the case. The

rapid deterioration of affairs in the Capital and the imminent threat posed by Antony

had, to a large extent, taken matters beyond the control of the Senate and had made

further ideological discussion difficult. Again, Cicero's letters make this clear. On 14

June Cicero received news of an alleged plot against the lives of the consuls. [55] The

next day, he wrote to Atticus, claiming that 'things seem to me to point to a massacre.

Frankly, I don't feel safe'.[56] By 20 June, Cicero's information was that 'the boni are

talking utter defeatism'.[57] Cicero was in despair. He complained that it was 'all Brutus'

fault' and that 'Antony is putting middle courses out of the question'. [58] Cicero was all

confusion - what should he do? What would others do? Which side would Pansa join if

it came to war?[59] Hirtius' falling out with Antony and his consistent attempts to take a'middle course' placed him in an unenviable position. He was Consul at the time that the

Senate declared war on Antony and so it fell naturally to his lot to fight and die in the

defense of the res publica. There is no inconsistency with his popularis ideology in this

however and it is perhaps significant that Cicero did not choose to refer to him as a vir

bonus until after his death.

Roman politicians operated in an atmosphere of competition for honours, diverse

personal allegiances and alliances and under the constant pressure to win glory for
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A52http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A53http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A54http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A55http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A56http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A57http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A58http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A59http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A52http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A53http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A54http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A55http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A56http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A57http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A58http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/cgi-bin/inc/print?page=/eras/edition_3/chambers.htm#A59


12/15

themselves and their families. So much has been generally accepted. What has been

consistently rejected by the orthodoxy in twentieth century scholarship, is that all of this

could take place against a backdrop of meaningful ideological debate. But Cicero and

his contemporaries did not live in a world devoid of political ideologies. On the

contrary, their letters indicate that ideologies and causes were central to Roman political

interactions.

Notes

[1] E.Gruen, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic , California University Press, Berkeley,

1974, p.2. I am indebted to Professor T.P.Wiseman for drawing my attention to this quote and to the

potential issues that it raised for contemporary scholarship. I am grateful also for his time and patience

reading drafts of this paper. I take responsibility for any mistakes herein expressed.

[2] J.Paterson, 'Politics in the Late Republic' in T.P.Wiseman (ed.) Roman Political Life Exeter

University Press, Exeter, 1985, p. 36.

[3] N.Mackie, 'Popularis Ideology and Popular Politics at Rome in the First Century BC',

Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie 135 (1992) 49-74 and T.P.Wiseman, 'Roman History and the

Ideological Vacuum', in T.P.Wiseman (ed.) Classics in Progress: Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome,

Proceedings of the British Academy (2002) ch 12: forthcoming. My thanks are due to Professor Wiseman

for allowing me to read this manuscript.

[4] Cicero,Pro Sestio 96: Loeb edition, 1958, translated by R.Gardner.

[5] Cicero,Pro Sestio 96.

[6] Cicero,Pro Sestio, 96.

[7] Cicero,Pro Sestio, 98.

[8] Cicero,Pro Sestio, 97 and Cicero,Philippics, II.xii.

[9] Some definition of 'ideology' for the purposes of this paper must be attempted. I am conscious

that 'ideology' is a word which carries a lot of 'baggage' for modern readers. In this paper, I do not intend

ideology to refer to a particular class consciousness, nor to any party political platform (codified or

otherwise). Instead, I would use the term loosely to refer to that 'closely related beliefs or ideas [and

interests]...characteristic of a group or community': J.Plamenatz, Ideology, London, 1970, 15.

[10] Cicero,Pro Sestio, 99-100.


13/15

[11] Cicero, Pro Sestio, 97.

[12] The content ofpopulares ideology has been discussed in R. Seager, 'Cicero and the Word

Popularis' , Classical Quarterly, 22 (1972) 328-339 at 331ff. See also Mackie, 'Popularis Ideology', p52-

60; Z. YavetzPlebs and Princeps, Clarendon, Oxford, 1969, 75-6; P. Brunt, 'The Roman Mob', Past and

Present, 35 (1966) 3-28, pp25; P.Brunt, The Fall of the Roman Republic and related essays, Clarendon

Press, Oxford, 1988, chapter 6 'Libertas'; Ch. Wirszubski,Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the

late Republic and early Principate, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1968 chapter 2 'Optimates

and Populares'.

[13] Wirszubski, Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome, p41ff. Also Yavetz, Plebs and Princeps,

p137.

[14] Seager, 'Cicero and the Word Popularis', pp 337f; Mackie, 'Popularis Ideology', pp54f. Notethat both Caesar and Augustus famously claimed to have been working to restore the res publica. Caesar,

Bellum Civile I.22; Augustus Res Gestae Divi Augustusi I.1; Velleius Paterculus, Roman History

II.lxxxix.3-4.

[15] Mackie, 'Popularis Ideology', pp 51ff and Wiseman, 'Ideological Vacuum', forthcoming. See

also Seager, 'Cicero and the WordPopularis', pp 335.

[16] Mackie, 'Popularis Ideology', pp 51ff and Seager, 'Cicero and the WordPopularis', pp 334-5.

[17] Cicero,De Domo Sua, XXIX.78 and Cicero,De Lege Agraria II.70-71.

[18] Cicero, De Lege Agraria II.70-71 with discussion by Seager, 'Cicero and the WordPopularis',

pp335; Mackie, 'Popularis Ideology', pp51f.

[19] Wiseman ('Ideological Vacuum') forthcoming.

[20] Mackie, 'Popularis Ideology', 68: 'So we are back with the problem of the populares own

motivation and with what has seemed to modern scholars the insuperable obstacle to the theory that the

populares were anything more than 'manipulators'. Populares were members of the senate and so they

must have been self-interested because they worked against the interests of the senate, that is of their own

group or class. Put clearly, this argument is breathtaking in the way it short-circuits the question of

motivation'.

[21] Cicero,De Officiis, I.85.

[22] Wiseman, 'Ideological Vacuum', forthcoming.

[23] R. Syme,Roman Revolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1939, p 97-8.


14/15

[24] Nicolaus of Damascus, Life of Augustus, XXVII.106 Bristol Classical Press, translated by J.

Bellemore, 1984 with Syme,Roman Revolution p 97.

[25] Cicero,Ad AttXIV.9 Loeb edition, translated by D.R.Shackleton-Bailey, 1999.

[26] Cicero,Ad AttXIV.10.



[29] Cicero,Ad AttXIV.15: O mirificum Dolabellam meum!...sustulisse mihi videtur simulationem

desideri, adhuc quae serpebat in dies et inveterate verebar ne periculosa nostris tyrannoctonis esset'.


[31] Cicero,Ad AttXIV.17A.

[32] Cicero,Ad AttXIV.17A. The importance of being able to have the support of both sections of

the population in Rome was a constant theme in Cicero's thinking.


[34] Syme,Roman Revolution, p163.

[35] Velleius Paterculus,History of Rome II.lvii.1.

[36] Cicero, Ad Fam XVI.xxvii.

[37] Cicero, Ad AttXIV.12.




[41] Cicero, Ad Att XIV.22 and Dio, Roman History XLVII.42.4-5 which seems to reflect the

contemporary slogans of Caesar's supporters.

[42] Cicero,Ad AttXIV.20 and XIV.21.

[43] Cicero,Ad AttXV.5: 'Cassius vero vehementer orat ac petit ut Hirtium quam optimum faciam.

sunam putas?'


15/15

[44] Cicero,Ad AttXV.6.

[45] Seager, 'Cicero and the Word Popularis', pp330; see also Cicero, de Legibus III.35 and de

Republica frag. Nonius 519.14 for examples of other juxtapositions between boni andpopularis.

[46] Cicero, Ad AttXV.5. Shackleton-Bailey gives a translation of the idiomatic Greek phrase as

'the fuller [cannot bleach] charcoal'.

[47] Syme,Roman Revolution, p 11.



[50] Cicero,Ad BrutVIII. Mirrored in Plutarch,Life of Cicero XLIII.2.

[51] CiceroAd AttXV.22.

[52] CiceroAd AttXV.22.

[53] Cicero,Ad AttXV.12

[54] Paterson, 'Politics in the Late Republic', p36.

[55] Cicero,Ad AttXV.17



[58] Cicero, Ad AttXV.20

[59] Cicero,Ad AttXV.22; XV.23.

having hirtius to dinner - optimates and populares in the late republic - chambers

Documents