70-63 B.C.

and to the Red Sea, not one of which he had ever seen. Coins were struck in his honor, exhibiting the globe itself surrounded by triple laurels plucked from three continents, and surmounted by the golden chaplet which was conferred upon him by the citizens. On the other hand, there were voices which affirmed that he had only worn the laurels which another had plucked, and that the honors belonged of right to Lucullus. What really deserves praise in the conduct of Pompeius is his rare self-restraint. The most brilliant undertakings against the Bosporus, or the Parthians, or Egypt, offered themselves on all sides, but he had resisted all temptations, and had turned to the less glorious task of regulating the territories already acquired. But his conduct towards the Parthians deserves grave censure; he might have made war upon them, but when once he had decided against this course he should have loyally observed the agreement to regard the Euphrates as the boundary, instead of, by his silly perfidy, sowing seeds of hatred which were to bear bitter fruit for Rome at a later time.

The financial gain to Rome from the arrangements of Pompeius was immense, and her revenues were raised by one-half. And if the exhaustion of Asia was severe, and if both Pompeius and Lucullus brought home large private fortunes, the blame falls rather upon the government at home and on the system by which the provinces were regularly plundered for the benefit of Rome than upon the generals themselves.

After the departure of Pompeius peace was on the whole maintained in the East; but the governors of Cilicia had constantly to fight against mountain tribes, and those of Syria against the tribes of the desert. There were also dangerous revolts among the Jews, which were with difficulty suppressed by the able governor of Syria, Aulus Gabinius, and after which the Jews were subjected to a specially heavy taxation.

Egypt, with its dependency of Cyprus, now remained the only independent state in the East. It had indeed been formally bequeathed to Rome, but was still governed by its own kings, who were themselves controlled by the royal guard which frequently appointed or deposed its rulers. The isolation of Egypt, surrounded as it is by the desert and the sea, and its great resources, which gave its rulers a revenue almost equal to that of Rome even after its recent augmentation, made the oligarchy unwilling to intrust the annexation of the kingdom to any one man. Propositions were

59-56 B.C.

frequently made at Rome for its incorporation of the empire, particularly by the democratic party, but the Egyptian ruler succeeded always in purchasing a respite by heavy bribes. Cyprus was annexed by decree of the people in 58 B.C., and the measure was carried out by Cato without the interference of an army. But in 59 B.C. Ptolemy Auletes purchased his recognition from the masters of Rome-it is said for the sum of six thousand talents ($7,300,000). On account of the oppression which the payment of this money brought upon the people of Egypt the king was chased from his throne, but after the conference of Luca, in 56 B.C., and on the promise of a further sum of twelve million dollars, Aulus Gabinius was ordered to restore him. Victory was secured by a decisive battle on the Nile, and Ptolemy once more sat on the throne. The sum promised could not possibly be paid in full, though the last penny was exacted from the miserable inhabitants. At the same time the pretorians were replaced by a force of regular Roman infantry, with Celtic and German cavalry.

Chapter XXVIII

PARTY STRUGGLES IN ROME-POMPEIUS, CAESAR AND CRASSUS. 65-58 B.C.

A

FTER the departure of Pompeius the optimates remained nominally in possession of the government; that is, they commanded the elections and the consulate. But the consulship was no longer of primary consequence in the face of the new military power; and the best of the aristocrats-men like Quintus Metellus Pius and Lucius Lucullus-retired from the lists and devoted themselves to the elegant luxury of their private life. The younger men either followed their example or turned to court the favor of the new masters of the state.

There was one exception-Marcus Porcius Cato. Born in 95 B.C., he was now about thirty years of age. He was by nature a man of great courage and firmness, and of the strictest integrity, but dull of intellect and destitute of imagination or passion. The two influences which molded his character were Stoicism, the principles of which he adopted with the greatest ardor, and the example of his great-grandfather, the famous censor. Like him, he went about the capital rebuking the sins of the times, a living model of the prisca virtus of the good old days-the Don Quixote of the aristocracy. In a corrupt and cowardly age his courage and integrity gave him an influence which was warranted neither by his age nor his capacity, and he soon became the recognized champion of the optimates. He did good work in the region of finance, checking the details of the public budget and waging constant war with the farmers of the taxes; but he had none of the higher qualities of a statesman; he failed completely, if indeed he ever tried, to grasp the political situation. All his policy consisted in steadfastly opposing everyone who appeared to deviate from the traditional aristocratic creed.

During the next few years the activity of the democrats showed itself in two ways: by attacks upon individuals of the senatorial party, and upon the abuses of which the senate was guilty; and by

65-58 B.C.

efforts to complete the realization of the democratic ideas which had been in the air ever since the time of the Gracchi.

Among the senatorial abuses against which measures were passed were the acceptance of bribes from foreign envoys; the granting of dispensations from the laws in particular cases; and the pretor's frequent failure to adminster justice according to the rules he laid down on entering office. Various senators were prosecuted for malfeasance, and the strength of the popular party was seen in 63 B.C. in the election of Gaius Caesar to the supreme pontificate against two of the leading aristocrats.

At the same time the democratic restoration was pressed on. The election of pontiffs and augurs by the tribes was restored in 63 B.C. An agitation was begun for the complete restoration of the corn laws. The criminal jurisdiction of the comitia was restored. The Transpadani were taken under the protection of the populares, and an agitation was set on foot for conferring upon them the full franchise, just as Gracchus had supported the enfranchisement of the Latins. Finally, the long proscribed heroes and martyrs of the democracy were rehabilitated in the public memory, and Gaius Marius's memory was restored to public honor through the audacity of his nephew, Gaius Caesar. The latter had dared to display the features of his uncle, in spite of prohibitions, at the burial of the widow of Marius in 68 B.C., and now the emblems of victory erected by Marius and thrown down by Sulla were restored to their old places in the Capitol.

Such were the successes of the democrats, but, after all, they did not amount to much. In their contest with the aristocracy the democrats had conquered, and it was but natural that they should insult the prostrate foe. But they knew that the real reckoning was to come, not with the vanquished oligarchy, but with the toopowerful ally by whose aid they had conquered. Their schemes were directed ostensibly against the optimates, but really against Pompeius. If direct proofs of this are few, it is because both the present and the succeeding age had an interest in throwing a veil over the events of this period; but such proofs are not wanting. It is stated by Sallust that the Gabinian and Manilian laws inflicted a grievous blow on the democracy. Again, the Servilian rogation was directed against Pompeius, as is clear from the character of the bill itself, and from the statements of Sallust and Cicero. Finally, the more than suspicious attitude of Caesar and Crassus towards the

67-63 B.C.

Catilinarian conspiracies is proof enough in itself. The object of the democratic party during the years 67-63 B.C. was to possess themselves of the reins of government by securing the return of one or more members of the conspiracy for the consulship, and then to intrust one of their leaders with the conquest of Egypt, or some such commission, which would give an opportunity for raising a military power capable of counterbalancing that of Pompeius.

The first object of the democratic leaders was the overthrow of the existing government by means of an insurrection in which they would not themselves appear. Materials for such a conspiracy existed in abundance in the capital. There were the slaves; there was the herd of free paupers who lived by the corn distributions and who were always ready for any scheme which promised anarchy and license. Again, there were numbers of young men of rank, ruined in fortunes, ruined in body and mind by a life of fashionable debauchery, who sighed openly for a return of the times of Cinna and for release from their burden of debt. Among them two men were marked out as leaders by their superior ability-Gnaeus Piso and Lucius Catilina. The latter, in spite of a dissoluteness conspicuous even in that dissolute age, had courage, military talent, and a certain criminal energy which gave him an ascendency over other men. He had been one of Sulla's executioners, and had hunted down the proscribed at the head of a band of Celts; but he had now a special quarrel with the aristocracy because they had opposed his candidature for the consulship. A secret league was formed, numbering more than four hundred members and including associates in all the urban districts of Italy.

In December, 66 B.C., the two consuls-elect for 65 B.C. were rendered ineligible for office by conviction for electoral bribery. They immediately joined the association, and it was determined to procure the consulship for them by force. Accordingly on January I, 65 B.C., the senate house was to be assailed and the new consuls were to be killed; Crassus was to be invested with the dictatorship, Caesar with the mastership of the horse. But the signal was never given and the plot was foiled. A similar plan for February 5 was also a failure, and the secret became known. Guards were assigned to the new consuls, and Piso was got rid of by a mission to Hither Spain with pretorian powers; but farther the government dared not go.

For the present no further attempt was made by the conspira